- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 83,705
- Reaction score
- 58,410
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
OMG! Fake News!!! It saved Joe Rogan's life!!!
(That about sum it up?)
"28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09)"Journal of the American Medical Association
Efficacy of Ivermectin on Disease Progression in Patients With COVID-19
This randomized clinical trial assesses the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in preventing progression to severe disease among high-risk patients with COVID-19 in Malaysia.jamanetwork.com
In this randomized clinical trial of early ivermectin treatment for adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 and comorbidities, we found no evidence that ivermectin was efficacious in reducing the risk of severe disease. Our findings are consistent with the results of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial,17 which found that ivermectin was ineffective in reducing the risk of hospitalization.
I'm sure we'll see all sorts of apologies from the liars that shilled this bullshit right?
So you want to debunk this study with "the sample size is too small". This study echos the finding of another study. They do mention that in the article. I guess that study's sample size might be too small for you to come out exactly the same as this one."28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09)"
There is a trick that is commonly used to "prove" that a treatment does not work -- you can simply under-power the study. For example, you can make sure the N, the number of subjects, is too small. It looks like that might be true of this study -- 3 died in the ivermectin group, vs 10 in the control group. The probability that this happened by chance was very small, and the difference between groups was quite near statistical significance. If the study were repeated with more subjects, the difference might have been significant.
I suspect that many of the studies "proving" that ivermectin does not work used the same trick. Because most people (including medical doctors) know nothing about statistics, they are easily fooled by bogus research.
"28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09)"
There is a trick that is commonly used to "prove" that a treatment does not work -- you can simply under-power the study. For example, you can make sure the N, the number of subjects, is too small. It looks like that might be true of this study -- 3 died in the ivermectin group, vs 10 in the control group. The probability that this happened by chance was very small, and the difference between groups was quite near statistical significance. If the study were repeated with more subjects, the difference might have been significant.
I suspect that many of the studies "proving" that ivermectin does not work used the same trick. Because most people (including medical doctors) know nothing about statistics, they are easily fooled by bogus research.
It works great for some things.Ivermectin doesn't work.
You mean like your side ignores the science on masks and that healthy people don't need any vaxx?The cultists will never stop believing the bullshit.
You mean like your side ignores the science on masks and that healthy people don't need any vaxx?
Conspiracy nutters don't need any evidence, they're allergic to facts, reality and obviously vaccines.Journal of the American Medical Association
Efficacy of Ivermectin on Disease Progression in Patients With COVID-19
This randomized clinical trial assesses the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in preventing progression to severe disease among high-risk patients with COVID-19 in Malaysia.jamanetwork.com
In this randomized clinical trial of early ivermectin treatment for adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 and comorbidities, we found no evidence that ivermectin was efficacious in reducing the risk of severe disease. Our findings are consistent with the results of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial,17 which found that ivermectin was ineffective in reducing the risk of hospitalization.
I'm sure we'll see all sorts of apologies from the liars that shilled this bullshit right?
Who didn't see this coming?Journal of the American Medical Association
Efficacy of Ivermectin on Disease Progression in Patients With COVID-19
This randomized clinical trial assesses the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in preventing progression to severe disease among high-risk patients with COVID-19 in Malaysia.jamanetwork.com
In this randomized clinical trial of early ivermectin treatment for adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 and comorbidities, we found no evidence that ivermectin was efficacious in reducing the risk of severe disease. Our findings are consistent with the results of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial,17 which found that ivermectin was ineffective in reducing the risk of hospitalization.
I'm sure we'll see all sorts of apologies from the liars that shilled this bullshit right?
That would be you.You mean like your side ignores the science on masks and that healthy people don't need any vaxx?
Lets face it. The rest of the world, where they don't care what Trump and the US anti Dems think, aren't massively using this comparitively cheap and available drug. Instead spending 100's of $millions more on more expensive treatments. Many of those other countries with medical experts just as good as in the US assessing that Inver doesn't work enough to use as a covid treatment. They don't have any political axe to grind. If it is available, cheap, and actually worked, it would be getting used everywhere.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, conservatives are among the least healthy Americans and have the most comorbidities.
Q level nonsense.The whole world is influenced by the WHO, and the WHO is under the control of Gates, who pushes vaccines.
I see you all have fully transitioned from Soros to Gates.The whole world is influenced by the WHO, and the WHO is under the control of Gates, who pushes vaccines.
Tell me more about this miracle drug, placebo ...
Oh, it was a conspiracy, because you know.... because you passed the statistics class."28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09)"
There is a trick that is commonly used to "prove" that a treatment does not work -- you can simply under-power the study. For example, you can make sure the N, the number of subjects, is too small. It looks like that might be true of this study -- 3 died in the ivermectin group, vs 10 in the control group. The probability that this happened by chance was very small, and the difference between groups was quite near statistical significance. If the study were repeated with more subjects, the difference might have been significant.
I suspect that many of the studies "proving" that ivermectin does not work used the same trick. Because most people (including medical doctors) know nothing about statistics, they are easily fooled by bogus research.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?