So...
30/77 studies neither RCT nor DB
an additional 6 not DB
1/3 studies are RCT
Results of the 2/3 subject o observational bias
the other 1/3 are quite small
So the research is not exactly as rosy as you would like — and give jab about the anonymous poster, I am quite certain that this very outdated statement holds little water.
Still pushing your poison I see, how much do the drug companies pay you for this?
You really don’t care how many have had adverse effects and/or died from taking the vaccines. In a sane and accountable world these vaccines would have been pulled from the market or not even allowed with the little data they had.
How you call yourself a doctor is beyond contemplation, your duty is to try and heal the sick and use what can be available that is safe, not a gross experimental medication that cannot work.
Too funny. 😂
You regularly mention a few studies to forward a certain anti-ivermectin narrative, ignoring the wealth of information available looking when at the big picture.
Yet, you were perfectly willing to jump on the Paxlovid bandwagon with what, 2 whole studies with about 1,600 participants, by the drug company itself.
At least I am not afraid to look at ALL the research, good and bad. What are you so scared of?
The same people who have discounted/prohibited ivermectin are the same ones now denying monoclonals, do you even get that?
Whatever. It doesn’t matter to me what you think. I know so many people personally now who recovered easily from covid with ivermectin. I am working with healthcare workers on a daily basis right now and nothing you say fits with their experience either. It’s is like a whole underground medical railroad and you are missing the train.
So I’ll take the participation trophy, thanks pal 🏆