Mississippi poison control hotline flooded with people taking horse dewormer.

PJ will not want to see this positive Ivermectin efficacy data.  Somehow PJ ties the Mississippi idiots to Trump, and by association, that automatically proves that Ivermetin is bad...........even before testing complete.

I don't understand this mindset.

If the esteemed physician who founded that group was still so esteemed, he wouldn't have had to resign from the University of Wisconsin AND his primary hospital affiliation.

Regardless, a few physicians making pronouncements is not how medical research is done. About 50 years ago the incredibly esteemed Nobel Prize-winning scientist Linus Pauling decided that Vitamin C was the cure for just about everything. Even if he had turned out to be accurate, nobody should have taken his pronouncements seriously.

I would debate scientific research methods with you, but first, you'd have to know a little bit about the subject, and at least the definitions of the following.

refereed

peer-reviewed

randomized sampling

double-blind

control group

Of course, if you knew enough to know those definitions, you wouldn't have made your post in the first place.

My points were:

1.  There are promising studies.

2.  There are prominant doctors and scientists who believe it's an effective treatment.

3.  Your best bet is to follow your own doctor's advice.

4.  Another best bet is to get vaccinated.

5.  If your doctor believes this treatment is something that will benefit you, he will prescribe it to you so you don't have to go eat Horse Dewormer from Tractor Supply.  

All of these things are true.  I did not suggest anyone have any Covid treatment other than what their doctor reccomends.  I did not review the meta analysis of the 63 studies that I provided a link to.  I have not reviewed any contradicting studies.  That wasn't my point.  Nor do I have any desire to debate the scientific method on any of these studies many of which are peer reviewed.  I simply offerred three true oberservations and two sage suggestions that are relevant to this conversation.  The readers can do their own research and discuss with their own doctors.

Now if you had actually read and comprehended my post, maybe  you wouldn't have made your post in the first place.  I'm pointing out that people a lot smarter and a lot more knowledgable about critical patient care than you believe the treatment works.  That doesn't mean they're right, but it's a long way from idiots eating horse dewormer.  If you feel it's important for you to attack a treatment that I didn't reccomend or suggest people don't get vaccinated or follow their doctor's advice....carry on.  Show us your scientific method.  Show us where all those studies went wrong.

Sorry, Charlie....you are not pointing to a scientific study.   But you are forgiven because many others looked to your same false data.

IVMMETA is not a scientific study...its BS

"Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings"

Newsweek - Rand Paul : Ivermectin isnt being studied because liberal boogeymen scientists hate Trump

Those liberal boogeymen are everywhere....the media, universities, deep state, climate scientists....and now medical scientists too !    They wont recommend the horse pills that are poisoning people as an effective cure for COVID-19..

And here's something I would gladly bet my house on.....Rand Paul has not taken them either.

"Some really smart experts claim..." is a stupid person's idea of peer-reviewed medical research. 

Let's say, just for the sake of validating a really stupid argument, that the horse pills really DO provide protection against covid. Why would people take them instead of getting the vaccine? Don't all the objections they have to the vaccine also apply to the horse pills?