A bit on Ivermectin— The American Journal of Therapeutics, Meta-Analysis PDF file:
“Meta-analysis of 15 (study) trials found that Ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no Ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence)."
“Findings indicate with moderate certainty that Ivermectin treatment in COVID-19 provides a significant …
A bit on Ivermectin— The American Journal of Therapeutics, Meta-Analysis PDF file:
“Meta-analysis of 15 (study) trials found that Ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no Ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence)."
“Findings indicate with moderate certainty that Ivermectin treatment in COVID-19 provides a significant survival benefit.” “Overall, the evidence suggests that early use of Ivermectin may reduce morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.”
[Findings ignored by U.S. FDA, failure to issue EUA for Ivermectin in Covid-19 treatment.]
“World Health Organization (WHO) document on Ivermectin …found that adverse events with Ivermectin were primarily minor and transient. ...Ivermectin is NOT a new and experimental drug with an unknown safety profile. Ivermectin is a WHO listed “Essential Medicine”.
“At least 5 other (study) reviews of Ivermectin use for COVID-19 have been published, including one co-authored with Nobel Laureate Professor Satoshi Omura, discoverer of Ivermectin…”
There are at least 75 peer-reviewed studies over 30 years on the safety and efficacy profile of this drug, whereas we have only a span of months of data on current vaxxes on market.
Of note: "In Canada, similarly, a provincial review of all available studies found no basis for recommending ivermectin outside of a clinical trial. They specifically note the “critically low quality” of Dr. Tess Lawrie’s meta-analysis."
I watched Lawrie being interviewed and unfortunately cannot remember by who. When asked critical questions about ivermectin, (answers she should have at her fingertips and questions that were not particularly hardball,) her response was, "It works" That was it. "It works." That's not a particularly rigorous response and falls short of any scientific argument I am familiar with.
A bit on Ivermectin— The American Journal of Therapeutics, Meta-Analysis PDF file:
“Meta-analysis of 15 (study) trials found that Ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no Ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence)."
“Findings indicate with moderate certainty that Ivermectin treatment in COVID-19 provides a significant survival benefit.” “Overall, the evidence suggests that early use of Ivermectin may reduce morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.”
[Findings ignored by U.S. FDA, failure to issue EUA for Ivermectin in Covid-19 treatment.]
“World Health Organization (WHO) document on Ivermectin …found that adverse events with Ivermectin were primarily minor and transient. ...Ivermectin is NOT a new and experimental drug with an unknown safety profile. Ivermectin is a WHO listed “Essential Medicine”.
“At least 5 other (study) reviews of Ivermectin use for COVID-19 have been published, including one co-authored with Nobel Laureate Professor Satoshi Omura, discoverer of Ivermectin…”
There are at least 75 peer-reviewed studies over 30 years on the safety and efficacy profile of this drug, whereas we have only a span of months of data on current vaxxes on market.
Read the Quilette article Daniel cites, it casts serious doubt on the AJT meta-analysis you cite by Dr. Tess Lawrie. https://quillette.com/2021/07/06/looking-for-covid-19-miracle-drugs-we-already-have-them-theyre-called-vaccines/.
Of note: "In Canada, similarly, a provincial review of all available studies found no basis for recommending ivermectin outside of a clinical trial. They specifically note the “critically low quality” of Dr. Tess Lawrie’s meta-analysis."
I watched Lawrie being interviewed and unfortunately cannot remember by who. When asked critical questions about ivermectin, (answers she should have at her fingertips and questions that were not particularly hardball,) her response was, "It works" That was it. "It works." That's not a particularly rigorous response and falls short of any scientific argument I am familiar with.