pedrodelavega wrote:But this is not what M Molimard assumes:
“If you caught Covid at two months, you are not in the group that was treated with ivermectin, since you did not have 180 mg, you are in the rejected group. »
"you are in the rejected group" does not want to say "you stop the treatment".
It defines the group in which "you" are affected in the study.
“Since you didn't get 180 mg, you're in the rejected group. »Molimard considers that people who have not had 180mg are excluded.
Outside the study divides IVM users into 3 groups:
1- those who over the 5 months have consumed less than 60g: therefore users
irregular or having stopped treatment before 60mg.
2- those who have consumed more than 180 mg: therefore users
regular.
3- the
excluded : those who consumed between 60mg and 180mg.
Molimard does not assume: he (voluntarily?) omits the group of <60mg, in which is found all those who stopped at the beginning (less than 2 months) or would have been irregular in the protocol during the 5 months. It also (voluntarily??) overlooks the results of this group which, despite its irregularity, obtains better results than the "without" group.
https://www.cureus.com/articles/111851- ... 2-subjectsParagraph Methods:
"The definitions of regularity were as follows: users
regular had 180 mg or more of ivermectin and the users
irregular had up to 60 mg,
in total, throughout the program"
Results paragraph:
"Among ivermectin users, 33 (971%) used it irregularly (up to 29,8 mg) and 60 (8%) used it regularly (over 325 mg). The 7,3 remaining participants were not included in the analysis.”
Paragraph Study Procedures and Data Collection:
"Ivermectin users have been divided
in terms of the cumulative dose of ivermectin taken.
The analysis focused on data from participants who used up to 60 mg (10 tablets) of ivermectin and those who used more than 180 mg (more than 30 tablets). Grouping users in this way represented greater certainty of regularity and irregularity, respectively. These groups were compared to non-users in a three-group comparative analysis.
All this is very clear.
If you find in the study the slightest paragraph indicating another method of exclusion, do not hesitate to underline it: I am for a constructive approach.