Another day, another two ivermectin studies that have impossible values in their tables of results. Both included in meta-analyses (rated as high risk of bias this time) This is getting truly insane
-
Show this thread
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @wayfarertwo @GidMK
The claim is that it's a prophylaxis, so if anything is demanding constant consumption, it's the shit you falsely claim does the opposite.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @zero132132 @GidMK
Nope wrong- sorry! It's not a prophylactic treatment at all (who told you that!!) but there is a small window when to start at the very beginning of a positive, symptomatic infection to avoid hospitalization & death.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
There are many studies on its use as prophylaxis. Here is one https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04425850?view=results … Here is a 2nd (this one preprint) https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-208785/v1 … Where are you hearing it is not for prophylaxis?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Hadn't seen that research square preprint thanks! Already a few odd numbers at a quick scan, will look at it in more detail tomorrow
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
For instance, they report that 2.0% of the ivermectin group had a positive test. Even with rounding that's a maximum of 49 people. Similarly, 11.7% of the control group is 135 people max. But the results report 201 positive tests in their patient population
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.