Anyone see a good reason why the excluded the majority of the people who actually used ivermectin from the study? Excluding a big chunk like that from middle of the dose range seems suspicious unless I’m missing something.
> Risk of dying from COVID-19 was 86% lower among regular users than non-users (RR, 0.14; 95%CI, 0.03–0.57; p=0.006), and 72% lower than irregular users (RR, 0.28; 95%CI, 0.07–1.18; p=0.083), while irregular users had a 51% reduction compared to non-users (RR, 0.49; 95%CI, 0.32–0.76; p=0.001). Conclusion: Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin in a PSM comparison of a strictly controlled population.
Which seems to be insanely high. These are the kind of numbers that should be easily replicable by any of the previous studies or research efforts that went into Ivermectin. Nothing here seems to pass the smell test. And given the amount of Ivermectin studies that have used poor quality evidence or outright made stuff up this needs far more rigor before I'm willing to accept it.
That said, this is one study, and it may or may not be good evidence. It is interesting, though.
There's more to the world than just the US. Even if the US totally censored anything related to Ivermectin there are and have been more studies conducted across the world, including in places that have incorporated Ivermectin as part of the care routine. Most studies and research have shown little to no effect. But people are keen to point at a single (pre-print!) study and act like it's vindication before any sort of review.