Replies

Wish I had a PC or laptop to post such like I did in the past.

One NIH report was of US studies and trials of Ivermectin vs COVID-19.

The report never said the NIH sponsored or paid for such nor would I expect it to.

I only read found reports that were from the NIH using the search method I gave.

I think the study I looked at was the one you referenced. I still had it open in a tab. This is from the Main Findings:

Meta-analysis of 15 trials, assessing 2438 participants, found that ivermectin reduced the risk of death by an average of 62% (95% CI 27%–81%) compared with no ivermectin treatment [average RR (aRR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.73; I2 = 49%]; risk of death 2.3% versus 7.8% among hospitalized patients in this analysis, respectively

If I recall correctly though, despite this conclusion, many sources poopooed this meta analysis (or ones like it). There was a study, perhaps not published by NIH, that included an Egyptian study and the Egyptian study apparently skewed the results leading some to conclude the Egyptian study was poorly conducted or tabulated. So the authors went back and censored the Egyptian study data and re-published it. It still showed Ivermectin favorably.

To be clear I am not saying Ivermectin didn't work. My personal leanings are that it probably does work quite well and a protocol involving IVM/HCQ and Zinc and Vit C and an Antiobiotic (to prevent secondary infections since antibiotics don't kill viruses) would have and should have been given a green light especially in the year before any vaccine was available. But nearly the whole of the establishment was aligned against it - and especially so once the vaccines were available. But many doctors who did use it said it worked with great success.

Yet again, there is so much to debate about all of this - how many people were infected but never reported, how many deaths were attributed to Covid but perhaps not even Covid related etc etc that all the data is, in my view, junk. The official stats show about a 1.1% mortality rate but I think that is an untrustworthy figure since it doesn't count infections that went unrecorded and does count deaths which may be unrelated. Which is again the real shame of it all. We could have learned a lot and instead politics trumped science. And not just with Covid but Covid was a doozy.