This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 193.119.88.134 (talk) at 12:49, 9 September 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:49, 9 September 2021 by 193.119.88.134 (talk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Dear god you people. You KNOW you are full of shit. 61/63 sources in the large metadata study are valid.
Stop bullshitting .
There are plenty of sources in peer reviewed literature that show these drugs alone and in combination are effective and safe - they're already used for other diseases anyway.
Hardly any of you freaks are qualified.
Just what do you do all day, and who do you actually represent???
Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus
A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Misplaced Pages policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.
- Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3) do not currently support Ivermectin as an effective treatment for COVID-19. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as:
Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials.
(May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH) - Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1, 2, 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized:
Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings.
(July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH) - Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)
Last updated (diff) on 9 September 2021 by 193.119.88.134 (t · c)
 WikiProject COVID-19 | |
|---|---|
| Talk page | |
| Content | |
| Task forces | |
| Grading scheme | |
| Maintenance | |
| Resources | |
| Stats | |
| User | |
| Protocols | |
| Project category | |