So I found a website that did a lot of meta-analysis of studies (studies of studies) regarding Vitamin D, Ivermectin, HCQ, Zinc and other treatments when dealing with Covid
https://vdmeta.com/
It found:
Vit D:
"Vitamin D is effective for COVID-19. Random effects meta-analysis of the
18 treatment studies to date shows an estimated reduction of 63% in the effect measured, RR 0.37 [0.26-0.53].
•Sufficiency studies show a strong association between vitamin D sufficiency and outcomes. Meta-analysis of the 39 sufficiency studies shows an estimated reduction of 57%, RR 0.43 [0.36-0.52]."
Ivermectin
"100% of the 45 studies to date report positive effects. Random effects meta-analysis for early treatment and pooled effects shows an 82% reduction, RR 0.18 [0.12-0.27], and prophylactic use shows 89% improvement, RR 0.11 [0.05-0.23].
Mortality results show 75% lower mortality, RR 0.25 [0.15-0.44] for all treatment delays, and 84% lower, RR 0.16 [0.04-0.63] for early treatment.
•
100% of the 24 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) report positive effects, with an estimated 70% improvement, RR 0.30 [0.19-0.47].
•The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 45 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 35 trillion (
p = 0.000000000000028)."
HCQ
"HCQ is effective for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 218 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 208 quadrillion (
p = 0.0000000000000000048).
Early treatment is most successful, with 100% of studies reporting a positive effect and an estimated reduction of 65% in the effect measured (death, hospitalization, etc.) using a random effects meta-analysis, RR 0.35 [0.27-0.44].
•
92% of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early, PrEP, or PEP treatment report positive effects, the probability of this happening for an ineffective treatment is 0.0032.
•There is evidence of bias towards publishing negative results. 90% of prospective studies report positive effects, and only 75% of retrospective studies do.
•
Studies from North America are 3.4 times more likely to report negative results than studies from the rest of the world combined, p = 0.00000053.
"
Maybe they missed a few studies, but they have so many with so many samples its hard to believe that the results would change much.
What is interesting to me is that if you google things around, you would be lead to believe the exact opposite. Most media pieces are extremely skeptical about these treatments, the whole thing was politicized, and the analyses has shown that NA research was also infected by bias. Big tech (run by people who think they know what society needs) have decide to chime in and censor people that dont agree with them.
Truth now no longer matters, what matters are certain individual agendas and their distorted views of reality or their needs for profits. The net result is the society is lead to believe things that aren't true but sometimes they find out and become super skeptical of the system, income inequality just makes these issues even worse. In the documentary Social Dilemma a former employee of a social media firm talks about how these issues might lead to a civil war one day. I agree, I think society is boiling little by little and at some point this whole thing will explode. Not just in the US but in Brazil and some countries in Europe as well
