I don't have to take a long enough crap to read all this. What countries were these studies conducted in?

Clearly I'm corresponding with an adult with intellect of a 5yr old.

Typical liberal

I understood this was an aggregate of studies for sure.  That's what led me to believe there would not be consistency between all of them.  But I legit don't know, hence the question.  I'm still not sure how it could be, or how they got everyone during "the window".......seems impossible.


They ensure it using mathematics, statistical analysis.



100% agree on placebo

I was referring to docs who used Ivermectin in large sample sizes and had success/survival rates above the norm.  I don't doubt the studies, however I cannot dismiss this.  I think there needs to be more research.  And, mind you, I'm not this huge "ivermectin surely works" guy, because how the fuck would I know.  I just know there are plenty of real doctors who swear the opposite, and they don't have an agenda.

ya but the groups in this scenario would be prone to bias and to heterogeneity. Basically if the sample is multiple people with no previous conditions and mostly 21 it would be highly skewed , the survival rate this is. I think the issue here, meant in no disrespect, if your lack of knoweldge of study methodology and statistics. These are relevant questions you are asking which are prescisely what studies set out to control for and have done so for a very long time


There are always studies that contradict studies.  And there are studies funded by certain entities to get the results they paid for.  It's why I put no stock in anyone who says "studies show" and don't provide links.  What you posted does seem to be a reasonable sample but like I said earlier, there are plenty of legit docs who say otherwise.

There are different types of studies, retrospective, in vitro vs in vivo, longitudinal, RCT etc each has strengths and drawbacks, which are well known. Experts in the field know this and adjust claims based on the data's strength. I am not sure the studies funding has a huge impact, not in the way you think. Numerous pharma companies loose billions on drugs after the studies paid for by them fail to show benefit. there are overwatch groups (nothings perfect) and falsified studies would be a death blow to the company and to the people conducting the studies. To me this is tantamount to conspiracy theory


.Doctors take an oath to provide care at all costs to save a patient.  Fear of lawsuit for use of ivermectin goes against that.

doctors take an oath to do no harm, using an unproven medication in a sick person vs not is avoiding potential harm for unknown benefits. That's not logical. Might as well try blood letting. You first don't do harm to the patient which includes not using meds based off of vibes

Regardless, pharmacists had no right to deny a doctor prescribing it, and that actually happened.

They do if there is contraindications, they cannot dispense medications that could cause harm

And that's not why it was vilified.  It was vilified because they needed emergency use exception, and the government really wanted everyone to take the vaccine.

It doesn't have any evidence for efficacy, people can buy it and use it if they like and did. Vaccines are proven effective and have been around or a long time. They were simultaneously trialing anti-virals, they were looking at all avenues

I want to see that.

Had to stop along the way. Too boring and 2nd tier for me.

That child will be a mess.

Should have turned the kid into a power lifter/wrestler instead.