Have you seen the growing scientific literature (much of it done abroad, tho) that various combinations of ivermectin & hydroxy-chloroquine (perhaps with zinc), if give early in covid disease progression (repeat EARLY), can measurably slow the disease progression and lighten the burden of symptoms?
If yes: What do you think of that literature and/or that idea?
In the event that you view it positively: Would it be responsible to have some ivermectin & hcq in the medicine cabinet at home?
(Note that various countries outside the U.S. sell made-for-humans pills of ivermectin and/or hcq Over The Counter and promote their use for various purposes; traditionally to prevent malaria, but now sometimes also for covid. Human (not veterinary!) forms of ivermectin are considered safe. Hcq needs “doctor management”, yet is still sold OTC in some countries. Uttar Pradesh, one of India’s largest states, has undertaken both mass covid vaccination and mass distribution of free ivermectin.)
I have seen poor quality evidence (in vitro studies, observational studies, retrospective studies, non-randomized studies, and/or non-controlled studies) with these sorts of findings.
The higher quality trials of these drugs (those that are prospective, randomized, controlled trials in human subjects) so far have not shown convincing efficacy. Should a sufficiently powered trial of this nature demonstrate clinically relevant benefits, opinions would be more likely to change.
In the event that you view it positively: Would it be responsible to have some ivermectin & hcq in the medicine cabinet at home?
It would be responsible to obtain a vaccine with essentially 100% efficacy against severe disease, hospitalization, and/or death, assuming you live in an area with access to vaccines.
“poor quality evidence…non-randomized studies” - Seems to happen on all sides. In 2020, for example, I saw a study where one of these drugs was given mainly to late-stage covid sufferers, “proving” (supposedly - but non-randomly) that the drug had negative efficacy.
Can you clarify what you mean by “non-randomly” here, or what you mean by “seems to happen on all sides”? I don’t think we are using this language in this same way here.
“a vaccine with essentially 100% efficacy” - People are giving me static on this one. Supposedly some sort of issues about the companies having financial bias (the government pays well for the “free” vaccines), the reporting of relative risk reduction vs. absolute risk reduction (I’m not sure I get that one), lack of long-term data, anecdotal reports of people getting covid after completing their doses, anecdotal reports of mutation post-vacc, etc.
Unfortunately there is too much for me to unpack here via a forum discussion. We discussed the mRNA vaccines at length in our podcast episode 123.
My memory is fading & I also didn’t want to take up this much time & space - but here goes. I saw a study in 2020, touted in the media at the time, saying that hcq (I think) was not only ineffective but harmful. But upon scratching the surface, a number of things wrong with the study. One was that the 2 groups were non-random. Compared to the control group, the experimental group had many more patients who were in cytokine storm already (late-stage, about to die). It made sense from a standpoint that if someone’s dying, try anything. But the statistical methods didn’t compensate enough; plus it was already semi-known that these off-label medicines would only be useful in the early stages. My larger point was that, sadly, there is plenty of bad science to go around. It might not be accurate to suggest that “higher-quality” trials on these medicines go one way while lower-quality go the other way. No biggie though.
“We discussed the mRNA vaccines at length in our podcast episode 123.” - Great! I didn’t know - will look up that one.
If what you are describing is accurate, then you are by definition describing a non-randomized trial, which, in the world of short-term pharmacologic intervention, is a lower quality study compared to a truly randomized trial. Additionally, it is important not to over-extrapolate study findings beyond the context of the study itself. If it had been randomized in a late-stage covid population and did not show efficacy, then you could only conclude that the treatment does not work in that particular study population with late-stage disease. You would not extrapolate this claim to say that it does not work for anyone, ever (which I suspect you’ll agree with) – but if you DO want to make the claim that it works, you must show it using high quality methods.
At this point, this has yet to be done, and I will not pay any attention to retrospective observational analyses, uncontrolled trials, etc. when it comes to making my treatment decisions, given the rest of the evidence base. I stand by my comment above:
The higher quality trials of these drugs (those that are prospective, randomized, controlled trials in human subjects) so far have not shown convincing efficacy. Should a sufficiently powered trial of this nature demonstrate clinically relevant benefits, opinions would be more likely to change.
Sorry, where to find the podcast with mRNA discussion? I’m not seeing anything obvious on youtube or the site’s tabs. google says to hit podcast | Barbell Medicine - but nothing obvious there, either.
To me, “podcast” is a generic thing, not Apple.