This deep dive into the research on the efficacy of ivermectin by Alexandros Marinos is valuable, not because it proves or disproves whether or not physicians should be prescribing the drug (that should be left up to them to decide with the informed consent of their patients), but because it shows that mainstream pundits and researchers willfully sidelined a treatment that had promise, when used early and with a sufficient dose, for treating COVID.
In short it is now beyond doubt that the pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies mislead the public to believe that novel m-RNA injectables were the ONLY worthwhile therapies.
Their behavior will be remembered in the history of medicine as the worst debacle of all time. They should be held to account.
1. The TOGETHER trial was not conducted in rural areas. Here are the locations listed for the trial and their respective populations: Sete Lagoas 241,835; Ibirite 182,153; Brumadinho 40,666 (suburb of Belo Horizonte); Governador Valadares 281,046; Montes Carlos 413,487; Nova Lima 96,157 (suburb of Belo Horizonte); Santa Luiza 220,444 (suburb of Belo Horizonte); Ouro Preto 74,558 (tourist mecca); Belo Horizonte 2,271,564; Betim 444,784.
2. These cities are almost all within Greater Belo Horizonte, the exceptions being Ouro Preto and Governador Valadares. Here is a photo of Ouro Preto, the smallest of the study sites. There are not shacks scattered over the hillsides. The rural population is low even on the outskirts of Ouro Preto.
3. These cities, besides having adequate sewage systems, are within the zone shown as "null" for Strongyloides, i.e., black on the map above.
In short, the idea that any ivermectin efficacy in the TOGETHER Brazilian trial derived from reducing the thread worm load is ad hoc BS put forward by people who know nothing about Brazil.
Could you provide a bit more information about the probability of superiority graph? I am not sure how to read the graph. A description of the axis would already help but I am not sure I understand what I see?
Thanks for this series. It is fascinating. I've followed the ivm story for more than a year now and I am stunned how the main stream press is not just ignoring it, but actively fighting the idea that ivm might possibly be effective; successfully. As you show in way too many cases for comfort, there is something deeply rotten that these issues are actively suppressed in the main stream press; where is the competitive drive to have a scoop? The enlightenment values I always cherished seem to recede in the distance. I never thought that in my life time this kind of darkness could descend on our societies. Please, keep up the good work!
Although the lack of reaction of Scott Alexander so far is deeply disappointing, I still have hope that he will address, one day, some of the top issues you've raised.
Hi Peter - the graph is a bit of a hack, but I made it by entering the papameters of the treatment and control groups in this calculator (https://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~mbognar/applets/beta.html), then taking screenshots of the resulting charts, and aligning and superimposing them with google drawings (I kid you not).
So the axes stand for the same thing as those on that page. Roughly, the Y axis stands for strength of evidence at a given point, and the x axis stands for size of effect. The probability of superiority is computed by taking a large number of random points under both curves, and comparing which is more to the right than the other.
This deep dive into the research on the efficacy of ivermectin by Alexandros Marinos is valuable, not because it proves or disproves whether or not physicians should be prescribing the drug (that should be left up to them to decide with the informed consent of their patients), but because it shows that mainstream pundits and researchers willfully sidelined a treatment that had promise, when used early and with a sufficient dose, for treating COVID.
In short it is now beyond doubt that the pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies mislead the public to believe that novel m-RNA injectables were the ONLY worthwhile therapies.
Their behavior will be remembered in the history of medicine as the worst debacle of all time. They should be held to account.
Regarding the Strongyloides hypothesis:
1. The TOGETHER trial was not conducted in rural areas. Here are the locations listed for the trial and their respective populations: Sete Lagoas 241,835; Ibirite 182,153; Brumadinho 40,666 (suburb of Belo Horizonte); Governador Valadares 281,046; Montes Carlos 413,487; Nova Lima 96,157 (suburb of Belo Horizonte); Santa Luiza 220,444 (suburb of Belo Horizonte); Ouro Preto 74,558 (tourist mecca); Belo Horizonte 2,271,564; Betim 444,784.
2. These cities are almost all within Greater Belo Horizonte, the exceptions being Ouro Preto and Governador Valadares. Here is a photo of Ouro Preto, the smallest of the study sites. There are not shacks scattered over the hillsides. The rural population is low even on the outskirts of Ouro Preto.
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouro_Preto#/media/File:Ouro_Preto_01_2016_MG_5083.jpg
3. These cities, besides having adequate sewage systems, are within the zone shown as "null" for Strongyloides, i.e., black on the map above.
In short, the idea that any ivermectin efficacy in the TOGETHER Brazilian trial derived from reducing the thread worm load is ad hoc BS put forward by people who know nothing about Brazil.
It gets much worse than this. I'll get to it when we reach the worms hypothesis.
Looks like i just found another hero researcher to follow. Dr. Alejandro Krolewiecki sounds awesome sauce.
Could you provide a bit more information about the probability of superiority graph? I am not sure how to read the graph. A description of the axis would already help but I am not sure I understand what I see?
Thanks for this series. It is fascinating. I've followed the ivm story for more than a year now and I am stunned how the main stream press is not just ignoring it, but actively fighting the idea that ivm might possibly be effective; successfully. As you show in way too many cases for comfort, there is something deeply rotten that these issues are actively suppressed in the main stream press; where is the competitive drive to have a scoop? The enlightenment values I always cherished seem to recede in the distance. I never thought that in my life time this kind of darkness could descend on our societies. Please, keep up the good work!
Although the lack of reaction of Scott Alexander so far is deeply disappointing, I still have hope that he will address, one day, some of the top issues you've raised.
Hi Peter - the graph is a bit of a hack, but I made it by entering the papameters of the treatment and control groups in this calculator (https://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~mbognar/applets/beta.html), then taking screenshots of the resulting charts, and aligning and superimposing them with google drawings (I kid you not).
So the axes stand for the same thing as those on that page. Roughly, the Y axis stands for strength of evidence at a given point, and the x axis stands for size of effect. The probability of superiority is computed by taking a large number of random points under both curves, and comparing which is more to the right than the other.
I've made it to approximate the kinds of graphs the TOGETHER trial displayed (e.g. here: https://dcricollab.dcri.duke.edu/sites/NIHKR/KR/GR-Slides-08-06-21.pdf), and using the same underlying assumptions.
I'm also learning as I go here, but I do think this is about right. Let me know if you spot anything being off.
Hope this helps.
As for the reactions of the press and of Scott -- ditto.
Someone has to lock Alex Berenson in a room with you for a few hours :)
(I'm not a Berenson hater for the record, but he is factually wrong about Ivermectin)