Can anyone debunk this ivermectin debunking?
OK. There are 60 studies, 95% of which show a positive effect. When combined in a meta-analysis, the studies show a large reduction in death at all stages of treatment. The studies combined include well over 10,000 patients and a significant portion of them are well designed and executed, are RCTs, are peer reviewed or all 3.
And this guy tries to debunk it by picking on the mechanism of action. Let’s see, “We don’t know how it works, so it must not work even though the data shows it does.” It works somehow. I’m sure we figure out why eventually. But for now, who cares?
Nicely structured, “mr fettucini” – step 1: agree with your target (“Gosh those FLCCC folks really are smart, and I agree with them!”), and then step 2: “but I just have this one thorny issue I’d like an answer to.”
Pharma doe$n’t like niacin. “OMG – THE FLUSH!”
Pharma doe$n’t like vitamin D: “OMG – you might not need the annual flu $hot! And just THINK about the vax-motivating ho$pitalization$ that would never happen!”
And now, Pharma doe$n’t like Ivermectin. “OMG – No method of action! More importantly – that vaccine EUA! Ten$ of billion$ in recurring revenue at $take!”
What a $hocker. Pharma doe$n’t like Cheap Treatments That Work.
Why do you think that i$?
Tess Lawrie’s meta-analysis is the highest standard of proof in evidence-based medicine.
SARSCOV2 enters the nucleus to shut down the host cell’s immune response so that the virus can continue to replicate. Whomever this Twitter poster is either doesn’t understand or is intentionally being misleading.
This guy does a great job explaining how they think ivermectin works.