by smileypete on 8/12/2021, 2:49:53 PM
by velcii on 8/12/2021, 11:53:12 AM
Peter McCullough, MD testifies to Texas Senate HHS Committee
The part where they talk about trials like these..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAHi3lX3oGM&t=958s
Viewing full testimony is recommended.
by christmm on 8/12/2021, 10:34:20 AM
Why does this report put a large photo of Trump? Why not let the study stand on its own scientific merit?
by morgengold on 8/12/2021, 9:45:09 AM
Ivermectin, the latest supposed treatment for COVID-19 being touted by anti-vaccination groups, had “no effect whatsoever” on the disease, according to a large patient study.
That’s the conclusion of the Together Trial, which has subjected several purported nonvaccine treatments for COVID-19 to carefully designed clinical testing. The trial is supervised by McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, and conducted in Brazil ...
The problem of Ivermectin trials based in Latin American countries is that community Ivermectin use is so widespread, it becomes a major confounder in trials because most of the 'placebo' group could be using it.
'Latin America’s embrace of an unproven COVID treatment is hindering drug trials'
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02958-2
Hopefully it would be noted in the limitations section of the trial paper, but the writers of media articles are often polarized or biased and just cherry pick.
ETA, personally I would prefer small well designed trials from researchers with historical expertise who provide plenty of accompanying information and are willing to discuss the results, eg Chaccour et al:
'The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with non-severe COVID-19: A pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial'
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIUO08W94eY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuzHG0rpOrc