Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, there is... It just isn't enough for you, because you have an axe to grind with your agenda against anyone who does not comply with the shots. And, you often get nasty too... So guess who doesn't care if you don't believe it after months of discussion...
If anecdotes and flawed low quality non-peered observational studies count as evidence then I have a bridge to sell you.
Here is a Meta-Analysis of 10 RCT's showing no benefit of Ivermectin against COVID -19. Let's see if you can accurately interpret and breakdown this systematic review.
If anecdotes and flawed low quality non-peered observational studies count as evidence then I have a bridge to sell you.
Here is a Meta-Analysis of 10 RCT's showing no benefit of Ivermectin against COVID -19. Let's see if you can accurately interpret and breakdown this systematic review.
"Ivermectin prophylaxis was taken by 76 controls and 41 cases. Two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis (AOR 0.27, 95% CI, 0.15–0.51) was associated with a 73% reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers for the following month. "
I think the study I found last night is easier to read ...
"Ivermectin prophylaxis was taken by 76 controls and 41 cases. Two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis (AOR 0.27, 95% CI, 0.15–0.51) was associated with a 73% reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers for the following month. "
I think the study I found last night is easier to read ...
Not compelling at all. RCT's are always superior to Case control studies as case control studies have problems such as matching creates selection bias, matching distorts dose-response relations between matching variables and the outcome, and matched analyses suffers from sparse-data bias.
Why use an inferior studies wrought with problems when we have superior studies on the effectiveness of Ivermectin?
"Ivermectin prophylaxis was taken by 76 controls and 41 cases. Two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis (AOR 0.27, 95% CI, 0.15–0.51) was associated with a 73% reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers for the following month. "
I think the study I found last night is easier to read ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Not compelling at all. RCT's are always superior to Case control studies as case control studies have problems such as matching creates selection bias, matching distorts dose-response relations between matching variables and the outcome, and matched analyses suffers from sparse-data bias.
Why use an inferior studies wrought with problems when we have superior studies on the effectiveness of Ivermectin?
The part the sticks out for me are the dates of the studies --- the one in Feb that states 73% reduction was a, A matched case-control study on hospital personnel. ( India, from September to October 2020)
Others to follow after EU vaccine release ... A Randomized Clinical Trial - 2021
If it works, don't fix it ...
The part the sticks out for me are the dates of the studies --- the one in Feb that states 73% reduction was a, A matched case-control study on hospital personnel. ( India, from September to October 2020)
Others to follow after EU vaccine release ... A Randomized Clinical Trial - 2021
If it works, don't fix it ...
So you believe one inferior matched case-control study over the gold standard in clinical research to assess the effectiveness of a drug which is the Randomized Controlled Trial?? Of which we have over a dozen that state there are no benefits of Ivermectin for COVID-19.
Last edited by Diesel350z; 08-24-2021 at 12:42 PM..
So you believe one inferior matched case-control study over the gold standard in clinical research to assess the effectiveness of a drug which is the Randomized Controlled Trial?? Of which we have over a dozen that state there are no benefits of Ivermectin for COVID-19.
Some of those "studies" showing the medicine did not work ended up being fake.
The doctor profession has been losing customers for decades with arrogance and malpractice, but monopolization has prevented greater losses. Now it is in serious jeopardy, when people go to farm stores for animal medicine instead of doctors for prescriptions.
Some of those "studies" showing the medicine did not work ended up being fake.
Instead of accurately interpreting and breaking down the systematic review I provided this is the best response that you can provide? That it's fake
None of the RCT's that I linked ended up being fake, This is a flat out false claim. Of course we know you won't produce any sources to your made up claims so I won't even ask.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
