I was re-watching the Dr. John Campbell BBC critique video and decided to chase down one of his links (near the end). It’s a keeper, for sure:
(Note that the URL is IVM-meta not IVER-meta which is something else)
This is an interesting way to do meta analysis over time in dynamic circumstances. Essentially they include published papers on the efficacy of Ivermectin and do a periodic scan for any that are retracted, then remove those and re-run the meta-analysis. As all the math is fairly standard, they can just program it up, and it becomes an exercise in having new data entry files and retracted files removed.
There’s a fairly large number of views of the results (text, tables, graphs) and it is well worth a look.
A couple of summary bits:
Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 63 studies
Covid Analysis, Oct 13, 2021, Version 132 — removed Niaee [BBC, GMK response]
So this run was from 13 October, is the 132nd run, and they removed a study by Niaee (that the BBC asserted was bad, I think?).
The meta analysis found that you get a 66% improvement in serious outcomes during “early treatment” use and an 86% improvement if used as a prophylactic.
Remember that some of the prophylaxis studies used ridiculous dose intervals and amounts. Very tiny amounts given one time per month in India, for example, was about 74% effective while weekly doses with modestly larger amounts has been 100% effective for the FLCCC who had mid-90’s% effectiveness at once every 2 weeks. So finding less than 100% effective prophylaxis is to some extent reflecting the exploration in different trials to find proper dose and frequency.
•Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 66% [52‑76%] and 86% [75‑92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis (which excludes all of the GMK/BBC team studies) and restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials.
•Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 30 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.
•Results are very robust — in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 52 of 63 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.
•While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 25% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm.
•Multiple treatments are typically used in combination, and other treatments could be more effective, including monoclonal antibodies which may be available in countries not recommending ivermectin (sotrovimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, and bamlanivimab/etesevimab).
•Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used, including treatments, as supported by Pfizer [Pfizer, TrialSiteNews]. Denying the efficacy of treatments increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage.
Then there’s a whole lot of tables, graphs, maps, charts etc. that show the results in detail.
Worth it to hit the link and give it a look over.
Sidebar On Me
FWIW, a couple of weeks I was busy and it was a little inconvenient to rub on the Ivermectin Pour On, so I used the Quercetin / Zinc pills that were sitting next to the breakfast table. I’m still not sick, despite meeting a fair number of folks “going about normal life” in the middle of one of the Hot Spots of the planet.
Either I’m incredibly lucky, or this stuff has benefit… The pills are more convenient to “carry around”, but the pour on is more convenient in dose schedule (one a week vs 2 x a day). I’d likely use the pills for any air travel as a bottle of liquid is not acceptable to the people protecting us from too much toothpaste…
(They confiscated my large sized tube of toothpaste, despite being 1/2 empty, because it said 6 oz. on the label…)
Were I ever to get symptoms, I’d use both together. Ivermectin binds to the ACE-2 receptor and to the Spike Protein making binding difficult or blocked. Quercetin is a Zink ionophore and lets it into the cells, where Zinc then blocks virus replication machinery.
It is my belief that these two would work well together (belt & braces). Spouse had done both together once when some “scratchy throat” threatened and with No Bad Thing happening. So an existence proof of one.
(And yes, I use zink and zinc interchangeably. Zink is just an older form of the word and IMHO still valid use. I have a lot of archaic usages as I like reading old books.)