Hacker News Reader

Comment by unanswered | Hacker News Reader

> Without a randomized controlled trial, they have nothing but speculation as to what is effective or not.

Like this one? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v... Or you can go find one of the 21 others FLCCC cites (excluding Elgazzar's).

I hope you didn't bury those goalposts too deep as you'll need to move them again.

Meanwhile the meta-review you cite is the one that managed to "find" only 18 trials and those somehow just happened to be the ones showing neutral results; no one has yet figured out how they somehow accidentally missed all the studies with positive findings cited by the FLCCC. Maybe in a few years there will be a peer-reviewed RCT explaining this apparent selective blindness, which is the most alarming epidemic happening right now.

Look, I don't know what to make of all the conflicting evidence. But I sure as hell know what to make of all the people lying about the evidence.

View on HN

Oh, so now preprints that haven’t passed peer-review are good enough? You can’t even keep your criteria straight two comments in row…

Quote; “ This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.”

> Like this one? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v... Or you can go find one of the 21 others FLCCC cites (excluding Elgazzar's).

Did you read the top comment on your link? “There are a number of concerns with the methodology and consistency in this study: [. . .] might be true that Ivermectin does reduce viral shedding time in mild to moderate COVID-19. However this study is not rigorous enough, includes amendments which could have introduced bias, and has methodological issues. In my opinion it should not be accepted as good evidence that ivermectin reduces viral loads and could reduce isolation time in patients with COVID-19.“

> hope you didn't bury those goalposts too deep as you'll need to move them again.

My point is FLCCC assertion is meaningless. Why cite to them and not direct to trials or meta analysis of trials?

> Meanwhile the meta-review you cite is the one that managed to "find" only 18 trials

As with any high quality meta analysis it describes their search strategy for finding and selecting studies for inclusion: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

Notice how in your own two posts you’ve switched the number dramatically? ‘they have 60+ peer-reviewed studies showing that it works’ vs now ‘find one of the 21 others FLCCC cites (excluding Elgazzar's).’ This is a good demonstration of how easily the number can be changed when you use a different search method and less or more filtering.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com