3 ms·

In that analysis, he appears to remove multiple papers (2?) not just the single paper. The problem with all research at the moment is it's moving so fast and i

In that analysis, he appears to remove multiple papers (2?) not just the single paper. The problem with all research at the moment is it's moving so fast and it's not peer reviewed. Luckily, Ivermectin carries very little risks, is well studied and has minimal drug interactions (and is cheap @ ~$1 per pill). https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1122/ivermectin-oral/details/list-sideeffects https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1122/ivermectin-oral/deta... For anyone interested, there's a database of papers and results: https://c19early.com/ https://c19early.com/ I recommend actually diving into the papers, many are not very good, but that's the nature of the research all around (drugs, vaccine, covid19, etc) at the moment.

MilnerRoute 5y ago
There's another analysis (and a better explanation) on this blog - including a section which looks solely at what happens "If you remove the Elgazzar paper from their model..." https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin-for-covid-19-based-on-fraudulent-research-5cc079278602 https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin-for-covid-19-based-on... "There’s no benefit seen whatsoever for people who have severe COVID-19, and the confidence intervals for people with mild and moderate disease become extremely wide." Later there's another section in the blog post - but it's not that he removes a second paper. Since it's supposed to be a meta-analysis of all the available studies, "If you include another study that was published after the Bryant meta-analysis came out, which found no benefit for ivermectin on death, the benefits seen in the model entirely disappear."