Ivermectin study questioned

We are the Borg.
Doctor X
Posts: 75341
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Doctor X »



– J.D.
Hotarubi
Posts: 4267
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:12 am
Title: Enchantress
Location: This septic Isle.

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Hotarubi »

Doctor X wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 6:52 pm Look, I am not giving evidences – thanks – it is all out there and everyone knows this.

– J.D.
Why should I do this "research". I'm a skeptic and deem it unnecessary because I can't possibly be wrong about anything.
Doctor X
Posts: 75341
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Doctor X »

Indeed.

I mean, I do have a hat.

– J.D.
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by xouper »

ceptimus wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 11:14 pm . . . This question is discussed in David Deutsch's book, The Fabric of Reality. His opinion is that there's not enough time to investigate every claim, and that the rational thing to do is to doubt all new claims, until such time when a group of respected people, more interested in the claim than you, have investigated it, and reached a consensus that it is probably true.
Well said. I agree. That's pretty much they way I do it.

Sometimes I also watch the process in action, watch what the experts are saying, even though all the data is not yet available and a consensus has not yet been reached. In which case, any opinion I might form is provisional.

And even when a "consensus" seems to have been reached, that doesn't guarantee it is correct, especially for issues that have become highly politicized.

What I find amusing are those who argue against something before all the data are available.

Have doubts? Sure.

Be skeptical? Of course.

Declare something is false before all the evidence is in? No. Especially when it seems there is some credible evidence it might be possible.
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by xouper »

Doctor X wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:52 am Noblesse oblige. . . .
sparks wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 1:41 pm "In a pandemic that is killing lots of people, why are you against trying something that shows good promise? Seriously. Why?"

Because I don't buy it.
It has shown no promise,
This was recently posted in another thread, and seems appropriate to repost here:


  • https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx

    Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin
    in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19

    Kory, Pierre MD1,*; Meduri, Gianfranco Umberto MD2; Varon, Joseph MD3; Iglesias, Jose DO4; Marik, Paul E. MD5
    American Journal of Therapeutics: May/June 2021 - Volume 28 - Issue 3 - p e299-e318
    doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001377
    Conclusions:

    Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
People should be allowed to revise their opinions as additional evidence becomes available.

It is no crime to be skeptical or have doubts. The gathering of evidences by researchers is still ongoing.

See also: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/SUMMARY-OF-THE-EVIDENCE-BASE-FINAL.pdf
Pyrrho
Posts: 32010
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Pyrrho »

Merck, February 2021:

Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Opinion piece from several scientists, with regard to the meta-analysis methodology:

The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable

Gizmodo writeup about that opinion piece:

Ivermectin Research Has a Big Fraud Problem, Scientists Say

One of the authors of the Nature opinion piece is, well, rather opinionated:

https://twitter.com/jamesheathers/statu ... 7691211784

He recommends reading this other discussion of IPD (individual patient data):

https://twitter.com/NaudetFlorian/statu ... 8719349760
Pyrrho
Posts: 32010
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Pyrrho »

Meanwhile, oral antiviral medications that are currently in clinical trials are showing promise:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/a-d ... ntists-say
So far, only one antiviral drug, remdesivir, has been approved to treat COVID. But it is given intravenously to patients ill enough to be hospitalized, and is not intended for early, widespread use. By contrast, the top contenders under study can be packaged as pills.

Sheahan, who also performed preclinical work on remdesivir, led an early study in mice that showed that molnupiravir could prevent early disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID. The formula was discovered at Emory University and later acquired by Ridgeback and Merck.

Clinical trials have followed, including an early trial of 202 participants last spring that showed that molnupiravir rapidly reduced the levels of infectious virus. Merck chief executive Robert Davis said this month that the company expects data from its larger phase 3 trials in the coming weeks, with the potential to seek emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration “before year-end.”

Pfizer launched a combined phase 2 and 3 trial of its product Sept. 1, and Atea officials said they expect results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials later this year.
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by xouper »

Pyrrho wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 6:16 pm Merck, February 2021:

Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Opinion piece from several scientists, with regard to the meta-analysis methodology:

The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable

Gizmodo writeup about that opinion piece:

Ivermectin Research Has a Big Fraud Problem, Scientists Say

One of the authors of the Nature opinion piece is, well, rather opinionated:

https://twitter.com/jamesheathers/statu ... 7691211784

He recommends reading this other discussion of IPD (individual patient data):

https://twitter.com/NaudetFlorian/statu ... 8719349760
Thank you for posting those. I read them all.

Curiously, none of them directly mention the Kory paper I cited in a previous post, which means they did not directly say that specific paper was flawed (although they did mention the withdrawn Egyptian study, which formed only a minor part of the paper by Kory, et al).

Anyone can make general statements about "meta-studies", but that is not evidence that all meta-studies are flawed. Some are, some aren't.

In any case, thanks for posting all that. What it seems to come down to (for me as a layman), is which experts do you choose to believe? It's especially difficult when topics such as this are so highly politicized, and that some scientists have ideological motives and biases.

Nonetheless, what does not seem to be disputed is that ivermectin has shown good promise in lab experiments (in vitro). It does actually work against the virus in controlled lab conditions. Enough promise to be worth trying on humans. We all know that just because it works in the lab does not mean it will work as well in humans. It's complicated. But to say it shows absolutely no promise whatsoever, well, that's simply not supported by the evidence.
Pyrrho
Posts: 32010
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Pyrrho »

No, it's not which experts one chooses to believe. The issue at hand is quality of evidence, and in the case of the Argentina study, there are serious, unresolved questions about the quality of that evidence. That is what the experts in the Nature article are saying.

Inclusion of flawed studies affects the quality of the meta-analysis, and a meta-analysis cannot correct for flawed studies. As the authors have done in the case of a retracted pre-print article, the statistical analyses have to be redone. Tangential comment--the Hazard Ratio charts the authors published in their letter explaining their updated analysis minus the retracted study show, for several studies in their meta-analysis, rather small population sizes with rather wide confidence intervals that range from values that strongly support ivermectin to values that strongly support control (no ivermectin). That in itself is a bit problematic for the authors' conclusions.

In vitro, as we know, is not equivalent to in vivo, and animal trials are not equivalent to human trials. Clinical studies of ivermectin for COVID-19 are in progress and several have been completed. Once clinical trials are done, then they have to pass thorough review and analysis before approval for treatment of a specific condition, at least in the US, the EU, and Japan...and regulatory agencies such as the FDA get voluminous clinical study reports, not journal articles, be they pre-prints, peer-reviewed, or otherwise.

Clinicaltrials.gov lists 155 ivermectin studies, some completed, some recruiting, some in progress, for a variety of conditions including but not limited to COVID-19:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results? ... ity=&dist=
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by xouper »

Pyrrho wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:58 am No, it's not which experts one chooses to believe. The issue at hand is quality of evidence, and in the case of the Argentina study, there are serious, unresolved questions about the quality of that evidence. That is what the experts in the Nature article are saying.
When you depend on experts to evaluate the "quality of evidence", then you are indeed choosing which experts to believe.

I do not have sufficient expertise to evaluate the quality of evidence in this matter. Perhaps you do. I depend on experts to do that for me. The question then is, which experts do I choose to believe?

I am not saying the experts you cited in that particular example are wrong. I have no way of making that judgment, in either direction. But I have seen enough scientists (and mathematicians) who got it wrong (even though it sounds like they know what they are talking about), that I no longer automatically believe every scientist (or mathematician) that expresses their expert opinion. I've been burned too many times in the past to automatically believe what an expert says, especially when the topic has been politicized, like this one has.

Pyrrho wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:58 am In vitro, as we know, is not equivalent to in vivo, and animal trials are not equivalent to human trials.
Yes, I already agreed to that.

In any case, thanks for all the links. They are helpful.
Carr
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:01 am
Title: Floor Walker
Location: Road Prison 36

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Carr »

Pyrrho wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:58 amNo, it's not which experts one chooses to believe. The issue at hand is quality of evidence, and in the case of the Argentina study, there are serious, unresolved questions about the quality of that evidence. That is what the experts in the Nature article are saying.
I hope you won't be a hard case.
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29660
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Anaxagoras »

xouper wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 2:23 am
Pyrrho wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:58 am No, it's not which experts one chooses to believe. The issue at hand is quality of evidence, and in the case of the Argentina study, there are serious, unresolved questions about the quality of that evidence. That is what the experts in the Nature article are saying.
When you depend on experts to evaluate the "quality of evidence", then you are indeed choosing which experts to believe.

I do not have sufficient expertise to evaluate the quality of evidence in this matter. Perhaps you do. I depend on experts to do that for me. The question then is, which experts do I choose to believe?

I am not saying the experts you cited in that particular example are wrong. I have no way of making that judgment, in either direction. But I have seen enough scientists (and mathematicians) who got it wrong (even though it sounds like they know what they are talking about), that I no longer automatically believe every scientist (or mathematician) that expresses their expert opinion. I've been burned too many times in the past to automatically believe what an expert says, especially when the topic has been politicized, like this one has.

Pyrrho wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:58 am In vitro, as we know, is not equivalent to in vivo, and animal trials are not equivalent to human trials.
Yes, I already agreed to that.

In any case, thanks for all the links. They are helpful.
You don't necessarily need to be an expert to evaluate the claims of some of these fraudulent papers:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... l-concerns
A medical student in London, Jack Lawrence, was among the first to identify serious concerns about the paper, leading to the retraction. He first became aware of the Elgazzar preprint when it was assigned to him by one of his lecturers for an assignment that formed part of his master’s degree. He found the introduction section of the paper appeared to have been almost entirely plagiarised.

It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. “Humorously, this led to them changing ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’ to ‘extreme intense respiratory syndrome’ on one occasion,” Lawrence said.

The data also looked suspicious to Lawrence, with the raw data apparently contradicting the study protocol on several occasions.

“The authors claimed to have done the study only on 18-80 year olds, but at least three patients in the dataset were under 18,” Lawrence said.

“The authors claimed they conducted the study between the 8th of June and 20th of September 2020, however most of the patients who died were admitted into hospital and died before the 8th of June according to the raw data. The data was also terribly formatted, and includes one patient who left hospital on the non-existent date of 31/06/2020.”

There were other concerns.

“In their paper, the authors claim that four out of 100 patients died in their standard treatment group for mild and moderate Covid-19,” Lawrence said. “According to the original data, the number was 0, the same as the ivermectin treatment group. In their ivermectin treatment group for severe Covid-19, the authors claim two patients died, but the number in their raw data is four.”

Lawrence and the Guardian sent Elgazzar a comprehensive list of questions about the data, but did not receive a reply. The university’s press office also did not respond.
Pyrrho
Posts: 32010
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Pyrrho »

When evaluating the evidence, the trick is to compensate for one's own selection bias. I am biased against ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment because I find the evidence supporting its use in COVID-19 to be lacking, so I have to be willing to look at information that contradicts my own bias.

Also, these scientific studies and publications are supposed to adhere to certain protocols. When they don't, they lose credibility.

One can also find discussions on PubPeer. Here's a discussion of a different systematic review:

https://pubpeer.com/publications/991F72 ... CDEDC39C67

Discussion of one of the Carvallo papers:

https://pubpeer.com/publications/EB0AAC ... 5C09C83E46

As always, consult your physician.
Pyrrho
Posts: 32010
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Pyrrho »

I guess we could define "expert" as being someone who knows statistical analyses and is competent to do them. I wouldn't know a Cox regression if it bit me in the ass, so I'm "out" as far as statistical analyses are concerned. Thus, I have to consider the opinions of people who know the mathematics, and the opinions of people who know how to evaluate clinical trials.
Doctor X
Posts: 75341
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Doctor X »

Or, you know, someone could demonstrate to you how "your" experts are wrong with, you know, "evidences" and stuff.

Sort of like what you did regarding "their" experts who created, then tried to publish, flawed studies.

Yet, for some extraordinary reason, someone cannot.

– J.D.
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by xouper »

:roll:
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by xouper »

Pyrrho wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 12:25 pm I guess we could define "expert" as being someone who knows statistical analyses and is competent to do them. I wouldn't know a Cox regression if it bit me in the ass, so I'm "out" as far as statistical analyses are concerned. Thus, I have to consider the opinions of people who know the mathematics, and the opinions of people who know how to evaluate clinical trials.
I too wouldn't know a Cox regression, so I get what you are saying.

Perhaps I need to clarify where I am coming from here. I assume you've already seen this one: Here's an example of a simple statistical/probability puzzle that many experts (with PhDs) who "know the mathematics" and who still got it wrong. And even today some still get it wrong.

https://xoup.net/faq/the-monty-hall-problem/
When Marilyn vos Savant wrote about this in Parade Magazine in 1990 and said switching doubles your odds of winning, thousands of heads exploded — including many in academia with PhDs — who then felt compelled to write and say her answer was wrong. And some were not very nice about it (see Priceonomics article cited above).

That’s both amusing and sad.

Several of those so-called “experts” got their names and University affiliations published in the national media and were shamed for being wrong.

Perhaps this is another example of how Aristotle erred when he eschewed empiricism and declared that reasoning alone is sufficient to find the correct answer.
Fortunately for me, this is a puzzle I know how to evaluate, and I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, as described at that link.

But how am I supposed to determine if a scientist is using a Cox regression correctly? Because he says so?

Another factor I look at when choosing who to believe is to notice who is throwing around a lot of ad hominems. Their credibility score goes down when they do that.
Pyrrho
Posts: 32010
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Pyrrho »

We have to rely on experts in medical science and in statistical analyses to review and evaluate study results. That is part of the job the FDA does, or is supposed to do, and they call in non-FDA experts in the form of advisory committees to review and evaluate as well. Granted, we can ignore evaluations we don't agree with, and the FDA has done just that recently after an advisory committee review of an Alzheimer's treatment. Advisors also recently voted against COVID-19 vaccine boosters for most people but recommended them for older adults and others with risk factors.

I ignore the ad hominems and look for explanations of the data that I can understand. What I'd like to see is a large-scale randomized clinical trial that evaluates the use of ivermectin for either prevention of or treatment of COVID-19. There are none that I know of, and by large-scale, I mean on the scale of the clinical trials that were conducted to evaluate the vaccines. Such trials also have to follow accepted rules in order for the results to pass muster. It is significant that at least two of the recently-vaunted observational trials involving ivermectin have serious questions about how they were conducted and about their data, with no good answers from the authors.

The meta-analyses, even with several studies involved, don't qualify as large-scale RCTs, and there are problems inherent in the evaluation of disparate results. Absent the actual patient data, the statistical analyses are insufficient evidence for me to consider ivermectin to be a viable treatment option. At best, the meta-analyses could be claimed to have established a "signal" that ivermectin can be used to treat or prevent COVID-19. Alas, it's not merely a question of whether or not it is safe--long-term use as a treatment for parasitic infestations has established the safety profile--but its efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19 has not been demonstrated in randomized, controlled clinical trials, and that's where it matters, at least as far as I'm concerned.
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by xouper »

Pyrrho wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:48 am We have to rely on experts in medical science and in statistical analyses to review and evaluate study results.
That was exactly my point.
Hotarubi
Posts: 4267
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:12 am
Title: Enchantress
Location: This septic Isle.

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Hotarubi »

xouper wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 8:04 pm:roll:
Temper loss noted.
Pyrrho
Posts: 32010
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Pyrrho »

xouper wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:54 am
Pyrrho wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:48 am We have to rely on experts in medical science and in statistical analyses to review and evaluate study results.
That was exactly my point.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't your point that it depends on which experts we choose to believe?
Doctor X
Posts: 75341
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Doctor X »

So, like, where is the rigorous double-blind placebo-controlled study?

– J.D.
Pyrrho
Posts: 32010
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Pyrrho »

Recruiting:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT ... =2&rank=36
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by xouper »

Pyrrho wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:36 am
xouper wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:54 am
Pyrrho wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:48 am We have to rely on experts in medical science and in statistical analyses to review and evaluate study results.
That was exactly my point.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't your point that it depends on which experts we choose to believe?
You are correct. In this context, I intended for the word "believe" to be synonymous with "rely on".

Here's the longer version: Since it is not very useful to simply dismiss all experts and we must therefore rely on them (as you observed), then the next step is to choose which experts to rely on, especially when there are different "experts" saying different things.

Analogy: If critics of ivermectin studies automatically have more credibility than the original researchers, then the critics of global warming studies also automatically have more credibility than the original researchers.

I don't find that method (by itself) to be useful in assigning credibility. It seems to me, one must evaluate whether the criticism is valid on its own merits. But how do I do that if I am not qualified to make that evaluation? Therefore I must choose someone to evaluate the criticisms for me, as you observed. That's the best anyone in my position can do.

The question then becomes, how do I make that choice. It's complicated. There are a plethora of factors I can take into consideration. Not to mention, the expert making the criticism may not be the best person to evaluate the merits of his own criticism. Who evaluates the evaluators? It's turtles all the way down.

Thus, my bumper sticker version: It depends on which evaluators you choose to believe (rely on).

Let me also add at this point, that I deal with experts (with PhDs) regularly. My personal experience is that sometimes they get things wrong, and thus they should not always and automatically be believed (or relied upon) simply because they have a PhD or that they usually get things right. I know other people who have similar experiences to mine, including someone I know personally who is an expert in neuroscience. She is often surprised by the things other neuroscientists get wrong.

Anecdote: I was discussing with an expert in computer science (in graph theory, specifically) about some interesting results I discovered. She said, you cannot use an inductive definition to define an infinite sequence. Really?? Then why do my college math textbooks use them to define infinite sequences? Ever hear of the Fibonacci Sequence? That is, in fact, the whole point of an inductive definition, to define an infinite sequence. I confess, it caught me totally off-guard for her to get that so badly wrong.

I have a whole boatload of personal anecdotes just like that one.

Imagine, then, that I have no way of evaluating an expert who says, you can't use a Cox regression that way. The best I can do in that case is either believe them, or not believe them. That's my only choice, short of becoming an expert myself on Cox regressions, which I'm not likely to do.

So, no, I no longer automatically give experts the benefit of the doubt, even when it seems like they know what they are talking about. I have seen too many times when experts were wrong, even though it sounded like they were right.

Does that help understand where I am coming from?
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by xouper »

Hotarubi wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 9:18 am
xouper wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 8:04 pm:roll:
Temper loss noted.
:roll:
Hotarubi
Posts: 4267
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:12 am
Title: Enchantress
Location: This septic Isle.

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Hotarubi »

QED
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by xouper »

:roll:
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by xouper »

xouper wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:51 pm
Pyrrho wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:36 am
xouper wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:54 am
Pyrrho wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:48 am We have to rely on experts in medical science and in statistical analyses to review and evaluate study results.
That was exactly my point.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't your point that it depends on which experts we choose to believe?
You are correct. In this context, I intended for the word "believe" to be synonymous with "rely on".

Here's the longer version:
Spoiler:
Since it is not very useful to simply dismiss all experts and we must therefore rely on them (as you observed), then the next step is to choose which experts to rely on, especially when there are different "experts" saying different things.

Analogy: If critics of ivermectin studies automatically have more credibility than the original researchers, then the critics of global warming studies also automatically have more credibility than the original researchers.

I don't find that method (by itself) to be useful in assigning credibility. It seems to me, one must evaluate whether the criticism is valid on its own merits. But how do I do that if I am not qualified to make that evaluation? Therefore I must choose someone to evaluate the criticisms for me, as you observed. That's the best anyone in my position can do.

The question then becomes, how do I make that choice. It's complicated. There are a plethora of factors I can take into consideration. Not to mention, the expert making the criticism may not be the best person to evaluate the merits of his own criticism. Who evaluates the evaluators? It's turtles all the way down.

Thus, my bumper sticker version: It depends on which evaluators you choose to believe (rely on).

Let me also add at this point, that I deal with experts (with PhDs) regularly. My personal experience is that sometimes they get things wrong, and thus they should not always and automatically be believed (or relied upon) simply because they have a PhD or that they usually get things right. I know other people who have similar experiences to mine, including someone I know personally who is an expert in neuroscience. She is often surprised by the things other neuroscientists get wrong.

Anecdote: I was discussing with an expert in computer science (in graph theory, specifically) about some interesting results I discovered. She said, you cannot use an inductive definition to define an infinite sequence. Really?? Then why do my college math textbooks use them to define infinite sequences? Ever hear of the Fibonacci Sequence? That is, in fact, the whole point of an inductive definition, to define an infinite sequence. I confess, it caught me totally off-guard for her to get that so badly wrong.

I have a whole boatload of personal anecdotes just like that one.

Imagine, then, that I have no way of evaluating an expert who says, you can't use a Cox regression that way. The best I can do in that case is either believe them, or not believe them. That's my only choice, short of becoming an expert myself on Cox regressions, which I'm not likely to do.

So, no, I no longer automatically give experts the benefit of the doubt, even when it seems like they know what they are talking about. I have seen too many times when experts were wrong, even though it sounded like they were right.
Does that help understand where I am coming from?
Yeah, I know, TL;DR.

Sometimes I don't know how much clarification is necessary. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to adopt my position, I am just trying to explain my personal opinion.

Yeah, I know, no one cares. No response necessary. :P
Doctor X
Posts: 75341
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Doctor X »

Pyrrho wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:00 pmRecruiting:
So it would seem that a skeptic, a free-, and dare I write it, critical-thinker, would eagerly await the process.

I will note, en passant, that clinical studies, even proper double-blinded placebo-controlled studies, have "escapes" to end it should the therapy work so well that there is a "huge" statistical difference between the groups such as, like, one is dying horribly or the other is responding much better than one would expect if there is no clinical efficacy.

Given that the smaller case-studies have yet to show such "huge improvements" as touted by the discredited meta-analysis, I rather doubt that will happen. However, the evidences – thanks – will come out.

Bitching and screaming about it before hand would seem rather unseemly.

– J.D.
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by xouper »

Doctor X wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 5:00 am Bitching and screaming about it before hand would seem rather unseemly.
I agree. It does indeed seem unseemly to bitch and scream about it beforehand.
Pyrrho
Posts: 32010
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Pyrrho »

Tangentially related:

https://www.science.org/content/blog-po ... irus-hopes
Update: the day after this post appeared, Merck and Ridgeback announced some preliminary positive data on reduction of viral load in treated patients. The full Phase II data should be coming soon?

A lot of people have been wondering about what's up with a small-molecular antiviral compound that's been in the news on and off during the pandemic. That's molnupiravir, below, also known as EIDD-2801 and MK-4482.
Doctor X
Posts: 75341
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Doctor X »

Pyrrho wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:40 pm Tangentially related:
Did they have to fake any of the data?

What?

– J.D.
Pyrrho
Posts: 32010
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Pyrrho »

Link: https://twitter.com/jamesheathers/status/1443590693415362576

xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by xouper »

I recall checking this a while ago.
Pyrrho wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 4:26 pm
Link: https://twitter.com/jamesheathers/status/1443590693415362576

I agree with his point.

For the terminally curious, here's the formal syllogism version:

Premise: A is a car.
Premise: B is a car.
Conclusion: A is basically the same car as B.

Obviously not a valid conclusion.

However, the opposite conclusion has the same problem:

Premise: A is a car.
Premise: B is a car.
Conclusion: A is NOT basically the same car as B.

Also not a valid conclusion.

What we need instead is direct evidence, like what is the molecular structure?
  • ivermective: C48-H74-O14 (source: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/ivermectin)
  • PF-07321332: C23-H32-F3-N5-O4 (source: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Unii-7R9A5P7H32)

Thus it seems they are NOT the same molecule. Not even close.



Disclaimer: I am not qualified to evaluate the accuracy of that data, so yes, I am choosing to rely on the NIH data, on the assumption that if I investigate further, I will find additional confirming data, and also my personal assessment that in this case, that NIH data has a very high probability of being correct.
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by xouper »

I was waiting to see if anyone else commented on a curious item in what James wrote:
James Heathers @jamesheathers wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 4:26 pm It is like claiming that all internal combustion engine vehicles are the same. A 1988 Yugo is basically an F1 car is basically a Caterpillar 798 AC (this is a mining truck with a 400 ton capacity) is basically a Tesla.
I did not know a Tesla has an internal combustion engine. :P

That does not detract from his point, though, since it seems reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he doesn't quite know what kind of motor a Tesla has. Or maybe he does know and it was an honest Freudian Slip. Hey, it could happen. There are youtube videos of people pulling into a gas station to fill up the gas tank in their Tesla. Maybe those are all prank videos, I don't know. :P
Pyrrho
Posts: 32010
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Pyrrho »

I'm sure there will be other drugs in this class, such as the Merck molecule also in the pipeline.
Pyrrho
Posts: 32010
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Pyrrho »

Allegedly the Merck pill is showing good results:
Link: https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1443881124346925058

There's those damned experts again...

Anyway, he goes on at length in that Twitter thread. His wee bit of hyperbole is duly noted.

There was a link to this study in which the drug was administered to ferrets. This was before Merck got involved.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-00835-2

Here's a link to Merck's press release:

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-and-ri ... r-moderat/

Now, this has to go through FDA review before an EUA can be issued. Nevertheless, the govamint has pre-purchased a lot of doses.

Merck is also studying the drug as a prophylaxis.

https://merckcovidresearch.com/

Hoping to find some actual data to look at aside from the press release and Merck websites.
Pyrrho
Posts: 32010
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Pyrrho »

xouper wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 8:05 pm I was waiting to see if anyone else commented on a curious item in what James wrote:
James Heathers @jamesheathers wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 4:26 pm It is like claiming that all internal combustion engine vehicles are the same. A 1988 Yugo is basically an F1 car is basically a Caterpillar 798 AC (this is a mining truck with a 400 ton capacity) is basically a Tesla.
I did not know a Tesla has an internal combustion engine. :P

That does not detract from his point, though, since it seems reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he doesn't quite know what kind of motor a Tesla has. Or maybe he does know and it was an honest Freudian Slip. Hey, it could happen. There are youtube videos of people pulling into a gas station to fill up the gas tank in their Tesla. Maybe those are all prank videos, I don't know. :P
Yeah I thought the same thing about the Tesla. Heathers is a "hard case" so my guess is that he put that in there for t3h LULZ.
Spoiler:
My favorite (probably staged) video is the one where the guy wants a ride to the gas station to get gas for his Tesla...so he can fuel a generator to recharge the car.
Pyrrho
Posts: 32010
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Pyrrho »

@jamesheathers
·
31m
Cool.

Data please. All the data. Post-trial reports. Registrations. Paper. Preprint. Manuscripts. Documents. Numbers and letters.

This is a press release,
@Reuters
. It doth butter no crumpets.
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29660
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Ivermectin study questioned

Post by Anaxagoras »



That last sentence does give me some pause.

I am not any sort of expert on these matters, but the mechanism sounds slightly concerning.