Let's do a mini review to compare and contrast. 89 patients, so a fairly small study, done done between May 2020 and Jan 2021.
Therefore the patients would be dealing with the original strain of the virus, mostly. Maybe some Alpha towards the end.
We see that the weights are fairly concentrated with the top quartile starting at 90kg.
...which is why the fairly limited dosing, about half the dosing of TOGETHER, would have been more likely to have shown an effect.
Note that they straightforwardly tell us that the patients got pills of the same appearance. TOGETHER did not make such a statement, nor have the authors clarified despite repeated calls. (Cc @FlavioCadegiani)
In the all important "time to symptom onset" category they were aiming up to 3 in the beginning, but had to extend upto 7 days. Given the slower replication of early variants, this may have been less crucial? Still, would be good to get a median value here, I can't see it.
On to the results. 3 hospitalizations in placebo, only one in treatment, discharged after a day. Given the fairly small size of the trial, this wouldn't be able to reach "statistical significance" levels.
In terms of the study primary endpoint, even with such a small patient population, it reached "statistical significance". Ivm reduced time of shedding, affected viral viability, showing antiviral activity.
Importantly, and this is something I've said often, ivm, needs to be tested under the same conditions other antivirals are. It doesn't need magic conditions, only fair ones.
When tested similarly to molnupiravir or remdesivir, its antiviral activity comes through.
All in all, here we have a study from a "western" country (Israel), which is out of the "high strongyloides" zone. How are we to explain this one away? semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Glob…
Update on time from symptom onset: it's there, I'm blind.
Median 4 days, with top quartile starting at 5. So as far as we've seen, fairly small time, given how long PCR tests needed early on, and lower than TOGETHER, even though this is an unfunded study.
So, what might the critical voices say? Let's start with @slatestarcodex. He says it's a.. ""negative"" study?
WHAT?
Ah, but you see, the person who destroyed his article, @GidMK is "not a fan" (this is my shocked face). 😐
Scott says that they excluded patients with high viral load.
This appears to be (yet another) misunderstanding of Scott, who misread the confused objection of @gidmk. Let's dive deeper.
You see, HN found that they excluded patients with PCT Ct > 35 in the first two tests. Scott reads this as "high viral load". In fact it is the EXACT OPPOSITE. It's LOW VIRAL LOAD. The more cycles PCR needs to find your positive result, the LESS virus you have for it to analyze.
And since the study was focused on analyzing the effect of ivermectin on viral load, they excluded patients with low viral load.
BUT BUT BUT the pre-registration!!
Many tried to explain to @GidMK that he was misunderstanding his HUGE DISCREPANCY.
And really, if we're throwing away studies for violating pre-registration, what about TOGETHER changing the primary endpoint and merging two endpoints into one?
What about activ-6 not even reporting its pre-registered primary endpoint?
Rigor for thee but not for me, as usual.
Concluding, here's a positive study that shows quite encouraging results for ivermectin, done with parameters that are not quite comparable, but closer than the big studies to the patented antivirals in terms of dosing, time since symptom onset, in relation to the variant tested.
PS. Excellent thread by @AOlavarria worth clicking "translate tweet" on, for every tweet:
Worth noting that the trial took place in Sheba medical center, one of the world's top hospitals, ranked higher than Stanford, Brigham & Women’s, and Mount Sinai, amongst others.
(Thank you, anonymous tipster) newsweek.com/best-hospitals…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've just been catching up on the most widely promoted ivm study of 2020, and (surprise!) it's a mind-blowing story.
So let me put together the pieces for you.
The trial took place in Cali, Colombia, between July and December 2021, and had 476 participants.
Clearly interest in ivermectin (which is available over the counter without prescription there) was going through the roof, at more than 10x normal rates of consumption.
According to the clinicaltrials.gov registry, it was changed from 48 hours to 5 days, which most people thought it was, on December 16, only 5 days before the end of the trial. Why would it be changed so late other than to cover up the extremely short gap?
Famously, Lopez-Medina had an extremely similar side-effect profile between treatment and control groups. Almost like much of the control group was taking ivermectin too.
Craig Rayner, corresponding author of the TOGETHER trial ivm paper, has been involved in the development of moxidectin, another "ectin" competing for the same uses as ivm.
Might mean nothing, but worth digging a little more.
Rayner is clearly a pharmacokinetics expert, and he was the first academic to go after the first in vitro ivermectin experiments of Kylie Wagstaff back in April 2020. sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
In a rant of almost 6 thousand words, Fuller mentions "compelled speech" once, as a "controversy", never seeming to make the connection that this is exactly what is the connecting thread of Peterson's most angry activism, then and now. He's the same man, perhaps more worn down.
Instead, in a self indulgent/aggrandizing essay, he throws the man who made him to the dogs, (another classic Fullerism) going over matters such as:
- Negative YouTube comments on Peterson's video (according to Fuller)
- Whether Peterson made the same mistake as Hitler (srsly)