I have a feeling the bar may be set high for this one going by the third paragraph. They continue to misrepresent HCQ also, which is frustrating. The real story there is one of scientific fraud by some of the most respected institutions in the world.

permalink

This is a rehash of the WHO funded meta-analysis of the 11 small randomized trials of varying quality reported or submitted for publication so far. Dr. Hill has summarized his team's meta-analysis in a really nice 10 minute video on You Tube.
He points out
1. The great risk of publication bias when there are 11 small trials lumped together: negative studies may not be hustled to publication.
2. The sketchy nature of the submitted material for some of the 11 trials.
3. That two very large randomized trial are in the works and may be completed in the next 6 weeks, after which his team will do another meta-analysis.
For now the best evidence we have strongly supports the use of ivermectin, but that evidence is less than perfect.
Ethics lesson: Physicians must work with the best evidence they have, even is less than perfect, especially in a potentially deadly disease and with a very safe and inexpensive drug.
Hello ! to all you "evidence-based" practitioners who are reluctant to prescribe ivermectin.

permalink