> If you want a meta-analysis that concludes ivermectin is worthless, based upon a different weighting of the same studies, here you go: There's a critique of

> If you want a meta-analysis that concludes ivermectin is worthless, based upon a different weighting of the same studies, here you go: There's a critique of the above meta-analysis here, I wouldn't be surprised if it would be retracted: https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/od6he6/another_critique_of_the_shoddy_roman_et_al/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/od6he6/another_... That meta-analysis also includes the flawed López-Medina RCT: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27564574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27564574 > There are now two large-scale studies being conducted by real research groups. Happy to bet money that ivermectin will have no real impact on case mortality. It's highly likely that the Oxford PRINCIPLE trial will fail, because it's designed to fail. * Recruiting people up to 14 days after symptoms, when highest viral load is 2-3 days afterwards, and Ivermectin is most effective when treated on first symptoms. * No exclusion of vaccinated and those who already had the disease beforehand. * Treatment only for 3 days. * Lower than ideal dosage. Just because it's a large RCT, doesn't automatically make it a high quality study. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t4aotN326r4mPB9LDs46HI0e4GIlG9Vx/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t4aotN326r4mPB9LDs46HI0e4GI...