I notice that nothing you say is actually true.
You are falsely claiming all the ivermectin studies are fraudulent.
That is spectacularly dishonest.
There are 25 studies reporting a positive effect from early treatment with ivermectin. The meta analysis concludes a typical 67% improvement in outcome.
So you lied about all 25 of these studies being fraudulent. Falsely claiming that there is no scientific support for ivermectin.
But you also lied about a 67% improvement being worse than doing nothing. The meta analysis page i linked clearly shows that this improvement is relative to doing nothing (the control group). So you claim ivermectin is 33% worse than doing nothing, but reality is it is 67% better than doing nothing.
So what are you doing by lying to people about the relevant science? Getting people killed?
You falsely talk about monoclonal antibodies as if one must choose to do ivermectin or monoclonal, but not both.
There is no reason you can’t do both.
There is no contraindication.
Never trust a Church Lady who owns cats.
Sorry, but it’s all true.
The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y
Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials - Oxford
“Conclusions
Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19.”
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839
“you also lied about a 67% improvement being worse than doing nothing”
Lied ? I said 67% is less than monoclonals. COVID 101a - average recovery/quarantine for a mildly infected patient who does nothing is 14 days. A theoretical return to 100% by day 10. so yes, 67% is nonsense. If I have a mild case, at day 10 or 11, I might even be 90% and raring to go.
” all 25 of these studies being fraudulent. “
Many were flawed and/or never happened, sorry to say. see the first link above. If researchers can’t turn over data, it’s not legitimate.
“So you claim ivermectin is 33% worse than doing nothing,”
I didn’t claim anything of the sort. I said Kory, the king of invermectin, had to admit publically that ivermectin didn’t work. Although he couched it by including the ‘against Delta’ part.
“So what are you doing by lying to people about the relevant science? Getting people killed?”
the people getting people killed are those hawking snake oil. Monoclonals are not snake oil.
“There is no reason you can’t do both.
There is no contraindication.”
so....Where’s the studies that say you can use both and there is no contraindication? Or did YOU just make that up? :)
Yes, there is a reason you shouldn’t do both. First, people who don’t know anything about how ivermectin even works or interacts with other drugs (including warfarin) shouldn’t be taking it.
From the Oxford link above:
“ IVM was found to be similar to placebo in safety and tolerability, even at 10 times the highest FDA-approved dose of 200 μg/kg in healthy volunteers [43], BUT NOT IN PATIENTS WITH COVID-19.
“In addition, the use of IVM needs further analysis when IVM is combined with other agents for COVID-19 [44, 45]
45”Concerns have been raised about adverse drug-drug interactions (example microsomal enzyme inhibition, Pgp inhibition) when ivermectin will be used concurrently with other drugs (lopinavir/ritonavir) in COVID 19 treatment.”
And the Second reason is, TIME. The incubation period of Delta is half that of last years. You’d have to wait for symptoms and then take ivermectin to reach alleged effective serum levels which may take days of treatent, if at all, with a disease that doesn’t give you days to play with anymore. One dose does not cure you and Time means damage. Monoclonals are immediate. So yeah, I’m loving monoclonals as a lifesaver.