FLCCC is stuck on data nine months ago that is now shown to be incorrect. It should concentrate on what really is important in treatements. There are another half a milllion in India today who will tell you the widespread ivermectin distribution has nkt ended the pandemic
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. First, I’m not trying to advocate for or against this: and your own experience is vastly greater than my own. But, that said, there just seems to be too much smoke around this to say that there’s no fire.
Your point about India does not appear to be supported by the information generally available. Distribution has been spotty , and regional, and data collection is a trainwreck.
Your second point is much more salient, imho. This piece in the popular press simply reiterates Kory and Marik’s paper that claims to have found strong statistical evidence for efficacy based on their own meta-analysis. Tess Lawrie made similar claims based on her own independent work. They could be wrong, and I suppose that they could both be liars, but that seems a bit of a stretch.
I know that you’re busy, but you’ve repeatedly posted here that “this stuff doesn’t work”, and repeat that FLCCC is “stuck on data from nine months ago that is now shown to be incorrect”. Where was it shown to be incorrect, and by whom? And more specifically, are these meta-analyses simply garbage? That’s a strong claim, can it be supported?