THIS FIRST LINK IS FOR ALL HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE STUDIES COMBINED-
Conclusion
HCQ is an effective treatment for COVID-19. Treatment is more effective when used early. Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 63% [53‑70%] improvement for the 38 early treatment studies. Results are similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and after restriction to peer-reviewed studies. Restricting to the 11 RCTs shows 39% [8‑59%] improvement, and restricting to the 15 mortality results shows 72% [57‑81%] lower mortality. Very late stage treatment is not effective and may be harmful, especially when using excessive dosages.
•There is evidence of bias towards publishing negative results. 76% of prospective studies report positive effects, compared to 71% of retrospective studies. Studies from North America are 2.7 times more likely to report negative results than studies from the rest of the world combined, p = 0.0000000055.
Countries reporting positive results, the US and Canada sit at the bottom of this list for a reason-
Asia- 85.7%
Europe- 82%
Africa- 78.6%
Middle East- 71%
South America- 68.8%
North America- 46.2%
LINK---
=============
THIS SECOND LINK IS FOR ALL IVERMECTIN STUDIES COMBINED-
Conclusion
Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. Treatment is more effective when used early. Meta analysis using the most serious outcome shows 63% [53‑72%] and 83% [74‑89%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis, for primary outcomes, for peer-reviewed studies, and for RCTs. Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. All remain significant after exclusions. 53 studies from 48 independent teams in 22 different countries show statistically significant improvements in isolation (39 for primary outcomes, and 36 for the most serious outcome). Results are very robust — in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 54 of 82 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.
LINK-
This is a fuck ton of info
Feel free to go through it and give your opinions.
Conclusion
HCQ is an effective treatment for COVID-19. Treatment is more effective when used early. Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 63% [53‑70%] improvement for the 38 early treatment studies. Results are similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and after restriction to peer-reviewed studies. Restricting to the 11 RCTs shows 39% [8‑59%] improvement, and restricting to the 15 mortality results shows 72% [57‑81%] lower mortality. Very late stage treatment is not effective and may be harmful, especially when using excessive dosages.
•There is evidence of bias towards publishing negative results. 76% of prospective studies report positive effects, compared to 71% of retrospective studies. Studies from North America are 2.7 times more likely to report negative results than studies from the rest of the world combined, p = 0.0000000055.
Countries reporting positive results, the US and Canada sit at the bottom of this list for a reason-
Asia- 85.7%
Europe- 82%
Africa- 78.6%
Middle East- 71%
South America- 68.8%
North America- 46.2%
 |
| Total | 339 studies | 5,386 authors | 458,419 patients |
| Positive effects | 245 studies | 3,807 authors | 329,252 patients |
| Early treatment | 63% improvement | RR 0.37 [0.30-0.47] |
| Late treatment | 19% improvement | RR 0.81 [0.76-0.85] |
LINK---
=============
THIS SECOND LINK IS FOR ALL IVERMECTIN STUDIES COMBINED-
Conclusion
Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. Treatment is more effective when used early. Meta analysis using the most serious outcome shows 63% [53‑72%] and 83% [74‑89%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis, for primary outcomes, for peer-reviewed studies, and for RCTs. Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. All remain significant after exclusions. 53 studies from 48 independent teams in 22 different countries show statistically significant improvements in isolation (39 for primary outcomes, and 36 for the most serious outcome). Results are very robust — in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 54 of 82 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.
LINK-
This is a fuck ton of info
Feel free to go through it and give your opinions.
Last edited:
