Originally Posted by
Arthur Vandelay
If you read the study you would know that patients did not self diagnosed with COVID. They were either diagnosed by doctors clinically when PCR was unavailable, or by PCR or Igm. Any patient diagnosed clinically by a doctor was only diagnosed if there was high probability based on clinical data. All patients received by the ER had either PCR or Igm test.
That said, I agree this study is less than ideal. I’ve already mention that. Many of these studies are done in parts of the world where hospitals are overwhelmed, access to testing and supplies are limited. As I mentioned before there will never be a large scale, double blind, placebo controlled study done on ivermectin.
There are 116 study’s listed. The circumstantial evidence along with IVM’s well known safety profile alone should be enough to authorize its use.
There clearly is no convincing you if you have to do mental gymnastics to find any way you possibly can to reject evidence IVM is safe and effective.
science does not use circumstantial evidence. Let me ask you this, a lot of people here are against taking the vaccine because it hasn’t been studied for a long enough time to know if any long term side effects. But, ivermectin has not been studied in people with covid for any long term side effects either. Ever see drug commercials where they tell you not to take something if you have this disease or that affliction? Maybe that’s because the drug interacts with what affliction one might have in a negative way.
it’s not really mental gymnastics to reject poorly done studies that haven’t been peer reviewed and published.