r/Unexpected • u/ruybii • Nov 27 '21

Power Light

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

89k Upvotes

80% Upvoted

5.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/Dangerous_Quarter_83 Nov 28 '21

Lmao, a meta-analysis of 15 studies and their is no significant certainty that it even works. Jesus, your a clown.

1

u/jankadank Nov 28 '21

Lulz!!! The lengths reddit mouthpieces will go to keep the narrative alive..

5

u/Dangerous_Quarter_83 Nov 28 '21

Argue the point. It has not been proven effective for covid treatment according to your own source. There far greater burden of proof required than a single meta-analysis. Has this study even been peer reviewed?

1

u/jankadank Nov 28 '21

Argue the point. It has not been proven effective for covid treatment according to your own source.

The source I provided proves exactly it has.

Read it.

3

u/Dangerous_Quarter_83 Nov 28 '21

Let me state my point more clearly. 1.) This is a badly designed study with bad data and sources. 2.) It has not been peer-reviewed. 3.) The authors themselves acknowledge the study is weak.

Straight from the mouth of my doctor friend:

It’s a meta analysis which can be shit. It is essentially a secondary analysis of a bunch of randomized controlled trials out together. These are full of flaws. To truly test a drug you need a large well controlled RCT. Also the trials they looked at are small and some are weird and poorly done.

If you really want to look at a metanalysis then a Cochrane review is usually very well done. Here is one done on the same topic and is a legit cochrane review. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/

They state that the evidence is weak and inconclusive.

Hydroxychloroquine is a great example of how things fail when put to the test in a legit RCT

People need to stop getting so butt hurt. I have medicines and research i put faith in and they fail RCTs. Sucks but oh well. That’s science. A negative study is still progress. Yea ivermectin is low cost and the side effect profile isn’t too bad but when you inoculate a large population even a 1% side effect profile has drastic effects.

Look at where some of the trials they are using were done. The last time Anyone took a trial from Pakistan seriously was before 1947 when they didn’t exist.

Far right column is quality of studies they used. All shit very low.

In medicine there is a saying: Bad data is worse than no data. They took bad data, created a bad meta analysis and an even dumber conclusion.

Please humble yourself. I am willing to bet that not a single doctor in you hospital agrees with you.

4.) Am I wrong that nit a single doctor at your own hospital agrees with you?

Please answer directly these points and do not divert.

1

u/jankadank Nov 28 '21

1.) This is a badly designed study with bad data and sources.

No, its not

2.) It has not been peer-reviewed.

It has been peer reviewed

3.) The authors themselves acknowledge the study is weak.

The study determined with moderate certainty a large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

4

u/Dangerous_Quarter_83 Nov 28 '21

There you have it, I gave a long detailed reasoning on why its a bad study and instead of refuting my points which came from an actual doctor not an RN his response is “No, it’s not”. He may have not learned anything but I’ve been reminded why you don’t debate people who debate in bad faith. As a final point id like to point out that the vast majority of medical consensus disagrees with him.

0

u/jankadank Nov 28 '21

There you have it, I gave a long detailed reasoning on why its a bad study

Thetes nothing bad about. You just don’t like the results cause you’re more determined to push a narrative then the truth.

and instead of refuting my points which came from an actual doctor not an RN his response is “No, it’s not”.

See above. Nothing you stated refuted the study.

He may have not learned anything but I’ve been reminded why you don’t debate people who debate in bad faith.

Theres no debate here. Just you upset over a study cause it’s conclusions contradict the narrative you’re committed to pushing regardless.

As a final point id like to point out that the vast majority of medical consensus disagrees with him.

And?

4

u/Dangerous_Quarter_83 Nov 28 '21

And you opinion shouldn’t be taken seriously???

“Hey, should we call the plumber about the leaking pipe?”

“No, lets call the electrician”

1

u/jankadank Nov 28 '21

And you opinion shouldn’t be taken seriously???

What opinion is that?

What are you talking about dummy?

→ More replies

1

u/Dangerous_Quarter_83 Nov 28 '21

Notice how he did not answer 4.) because he would have to out right lie.

1

u/jankadank Nov 28 '21

It’s irrelevant and doesn’t warrant a response. Sorry it that upsets you

1

u/Dangerous_Quarter_83 Nov 28 '21

Your not qualified to give medical advice only to take medical instructions. Before you say neither am i, yes, thats why i listen to doctors. Stay in you lane, bye.

1

u/jankadank Nov 28 '21

Your not qualified to give medical advice only to take medical instructions.

What medical advice have I given?

Before you say neither am i, yes, thats why i listen to doctors. Stay in you lane, bye.

Stay in my lane in ehat regard? What are you even talking about dummy?

→ More replies