There are also meta-analysis that show invermectin to be ineffective and even deadly. Perhaps you should educate yourself regarding the different meta-analysis available and how they differ (in particular, the one you cite is noted for its high bias.) Feel free to try [1] or [2] and assess the differences in outcome of the analysis when obviously garbage studies are removed or weighted less. Thankfully, we have several _real_ studies happening that are being conducted by people who know what they are doing and are not just surveillance studies but are directly looking at the efficacy of invermectin as a treatment option.
Both of these show data that weakly support ivermectin use rather than being against it. The conclusions hide this by focusing on the deficiencies of the available data, rather than focusing on their informational value. As usual, in case of controversial subject, do not trust the authors to make the correct conclusions, read the paper and the evidence presented.
These documents lack data after Jan 2021, so they are outdated. Also they do not seem to be peer-reviewed articles.
The Bryant/Lawrie study I linked to is half year newer and peer-reviewed. Much more respectable source and also consistent with FLCCC reports who have first-hand experience with taking care of real patients.
"In six randomized trials of moderate or severe infection, there was a 75% reduction in mortality (Relative Risk=0.25 [95%CI 0.12-0.52]; p=0.0002); 14/650 (2.1%) deaths on ivermectin; 57/597 (9.5%) deaths in controls) with favorable clinical recovery and reduced hospitalization."
From link 2 (Feb/2021):
"The RCT reported no serious drug-related adverse events in all patients."
"The overall pooled odds ratio was 0.53
(95% CI 0.29 to 0.96); P = 0.04. It was estimated that ivermectin was associated with 54
fewer deaths per 1,000 (95% CI, 3 fewer to 85 fewer)"
Ivermectin is one of the safest drugs in the world, with no adverse events when taking 10x the approved dose.
Sorry, I assumed you might actually read the study and not skim the overview. The main takeaway from the first is that the quality of available studies is extremely poor, there are significant confounding variables in almost all of the surveillance studies, and you can significantly change the outcome of the analysis by how you weight a few studies that have some of the highest bias but claim the largest effects. The second study shows that there are few downsides but almost no clinical effect.
There have been no quality studies since then, simply more meta-analysis and arguing over the weighting of the available garbage data. There are now two large-scale studies being conducted by real research groups. Happy to bet money that invermectin will have no real impact on case mortality.
A group of politically-motivated actors who have an interest in the other side of the argument think they have found serious errors? Color me shocked. Sorry, but I don't believe anyone in the BIRD group. Guess we will wait for the real data to emerge and I can save my 'I told you so' for then.
> There are now two large-scale studies being conducted by real research groups. Happy to bet money that ivermectin will have no real impact on case mortality.
It's highly likely that the Oxford PRINCIPLE trial will fail, because it's designed to fail.
* Recruiting people up to 14 days after symptoms, when highest viral load is 2-3 days afterwards, and Ivermectin is most effective when treated on first symptoms.
* No exclusion of vaccinated and those who already had the disease beforehand.
* Treatment only for 3 days.
* Lower than ideal dosage.
Just because it's a large RCT, doesn't automatically make it a high quality study.
No, I will be surprised if the critique is retracted. The pro-invermectin tribe have gone all-in on this particular lie and no amount of science is going to change their minds. You are wrong. The invermectin-pushers are wrong. In a few months we will have you continuing to try to work the refs when study after study shows it has no significant effect, and by this time next year it will join hydroxychlroquine in the list of failed treatments pushed by politically-motivated actors.
[1] https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-148845/v1 [2] https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/covid-19/RC1336%20-%20I...