Those aren’t science. But nice try.
The literature has none of these conclusions.
A blog, free Republic, some obscure site.
I could make up numbers and put anything out there.
The reason science involves published and peer reviewed studies is because they gain or lose credibility.
In fact the study published that showed ivermectin in a favorable light was discredited and removed.
Peer review matters.
A long, long time ago, in a land that time forgot, a man spoke up. He boldly said that the earth was round and circled around the sun.
He was peer reviewed and found wanting, for everyone knew the earth was flat and the sun circled around the earth. What was this blasphemy? The science is settled, so they all said, and the Council of High Peerage concurred.
His blog was discredited and removed. Peer review matters.
(see what I did there?)
Stop saying stupid things.
Of the links I posted, these are peer reviewed studies.
**The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011
**Attenuation of clinical and immunological outcomes during SARS-CoV-2 infection by ivermectin
EMBO Mol Med (2021)13:e14122https://doi.org/10.15252/emmm.202114122
**Elucidation of the inhibitory activity of ivermectin with host nuclear importin α and several SARS-CoV-2 targets
https://doi.org/10.1080/07391102.2021.1911857
**Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 63 studies
https://ivmmeta.com
This link has a database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 113 studies, 73 peer reviewed, 63 with results comparing treatment and control groups.
**The broad spectrum host-directed agent ivermectin as an antiviral for SARS-CoV-2 ?
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.10.042
Credibility has no place in science.
Since you like to brag about your meagre intellect when discussing issues far beyond your capabilities, I present the counterargument from a scientist who
went to M.I.T.
got a PhD from M.I.T.
in a HARD STEM field
and FINISHED the PhD at age 21.
...who also got a Nobel Prize in Physics.
The data is what matters, not the "credibility".
Credibility gives us Ignatz Semmelweis, who was an earlier MD who pushed for cleanliness during surgery, who was literally driven out of the medical field and driven insane, dying broke.
Because "credibility".
Credibility gave us the editorial in The Lancet, 'dBOOOOOONKing' the lab-"theory" of the Chy-na virus origin, literally solicited and orchestrated, by a guy instrumental in FUNDING the Wuhan labs where the gain-of-function work was done.
In fact the study published that showed ivermectin in a favorable light was discredited and removed.
Peer review matters.
You're behind the times, Einstain.
You literally have no idea what the living HELL you're talking about.
Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 63 studies Covid Analysis, Aug 26, 2021, Version 112 — updated Morgenstern (V1 Nov 26, 2020)
(See how it's been constantly updated? They removed the "deBOOOOOOONKers' favorite strawman study from the analysis over a month ago. Moron.)
Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 72% [55‑82%] and 86% [75‑92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials.
•Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 27 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 63 studies is estimated to be 1 in 1 trillion.
Or, here's another source, which ought to make your lips quiver and your eyelids flutter at the mere mention of the name.
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY.
DIRECT COMPARISON OF DEATH RATES USING THE JABS VS. IVERMECTIN.
I'd say your credibility just took about a dozen torpedos beneath the waterline.
Want a chocolate? (Operant conditioning)
ScienceDirect.com