To: maceng2 who wrote (174812 ) 7/14/2021 10:33:10 AM From: Trader77 2 RecommendationsRecommended By maceng2 marcher
Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 218905 That wasn't exactly what I was getting at, but to your point, if that graphic has some form of truth, then why haven't they updated their recommendations of social distancing and vaccines and why do they still say it fails in controlled randomized testing? It's their website after all... But also with regards to that graphic, that's based on meta data of the studies. A "study of the studies" correct? And they conducted this meta study. Here is something that HAS to call into question the bias of their meta analysis. From a previous post I made:In his testimony, which is still available on C-Span, Dr. Kory quoted a study from Argentina saying none of workers prophylaxed with ivermectin got Covid. That's not what the study said. First, the study used Ivermectin and lota-Carrageenan (is lota-Carregeenan the secret ingredient that the powers that be are holding back???) and both sides had covid infections. From the study: RESULT: The number of subjects who were diagnosed with COVID-19 in GE was lower, only 4 of 117 (3.4%) than subjects in CG: 25 of 117 (21.4%) (p-Value = 0.0001). clinicaltrials.gov So why doesn't their meta analysis also include other drugs used in conjunction with ivermectin? You have a science background right and you would have to admit this is a crucial point. Personally, I would be very happy if Ivermectin actually did all that these doctors claim it does, but given how wide spread its usage has been in South America and Asia, and the current state of the pandemic there, I have to call its efficacy into question. I think we all just want the truth. I wish we had it.