JFrench said:tomtomdrumdrum said:JFrench said:Infection_Ag11 said:It's simply because I understand that anecdotal data is not meaningful in assessing efficacy, especially for a low mortality illnessA is A said:because you dont want to believe. its an agenda to you and half this board to discredit a cheap and effective drug.Infection_Ag11 said:V8Aggie said:
Seemed to work for both my parents in their 70's both of which are medical professionals.
I'm happy your parents both did well, but I have no reason to believe based on the current evidence that the ivermectin had anything to do with it. They recovered most likely because they were always going to recover.
My only point with the original post was to point out how extra silly this particular anecdote was given that Rodgers, unlike your parents, has virtually no chance of dying from covid regardless of what he is treated with. You can count the number of young professional athletes who have died from COVID globally on two hands. They have so much pulmonary reserve and such robust end organ function that it's just not likely to happen.
Why the vaccines then? For Aaron Rogers and the other 99.8% of the world
I'm assuming this argument is in response to him saying "low mortality illness." A small percentage, when applied to a large group of people, can result in what is considered a large number.
A small percentage chance, when applied to a single person, is still a small percentage chance.
Vaccination brings the large number of deaths and serious illness down. Anecdotal stories of ivermectin usage for individuals do not prove that the small percentage chance of serious illness for that individual went down.
When the number is 99.8% it could all be anecdotal.
I'll go for the old, fat, and diabetic. That's probably 99.8% of the .2%
When I got it there weren't vaccines or therapeutics. I drank beer for 2 weeks. Just as effective as the jab or horse paste for me.
iT cOuLd AlL bE aNeCdOtAl