Ivermectin

balanced discussion

I have been shocked by the vitriol on both pro and anti ivermectin groups 

Some is due to 

mistakes, and some by deliberate misrepresentation

Two deaths were not caused by ivermectin, a long-used generic drug that was emerging as a covid treatment. Instead, he said that the pair died because they “actually just delayed their care with covid.” 

Scott Alexander  reviews all the studies.  

• Ivermectin doesn’t reduce mortality in COVID a significant amount (let’s say d > 0.3) in the absence of comorbid parasites: 85-90% confidence

• Parasitic worms are a significant confounder in some ivermectin studies, such that they made them get a positive result even when honest and methodologically sound: 50% confidence

But as much as we love Scott, he might have some errors…. See this

response to Scott Alexander

Redoing the meta study 

I am a proponent of is epistemic honesty and balanced evaluation of evidence on all sides, and what I do know is that the structure of the arguments made against ivermectin look highly suspect. I’ve gone in depth on most if not all of them and they are a cornucopia of bad facts and bad logic. Scott’s article is the best of the genre, as it is not obviously riddled with both, if at the cost of complexity of explanation. It must be said that Scott’s article also stands out for its good faith and civility of engagement, which makes it easier to respond to.