There are 2 very recent studies. As far as I know, neither are the discredited study.
Because it is on YouTube does not make it invalid. The video is an illustration and disection of two large-scale scientific studies recently undertaken by two seperate highly reputable organisations.
The Doctor is disseminating the information in clear language (something he has done for years) via an easily accessible and popular medium to as large an audience as possible.
What exactly is wrong with that?
The video is not his opinion or his agenda(s) and does not relate to his own trials or studies. it is an accessible analysis of two scientific studies. If you had watched it you would have immediately grasped that.
what happened to ‘I will not be responding to any comments’?
I’m not making any judgement about the video as I haven’t watched it and probably won’t. I don’t have the time or the energy.
My opinion is that it’s right to approach anything posted on YouTube of this nature with a degree of skepticism. There is an established system for reviewing the efficacy of medicines that works really well, and when you find a video like this, that usually comes with someone saying ‘you’ve got to watch this’, ninety nine times out of a hundred it’s bollocks.
If there is something in Ivermectin’s ability to treat Covid, then it will be picked up through peer reviewed studies and societies can make policy/clinical decisions on the basis of that.
On a slightly bigger point I just think we have to be very careful using social media for discussions like this. Social Media does not care whether something is true or not, and there is no way for the average person to effectively separate the bullshit from the decent.
Jesus H Christ.
This whole video **is about two scientifically conducted, peer-reviewed, studies of over 100,000 people.**
I am not insisting anyone watches it - I put it here so that people could see the evidence. Apologies that it may not fit your narrative.
Here is a link to one of the trials - published by that totally disreputable rag “The International Journal of infectious Disease” This is one of the trials discussed in the video I posted. Probably invalid because it is on the wrong coloured paper. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221009887
I don’t want to engage with you any further. If you cannot be bothered to look at the science and the evidence, for whatever reason, then in all fairness you cannot make a valued or valid comment.
Jon, your not replying to comments thing is working our really well for you.
I understand you absolutely 100% not takesy backsides won’t be replying to me on this, but what the hell…
My position is very straightforward. I can’t be arsed watching a lecture about about Ivermectin on YouTube. I don’t care what credentials the person has or whether they say something is peer reviewed or not. The bottom line is that I’m not going to take or endorse a drug because of something posted on YouTube. It is not a good platform for this kind of thing.
It may well be genuine, and the information might be spot on. I’m not passing judgment on it in that way. But I’m not going to do anything on the basis of it, and nor should anyone else.
If the studies and research he quotes stands up to scrutiny, then I’m sure we’ll all end up taking Ivermectin for Covid.
Well, I will again withdraw and cease commenting or posting on this site as you have previously directly messaged to me.
Good luck with your personal echo chamber.
I hope others will view this video as it raises so many questions regarding treatments and the video is ultimately about saving lives, not only domestically but worldwide. I posted it because it may improve health outcomes - especially in poorer countries.
The paper shared above isn’t a peer reviewed study, as was pretty clearly explained in the video. It is from a supplemental version of a the journal that publishes all the abstracts presented at its associated conference. This presentation of data is generally the lowest quality scientific data available. Scientific conferences encourage low quality data for a variety of reason (some positive and some less so), in the form of work that is preliminary, not-peer reviewed, not presented with sufficient detail to really evaluate their usefulness, and with a no expectation of going on to be fully published.
In terms of what they did present, it is not convincing. It is an example of something referred to as multiple hypothesis testing - the idea that in a large data set there are numerous spurious relationships that will exist by chance that you will be able to identify if you run enough tests. That is why so much weight is put on the randomized controlled intervention with a clearly defined question you are attempting to answer stated up front. Two such recently published examples that show no positive effect of Ivermectin are:
Interesting that only one of these 3 was worthy of sharing.
Are you really him in disguise here, and a massive red!?
I’ve been watching John Campbells videos for over a year now. He’s very good at disseminating the complex science, has no motive beyond sharing knowledge. He’s been a great source of information throughout the pandemic.
You’re accusing me of being in an echo chamber, but my position is that I don’t think anyone should be looking to YouTube videos for serious advice on what medications they or their governments should turn to in the fight against Covid. That doesn’t really feel that controversial.
There are a lot of people Vlogging on YouTube and a lot of them can sound very credible, scientific and authoritative.
The reason I’m not going to watch that video is because there is literally nothing I’m going to change about my life as a result, and I certainly don’t have the hours it would take to verify this information and assiduously fact check it, or the education in the subject matter to know where to start. That’s not being in an ‘echo-chamber’ - it’s just having a sense of your own limitations and accepting that you have to trust the systems set up to deal with this stuff
If anyone is interested in watching these videos for entertainment or casual interest, by all means, be my guest. But please don’t make serious decisions about your health or your families on the basis of stuff you’ve seen on YouTube. There is literally no filter, and it may well turn out that the information you are seeing might not be quite what you think it is.
As an aside, my whole family works in the NHS and they tell me one of the biggest problems currently facing the service is the number of people who today rock up at surgeries and hospitals having self-diagnosed their issues and demanding a particular drug they have read something about. I suspect this is a post social media issue.
To be fair, the second paper the guy covered was peer-reviewed, but there are still issues with it. I think at times people can be too focused on only considering evidence from RCTs, and we have seen that in some corners during covid. But the real advantage of using weaker studies or Real World evidence is when good RCT data isnt available, because sometimes that can be difficult, and/or slow, to collect. In this case it isnt, and the data exists. And they show Ivermectin doesnt do anything.
I do not for a second think that anyone suggested that the YouTube video should be viewed and digested as taking medical advice. Seems to me you’ve made that leap for yourself and shut down what is a pretty interesting video, that is only disseminating the science that you’re so keen for.
I haven’t shut anything down. The video is still there. Anyone can click through to it.
Unfortunately the social media sites are full of misinformation regarding Covid and it’s potential treatments. Some of it is very convincing.
My message is just to be careful what you read/see/hear on YouTube. I’m not making any comment about the video itself, as I haven’t watched and I’m not going to spend twenty minutes doing so. However @BigJon made some claims about it which @Limiescouse (who actually appears to know his stuff on this) disputed, so I think my initial scepticism, towards Jon if not the video, was well founded.
because they stopped PCR testing here. unless you’re in a few select groups (healthcare, etc) they’ll give an antigen test and send you home. nobody knows the actual numbers now.
but we’re still living in restrictions. i cannot be pitchside for my sons game, for example
Im still not following. Are you saying that it’s surprising they are still releasing data if they’re only collecting it on such a limited portion of the population?
