U of M study: Ivermectin not an effective treatment for COVID-19

KSTP.com ^ | 8/17/22 | Ryan Raiche

[Jane Long]

I wouldn’t doubt that Pfizer funded this piece of drivel.

Authored by their top research director, Bea Ess.

[WeaslesRippedMyFlesh]

...and held up research funding gets approved.

[Nifster]

The inoculations help your body recognize a spike protein so it can fight it off instead of letting it run wild.

I know folks who took the inoculations and did not CoVid I also know those who did and did

CoVid is pernicious. I wish it on no one

[ransomnote]

United HealthGroup is another of the 4 funders of this study. George Soros sold 19.8 thousand shares of United HealthGroup stock at $455 to $520 per share in Q1 of 2022.

Here's the original study the FR post is writing about.

Randomized trial of Metaformin, Ivermectin and Fluvoxamine for Covid-19

There were 1323 participants in 6 trial groups, so that means a little over 200 persons per treatment protocol in the study - a tiny number to base so much on. Supposedly a 'global pandemic' so let's test 200+ and make population decisions there?

The six trial groups were assigned to receive the following
drugs or combinations of drugs:

group 1, metfor-min plus fluvoxamine;

group 2, metformin plus ivermectin;

group 3, metformin plus placebo;

group 4, placebo plus fluvoxamine;

group 5, placebo plus ivermectin;

and group 6, placebo plus placebo.

Treatment began 'within 7 days' of symptom onset.

Side Note: Steve Kirsch paid for a study of Fluvoxamine and based on good results, tried to get it published but of course content that conflicts with 'the narrative' cannot be published in controlled medical journals.

I wonder what this means?

"All analyses used controls who had undergone concurrent randomization and were adjusted for SARS CoV2 vaccination."

If they are using mRNA Covid vaxxed people, they may not respond to treatment with these medications the same way if they are suffering with ADE, a known side-effect of mRNA technology. Article says 52% were vaxxinated and all participants were overweight or obese (a high risk factor).

The authors cite a separate study (398 people) employing a dose of Ivermectin that was .3 mg per kg body weight, which was what common protocols considered a prophylactic dose, but one too low to be a treatment dose. Here's Dr. Zelenko's info on Ivermectin (at the bottom in this image).

https://vladimirzelenkomd.com/treatment-protocol/

This study used the following dosages/protocols (Ivermectin for 3 days - all common protocols for Ivermectin say 5 to 7 days)

"The groups received the trial drugs according to
the following doses: immediate-release metformin
administered with an increase in dose over 6 days
to 1500 mg per day for 14 days, ivermectin at a
dose of 390 to 470 μg per kilogram per day for
3 days, and fluvoxamine at a dose of 50 mg
twice daily for 14 days."

[bray]

If you are sick I have someone who knows that who coached me and others. Frontline Doctors have it on their website.

[RFEngineer]

“Did Pfizer fund this bogus study ?”

Read the disclosures. NIH grants funded many of the study participants. They even disclose who provided “ivermevtin placebos”

So the sourced placebos, and were funded by Fauci’s NIH.

This is from the paper, please check it yourself.

The source of much covid propaganda to coerce vaccine uptake is not the best source of funding to study ivermectin, in my opinion.

Since they admittedly had ivermectin placebos, they may have simply only used placebos to get a result preferred by Fauci and his NIH.

That’s why you don’t politicize medicine.

I think everyone should be able to choose to use ivermectin, or the vax if they wish.

[LilFarmer]

Serious and moderate issues with the study, from https://c19ivermectin.com/covidoutivm.html:

Control group includes metformin. The “control” group includes patients receiving metformin, which is known to be beneficial for COVID-19 [c19early.com]. Authors present adjusted results however they do not appear to fully account for metformin efficacy. For example, the adjusted result for ivermectin ER/hosp./death is close to the unadjusted result, while a greater difference would be expected based on the metformin efficacy reported (which is not expected to be doubled in the metformin + ivermectin arm). The reported adjustments match neither the primary or secondary adjustments in the protocol (page 74). The trial has 5 treatments arms, but is presented as if there was 3, leading to complexity and potential bias in adjustments.

Multiple outcomes missing, including time to recovery. Multiple outcomes are missing, for example time to recovery (where ACTIV6 showed superiority of ivermectin): “Time to meaningful recovery (symptoms or severity improved by one category and sustained for at least 36 hours)” (protocol page 91). Notably, the definition is less biased than the ACTIV6 definition, including improvement by one category, making allowance for mild fatigue and cough, and requiring 36 hours sustained rather than 3 days. More notably, the result is not reported.

Results delayed 6 months (including life-saving metformin results). Results were delayed for 6 months with no explanation, with followup ending Feb 14, 2022. Results were not presented until July 8 [rethinkingclinicaltrials.org], and they were still not available to the public due to a news embargo for over a month. Embargo and delay of clinical trial results during a pandemic is not consistent with a goal of minimizing mortality and morbidity. Notably authors report very positive results for metformin (although journal editors changed the conclusion as below).

Control arm results very different between treatments. Control arm results are very different between treatments, for example considering hospitalization/death, this was 1.0% for ivermectin treatment vs. 2.7% for metformin control, however it was 1.3% for the ivermectin control. The metformin arm started earlier, however the difference in outcomes is very large given that most patients are in the shared period.

Adverse events not reported, partial data shows no increase. Adverse events are not reported (other than to note none were serious). Partial information is contained in Table S2 and Figure S5. Notably, there is no significant increase for ivermectin for any of the expected side effects, in contrast to other trials, e.g. [Lim]. These results are unexpected if patients received and took authentic ivermectin at the dosage indicated.

Trial outcomes modified. Trial outcomes were changed on January 20, 2022 [clinicaltrials.gov], and again on March 2, 2022 [clinicaltrials.gov (B)].
Medication delivery varied significantly. Medication delivery varied significantly over the trial. In this presentation [vimeo.com], author indicates that delivery was initially local, later via FedEx, was much slower in August, there were delays due to team bandwidth issues, and they only realized they could use FedEx same day delivery in September.

Treatment 3 days for ivermectin, 14 days for metformin and fluvoxamine. Treatment was 14 days for metformin and fluvoxamine, but only 3 days for ivermectin. (Normal protocols 5 days)

SAP dated after trial. The SAP is dated February 14, 2022, which authors note is one day before unblinding. However, the protocol notes that the statisticians are unblinded: “There is one unblinded statistician with two unblinded supporting statisticians on the study team”, and “All analyses will be carried out by the un-blinded statisticians”. The protocol also notes that the SAP will be developed by unblinded statisticians in one case, and blinded in a second case: “detailed statistical analysis plan will be developed by the unblinded statisticians”, and “statistical analysis plan will be developed by the blinded statistician.”

Test requirement and delivery prohibits early treatment. The requirement for a positive test and delivery of medication introduces substantial delay and largely excludes the possibility of early treatment. The protocol requires verifiable results using a local laboratory standard which excludes most home antigen tests (supplementary data page 5). Note that the trial results do not generalize to real-world usage, where clinicians recommend treatment immediately on symptoms.

Conclusion modified by journal. Author statements indicate that the conclusion was modified by the journal [twitter.com, twitter.com (B)].

Symptom results contradictory. Authors consider only metformin results to be positive (the journal editor considers none to be positive), however the symptom results in Figure S4 show the opposite: ivermectin and fluvoxamine show faster improvement (without statistical significance), while no difference is seen for metformin.

Adherence very low. Adherence was very low, with 77% overall reporting 70+% adherence. Numbers for 100% adherence are not provided.

Administration on an empty stomach. Authors instructed patients to take ivermectin on an empty stomach, but other treatments with food. [Guzzo] show that the plasma concentration of ivermectin is much higher when administered with food (geometric mean AUC 2.6 times higher). “Ivermectin or matching placebo should be taken by mouth on an empty stomach with water. 1 hour before or 2 hours after a meal. All other agents should be taken by mouth at the end of a balanced snack or small meal.”

Inconsistent blinding statements. Protocol page 12 states that “The research team statisticians will remain blinded”, while the supplementary data page 40 states that “There is one unblinded statistician with two unblinded supporting statisticians on the study team”.

Author indicates a best guess can be used for onset. One author suggests that investigators can use a “best guess” if a patient gives a range for time of onset, which would allow a biased investigator to present an incorrect lower average time from onset [twitter.com (C)].

No discontinuation due to hospitalization for ivermectin. Table S2 shows 9 placebo patients discontinued treatment due to hospitalization, compared to zero for ivermectin. While ivermectin patients only received 3 days treatment, they received placebo tablets for the remaining days. If this number is only counting discontinuation during the first three days, the result highlights that treatment was stopped before any patients were hospitalized. The protocol notes “Study drug will be stopped at the time of hospitalization for any reason”.

[Theo]

You are absolutely right. These “studies” are designed to fail because they don’t include zinc/D, and aren’t enacted early on in the illness.

It’s my understanding that if Ivermectin is unavailable, Quercetin could help do the same thing.

[catnipman]

like all political science, taxpayer grants are only available for “studies” that prove what the fascist Democrats want proved, and zero money for any study that might prove the contrary ...

no antiviral works unless administered no later than 48-72 hours after symptoms appear ... this is long established dogma in medical science, so it’s easy to construct a study to “prove” that ANY antiviral fails to work by simply making sure its administered to late to do any good ...

[catnipman]

“Except that it DID work magnificently for me, my family, and a number of friends.”

I personally know almost a dozen who tested positive and were very ill with the original covid who QUICKLY recovered with the triad of iver, hydroxy and zith in kits that i supplied ... locals could pick up the kits ASAP ... others had them on hand in advance, and still others had their kits since overnight express ...

[bobcat62]

Same here. I have a supply from Mexico.

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

I knew this would be a lively AND highly informative thread!

[MacNaughton]

Thank you. Brain fog from omicron back in JAN. I meant quercetin.

[Bikkuri]

Is’s a shame that it takes something this serious to learn what propagandists the LSM (and govt) are.

[NewHampshireDuo]

The last studies they did on this, the amount of Ivermectin given was not enough to be effective. That was how they experts rigged the outcome.

Yes, give too small a dose and it doesn't work. Likewise, give too large a dose and the study group dies. Both have been done.

[semimojo]

I suppose you would not get paid if you did not spread a bunch of BS on FR everyday.

You're so used to the anti-vax grifters that are always being posted here you assume everyone is doing it for money.

I'm not, but maybe when my Substack is ready to go online...

[sbnsd]

bkmk

[arthurus]

It is not effective for many things but will knock out the WuFlu. It won’t, however, power our EV.

[arthurus]

Actually several things work well against WuFlu Ivermectin/zinc has worked quite well wherever used.

Wife and I cut Xi’s gift to the world short with megadose vitamin D3.

[Glad2bnuts]

BWAH ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.....