They acknowledge removal of the flawed study you identified from the meta-analysis.
I’m not really trying to hard argue the Ivermectin case itself, just illustrate that enough support for it exists for it not to be completely silly.
Given the surprisingly high breakthrough case rate, I like people making investigations into augmenting therapeutics beyond a silver bullet limitation. Severe case breakthrough is rare now, but no guarantee it stays that way or that boosters are available before variants hit. More ideas please.
Thanks for replying. The site publishing that study clearly is biased and has an agenda (if you go to the top level it’s basically a large-scale “Ivermectin truth” ad.)
HOWEVER. They did get AJT to publish their meta-analysis, and AJT is peer-reviewed and has been around for around 30 years, so it’s not some fly by night place. So that’s interesting.
Agree that therapeutics are a critical area of exploration; monoclonals are a promising obvious direction there. I’ve actually wondered about other antivirals like acyclovir too, but I am not a doctor
I’ve got no issues with clinical usage. If it works, it works.
But the animal form of ivermectin and the human are different formularies, and 70% of the calls to the Mississippi poinson control center for the month of August were people self medicating ivermectin meant for animals. Alabama too. These are the people I find fault with, the ones who will not accept peer review but will listen to gossip and take ivermectin.
This stuff ain’t no joke. Everything taste like chemicals. I have not picked up my bass since it started. And I was vaccinated. I would hate to have caught this unvaccinated. Breathing deeply hurts, sweaty all the time. I wouldn’t wish this on anyone.