05-23-2021, 11:53 PM
I'm certainly NO Dr. and this study is way over my
understanding, however, it looks mostly promising
Covid Analysis, Nov 26, 2020
(Version 83, May 18, 2021 — Merck analysis)
•97% of 37 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects
(95% of all 56 studies).
26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.
•Random effects meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious
outcome reported shows 78% and 85% improvement for early treatment and
prophylaxis (RR 0.22 [0.12-0.39] and 0.15 [0.09-0.25]). Results are similar
after exclusion based sensitivity analysis: 80% and 87% (RR 0.20 [0.14-0.28]
and 0.13 [0.07-0.25]), and after restriction to 30 peer-reviewed studies:
80% and 88% (RR 0.20 [0.12-0.35] and 0.12 [0.05-0.30]).
•81% and 96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis
(RR 0.19 [0.07-0.54] and 0.04 [0.00-0.58]). Statistically significant improvements
are seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance.
•100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and
prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83%
respectively (RR 0.27 [0.18-0.41] and 0.17 [0.05-0.61]), and 93% of all 28 RCTs.
•The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the
56 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 2 trillion (p = 0.00000000000041).
•Heterogeneity arises from many factors including treatment delay, patient population,
the effect measured, variants, and treatment regimens. The consistency of positive
results across a wide variety of cases is remarkable. Heterogeneity is low in specific cases,
for example early treatment mortality.
•While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and
other measures to avoid infection. Only 29% of ivermectin studies show zero events
in the treatment arm. Multiple approaches are required to protect everyone from all
existing and future variants.
•Many studies do not specify administration, or specify fasting.
Administration with food may significantly increase plasma and tissue concentration.
This study covers way more than I will post here...
But here is the link to it all
Ivermectin for COVID-19:
real-time meta analysis of 56 studies
What does this say to you, I know we have much sharper minds here that I have[/b]
understanding, however, it looks mostly promising
Covid Analysis, Nov 26, 2020
(Version 83, May 18, 2021 — Merck analysis)
•97% of 37 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects
(95% of all 56 studies).
26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.
•Random effects meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious
outcome reported shows 78% and 85% improvement for early treatment and
prophylaxis (RR 0.22 [0.12-0.39] and 0.15 [0.09-0.25]). Results are similar
after exclusion based sensitivity analysis: 80% and 87% (RR 0.20 [0.14-0.28]
and 0.13 [0.07-0.25]), and after restriction to 30 peer-reviewed studies:
80% and 88% (RR 0.20 [0.12-0.35] and 0.12 [0.05-0.30]).
•81% and 96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis
(RR 0.19 [0.07-0.54] and 0.04 [0.00-0.58]). Statistically significant improvements
are seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance.
•100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and
prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83%
respectively (RR 0.27 [0.18-0.41] and 0.17 [0.05-0.61]), and 93% of all 28 RCTs.
•The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the
56 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 2 trillion (p = 0.00000000000041).
•Heterogeneity arises from many factors including treatment delay, patient population,
the effect measured, variants, and treatment regimens. The consistency of positive
results across a wide variety of cases is remarkable. Heterogeneity is low in specific cases,
for example early treatment mortality.
•While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and
other measures to avoid infection. Only 29% of ivermectin studies show zero events
in the treatment arm. Multiple approaches are required to protect everyone from all
existing and future variants.
•Many studies do not specify administration, or specify fasting.
Administration with food may significantly increase plasma and tissue concentration.
This study covers way more than I will post here...
But here is the link to it all
Ivermectin for COVID-19:
real-time meta analysis of 56 studies
What does this say to you, I know we have much sharper minds here that I have[/b]