5 ms·
> Among ivermectin users, 33,971 (29.8% of users) used irregularly (up to 60mg) and 8,325 (7.3%) used regularly (more than 180mg). The remaining 71,548 particip
by sbelskie 4y ago
> Among ivermectin users, 33,971 (29.8% of users) used irregularly (up to 60mg) and 8,325 (7.3%) used regularly (more than 180mg). The remaining 71,548 participants (62.9%) used intermediate dioses (between 60mg and 180mg) and were not included for analysis.
Anyone see a good reason why the excluded the majority of the people who actually used ivermectin from the study? Excluding a big chunk like that from middle of the dose range seems suspicious unless I’m missing something.
- fzeroracer 4y agoA lot of the numbers in the paper seem absurd. For example, they claim > Risk of dying from COVID-19 was 86% lower among regular users than non-users (RR, 0.14; 95%CI, 0.03–0.57; p=0.006), and 72% lower than irregular users (RR, 0.28; 95%CI, 0.07–1.18; p=0.083), while irregular users had a 51% reduction compared to non-users (RR, 0.49; 95%CI, 0.32–0.76; p=0.001). Conclusion: Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin in a PSM comparison of a strictly controlled population. Which seems to be insanely high. These are the kind of numbers that should be easily replicable by any of the previous studies or research efforts that went into Ivermectin. Nothing here seems to pass the smell test. And given the amount of Ivermectin studies that have used poor quality evidence or outright made stuff up this needs far more rigor before I'm willing to accept it.