Lib pol GRAND HAUL sez scientists won't study horse manure dewormer drug ivermectin as a COVID CURR because they hate FOOTOO. WHO DO?

It included 1 trials data of 100 people that was later withdrawn.  The rest of the trials were 20+ trials included over 2500 other people.   

Again, it is clear from this data study ivermectin is effective against covid and as with any med early treatment is better.

To all:

The study linked by contributor "my2cents" stands criticized for reviewing other studies that are said to be of: "low quality and have potential sources of bias" (see my post on this thread: original (unedited) posting date and time: "September 10, 2021 2:24 PM MDT"). This post was edited by Robert at September 13, 2021 4:59 AM MDT

The study shows the data from all of the trials. Yes it included one that was withdrawn.  That does not invalidate the other trials data.

But they did do a data analysis removing the data from the withdrawn trial. 

This post was edited by my2cents at September 13, 2021 5:20 AM MDT

To all:

The study to which contributor "my2cents" refers reviewed "trials" not "studies"; trials are different from studies.

To be clear, the study contributor "my2cents" linked on this thread was: "Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines": 
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx

Here are some extracts from a review of the latter study (See my post above for more extracts - original (unedited) posting date and time: "September 10, 2021 2:24 PM MDT"):
- - - - Start of extract: - - - -

[...] Experts said the trials that the study relies on are not high quality.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said the study is a meta-analysis (an analysis of other analyses) "whose strength is dependent on the underlying studies that comprise it."

"In general, most of the ivermectin studies that purport to show a positive benefit are of low quality and have potential sources of bias," which is why the drug is not recommended by the National Institutes of Health or the Infectious Diseases Society of America, he said. "It is only with rigorously designed randomized control trials that any true benefit can be discovered." [...]

Extract source:
https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jun/30/what-know-about-pro-ivermectin-groups-study-toutin/

- - - - End of extract - - - -

This post was edited by Robert at September 13, 2021 5:22 AM MDT

Again they did the analysis with the withdrawn trial removed.  And it still shows ivermectin is effectively. 

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/10000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx

The study linked by contributor "my2cents" stands criticized for reviewing studies trials that are said to be of: "low quality and have potential sources of bias" (see my post on this thread: original (unedited) posting date and time: "September 10, 2021 2:24 PM MDT").

Why is it low quality? They used all data that met the guidelines.  And they did is again removing the data from the withdrawn trial. 

Sounds pretty good to me.  What is the problems with other included trial data that makes it supposedly "low quality and biased"?  
Your link to Politifact uses a similar study of data analysis.  It says is reliable.  It did come to a different conclusion.  However the data I see still shows ivermectin has a positive result. 

Chart is in order:
Outcome (days followed up)
Control group
Ivermectin Group

Every outcome is better with Ivermectin.