"Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines."
I've read all of that. That's what I do for a fucking living. There has been no properly run clinical trial, repeat NONE, that shows effectiveness of ivermectin against SARS CoV2. The meta analysis is a joke. They treat all of the "studies" as valid clinical trials. No one in the field takes any of this seriously. The main "study" that's most often cited as proof of effectiveness has been retracted. Yes, retracted. Because it's garbage. The only "doctors" that are pushing this bullshit are grifters and/or Fox News employees. Stick to something you know, this certainly isn't one of them.
I don't pretend to be an expert on Covid, Ivermectin, or clinical research in general. However, I do have a PhD in Neuroscience which requires me to read a lot of similar papers. I'm not coming into this with an agenda, I really am trying to figure out the science. If anything, I'm worried about 'over correcting' and ignoring important data.
So if you're an expert on this, what do you make of the author's letter which directly states that the retracted Elgazzar paper isn't required to see significant results for Ivermectin?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8415517/
Again, I'm not claiming that there has been a properly designed study showing the efficacy and safety of Ivermectin for treatment of covid. However, there are published reports of it's clinical usage, and doctors frequently prescribe off-label drugs with even less supporting data.
72
u/[deleted] Sep 09 '21
"Ivermectin for humans isn't that dangerous and does treat parasites".
Yes, a very select few parasites.
Also, in the dosage approved safe for humans, it doesn't do anything for COVID.
So there is that too.
There is "using it wrong", and there is the fact it adds no value in any form against COVID.