![Ivermectin used VS. Not used [1000x557 - 353KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/1AOECW.jpg){kind=link}
... That's for it's use as an anti-parasitic. It has nothing to do with covid stats.
Isn't it reporting deaths?
Hmm. Maybe.
http://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.26.21254377v1.full.pdf
So, the article cited in the graph doesn't include that data in that graph. I'm wondering where that data came from. The data in the graph also looks odd to me.
The article itself shows practically no difference in recovery/fatality rate, which may be because ivermectin isn't actively being used to treat people, or may be because it's not effective in patients who are already ill.
The data in tables 1 and 2... That looks odd as well to me. There are huge variations in both tables, varying depending on how civilized the country is, in both directions. I don't think this study can draw a decent conclusion in the face of all this noise.
Take it with salt I suppose.
Noise is irrelevant so long as signal exists. Signal exists.
You're also making a wild assumption that it's specifically prescribed for treatment, which is not what it's saying.
It's saying that those who are already taking it for other uses (widely prescribed for parasites/river blindness) are not seeing deviation in death rates. Same thing occurred in India with hcq.
Graph looks as expected.
(post is archived)