More BS about ivermectin from msm
(duckduckgo.com)
Comments (7)
sorted by:
We can use this to educate people. Show them what the study really says. Pull the blinders off.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362
Results Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).
3 deaths in the Ivermectin group versus 10 deaths in the control group. It would appear that Ivermectin saved 7 lives. How is that not significant out of a population of 250 test subjects? This science isn't even that complicated. The media isn't just missing it, they're doing it on purpose.
Good call!
Hope they convey this to the Queen!
My wife was watching abc news and they were saying "the results were the same for ivermectin and the control group of Hospitalized Patients". Hospitalized Patients, so it was already too late to give ivermectin. The studies can be designed to give the results wanted.
Works like a damn charm