The hospitalization rate was reduced by 100% in regular users compared to both irregular users and non-users (p < 0.0001), and by 29% among irregular users compared to non-users (RR: 0.781; 95% CI: 0.49-1.05; p = 0.099). Mortality rate was 92% lower in regular users than non-users (RR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02-0.35; p = 0.0008) and 84% lower than irregular users (RR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04-0.71; p = 0.016), while irregular users had a 37% lower mortality rate reduction than non-users (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.40-0.99; p = 0.049). Risk of dying from COVID-19 was 86% lower among regular users than non-users (RR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.03-0.57; p = 0.006), and 72% lower than irregular users (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.07-1.18; p = 0.083), while irregular users had a 51% reduction compared to non-users (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.32-0.76; p = 0.001).
Cureus is an open-access general medical journal and not new on the scene, formed in 2009. Unlike those that can be forcibly censored by their sponsors this one operates on a publish, then peer review model which prevents that. Does this impact the quality of the work? Well, you might think it could, except that the so-called "mainstream" journals have repeatedly published crap and, from the post-publication reviews done, an utterly astounding percentage of their claimed "trials" cannot be replicated. Science isn't about publication; if you can't replicate a claimed experiment and get the same result you're at best incompetent and likely lying.
Let me print the conclusion for you:
Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin. This dose-response efficacy reinforces the prophylactic effects of ivermectin against COVID-19.
Indeed. Dose-response is one of the gold-standard markers. Failing to find it is a good indication whatever you think is going on, presuming you don't hit toxicity limits, is wrong. Finding it is not proof you're right but its a pretty good indication.
This study was run out of Brazil and, importantly, was prospective; that is, they didn't try to reverse-evaluate something later on and draw inferences; instead this was an intentionally-designed study, got IRB approval and was monitored both for adverse events and outcomes.
The study itself was completed in December of 2020. Yet here we are, a year and a half later, and only now does it hit the press.
Well, sort of hit the press.
Notice how it hasn't shown up anywhere in the so-called "mainstream" reporting?
I'll bet it won't.
Especially when one considers that the results are wildly better than the jabs, with a much safer side effect profile, particularly given that the dose used did not exceed that for other common but not life-threatening conditions, specifically scabies..