| There are two important sentences from the summary of findings: First, the effects of Ivermectin on viral load were not significant:
"The ivermectin group had non-statistically significant lower viral loads at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) and day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) post treatment as well as lower IgG titers at day 21 post treatment (p = 0·24)." Second, Ivermectin did show earlier recovery:
"Patients in the ivermectin group recovered earlier from hyposmia/anosmia (76 vs 158 patient-days; p < 0.001)." From the Washington Post article, a YouTube exec is quoted as saying “We’ll remove claims that vaccines are dangerous or cause a lot of health effects, that vaccines cause autism, cancer, infertility or contain microchips.” This leads me to believe the kind of medical misinformation YouTube is targeting is much more general. Also, the medical consensus -- via things like Cochrane Review [0] -- is that there isn't enough data on Ivermectin. It's the statistical uncertainty around it that gives the medical establishment pause, and currently makes recommendations of using it misinformation. Should the scientific community discover something different, the definition of misinformation will change. [0] https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD... |