I came across this tweet from a blue check CNN anchor:

I was so sad to hear that Ivermectin is not effective, so I decided to give the study a closer look.

The study had a 241 person study group who received 0.4 mg/kg Ivermectin for 5 days, which is the FLCCC recommended dose. It also had a 249 person control group that received the standard of care (no ivermectin).

The patients were at-risk people with comorbidities, most likely to get sick or die.

Design, Setting, and Participants 

The Ivermectin Treatment Efficacy in COVID-19 High-Risk Patients (I-TECH) study was an open-label randomized clinical trial conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and October 25, 2021. Within the first week of patients’ symptom onset, the study enrolled patients 50 years and older with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, comorbidities, and mild to moderate disease.

Interventions

Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral ivermectin, 0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days, plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). The standard of care consisted of symptomatic therapy and monitoring for signs of early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging.

To my utter shock, the study actually showed that Ivermectin DID work:

So, the study showed that, for Ivermectin vs control group:

– 4 vs 10 were placed on mechanical ventilation

– 3 vs 10 died (so 3 Ivermectin patients died, vs 10 without Ivermectin).

For those versed in statistics, the “statistical significance” of these differences (P) was 0.19 and 0.09. It does not get under the standard of P <= 0.05, so the difference can be called “not statistically significant”. But it IS significant to us, and the P values are high because the study was underpowered.

Clearly, Ivermectin showed a positive effect, 3 vs 10 deaths is a huge benefit. The study likely saved about 7 lives by giving Ivermectin to 241 people.

So I posted a tweet explaining the numbers from the article, and you know what happened? Take a look and sorry for my Hunter Biden-level art skills:

Seriously, for a fatality rate of 1-3% it is NOT enough to have such a small 200-person study and control group. Still, I am thankful to the researchers who conducted the study and for saving approximately 7 people from dying by giving them Ivermectin.

An astute reader commented and his thinking about the P-value is the clearest explanation I have ever seen:

If I understand correctly, “P= .09” means there is a 91% chance that the effect was not by chance. And if there’s a 91% probability that by taking a harmless drug for a few days I can reduce my chance of death by 70%, then how stupid would I be to refuse? The P=.05 cutoff is arbitrary and doesn’t take into account risk vs. benefit, right?

Please consider supporting by sharing or making a donation.
  • Bitcoin
  • Ethereum
Scan to Donate Bitcoin to 1JAgTmd16gMZyjajzm1rBxTnjkX4Re41m4

Donate Bitcoin to this address

Scan the QR code or copy the address below into your wallet to send some Bitcoin

Tag/Note:- Bannednews.co (BTC) Donation
Scan to Donate Ethereum to 0xc4d3b89d99b337fb7dfcc1a06ca9a61154d15309

Donate Ethereum to this address

Scan the QR code or copy the address below into your wallet to send some Ethereum

Tag/Note:- Bannednews.co (ETH) Donation

By Daemon

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.