Replies

“Because the Elgazzar study is so large, and so massively positive – showing a 90% reduction in mortality – it hugely skews the evidence in favour of ivermectin,” Meyerowitz-Katz said.

Seems like he's not very accurate in that, looking at https://ivmmeta.com/ as supplied by @FreedomPoster.

Note that his site already REMOVED Elgazzar from the meta-analysis.

Nice attempt at a hit job. Fail.

•Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 74% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.26 [0.16-0.43] and 0.15 [0.08-0.25]), with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis, restriction to peer-reviewed studies, and restriction to Randomized Controlled Trials. •64% and 96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.36 [0.15-0.85] and 0.04 [0.00-0.59]). Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.

Studies Prophylaxis Early treatment Late treatment Patients Authors
All studies 60 85% [75‑92%] 74% [57‑84%] 43% [26‑56%] 21,849 573
With exclusions 50 88% [75‑94%] 76% [66‑83%] 49% [28‑64%] 17,448 512
Peer-reviewed 38 88% [70‑95%] 75% [59‑84%] 42% [19‑58%] 11,464 401
Randomized Controlled Trials 30 84% [25‑96%] 67% [54‑76%] 29% [3‑48%] 5,217 357
Mortality results 23 96% [41‑100%] 64% [15‑85%] 58% [34‑73%] 10,808 235

Percentage improvement with ivermectin treatment
•The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 60 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 193 billion (p = 0.0000000000052).