For reference, that would mean that in an 8-month period a higher % of people in Peru took ivermectin than take statins yearly in the United States. That's one of the most widespread uses of any drugs ever 
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @EdoajoEric
Are you aware of your bias? Your old supporting arguments keep changing as they fall apart.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jjchamie @EdoajoEric
Eh? This is entirely consistent with a situation where there was mass widespread use for some time both before and after the drop in cases. Unless you have some measure of how many people were ACTUALLY TAKING THE DRUG over time, the analysis makes no sense
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @EdoajoEric
It wasn't mass widespread. The media lied about toxicity, the drug wasn't available. Your assumptions are wrong and unfunded. Local mass distribution campaigns to vulnerable population happened and dramatic drops in deaths happened too.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jjchamie @EdoajoEric
Your own evidence that you cited indicates it was mass and widespread. As I've said, 30% of the entire population of a mid-sized country taking a drug in 8 months is a HUGE proportion
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @EdoajoEric
I agree, 30% it's a lot of people but it isn't the right people and at the right time. Only 8% used it as a treatment, and the prevalence at the end of 2020 was ~40%.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jjchamie @EdoajoEric
Most of them used it as a prophylactic I.e. taking it entirely out of sync with your paper's hypothesis. But again, the problem is that you simply do not know who was taking ivermectin, how much, and when, so there's no measure of exposure in the paper
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @EdoajoEric
The local campaigns delivered IVM to every person over 60 or with comorbidities in a 3-day period. The sharp drop in deaths happened after. The campaigns were performed at different dates in different regions. The Who, When and How is there. And the results too.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @jjchamie @EdoajoEric
That's certainly not true based on the news reports that you cite, which indicate only a few thousand medical packs being handed out! And again, there is a lot of evidence that people were taking large volumes of the drug well before those campaigns
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @EdoajoEric
That's certainly true, based on real facts Few thousand medical packs being handed out in regions to the entire vulnerable population. Here is the campaign description (in Spanish)https://rpp.pe/peru/actualidad/coronavirus-en-peru-conoce-como-funciona-la-operacion-tayta-noticia-1286058 …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Right - and across those regions the population over 60 is what, 1 million people? 2 million? So this program maybe treated 1% of the entire 60+ population, which means that the other 29% got their ivermectin elsewhere
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.