3 ms·

No, that has nowhere near the same efficacy.

• loceng 5y ago
  C19ivermectin.com - which includes well done and poorly done studies - lists 86% reduction with prophylaxis treatment. You'll believe and weight a single study done by the company looking to make billions via a new patented drug over many third-party studies of a cheap off-patent drug though, won't you?
  • acdha 5y ago
    No, that site is anonymous for a reason: the information presented hasn’t passed scientific review and relies on various methodological and analytic errors to show positive effects. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678 https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111...
    • loceng 5y ago
      Do you think mentioning the site being anonymous gives any strength to your argument? Have your links been peer reviewed by competent individuals who aren't toeing the line? I wonder if https://mobile.twitter.com/alexandrosM https://mobile.twitter.com/alexandrosM has analyzed your links yet, I'll ask him. He's been debunking "long form"/poorly done "deep analysis" for awhile now - including people trying to show flaws in Ivermectin studies but where their methods are selective and showing bias; and then arrogant people like you jump in claiming they 100% know the truth.