Thank you for these. I read them out of order but all 3 were excellent and very well researched. I'm looking forward to reading more of your work.
My only critique, if you could call it that, would be that in this piece, you were very conservative in your assessment of the evidence supporting Ivermectin's effectiveness. I have reviewed quite a few studies on it in the last year and a half, and I feel the evidence is overwhelming. You may have seen these already but just in case you haven't, a meta-analysis (https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx) and a brief summary of the body of evidence (https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/One-Page-Summary-of-the-Clinical-Trials-Evidence-for-Ivermectin-in-COVID-19.pdf). I'm just curious, when you say "there haven’t been enough quality studies conducted," do you think you missed some of the better studies (it's not like they've been trumpeted across the airwaves of mainstream media), or have you seen them but aren't confident in their conclusions? And if the latter, what would you say is/are the most common shortfallings? Size of study, methodology, confidence interval, somethign else?
Also I would point out that even in the absence of really decisive results from large, double-blind randomized controlled trials, there is a lot to be said for real-world results in populations like Uttar Pradesh that saw hospitalizations and deaths plummet to nearly zero when they started using Ivermectin as a central pillar to their Covid response. Or in much of sub-Saharan Africa, where Ivermectin is commonly taken regularly as a prophlactic, and where Covid deaths never reached anywhere near the levels they did elsewhere.
Hi, I've read Part 1 but now I can't find it, can you add a link here for it?
Thank you for these. I read them out of order but all 3 were excellent and very well researched. I'm looking forward to reading more of your work.
My only critique, if you could call it that, would be that in this piece, you were very conservative in your assessment of the evidence supporting Ivermectin's effectiveness. I have reviewed quite a few studies on it in the last year and a half, and I feel the evidence is overwhelming. You may have seen these already but just in case you haven't, a meta-analysis (https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx) and a brief summary of the body of evidence (https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/One-Page-Summary-of-the-Clinical-Trials-Evidence-for-Ivermectin-in-COVID-19.pdf). I'm just curious, when you say "there haven’t been enough quality studies conducted," do you think you missed some of the better studies (it's not like they've been trumpeted across the airwaves of mainstream media), or have you seen them but aren't confident in their conclusions? And if the latter, what would you say is/are the most common shortfallings? Size of study, methodology, confidence interval, somethign else?
Also I would point out that even in the absence of really decisive results from large, double-blind randomized controlled trials, there is a lot to be said for real-world results in populations like Uttar Pradesh that saw hospitalizations and deaths plummet to nearly zero when they started using Ivermectin as a central pillar to their Covid response. Or in much of sub-Saharan Africa, where Ivermectin is commonly taken regularly as a prophlactic, and where Covid deaths never reached anywhere near the levels they did elsewhere.