First comment from a member of the cultist Branch Covidian (Karen/covidiot) :
“ Between this and our high vaccination rate. We could be out of this pandemic within a year.”
Ahuh. Oh… you poor, poor naiive trusting child. 1 more year to flatten the curve…
read this part carefully: "Among patients taking molnupiravir, 7.3 per cent were either hospitalized or died at the end of 30 days, compared with 14.1 per cent of those getting the dummy pill. There were no deaths in the drug group after that time period compared with eight deaths in the placebo group, according to Merck."
If the drug is effective based on this trial and has no significant side-effects then further trials where some people will receive "dummy pills" and end up dying when they're less likely to have had they received the molnupiravir. The difference with ivermectin is that it's known to have minor side-effects and while limited to a few trials in the west, was used in places like India on a wide scale and there was a concurrent sudden decline in cases and deaths. Of course limited trials are going to be inconclusive because it needs to be used population wise to show how beneficial it is. These trials literally cost peoples' lives.
Dude, welcome to medical ethics 101. The ethics of clinic trials are well thought through. In fact this trial was halted early because the drug was so effective it was deemed unethical to continue restricting the placebo group.
was used in places like India on a wide scale and there was a concurrent sudden decline in cases and deaths.
There were "775 adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 considered higher risk for severe disease" in that study. Note: all of them had covid. Deaths in the control group were twice as high. If the other half had not been taking the drug the death rate would have been similar. But it wasn't. Lives were saved. Are you sure you want to say "These trials literally cost peoples' lives"?
The best source of studies on ivermectin that I know of is a hodge podge of different, often very tiny, not-always-rigorous studies which have been mashed together without regard to accepted meta study principles by people who choose to be anonymous. Calling it science is not really accurate.
And yet these studies are published in scientific medial journals.
I repeat: "a hodge podge of different, often very tiny, not-always-rigorous studies which have been mashed together without regard to accepted meta study principles"
And the people aggregating the studies choose to be anonymous.
First comment from a member of the cultist Branch Covidian (Karen/covidiot) : “ Between this and our high vaccination rate. We could be out of this pandemic within a year.”
Ahuh. Oh… you poor, poor naiive trusting child. 1 more year to flatten the curve…
*these same
From the article: "There would be major benefits from the pill if subsequent trials back up the early results"
It's early days yet. The "subsequent trials" referred to would be more rigorous than anything ivermectin has passed so far.
read this part carefully: "Among patients taking molnupiravir, 7.3 per cent were either hospitalized or died at the end of 30 days, compared with 14.1 per cent of those getting the dummy pill. There were no deaths in the drug group after that time period compared with eight deaths in the placebo group, according to Merck."
If the drug is effective based on this trial and has no significant side-effects then further trials where some people will receive "dummy pills" and end up dying when they're less likely to have had they received the molnupiravir. The difference with ivermectin is that it's known to have minor side-effects and while limited to a few trials in the west, was used in places like India on a wide scale and there was a concurrent sudden decline in cases and deaths. Of course limited trials are going to be inconclusive because it needs to be used population wise to show how beneficial it is. These trials literally cost peoples' lives.
Dude, welcome to medical ethics 101. The ethics of clinic trials are well thought through. In fact this trial was halted early because the drug was so effective it was deemed unethical to continue restricting the placebo group.
Dude, welcome to causal inference 101.
There were "775 adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 considered higher risk for severe disease" in that study. Note: all of them had covid. Deaths in the control group were twice as high. If the other half had not been taking the drug the death rate would have been similar. But it wasn't. Lives were saved. Are you sure you want to say "These trials literally cost peoples' lives"?
The best source of studies on ivermectin that I know of is a hodge podge of different, often very tiny, not-always-rigorous studies which have been mashed together without regard to accepted meta study principles by people who choose to be anonymous. Calling it science is not really accurate.
And yet these studies are published in scientific medial journals...
I repeat: "a hodge podge of different, often very tiny, not-always-rigorous studies which have been mashed together without regard to accepted meta study principles"
And the people aggregating the studies choose to be anonymous.
And yet these studies are published in scientific medial journals.
Plug "Predatory scholarly publications" into your favourite search engine. For the right price you can get your paper published too.
Wow, that sounds like a "conspiracy theory".