Get ready to be spanked.
Your heels are dug in deep.
We agree on many things, however you are very blind to what Ivermectin could have accomplished early on.
If education and intelligence were the same thing. There would not be two separate words in the dictionary.
I respectfully disagree. I used ivermectin early on in patients. I saw one possible success and lots of disappointments. I am not dug in deep on anything. I read the literature and evaluate it quite independently. I have read studies that show some benefit snd sturdiest ther show no benefit. There are a lot of issues in medicine where studies lead to mixed results. In these cases, one must conclude that the therapy i has mixed results. Where the data are murky, it is reasonable to conclude that the given hypothesis (in this case ivermectin being an effective treatment) is equally as murky.
If we broaden the context to the argument that some make that the disease itself is survivable 99+% of the time, then early treatment with ivermectin and it’s success may be confused with people we’re going to survive it anyhow.
In the study at hand, it evaluates the number of progressions to severe disease in two equals and statistically significant cohort occur several months. The data reported in this study demonstrates there is no advantage in using ivermectin as it does not stop progression of disease when compared to control group.
The rest is the noise on this thread comparing ivermectin to the vaccine is a false because that is not what the study was actually designed to look at. The acolytes of this Blog site written by SK breathlessly announce a study results that bizarrely was not studied and the data their interpretation is invalid as they are using data from the study of one hypothesis for which the study is targeted to state support for their agenda.
Anyone who has studied basic science and the scientific process knows that you cannot use a particular experiment to make statements on a completely different subject. I believe there are some major studies in process at the moment at large American Universities that are RCTa on point to the efficacy of ivermectin. At some point they will be published. However reading the tea leaves they have been going on long enough that if there were a clear and convincing benefit, I would have expected that IRB to have ended the study and published overwhelming positive results.
In my post that you take exception with I point out as I have consistently done so that in my judgment monoclonals are superior treatment in every way. The literature is quite clear on this as is my clinical experience. Do you disagree with the statement that monoclonal antibody treatment is superior to other therapies tried for the treatment of Covid?