I can take that there is some debate around Ivermectin. Many of the studies are small and some are flawed. Few are large-scale double-blind RCTs. I can also appreciate some cynicism here around the large-scale RCTs because we know there are interests that try to discredit generic drugs: I wasn't entirely convinced on HCQ (but am still open to it having some effect if given early enough), but it's worth noting that the Surgisphere debacle was an attempt by somebody to discredit that drug with two fake studies. And that the editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton, is on the record as blaming that very debacle on Big Pharma.
However, despite all of that and my lack of certainty on both drugs, the part of this story that does get me is Remdesivir. The studies for it are weak. They don't show anything much in the way of reduced mortality. Even the shorter hospital stays--the basis on which it was approved--is now in doubt. Even the WHO says it doesn't work. And a Cochrane Review says it doesn't work. It also has a worse safety profile than IVM.
Yet, it was approved after a single study in the US that failed to show reduced mortality and had its goalposts moved halfway through the study to shorter hospital stays. Then other western nations quickly followed suit. Of course, it's a patented drug with a high price.
And nobody blinks. The legacy media never mentions it or questions it. They never bring it up in comparison to Ivermectin. The Chief Medical Officer of my country (Australia) said in The Guardian that not a SINGLE study had shown Ivermectin to be effective in humans against Covid--again, this is blatantly incorrect whatever the efficacy of this drug turns out to be. And still nobody blinks or corrects him. Nobody mentions that overseas governments HAVE approved this drug and thought the evidence was compelling enough to give it a shot.
I could perhaps accept there is a debate around Ivermectin given the extreme techinicalities of how studies are interpreted and meta-analyses are conducted, but not the double standard with Remdesivir. Nobody is saying this drug does much. Even some of the same experts criticising Ivermectin ALSO criticise Remdemsivir as being just as bad.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Ivermectin Vs Remdesivir
Date: 2021-09-08 11:38 pm (UTC)However, despite all of that and my lack of certainty on both drugs, the part of this story that does get me is Remdesivir. The studies for it are weak. They don't show anything much in the way of reduced mortality. Even the shorter hospital stays--the basis on which it was approved--is now in doubt. Even the WHO says it doesn't work. And a Cochrane Review says it doesn't work. It also has a worse safety profile than IVM.
Yet, it was approved after a single study in the US that failed to show reduced mortality and had its goalposts moved halfway through the study to shorter hospital stays. Then other western nations quickly followed suit. Of course, it's a patented drug with a high price.
And nobody blinks. The legacy media never mentions it or questions it. They never bring it up in comparison to Ivermectin. The Chief Medical Officer of my country (Australia) said in The Guardian that not a SINGLE study had shown Ivermectin to be effective in humans against Covid--again, this is blatantly incorrect whatever the efficacy of this drug turns out to be. And still nobody blinks or corrects him. Nobody mentions that overseas governments HAVE approved this drug and thought the evidence was compelling enough to give it a shot.
I could perhaps accept there is a debate around Ivermectin given the extreme techinicalities of how studies are interpreted and meta-analyses are conducted, but not the double standard with Remdesivir. Nobody is saying this drug does much. Even some of the same experts criticising Ivermectin ALSO criticise Remdemsivir as being just as bad.
Yet it remains approved and in widespread use.