More BS about ivermectin from msm
(duckduckgo.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (7)
sorted by:
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.