Jeff Duntemann's Contrapositive Diary Rotating Header Image

Odd Lots

6 Comments

  1. Bob says:

    I got interested in browser privacy and I found this article from two years ago:
    https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-edge-browser-flunks-privacy-test

    Here’s the payoff section to me.
    The study by Leith breaks popular browsers into three groups, stating, “We find that the browsers split into three distinct groups from this privacy perspective. In the first (most private) group lies Brave, in the second Chrome, Firefox and Safari, and in the third (least private) group lie Edge and Yandex.”

    The story is dated but at least it tells you what happened two years ago. I am making brave my everyday browser.

  2. Mapleton Reader says:

    I compared the Ivermectin studies in the Brownstone paper to another paper you recommended in your Nov 24 rant https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted. All papers cited in Brownstone (except a recent one (Lima-Morales) which I’ve not investigated yet) were considered problematic at best and fraudulent at worst by the second author along with compelling reasons why. (see also the Atlantic article I’ve referenced before in my comments).

    It is interesting that one of the introductory statements in the Brownstone article is “Randomized trials of individual, novel oral therapies have not delivered effective tools”. In other words, Brownstone admits that the gold standard of drug testing has not shown any of these drugs effective against COVID by themselves. It appears that their contention is if you put several COVID ineffective drugs / vitamins together you have an early treatment protocol that reduces the severity of COVID. This is not out of the realm of possibility if the drugs help treat any other underlying issue that the patient has which then allows the patient’s immune system to work better, but I don’t think that is what the Brownstone authors are implying.

    It’s a shame that new articles (such as Brownstone’s 22-Jan-2022 article cited) apparently rehash old, problematic (and possibly fraudulent) ivermectin data. I would have expected a bit more due diligence from them for a review article.

  3. Mapleton Reader says:

    Results from an important study shows early use of ivermectin does not lower the incidence of hospital admission due to Covid-19 or reduce prolonged emergency department observation among at risk outpatients. The study was large enough (3500 patients) and met the gold standard of statistical inference (double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial) and was peer reviewed and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869.

    The Epoch Times has not yet picked up this story (Mar 31, 2022 search of their website).

    1. The research is all over the map. We all know that. There are plenty of studies and plenty of clinical experience showing that the drug is effective. So please answer this question:

      What are the medical (not legal/regulatory) hazards of treating SARS2 infections with the human formulation of ivermectin at doses used routinely for parasitic infections?

      I’ve had drugs prescribed off-label several times, like mirtazapine (Remeron) for insomnia. It worked. The slobbering fury directed at ivermectin suggests that this isn’t about medicine at all. But by this time, I think we all know that too.

      1. Mapleton Reader says:

        1) “The research is all over the map”. Yes, but it is not all “good” research and not all of them deserve equal weight. I define good as statistically valid number of patients, double blind (with placebo), randomized trials. As mentioned before, previous “research” did not meet these criteria and some were outright fraudulent (made up or cherry picked data). Some of these papers have been retracted but still show up in recent pro-ivermectin articles. Even trying to statistically combine the flawed research showed ivermectin was not as good as hoped for. Could this recent study also be flawed? Possibly but not likely given the care that went into it. I understand that a few more studies are still underway but at some point it will not be worth the time or expense to continue trying to prove that ivermectin works against covid.

        2) In answer to your question, There probably isn’t any medical hazards of treating Covid with ivermectin at proper dosages. There also isn’t any hazards of treating Covid with aspirin, vitamins A, C, D, or K, Zyrtec, sugar pills, or Pringles potato chips (all at proper dosages) other than it won’t help. I should note however that medical science has found that the placebo effect is real and may have some positive effect. This is why a good research study will compare any proposed treatment against a placebo (with the doctors AND patients unaware of which is which (e.g. double blind)) to remove this bias in the study.

        3) I have no issue with off-label drug use. I would expect that doctors would know enough of the drug’s side effects to be able to use it well in other cases. (see https://www.goodrx.com/mirtazapine/what-is for the sleep inducing side effect of your drug). However, off-label use of drugs should not be willy-nilly and have some basis in fact. The only positive study for ivermectin i’ve seen is an article you mentioned that showed it had some anti-viral properties (a long way from being useful against any viral disease such as covid, measles, influenza, etc.) which would require additional study (and which the recent NEJM article mentioned refutes for early treatment of covid).

        3) I would argue that there is slobbering fury on both sides of the ivermectin “issue”. This is a topic I would like to see addressed. Could it be a symptom of tribalism which you have discussed in the past? Certainly a distrust of others plays into this. In any case, I hope that reason and kindness will win out in the end.

      2. Mapleton Reader says:

        I should apologize for the cheap shot to The Epoch Times in my previous post.

        However, it will be interesting, and an indication of their editorial honesty in how this news is treated (or not).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.