[marricks]

I saw a post on NIH studies showing possible benefits and people dismissing it because it wasn't a preponderance of evidence. Totally valid to dismiss a selected sample but made me realize there was more of a basis for its usage than, let's say, bleach.

That said, I was wrong, removed. I guess it's too much to ask for people to trust the recommended medicine, perhaps we should get more pro-vaccine conspiracy theories out there =/

[nradov]

This study was in vivo, not in vitro.

[skyde]

did you read the study? They explicitly say :"We cannot conclude in this study that Ivermectin has a place in prophylaxis, but this warrants investigation."

This does not seem to match the HackerNews title very well ;)

[nradov]

Yes I read the study. It involved in vivo use of ivermectin in human subjects. The study authors acknowledged that further research is needed. What's the problem?

[skyde]

I will save everybody the time to read it! See result below:

Days to negative in the three trial arms: Ivermictine: avg= 6.0 95% CI= (4.61–7.38) Control: avg= 9.15 95% CI= (5.68–12.62)

there was only 20 patient in the control group this would give a margin of error of 21.91% for that 95% confidence interval.

Most statisticians agree that the minimum sample size to get any kind of meaningful result in this case would be ~385