3 ms·

I think we have to be very careful with data from around the world. There are a lot of co-factors. We already know that generally being immuno-compromised makes

I think we have to be very careful with data from around the world. There are a lot of co-factors. We already know that generally being immuno-compromised makes covid a much riskier proposition for those groups. In a recent deep dive into the Ivermectin studies done around the world, it was shown and proven that in Bangladesh that Ivermectin reduced covid mortality. However, when digging deeper, Bangladesh has a 80%+ infection rate of worms with most people having 7-23. So taking Ivermectin helped save patients from covid mortality but only in the sense that it made them less immuno-compromised. The US population (e.g.) doesn't have worm infections like that. Any data from a specific geographic area/country/race/etc. may only have validity within that same group.

gfodor 5y ago
The worm hypothesis is a hypothesis, and a good one. But it is a hypothesis. assuming good sounding hypotheses are true and running with it have been the root of a lot of problems in this pandemic.
- XorNot 5y ago
  I mean the other side of that punchline though is that Ivermectin is completely ineffective in clinical trials at reducing severity or mortality from COVID-19. The worm hypothesis is practically a curiosity to solve later.
  - gfodor 5y ago
    No, the reason the worm hypothesis is good is because it would explain the clinical trials where it appears to be effective. (If there were no such trials, as you claim, the entire discussion about worms would be moot.)