roger hao wrote: My original point - that thousands are getting a result from ivermectin.
Isn't that how trials work? It isn't just me.
I'm not a scientist so I might get some things wrong below, but...
Put in the simplest terms, a medical trial works by having a group of people take some kind of substance, or carry out some kind of activity, etc. and seeing what effect this substance/activity = 'thing' has on the people in the study. What's important is that you also have a control group, meaning a comparable group of people with a similar (potential) problem
who don't take the substance/carry out the activity. So that you know any significant outcome is more likely due to the 'thing' you're focusing on and not because the Christmas vacation just came round or because everybody the city has started drinking lots of bubble tea. If it's a substance and not an activity, then if possible you give the control group the same pill, or whatever, but it's a dummy: looks the same but has no drug in it. So the trial participants don't know whether they've taken the 'thing' or not. This is known as a 'blind'. Ideally, the people administering the pill also don't know whether the 'thing' is inside or not: 'double blind'. (Although for some substances and most activities it's hard or impossible to include the 'blind' aspect).
You also need enough people to allow more general conclusions to be drawn from the results. The bigger the group(s) involved, the better.
Then when you have your results from the trial - did the 'thing' help significantly or not? - a bunch of other people will take a look at your procedures, results and possible claims. These people should be pretty much experts in the same field, or at least able to see whether you applied the basic procedures properly. Sometimes circumstances may make it impossible to work with a proper control group as well. This can still provide some initial indications about the 'thing' but it automatically means the results are less solid. Any encouraging results should be backed up with trials that in include control groups as soon as possible.
The experts checking your study/trial should still be able to get a good idea of whether, or to what exent, they think the trial you conducted can be called sound in scientific terms. Or whether it's a little incomplete, or dubious, or totally worthless in this respect.
This is 'peer review'.
Anecdotal reports of people getting results with a 'thing' can certainly prompt further investigation through actual medical trials. But the anecdotal reports, or claims, don't constitute a 'trial' in themselves. As everyone will realize, there's a huge number of factors - coincidental, emotional, political etc. - that can influence these reports or claims and which have nothing to do with whether the actual 'thing' is effective or not.
Roger, can you point to any actual peer-reviewed medical trials that indicate Ivermectin is significantly effective against Covid-19? Because at the moment there seem to be several such trials that indicate it isn't. But hey, if it is credibly shown to be effective, then that would be a good thing.
Although even then, it seems extremely unlikely that this would obiviate the need for vaccines. Old medical adage, you know: "prevention is better than cure."
Stay healthy!
Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:04 pm
