2 ms·
Anything that falls in line with mainstream narrative gets boosted. If you follow the links of doctors who're seeing first hand difference between Ivermectin u
by loceng 5y ago
Anything that falls in line with mainstream narrative gets boosted.
If you follow the links of doctors who're seeing first hand difference between Ivermectin use and not, including to meta-analysis and more recent A/B testing of Ivermectin, the conclusion is opposite to these articles cherrypicking which studies to include.
E.g.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/AndrewHill7-6-21paper.pdf https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/A...
- gizmo686 5y agoThis article isn't saying it doesn't work. It is saying we do not yet have enough evidence to use it outside of a trial setting. The medical field requires a high bar of evidence before allowing a treatment for general use. This is what they mean by "first, do no harm". From your linked article: > Several other repurposed medications have shown promise in early smaller trials for example sofosbuvir/daclatasvir, colchicine and remdesivir but the benefit was not seen later in larger trials. This meta-analysis of 24 RCTs in 3328 patients showed a 56% improvement in survival, faster time to clinical recovery and signs of a dose-dependent effect of viral clearance for patients given ivermectin versus control treatment. This benefit needs to be validated in larger confirmatory trials.