8 ms·

The count of peer reviewed studies showing a benefit for the use of Ivermectin is now 62, and they can be found here: https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/

The count of peer reviewed studies showing a benefit for the use of Ivermectin is now 62, and they can be found here: https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/ The earlier the better of course, just like Tamiflu. The best results were attained when Ivermectin was used as a prophylactic.

Inityx 4y ago
A rebuttal of this site specifically: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t... >Ivermectin doesn’t reduce mortality in COVID a significant amount (let’s say d > 0.3) in the absence of comorbid parasites: 85-90% confidence
- logic_beats_pro 4y ago
  I see that this is from November 2021 when there was 40 peer reviewed studies. Any update to this for the additional 22 peer reviewed studies?
  - IE6 4y ago
    This kind of thinking is what was so exhausting during the height of the pandemic. The "barrier for entry" was very low (a facebook meme, watching a podcast) but the burden of proof was immense (always more research that needed to be done on behalf of the people saying it probably didn't make sense).
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
That site gets mentioned in the article: > As we’ve previously discussed, IVM Meta has some curious traits: it resolves to the same IP address as hcqmeta.com as well as c19legacy.com. HCQMeta uses the same kind of purported real time meta analysis to recommend for the use of hydroxychloroquine. C19 legacy has claimed to count the “unnecessary” deaths caused by doctors not using hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to treat COVID-19. All of these sites refer physicians to the FLCCC for “treatment protocols” and also promote the World Council for Health, a faux public health consortium that’s made up solely of ivermectin advocacy groups.

8 ms·

The count of peer reviewed studies showing a benefit for the use of Ivermectin is now 62, and they can be found here: https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/

by logic_beats_pro 4y ago

Inityx 4y ago
A rebuttal of this site specifically: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t... >Ivermectin doesn’t reduce mortality in COVID a significant amount (let’s say d > 0.3) in the absence of comorbid parasites: 85-90% confidence
- logic_beats_pro 4y ago
  I see that this is from November 2021 when there was 40 peer reviewed studies. Any update to this for the additional 22 peer reviewed studies?
  - IE6 4y ago
    This kind of thinking is what was so exhausting during the height of the pandemic. The "barrier for entry" was very low (a facebook meme, watching a podcast) but the burden of proof was immense (always more research that needed to be done on behalf of the people saying it probably didn't make sense).
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
That site gets mentioned in the article: > As we’ve previously discussed, IVM Meta has some curious traits: it resolves to the same IP address as hcqmeta.com as well as c19legacy.com. HCQMeta uses the same kind of purported real time meta analysis to recommend for the use of hydroxychloroquine. C19 legacy has claimed to count the “unnecessary” deaths caused by doctors not using hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to treat COVID-19. All of these sites refer physicians to the FLCCC for “treatment protocols” and also promote the World Council for Health, a faux public health consortium that’s made up solely of ivermectin advocacy groups.