3 ms·
https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/epidemiologic-analyses-on-covid19-and-ivermectin/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/
by robbedpeter 5y ago
https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/epidemiologic-analyses-on-covid19-and-ivermectin/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/epide...
The evidence is unambiguously clear. The "but there's no double blind randomly selected placebo controlled trial" line is becoming tiresome. There is sufficient data for prophylactic efficacy to justify widespread preventive dosing. There is sufficient data to justify use in treatment at all stages after infection. There is 4 decades worth of data on widespread use with billions of human doses to demonstrate its safety, with both accute and chronic use, saving countless lives.
The mental contortions and ethical gymnastics people are displaying in opposition to ivermectin even being discussed is pretty impressive.
There's a lot of heat and not much light from the folks hurling the conspiracy theory epithets. Disregard the arguments and noise and acquire the data for yourselves - tens of millions have already been treated, and hundreds of thousands of lives saved by countries that have deployed ivermectin. It appears to be as effective on novel variants and seems to be as good or better than vaccinations in preventing infection. Figure out the he said she said nonsense later.
- wonnage 5y agoI don't know how you call this evidence, it's a bunch of un-sourced charts (the "sources" link to random data dumps on government websites and there's no indication of how the "analyst" constructed charts from them)
- robbedpeter 5y agohttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3765018 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3765018 He's not some internet rando. He's an academic, a PhD out of university EAFIT in Colombia. It looks like he's currently working as a data analyst doing postdoc work at Cambridge? Anyway, if you make the hop to his papers and preprints, they look proper and describe the methodology. The paper is linked above is by all appearances well and thoroughly sourced and annotated, and is the source for some of the charts and data on the layman friendly site. In good faith, what else would you think good measures to determine the legitimacy of the information being presented?
- robbedpeter 5y agohttps://mobile.twitter.com/jjchamie https://mobile.twitter.com/jjchamie There's his Twitter, with lots of links and references and conversations with other doctors and researchers. Even being super skeptical, it doesn't look like he's a sock puppet or a deluded nutjob.
- wonnage 5y agoHis twitter is completely unhinged trying to attribute any change in a covid cases/deaths chart somehow to starting/stopping interest in IVM. No thanks!