Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "Should we be using Ivermectin for COVID?" video.

@Shelmerdine745 The Tokyo Medical Association is urging doctors in Japan to prescribe it. The country of Japan is not doing that.
3
@Ukedc259 I got the following papers by searching google scholar for terms "covid ivermectin review" and limiting the search to 2021. Popp, Roman, and Castaneda find no statistical benefit. Kory, Hill, and Zein find large, statistically significant benefit. The fence is a place with a good view...
2
@Segkee That seems like an anti-science attitude, much like anti-vaxxers use to discredit any study that disagrees with them. Just because someone advocates a substance does not mean their research is wrong. Perhaps he advocates it because he thinks it is right.
2
@Ukedc259 That sounds like the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. "There's no evidence." "Here's some evidence." "It's not true evidence if it disagrees with my conclusion."
2
@Ukedc259 Yup agree on looking at the science, not the narratives. And I'm not saying it works; the science is equivocal. I do want to counter the argument that there is zero evidence for it. Evidence does not equal proof, and there is evidence on both sides. (Although, I haven't seen any studies that find a net harm). Perhaps many people do not realize that we can get all the papers at google scholar. I often limit search to 2021 and include "review" in the search terms, to get the most recent comprehensive analyses.
2
Indeed, there are many more review studies that each analyze a dozen or more RCTs. From 2021, Popp, Roman, and Castaneda find no statistical benefit. Kory, Hill, and Zein to mention three find large, statistically significant benefit.
2
@joycejnn ... partly agree, so let's put numbers on it... "the percentage aged ≥1 y at risk of vitamin D deficiency or inadequacy was 5.0% (95% CI: 4.1%, 6.2%) and 18.3% (95% CI: 16.2%, 20.6%)." The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 110, Issue 1, July 2019, Pages 150–157, So even if it only helps those with low levels, up to 1/5th of the country could benefit from D in the fight against Covid. Seems like a worthy cause.
2
@Shelmerdine745 If there are "no proper trials yet" then it is illogical to say "it does not work."
1
Vaccines are 100%? Then it also doesn't matter if other people get vaccinated. So no mandates are necessary. If only that were true...
1
@allangmiller Partly agree. We can use safety data from the past. The data is immense and covers virtually every type of person and situation. Over 3 billion doses... 30 years of research... the data is relevant. But agree, it definitely should be tested for safety in combination with new drugs or vaccines given for covid.
1
@Segkee There is a paper in Nature discussing all the various anti-viral properties of 1v3r. But nice try anyway.
1
@Segkee I got the following papers by searching google scholar for terms "covid ivermectin review" and limiting the search to 2021. Each paper reviews over a dozen clinical RCTs. Popp, Roman, and Castaneda find no statistical benefit. Kory, Hill, and Zein find large, statistically significant benefit.
1
Since the risk is very low (especially with doctor consulting), yeah, it was worth it for him to try it. Seems smart. But I will defend clinical trials. We truly do not know if something works until it is tested again and again in high quality randomized trials.
1
@Ukedc259 Agree with all of that. Well said, too. When I search the lit, counting only major meta analyses in peer reviewed journals, I am finding roughly 50/50 pro and no effect.
1
The RCTs are starting top get published. I got the following review papers by searching google scholar for terms "covid ivermectin review" and limiting the search to 2021. Each one analyzed a dozen or more RCTs. Popp, Roman, and Castaneda find no statistical benefit. Kory, Hill, and Zein find large, statistically significant benefit.
1
@Le_Royaliste_Perlino That sterility study is a known fake. Just like the papayas testing positive for covid, it is implausible in the extreme, and in fact was not part of an actual scientific study.
1