Coronavirus / COVID-19 Pandemic Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Coronavirus / COVID-19 Pandemic

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Sam who wrote (21506)	10/27/2022 10:47:23 PM
From: Thomas M.	4 Recommendations Recommended By golfer72 KCzeslawZ Savant Stormwatch17 Read Replies (1) of 22868

They found Ivermectin has a 91% chance of helping and they found it is very safe. They concluded nobody should take it. What kind of doctor would practice medicine like that? The whole trial was shady from start to finish. They underdosed the patients. They changed the trial protocol 4 times, after the trial was well underway, and they try to hide that fact. The statistical analysis plan is dated after the end of the trial, opening up the possibility that post-hoc decisions were made. The drugs were sent to the patients by mail, so that some patients took them 13 or 14 days after symptom onset. The authors never saw the vast majority of the patients, and every step of the process was done remotely. There is no reporting of adherence in the trial, so we don’t even know how many of the patients took how many of the doses they were given. There is no per-protocol analysis, so we don’t know how well the drug did in the patients who actually took all the doses. ACTIV-6 Trial on Ivermectin: NIH Scientists Behaving Badly Alexandros Marinos doyourownresearch.substack.com Tom

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next