First of all Jane has asked that I not respond to her. So please stop pinging her to the posts.
Secondly, I am sorry you cannot understand simple scientific papers. The Jama article open labeled randomized precisely states it’s findings. Now you can twist it and look for penumbras and shadows all you want. But the data are the data. This article and numerous others do not support that ivermectin does much for Covid.
However, in the past week with cases dwindling, I was able to help to relatively early cases with monoclonals. Patents were better the next day. So you are feee to continue to follow this clown who posts on a discredited blog and has very little insight like her is your pied piper. You are free to believe wherever you want.
But it is plain you chose to not understand what is written and have little insight into the disease. The reason why I don’t respond much to you is because you never really add anything to the conversation. But I responded here because I wanted to point out the length that some around here stretch the math beyond its limits to show something that plainly does not exist.
Happily the pandemic is over and there is little use in this ongoing debate.
The fact is ivermectin is weakly effective, if at all. There is no consensus among the studies. You can cherry pick and twist data into pretzels all you want, but the totality of the overall data show a very low level beneficial effect if there is benefit at all
On the other hand there is no question monoclonals are superior treatment on every way to other current of label medication uses.
Have a good night.
Get ready to be spanked.
Your heels are dug in deep.
We agree on many things, however you are very blind to what Ivermectin could have accomplished early on.
If education and intelligence were the same thing. There would not be two separate words in the dictionary.