>>13415820>you don't have any point of disagreement about how IVMMeta 1. Just because a trial originates from the third world does not make it automatically trash. As I explained the third world has an incentive to test Ivermectin.
>Both the US and the UK had clinical trials of dexamethasone in COVID patients. This is not Ivermectin
>dexamethasoneA single study out of 60
>anticoagulation therapyenoxaparin - the same study
>Author cherry picks the outcomes he quoteSummarizing, the studies excluded are as follows, and the resulting forest plot is shown in Figure 18:
[Ahsan], unadjusted results with no group details.
[Carvallo], control group formed from cases in the same hospital not in the study, details of control group patients not provided.
[Hazan], study uses a synthetic control arm.
[Hellwig], not a typical trial, analysis of African countries that used or did not use ivermectin prophylaxis for parasitic infections.
[Kishoria], excessive unadjusted differences between groups.
[López-Medina], strong evidence of patients in the control group self-medicating, ivermectin widely used in the population at that time, and the study drug identity was concealed by using the name D11AX22.
[Roy], no serious outcomes reported and fast recovery in treatment and control groups, there is little room for a treatment to improve results.
[Soto-Becerra], substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely, includes PCR+ patients that may be asymptomatic for COVID-19 but in hospital for other reasons.
[Tanioka], not a typical trial, analysis of African countries that used or did not use ivermectin prophylaxis for parasitic infections.
[Vallejos], detail too minimal.
Your champion is a shithead
