[lambdaba]

I don't know, I just see a pattern here, I know as much as every other person that anecdote != data, and correlation != causation, but... I don't know, I don't think these studies are worthless either

I found the other study I wanted to reference: https://media.marinomed.com/8b/7a/c7/nota-journal-of-biomedi...

> No patients of the 788 treated with IVERCAR tested positive for CoVid 19 during the study.

Again, I don't know, but it smells like SOMETHING

What I "believe" about this is prophylaxis, I think this is why there are no results once symptoms are really apparent. This might be why the point about Ivermectin being antiviral only at very high doses doesn't hold, maybe it provides protection when there is only a tiny exposure to the virus. Heck, there's even a result circulating that cannabis was protective... Who knows?

[gus_massa]

Nice study, I don't find any mayor fail. (Some articles are very bad.)

As they say, it's not a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

I like more the pilot study because they try to match the age and pupation of the both groups. The problem is that they perhaps involuntary cherry picked the sublets in the experimental group. For example if there are 50 nurses and they want to recruit some of them, they may go first with with the ones that fill all the paperwork so they don't mess with the data for the study, or they skip the one that is drunk every other Monday or the one that is 15 minutes late everyday. Do these involuntary selection affect the result? Perhaps. Did they do this involuntary selection? Perhaps??? How can it be solved...

Make a double-blind randomized controlled trial. They can involuntary cherry pick and this is fixed by the randomization.

Also double-blind, because if you are the subject of the study, you don't want to "fail" and you are more careful. Or not. But just in case double-blind.

In the first study it's not clear how they got the control group. Perhspa go to HR, ask for the complete list, and then choose some randomly.

The second one is more weird, because

> A total of 1,195 health care workers were recruited from 4 major hospitals ... 788 participants received IVERCAR and PPEs, while the remaining 407 simply adhered to standard PPEs.

It's very unclear how they split them.

Another weird details is that

> Received date: November 09, 2020; Accepted date: November 16, 2020;

It's a very short review period. Perhaps it's common in the area, but in many areas the reviewers take like a month or more. I'm not sure if it's a good or bad journal. It's very difficult to know that if you are not in the area.

[ncmncm]

We have pretty good reasons to believe that CBD, in the absence of THC, is protective for people who have contracted COVID: it keeps them out of ICU.

Unfortunately almost all retail products that claim to have CBD don't. CBD from the pharmacy, which does, costs more than people usually want to pay.

[lambdaba]

Are you sure about that? I've bought CBD isolate several times from (decently vetted) online vendors... pretty sure it was pure CBD

Still, pretty amazing CBD would "block" entry of the virus in cells, or something like that (I only read the headlines, not pretending to understand)... But maybe this is somehow how Ivermectin can have antiviral properties at normal doses too. I suppose CBD once the infection sets in is less effective (though surely harmless).

[ncmncm]

How did you verify it was pure CBD? Do you have equipment that would enable such verification? Seeming to have the effect you expect from CBD is not reliable.

CBD's effect on COVID-19 is to suppress the over-reaction of the immune system causing congestion and breathing problems. It does not interfere with the viral life cycle. So, it is useless to prevent COVID-19 infection.

In vitro analysis suggested that, in principle, ivermectin ought to help block COVID-19 virus in several ways. That generated interest to see if it would help.

The more reliable each study has been, the less effect it has shown. Something working great in test tubes (and even in mice) and failing when prescribed to actual people is totally unsurprising to anybody who works in medical research. Something promising that actually turns out to work clinically is always astonishing.

So, discounting promotion by people do lack long experience interpreting medical research results is not corrupt SUPPRESSION OF THE TRUTH. It is simple honest reporting, is doing you a favor, and you should welcome it.

[lambdaba]

I vaped it. It all evaporated every time. And I've tried multiple vendors, I know how the powder looks like, are you suggesting there's a cutting agent or what? Why would a reputable company do that? It's not a very reasonable position. I'm sure there are fakes out there, but not very many, I would estimate.

[ncmncm]

You estimate wrong, then.

Typical preparations, most especially those sold for vaping, turn out on examination to have ~2% of the amount of CBD advertised, where they have any. I.e., they have just enough that a crude test of presence shows something present.

[dekhn]

Actually, here's what I see on a typical vaping prep, for THC but not CBD: TOT THC: 80.94%. Tot THC: 809.42mg. Tot CBD: 0.00mg. The CBD ones typically have between 65% and 99% CBD. Each container has a traceability mark and these things are tested in-house with calibrated equipment.

That said, I buy from a premium dispensary and I have no idea what's vended in smoke shops.

[lambdaba]

I buy pure cbd isolate, powdered cbd. Not a preparation and not sold for vaping. When you've tasted pure cbd you know how to recognize it.