I read the study and the NIH review. The study has some flaws (the RCT design they use is relatively new), as all do (and with major ones in the mRNA drug trials), but none of them are fatal. There is more than enough data to show that this drug is effective at reducing hospitalization or involvement of the health system. The NIH revie…
I read the study and the NIH review. The study has some flaws (the RCT design they use is relatively new), as all do (and with major ones in the mRNA drug trials), but none of them are fatal. There is more than enough data to show that this drug is effective at reducing hospitalization or involvement of the health system. The NIH review is a bit too cute and they completely miss the point as they don't look at the total picture or counterfactuals. Up til now the Covid strategy once you have been diagnosed was: go home and when you get really sick we will do our best. That is medical nonsense. Sure, you can take the mRNA drug to prevent an infection (which we know does not work) and maybe to reduce hospitalization, but the absolute risk reduction is trivial - the baseline risk of hospitalization was only 1/1000. And first you have to get the virus. So the risk of me getting the virus AND then ending up in hospital is perishingly low. As such, the benefit to the individual is trivial and most people derive no benefit. As with most such studies with low event rates there is an 'illusion of benefit' as 999/1000 who received the drug were not going to be hospitalized anyway. To the vast majority this makes it appear that the drug works and starts this belief contagion. It is ingenious for the drug company especially when they have immunity from liability and there is no truly systematic way to capture adverse events. VAERs will be an under-reporting of these. That is not to say that the mRNA technology is not awesome - as it is, but like the vast majority of things tried in medicine it does not work or certainly does not live up to the original hype.
At my age of 65 these risks do not worry me at all. If it did, I would likely be on 50 medications to reduce all sorts of trivial risks. Fluvoxamine, over the newer (and $) drugs has the advantage of being targeted to those with the disease and reducing the same endpoint as the mRNA drugs. The mRNA drugs do not reduce transmission of the virus or why in Canada would we have record number of cases. The original RCTs did not show a reduction in mortality (the signal was in the proper direction in the Fluvoxamine trials and meta-analysis) and with far higher number of deaths this year than last, my prior probability that these mRNA drugs reduce mortality is now zero; this means you have to have overwhelming proof to increase that to a degree that would be meaningful. Fluxoxamine, like ivermectin, is inexpensive and has been around a long time so the side-effects and adverse events are predictable, especially as it is only given for a short-term.
The biggest casualty of Covid = expertise, the field of medicine and 'the science'. The emperor has no clothes.
I read the study and the NIH review. The study has some flaws (the RCT design they use is relatively new), as all do (and with major ones in the mRNA drug trials), but none of them are fatal. There is more than enough data to show that this drug is effective at reducing hospitalization or involvement of the health system. The NIH review is a bit too cute and they completely miss the point as they don't look at the total picture or counterfactuals. Up til now the Covid strategy once you have been diagnosed was: go home and when you get really sick we will do our best. That is medical nonsense. Sure, you can take the mRNA drug to prevent an infection (which we know does not work) and maybe to reduce hospitalization, but the absolute risk reduction is trivial - the baseline risk of hospitalization was only 1/1000. And first you have to get the virus. So the risk of me getting the virus AND then ending up in hospital is perishingly low. As such, the benefit to the individual is trivial and most people derive no benefit. As with most such studies with low event rates there is an 'illusion of benefit' as 999/1000 who received the drug were not going to be hospitalized anyway. To the vast majority this makes it appear that the drug works and starts this belief contagion. It is ingenious for the drug company especially when they have immunity from liability and there is no truly systematic way to capture adverse events. VAERs will be an under-reporting of these. That is not to say that the mRNA technology is not awesome - as it is, but like the vast majority of things tried in medicine it does not work or certainly does not live up to the original hype.
At my age of 65 these risks do not worry me at all. If it did, I would likely be on 50 medications to reduce all sorts of trivial risks. Fluvoxamine, over the newer (and $) drugs has the advantage of being targeted to those with the disease and reducing the same endpoint as the mRNA drugs. The mRNA drugs do not reduce transmission of the virus or why in Canada would we have record number of cases. The original RCTs did not show a reduction in mortality (the signal was in the proper direction in the Fluvoxamine trials and meta-analysis) and with far higher number of deaths this year than last, my prior probability that these mRNA drugs reduce mortality is now zero; this means you have to have overwhelming proof to increase that to a degree that would be meaningful. Fluxoxamine, like ivermectin, is inexpensive and has been around a long time so the side-effects and adverse events are predictable, especially as it is only given for a short-term.
The biggest casualty of Covid = expertise, the field of medicine and 'the science'. The emperor has no clothes.
Really well said!