Ivermectin proving not to be proven

[AussieBob]

 

Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies (nature.com)

“I was shocked, as everyone in the scientific community probably were,” says Eduardo López-Medina, a paediatrician at the Centre for the Study of Paediatric Infections in Cali, Colombia, who was not involved with the study and who has investigated whether ivermectin can improve COVID-19 symptoms. “It was one of the first papers that led everyone to get into the idea ivermectin worked” in a clinical-trial setting, he adds.

The paper summarized the results of a clinical trial seeming to show that ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 death rates by more than 90%1 — among the largest studies of the drug’s ability to treat COVID-19 to date. But on 14 July, after internet sleuths raised concerns about plagiarism and data manipulation, the preprint server Research Square withdrew the paper because of “ethical concerns”.

The paper’s irregularities came to light when Jack Lawrence, a master’s student at the University of London, was reading it for a class assignment and noticed that some phrases were identical to those in other published work. When he contacted researchers who specialize in detecting fraud in scientific publications, the group found other causes for concern, including dozens of patient records that seemed to be duplicates, inconsistencies between the raw data and the information in the paper, patients whose records indicate they died before the study’s start date, and numbers that seemed to be too consistent to have occurred by chance."                     

 

 

RACGP - What now for ivermectin?

"This review carefully examined 10 higher-quality (randomised-controlled) clinical trials, which involved more than 1100 patients with COVID-19 being treated with ivermectin. The researchers excluded many of the low-quality (observational) studies some commentators have used to support ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. This was because observational studies cannot control other clinical factors that might influence how people respond to COVID-19, such as other treatments and supportive care. This major review concluded ivermectin did not reduce death from any cause, the length of stay in hospital or people’s ability to clear the virus. The review also said ivermectin was safe but ‘not a viable option’ to treat COVID-19.

 

[thai3]

oh dear what will the anti vax gang turn to next ?

[gummy]

7 minutes ago, AussieBob said:

Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies (nature.com)

“I was shocked, as everyone in the scientific community probably were,” says Eduardo López-Medina, a paediatrician at the Centre for the Study of Paediatric Infections in Cali, Colombia, who was not involved with the study and who has investigated whether ivermectin can improve COVID-19 symptoms. “It was one of the first papers that led everyone to get into the idea ivermectin worked” in a clinical-trial setting, he adds.

The paper summarized the results of a clinical trial seeming to show that ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 death rates by more than 90%1 — among the largest studies of the drug’s ability to treat COVID-19 to date. But on 14 July, after internet sleuths raised concerns about plagiarism and data manipulation, the preprint server Research Square withdrew the paper because of “ethical concerns”.

The paper’s irregularities came to light when Jack Lawrence, a master’s student at the University of London, was reading it for a class assignment and noticed that some phrases were identical to those in other published work. When he contacted researchers who specialize in detecting fraud in scientific publications, the group found other causes for concern, including dozens of patient records that seemed to be duplicates, inconsistencies between the raw data and the information in the paper, patients whose records indicate they died before the study’s start date, and numbers that seemed to be too consistent to have occurred by chance."                     

RACGP - What now for ivermectin?

"This review carefully examined 10 higher-quality (randomised-controlled) clinical trials, which involved more than 1100 patients with COVID-19 being treated with ivermectin. The researchers excluded many of the low-quality (observational) studies some commentators have used to support ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. This was because observational studies cannot control other clinical factors that might influence how people respond to COVID-19, such as other treatments and supportive care. This major review concluded ivermectin did not reduce death from any cause, the length of stay in hospital or people’s ability to clear the virus. The review also said ivermectin was safe but ‘not a viable option’ to treat COVID-19.

Are yes but in a recent survey of 1000 cattle after having invermectin, 99% appeared happy after the worms were excreted and said they would use again 

[gummy]

2 minutes ago, thai3 said:

oh dear what will the anti vax gang turn to next ?

Apparently boiling heads can cure a few things to

[ninja]

Moved to the "Head in the Sand"  forum................

[BlueSphinx]

Yes, a new low > Big Pharma will go to any lengths to sow doubt about the effectiveness of IVM.  The fallacies in that fake study (copying phrases from other studies, using data twice and using data of already deceased patients) are so obvious that they were meant to be 'discovered'.  Would be a good subject for a piece of investigative journalism to check out the authors of that fake study.

[MrStretch]

Yep, I knew it.  When the reality of the study's lies and overreaches were made public, the ivermectin brigade would instantly trot out that questionable graphic from ivmeta.com and their prophet, the non-virologist "expert" Dr. Robert Malone.

[ninja]

3 hours ago, ninja said:

Moved to the "Head in the Sand"  forum................

if my sarcasm was misinterpreted.................  the "head in the sand"  group IMO  are the ones who keep quoting MSM  bs  and  adding stupid one-liners on this forum to make them feel right.

There are many links given here from intelligent posters who can actually express their opinions with sentences........ and even whole paragraphs !     Thanks to thaiger for allowing them to do so..... though as i posted before, no closed minds will be opened.     On the other hand,  some of us are learning something

[AussieBob]

3 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

Yes, a new low > Big Pharma will go to any lengths to sow doubt about the effectiveness of IVM.  The fallacies in that fake study (copying phrases from other studies, using data twice and using data of already deceased patients) are so obvious that they were meant to be 'discovered'.  Would be a good subject for a piece of investigative journalism to check out the authors of that fake study.

I'll call, and raise you the 'BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine' website:

Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19 | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine

 

"Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.36

Concluding, research related to ivermectin in COVID-19 has serious methodological limitations resulting in very low certainty of the evidence, and continues to grow.37–39 The use of ivermectin, among others repurposed drugs for prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19, should be done based on trustable evidence, without conflicts of interest, with proven safety and efficacy in patient-consented, ethically approved, randomised clinical trials."

 

[BlueSphinx]

9 minutes ago, AussieBob said:

I'll call, and raise you the 'BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine' website:

Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19 | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine

...

Take a look at the debate between the main author of that IVM hit-piece < dr Luis Ignacio Garegnani > and  dr Pierre KORY of the FLCCC on the pros and cons of IVERMECTIN in the treatment of covid-19.

It's a rather bizarre stance > "We'd better be ultra, ultra certain about Ivermectin before even thinking about recommending it as a treatment for Covid. Meanwhile, let's administer experimental vaccines with unknown short and long-term health consequences to the entire population of the world and see what happens."

 

[AussieBob]

44 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Take a look at the debate between the main author of that IVM hit-piece < dr Luis Ignacio Garegnani > and  dr Pierre KORY of the FLCCC on the pros and cons of IVERMECTIN in the treatment of covid-19.

It's a rather bizarre stance > "We'd better be ultra, ultra certain about Ivermectin before even thinking about recommending it as a treatment for Covid. Meanwhile, let's administer experimental vaccines with unknown short and long-term health consequences to the entire population of the world and see what happens."

I hear you - there are those for and those against the vaccines - and the medical industry is still working things out about alternative or additional options like Ivermectin.  At this time I am still on the side of taking the vaccines as the best method to reduce the chances of a severe reaction when/if I get Covid. Maybe Ivermectin as a 'supplement' is an OK way to go, but I still believe that the vaccines are the best way to go as the front line of defence. 

[snapdragon]

2 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

Take a look at the debate between the main author of that IVM hit-piece < dr Luis Ignacio Garegnani > and  dr Pierre KORY of the FLCCC on the pros and cons of IVERMECTIN in the treatment of covid-19.

It's a rather bizarre stance > "We'd better be ultra, ultra certain about Ivermectin before even thinking about recommending it as a treatment for Covid. Meanwhile, let's administer experimental vaccines with unknown short and long-term health consequences to the entire population of the world and see what happens."

Dr Pierre Kory says it as it is in this fine piece.

At 47-00 he talks about 'The Trusted News Initiative'. A cartel of platforms that decided in November of 2020, not to allow discussion of anything that opposes the WHO, CDC, FDA, NIH MHRA etc narrative.

Well worth a listen; if only from 47-00.

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by snapdragon

[JackIsAGoodBoy]

7 hours ago, MrStretch said:

Yep, I knew it.  When the reality of the study's lies and overreaches were made public, the ivermectin brigade would instantly trot out that questionable graphic from ivmeta.com and their prophet, the non-virologist "expert" Dr. Robert Malone.

Oh, you mean the guy who practically invented mRNA vaccines. Yeah, he probably does not know anything! 

Have you even look at any of those studies mentioned? No, you just believe in some hit piece instead like that RS article about "Ivermectin overdoses".  You do not bother to check anything, you just believe some one random guy instead. 

It is not rocket science to test a medicine. You divided into two relatively large groups, then give one group the drug and the other group the placebo or no drug during the same time period. Then you measure and balance the groups mathematically as much as you can by age and whatever you need, to eliminate other factors and see the results. There is no "methodological problems" with that.

About those studies: They are from different countries, different kinds of studies, different sizes, different dosages, different time periods, different patients and different researchers and institutions. That is as good as it gets.

[Bob20]

On 9/6/2021 at 10:53 AM, AussieBob said:

I'll call, and raise you the 'BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine' website:

Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19 | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine

"Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.36

Concluding, research related to ivermectin in COVID-19 has serious methodological limitations resulting in very low certainty of the evidence, and continues to grow.37–39 The use of ivermectin, among others repurposed drugs for prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19, should be done based on trustable evidence, without conflicts of interest, with proven safety and efficacy in patient-consented, ethically approved, randomised clinical trials."

I gave them that BMJ reference a couple of weeks ago. They'll just 'go next door' and try the same again (and again and again) with two fingers in their ears going "lalalalala".

https://thethaiger.com/talk/topic/4201-news-forum-youtube-pulled-1-million-covid-19-misinformation-videos/?do=findComment&comment=44924

[gummy]

Famous last words by some perhaps