Ivermectin does not prevent severe COVID-19, study finds

submitted by [deleted] from (upi.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BravoVictor 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Because they want to know if anti-vax claims can be supported or denied by the scientific study of treatments.

And yet this study found the "anti-vaxers" were correct. 78% of patients did the same or better after receiving Ivermectin. The article tries to use weasel words to imply it overall works worse by comparing it to a combination of other treatments. That's not how you make comparisons.

If you want to find out how healthy an apple is, you don't compare it to someone who ate a pizza, a carrot, ham, and fruit rollup.

This article is pushing propaganda that says:

  1. People think Ivermectin is a prophylatic.
  2. Ivermectin can't be used alongside other treatments, so it's either take an experimental vaccine or Ivermectin.

I wish they would stop.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Look at the recent research, rather than conflate the two links. As I said to fatman,

those links show early and late approaches. The early approach - with minimal info - in June 2021, was fairly positive. As of yesterday:

"In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19."

Thus - now with better data and examples, researchers can show that ivermectin is not helpful, and because of this, the patient depending on it can get much worse forms of long COVID.