>>13371631>BUT its actually a combination of drugs that can be used and are effective and safer compared to the vaccine!If I give you aspirin and ivermectin for a headache am I safe to assume ivermectin cures headaches as well? Because I don't think anyone doubts the efficacy of dexamethasone in hospitalized patients at this point
>>13372338>the control group is synthesized by combining control groups in other studies included in the meta analysisThe control group they use to calculate benefit in hospitalizations is the control group in the study. Multiple other studies also hqve control groups getting alternative treatments. You're full of shit.
>it's puzzling how you omitted the part where the experimental group had drastically better blood oxygen saturation than the control group.the non-random nature of the study is weighted against in that there are randomized trials included in the meta analysis.
"But what about this secondary outcome that shows improvement!" does not answer the question of why the author is aggregating disparate outcomes into a frankenstein of how it is better or why he is picking and choosing those outcomes regardless of whether they are primary or secondary outcomes. There is nothing systematic about this. It's awful.
>this is accounted for by including other studies that also include mixtures of drugs or no mixtures, so long as they also include ivermectin.You keep saying "is accounted for" when what you mean is. "It's ok that this is a bad study to evaluate the efficacy of IVM because other studies are OK" which even if true would not = "is accounted for". It doesn't take a higher education to know bad research + good research =/= good research, but apparently you seem to be arguing that. Nevermind that these are only the top 3 on the list, and there is no indication that the 70 studies below it are not total garbage.
Next time read the methods section of a real meta analysis before you post about what a meta analysis is
