What is the purpose of your link? To discredit Ivermectin by showing Google promoted "fact checks"? Does the fact that Japan hasn't stopped using vaccines since allowing the use of Ivermectin somehow demonstrate that it doesn't work? Circular logic.
Here is a link to a series of 67 studies, which clearly demonstrates Ivermectin does work exceedingly well:
I wonder if you're open enough to study the vast and detailed information so easily available to you, or if you have a boycott on material that doesn't align with the MSM/Government narrative, and your existing bias.
It doesn't bother you that the authors of that web site are anonymous?
"Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. "
You didn't answer my questions, but I'll answer yours:
No it doesn't bother me- doctors and scientists who question the established narrative are routinely targeted for reprisal. The website doesn't generate ad revenue, and they list studies for many other treatments and drugs. Further I'll also point out this from their site:
"Vaccines and treatments are both extremely valuable and complementary. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. Denying the efficacy of any method increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage."
Regardless I'm not interested in the aggregator, I'm interested in the data (67 studies including 46 peer reviewed).
Instead of shooting the messenger why not discredit those studies?
I see your old link from 6 months ago questioning the websites practices, so I'll counter with this:
"There is nothing the enemies of ivermectin will not stoop to including calling ivermectin "horse dewormer,” making it unavailable at pharmacies, failing to report Uttar Pradesh, publishing bias, biased newspaper reporting, and "fake" randomized trials. The "fake" randomized trial has been weaponized by ivermectin's opponents. There isn't the slightest doubt that behind the scenes our government health care agencies, drug companies, and others have conspired to make ivermectin appear ineffective in Lopez-Medina, Together, ACTIV-6 and COVID-OUT. "
I'll close by asking you this- doesn't it bother you that people are being prevented from receiving treatment by pharmacists that was prescribed by their doctor?
You have no expertise in infectious diseases and public health but you're perfectly willing to believe anonymous people on the Internet while ignoring the advice of the best minds in the field.
doesn't it bother you that people are being prevented from receiving treatment by pharmacists that was prescribed by their doctor?
Who are the infectious disease / public health experts prescribing this? There are none, just a random smattering of medical outliers relying on an unaccredited meta analysis that doesn't meet accepted standards.
hmm, that's weird then. If it is the case that irvermectin doesn't work, then why is India and Japan's vaccine so much more effective against covid than in America, Europe and Israel?
Off the top of my head? There are a lot of factors, and they vary from country to country: fewer comorbidities (obesity, heart disease, diabetes, COPD, etc.), fewer old people, better compliance with public health measures, different diets, different living conditions, different cultural practices, ...
Japan is known for longevity and part of it has had to do with diet. Obesity rate is very low but vitamin D insufficiency is common, although here again diet provides many with some vitamin D which may reduce severity of illnesses. Japan had a significant number of hospitalizations, yet deaths were relatively low. It's difficult to say how much ivermectin was used after the statement was made in August, the peak occurred a dozen days later and may to some extent been natural. However, in terms of India, when the state of Goa started handing out ivermectin, the decline began a day or so later, and it was more pronounced than the rest of India. In the end all ivermectin is alleged to do is lessen severity, and this lessens the chance that a person become infectious. Why is this so controversial? The problem with ivermectin studies is that they appear to study its use in situations that are not favorable (eg. when someone is seriously ill already) and so the conclusion that it doesn't work in a specific circumstance is used by the msm to "prove" it will never work. The other problem is that there is a virtual ban on conducting studies, soof course if there are no studies being done anymore the "science" that "supports" ivermectin will continue to be limited.
No.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ivermectin+japan
What is the purpose of your link? To discredit Ivermectin by showing Google promoted "fact checks"? Does the fact that Japan hasn't stopped using vaccines since allowing the use of Ivermectin somehow demonstrate that it doesn't work? Circular logic.
Here is a link to a series of 67 studies, which clearly demonstrates Ivermectin does work exceedingly well:
https://ivmmeta.com/
I wonder if you're open enough to study the vast and detailed information so easily available to you, or if you have a boycott on material that doesn't align with the MSM/Government narrative, and your existing bias.
It doesn't bother you that the authors of that web site are anonymous?
"Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. "
https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678
You didn't answer my questions, but I'll answer yours:
No it doesn't bother me- doctors and scientists who question the established narrative are routinely targeted for reprisal. The website doesn't generate ad revenue, and they list studies for many other treatments and drugs. Further I'll also point out this from their site:
"Vaccines and treatments are both extremely valuable and complementary. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. Denying the efficacy of any method increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage."
Regardless I'm not interested in the aggregator, I'm interested in the data (67 studies including 46 peer reviewed).
Instead of shooting the messenger why not discredit those studies?
I see your old link from 6 months ago questioning the websites practices, so I'll counter with this:
https://trialsitenews.com/are-major-ivermectin-studies-designed-for-failure/
"There is nothing the enemies of ivermectin will not stoop to including calling ivermectin "horse dewormer,” making it unavailable at pharmacies, failing to report Uttar Pradesh, publishing bias, biased newspaper reporting, and "fake" randomized trials. The "fake" randomized trial has been weaponized by ivermectin's opponents. There isn't the slightest doubt that behind the scenes our government health care agencies, drug companies, and others have conspired to make ivermectin appear ineffective in Lopez-Medina, Together, ACTIV-6 and COVID-OUT. "
I'll close by asking you this- doesn't it bother you that people are being prevented from receiving treatment by pharmacists that was prescribed by their doctor?
You have no expertise in infectious diseases and public health but you're perfectly willing to believe anonymous people on the Internet while ignoring the advice of the best minds in the field.
Who are the infectious disease / public health experts prescribing this? There are none, just a random smattering of medical outliers relying on an unaccredited meta analysis that doesn't meet accepted standards.
You are such an idiot.
hmm, that's weird then. If it is the case that irvermectin doesn't work, then why is India and Japan's vaccine so much more effective against covid than in America, Europe and Israel?
Off the top of my head? There are a lot of factors, and they vary from country to country: fewer comorbidities (obesity, heart disease, diabetes, COPD, etc.), fewer old people, better compliance with public health measures, different diets, different living conditions, different cultural practices, ...
And I should say too that I don't know for a fact that Ivermectin doesn't work. My point is that there is as yet no main stream science that supports it and some concerns about the studies that do. https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/ppih/if-ppih-covid-19-sag-ivermectin-in-treatment-and-prevention-rapid-review.pdf https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/ppih/if-ppih-covid-19-sag-ivermectin-in-treatment-and-prevention-rapid-review.pdf
Japan is known for longevity and part of it has had to do with diet. Obesity rate is very low but vitamin D insufficiency is common, although here again diet provides many with some vitamin D which may reduce severity of illnesses. Japan had a significant number of hospitalizations, yet deaths were relatively low. It's difficult to say how much ivermectin was used after the statement was made in August, the peak occurred a dozen days later and may to some extent been natural. However, in terms of India, when the state of Goa started handing out ivermectin, the decline began a day or so later, and it was more pronounced than the rest of India. In the end all ivermectin is alleged to do is lessen severity, and this lessens the chance that a person become infectious. Why is this so controversial? The problem with ivermectin studies is that they appear to study its use in situations that are not favorable (eg. when someone is seriously ill already) and so the conclusion that it doesn't work in a specific circumstance is used by the msm to "prove" it will never work. The other problem is that there is a virtual ban on conducting studies, soof course if there are no studies being done anymore the "science" that "supports" ivermectin will continue to be limited.
That makes a lot of sense. Are there any studies or reports that support the narrative?