re: There's a recent new study on the use of Ivermectin for Covid

They are giving it in my small town In Arkansas and it’s kicking Covids arse.

quote:

---

I agree that with the 72% but the higher percentages when taken as a Prophylaxis is the real statistic to me. That proves that it does what many have been saying which is this...

---

Is there any other practical benefits to taking Ivermectin daily, as you would a vitamin?

I wonder what the outcomes are for people that take V-D, V-C, and Zinc daily are?

quote:

---

don’t have a control group

---

Someone hasn't actually read the studies.

It helps to cure this

There's conflicting information I suppose but most of what I have read is a weekly dose works as a preventative.

No real issues with people taking this as a preventative if they want other than you’d be ignoring things we have good data on, but once you get sick, kinda dumb to ignore things we know work in favor of ivermectin to “own the libs”

quote:

---

Almost all of those studies don’t have a control group

---

Well that’s just a flat out, unequivocal, bold faced lie...

quote:

---

Ahmed], 12/2/2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled

---

quote:

---

[Aref], 6/15/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial

---

quote:

---

[Babalola], 1/6/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

---

quote:

---

[Biber], 2/12/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled

---

quote:

---

[Bukhari], 1/16/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial

---

quote:

---

[Chaccour], 12/7/2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

---

quote:

---

[Chahla], 3/30/2021, Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

---

quote:

---

Chowdhury], 7/14/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial

---

That’s just the As through Cs of the studies included in the early treatment portion of the meta analysis (which is the first section), because I’m not taking the time to copy and paste all 67 sources. You can (and should have before commenting on them) look them up yourself.

Of those first three letters, 8 of the studies are randomized controlled while only 3 of the studies are not. Only in the prophylaxis section are there more retrospective/prospective studies than randomized controlled ones. And even still, while randomized controlled studies are obviously preferred, we have enough experience with retrospective and prospective studies to know how to responsibly interpret the results, including accounting for the very elementary critique you are making. They aren’t the gold standard of research, but they aren’t fruity pebble garbage either.


I will never understand why this pandemic has made people speak so confidently about something which they do clearly have so little insight. Checking the sources before making your nonsensical claim would have been exceedingly easy. I can’t fathom why someone would make the claim you did without ever bothering to even check if it were true. Typing your response surely required more time and effort than just checking the sources yourself would have. Be a better critic.

quote:

---

Ingeniero

---

You know this was a decent discussion everyone from all sides was having and you come in thinking your stereotypes are funny, making a point, and making others look stupid. I think you don't understand they do none of the above and only serve to make you look like the uneducated one not willing to open your mind up.

Eh, that’s a pretty significant mis-characterization of the Sweden example.

If anything, I think Sweden shows us that this isn’t necessarily a devastating disease IF you are a fit, healthy population. But for whatever reason, telling people that they should exercise and lose weight is viewed as bigoted in our wackadoo version of modernity. And unfortunately, it’s leading to more deaths.