Finally, a cure I can get behind

[Aviatard]

Oh, you mean like referring to a Nobel prize winning medicine as horse dewormer?

How does a Nobel prize for use against parasitic infections make it automatically relevant to Covid?

[CpnCrunch]

Oh, you mean like referring to a Nobel prize winning medicine as horse dewormer?

It is horse dewormer.

Have you considered not reading it? The cognitive dissonance seems to be breaking you.

Reading what? I did read the study you posted, and I pointed out why it's dogshite. You haven't addressed that yet.

[Vaticinator]

Oh, you mean like referring to a Nobel prize winning medicine as horse dewormer?

It is horse dewormer.

Well, not exactly.

Consumption of veterinary-grade ivermectin formulations, which contain ingredients not used in human medicines,

That's from the Alberta Health paper that photofly posted.

[Vaticinator]

I did read the study you posted, and I pointed out why it's dogshite. You haven't addressed that yet.

You pointed out that the observations were subject to various biases and not controlled enough. Fair enough. If you feel so strongly about it, you should write PubMed and ask them to remove it. Try to keep the F bombs to a minimum. Apparently there are more strictly controlled trials underway, according to the paper posted by photo. Maybe they will find something, maybe they won't. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that you can't truthfully refer to human grade Ivermectin as horse dewormer.

[CpnCrunch]

You pointed out that the observations were subject to various biases and not controlled enough. Fair enough.

That was before I read the paper. Then I realised it uses ivmeta.com, which isn't peer reviewed, and it misrepresents the data (showing 18% benefit to mortality for Together, whereas the actual study was discontinued because it was no benefit). So you're basically posting lies and misinformation. Recent studies show that there are more side effects from IVM, and no benefit.

If you feel so strongly about it, you should write PubMed and ask them to remove it.

ivmeta is a website. It's not peer reviewed and not on PubMed (which is for peer reviewed studies).

Try to keep the F bombs to a minimum.

If you come on an aviation forum spouting deliberate lies and misinformation, you're going to get some fucking f bombs.

Apparently there are more strictly controlled trials underway, according to the paper posted by photo. Maybe they will find something, maybe they won't. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that you can't truthfully refer to human grade Ivermectin as horse dewormer.

No. There HAVE BEEN quite a lot of RCTs, and they have found that there is no benefit to IVM and quite a lot of side effects.

[Vaticinator]

Ok

[CpnCrunch]

Ok

So, you're not going to address the serious problems with the study. Here is what it says:

https://ivmmeta.com/#sd_buonfrate

"Together.. (DB RCT)
18%
0.82 [0.44-1.52]
84mg"

(18% imrprovement in mortality).

But here is what the trial actually says:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809

"The largest and highest quality ivermectin study published so far is the Together trial at the McMaster University in Canada. It found no benefit for the drug when it comes to Covid."

Here is the info from the trial itself: https://www.togethertrial.com/trial-specifications

"Ivermectin...stopped for futility".

So, it's basically lying, and it's not peer reviewed, and it's not even quoting peer reviewed studies.

[Vaticinator]

Ok. If you agree that it's not just horse dewormer I'll agree that you have the latest and greatest info. Great job. Now go see an anger management therapist.

[Vaticinator]

If you feel so strongly about it, you should write PubMed and ask them to remove it.

ivmeta is a website. It's not peer reviewed and not on PubMed (which is for peer reviewed studies).

Try not to FREAK OUT, but I think I've found my error. I originally found that article through PubMed, which linked to the full article I posted. I bookmarked that link for future reference. Now, searching for it on PubMed, it appears to have been retracted, while the link I was accessing does not indicate a retraction. Lesson learned: bookmark the PubMed starting point and follow the link from there.