What to Know About California's Covid Surge
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Covid has been so done for so long where I'm from, that I can't believe this is still a thing some places...
100%, no doubt, plenty of meta studies to that end.
But what if you don't have parasitic worms?
A Cochrane meta-analysis of 11 eligible trials examining the efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 published through April 2022 concluded that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19.1
Since May 2022, an additional 3 large randomized clinical trials including several thousand participants have been published, each reaching a similar conclusion.
Today JAMA publishes a new trial of ivermectin treatment for mild to moderate COVID-19 that addresses the possibility that the existing literature may have missed the efficacy of ivermectin because the previously tested dose (approximately 400 μg/kg daily for 3 days) was insufficient.
At a higher treatment dose (600 μg/kg daily) and longer treatment duration (6 days), Naggie and colleagues again conclude that ivermectin is not beneficial for the treatment of COVID-19.
New study shows ivermectin lacks meaningful benefits in COVID-19 treatment (March, 2024)
New research led by the University of Oxford has concluded that the antiparasitic drug ivermectin does not provide clinically meaningful benefits for treating COVID-19 in a largely vaccinated population.
Damn- no effect in any trial in the absence of worms.
Virtually all of the studies that do indicate treatment initiation within 1-3 days of onset of symptoms do strongly indicate effectiveness.
It seems ... odd to avoid disclosing average start of treatment from onset of symptoms, don't you think? Especially when this appears to be the primary determinant of successful treatment in numerous (>100) studies?
Literally linearly from 100% efficacy to 0% efficacy over 7 days from onset of symptoms. Linear, over ~100 studies!
You don't see that kind of statistically profound predictive accuracy often; but when you do, you sit up and take notice.
Furthermore, in various other anti-viral treatments that are considered effective, onset-of-treatment is a critical determinant. Typically, over 24 to 48 hours after onset, treatment is pointless.
Why not consider that important to address (or even mention?) in Ivermectin studies? The mind boggles...
Why is the scope limited to vaccinated population?
These are also trials in regions with relatively low rates of parasitic worm infection.
The early meta studies looked at trials in poorer regions of non G20 countries and showed the benefits of killing parasitic worms as increased resistance to flu, COVID, etc, etc across the board. Post worm dosing survival rates for most things increased compared to regions that didn't receive dosing.
These early studies are the main reason we see results such as the graph in a peer comment - killing worms improves COVID survival for those that had worm infestations to begin with.
Thus there is a small effect seen that is indeed suggestive that ivermectin helped. However there are a number of things to call into question including why didn't they just take the medicine for longer than 6 days and most antivirals will not show that significant of an impact in this type of study.
Another study showed that ivermectin synergized with remdesivir making each drug approximately 4 to 6 times more effective. As with most viruses I would expect a cocktail or combo antiviral to be much more effective than monotherapy. Is therefore not that surprising that many of these ivermectin trials do not seem to discover much of an effect against COVID