The Covid Emergency is Over

[chaos]

It would be easy to spot though, you dont think there are people who's job it is to review this stuff?

Who pays those people?

[Grape Ape]

It would be easy to spot though, you dont think there are people who's job it is to review this stuff?

This statement could be extrapolated to infer fraud is impossible and never happens.

So I'm not sure this is a great counter.

[Grape Ape]

For consistency and to reduce or explain heterogeneity, things like sub-group analysis, meta-regression, sensitivity analysis,random effects model etc are used for the actual variable its things such as Tau2 and I2 amongst other. Other methods such as linear regression analysis help tease apart multiple variables intrastudy. There are many others and many I don't understand as I am in medicine not a PHD or statistician so we are at the limit of my understanding at this point.

As for the window, what exactly do you mean when you say that?

As for your last point, any good discussion section of a study would highlight that. They are supposed to discuss the limits of the study, possible errors they made, things that should be studied, possible confounders etc.  So they would say, the dosage may have been to low or the trial period to short. Another study would build on that until positive results (if any are found). Once found they then have to replicate and continue the process.

Re: "window".

Those who are proponents of Ivermectin claim there is a limited window to administer the drug for it to be effective.  Meaning, it's administered early enough in the lifecycle so that its anti-viral replicating abilities who take effect.

Conversely, they claim studies claiming ivermectin's ineffectiveness was because it was given after said window.

Hence, my question wondering how many of those studies adhered to those parameters.  Those that didn't, could, in theory, be dismissed if you are taking the pro-ivermectin side.

[Necrosis]

This statement could be extrapolated to infer fraud is impossible and never happens.

So I'm not sure this is a great counter.

In it's strong form sure, but colloquiallly it would just mean there are checks in balances in place to make sure it doesn't happen. Of course it does happen but its a very low percentage and is also tracked.

In it's strong form one could say it means that it never occurs but no one would ever suggest that as that's not how reality operates.

[Necrosis]

Re: "window".

Those who are proponents of Ivermectin claim there is a limited window to administer the drug for it to be effective.  Meaning, it's administered early enough in the lifecycle so that its anti-viral replicating abilities who take effect.

Conversely, they claim studies claiming ivermectin's ineffectiveness was because it was given after said window.

Hence, my question wondering how many of those studies adhered to those parameters.  Those that didn't, could, in theory, be dismissed if you are taking the pro-ivermectin side.

I think without looking through all the studies to ascertain where in the life cycle the drugs were started the burden of proof would rest in the pro-ivermectin camp to prove that there is a window at all. In other anti-viral trials we have established when they need to be taken and for them not to work when infection is active is extremely rare- in retro viruses etc.

They have conducted studies with folks who test positive without symptoms, which would be about as early as one could reasonable do it, folks that have been likely "exposed". The drug didnt reduce infection rates or severity. The drug does have some anti-inflammatory effects as well so  there may be benefit to certain populaitons.

Overall, if it worked, we would have seen a signal in some of the studies, there wasn't once the quality of the studies improved.

So if what the studies are showing is incorrect, is the argument then that big pharma is suppressing ivermectin and if so, why? because they can't patent it?