Posted on 02/07/2022 8:03:41 AM PST by SaxxonWoods
Leading doctor admits his research was changed. A must read interview
Just because he didn’t post the link (likely because he assumes that almost everyone on fr has already seen the links, many many times), doesn’t mean the links do not exist and that fr should censor him For not posting the link. This site isn’t democratic underground or facebook!
Man, this is confusing for anyone just trying to get to the truth.
The ONE thing I have learned - “science” is not what its made out to be. especially in a rushed, tense, highly political atmosphere - like during Covid.
Studies, analysis, results can have completely different results, ESPECIALLY when politics, ideology and media come into play - which is everything these days.
Its impossible for even intelligent people to make sense of the confusion.
Amazing, somebody put out a poor paper.
Junk science (politically motivated) is real. So are sophisticated misinformation schemes, planted falsehoods, and falsified studies to boost propaganda.
In today’s world knowing what to trust is hard.
I don’t trust this story fully…because the authors of the false studies are not paying a high price. And the value of ivermectin is well proven without the input from the liars.
“Man, this is confusing for anyone just trying to get to the truth.”
Thanks, that was my point.
There’s nothing in there that says it will harm you so I would try it if I got sick. Thinking about getting it just in case.
The story continues:
Lawrence, who is in his mid-20s and studying biomedical science, kept researching online. He clicked through to a file-sharing website, where the study’s dataset was housed. Lawrence paid $10.80 for a subscription to reactivate the link, which had expired in January 2021, only to find the file required a password. He made a few attempts, and then he tried “1-2-3-4.” It worked.
From there, Lawrence discovered that the issues went far beyond plagiarism. The number of deaths cited in the paper did not match the number of deaths in the database. Some of the patient data had been duplicated. Other patients included in the trial had been hospitalized before the study began.
“I was working in my room,” he said. “And I went out of my room to tell everyone, you know, my housemates, being like, ‘Oh, my God, you will not believe what I’ve just found.’”
Lawrence would go on to contact Research Square, the website that published the paper, which had not been peer-reviewed. Within 24 hours, Lawrence got a response from the editor, and the website withdrew the paper in mid-July.
It’s just one of several retractions and withdrawals of studies saying ivermectin is a viable COVID-19 treatment, and the impact of this kind of fraudulent research is still reverberating. During the pandemic, there has been a surge of demand for ivermectin, a drug commonly used to treat parasites in people who live in regions of South America and Africa, and in livestock.
The number of monthly ivermectin prescriptions in the U.S. jumped to a high of 454,000 in August 2021, from about 57,000 in January 2020, according to healthcare data firm IQVIA. This figure doesn’t take into account veterinary prescriptions, which also increased when people began to seek out different ways to access the drug. Research published in January estimates that health insurers spent about $2.5 million on ivermectin prescriptions for COVID-19 in one week of August 2021.
The Benha research was cited in a doctor’s Congressional testimony before it was debunked, and the drug has been touted by celebrities and politicians, as well as a mysterious and popular website with no known authors. Ivermectin proponents describe the drug as cheap, safe, readily available, and say it can work both as a COVID-19 treatment or for prophylaxis.
Yet no comprehensive clinical trials have found that ivermectin works as a COVID-19 treatment. To make this issue even more complicated, no “gold-standard” studies have yet to find that it’s useless against COVID-19 or that it’s harmful to people taking it.
The ivermectin saga shows how the American drug regulatory system has been overrun by the pressures of the pandemic, including the rush to put out new research and then act immediately on those findings. This led a graduate student hacking into a database to find the truth, and the Food and Drug Administration cracking online jokes to warn people that ivermectin was not a suitable COVID-19 treatment. “You are not a horse,” the U.S. regulator tweeted in August, in an attempt to stop Americans from using ivermectin, warning the drug could be toxic if taken at the highly concentrated doses given to large animals.
Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an Australian epidemiologist who has become an expert on ivermectin during the pandemic, says it’s not unreasonable for the average person to think ivermectin is a solid COVID-19 treatment. After all, the public is watching trusted people recommend or take the drug. But he thinks they are being misled.
“A lot of the debate and discussion is driven by people who, for whatever reason, think ivermectin is a miracle cure, even despite the evidence that it probably isn’t,” Meyerowitz-Katz said. “It’s become incredibly politicized at this point.”
There will be new data coming soon from a pair of randomized clinical trials that may reveal just how effective ivermectin is as a COVID-19 treatment. Dr. David Boulware, an infectious disease physician-scientist in charge of one of those ivermectin studies, says the whole point of testing drugs in people is to generate such definitive data.
“There’s tons of people prescribing [ivermectin], but there’s actually very little data,” Boulware says.
To really understand ivermectin’s roots as a COVID-19 treatment in the U.S., you have to look to Wisconsin, home to Republican Senator Ron Johnson, Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers, and Dr. Pierre Kory. Each is now a prominent American figure in the ivermectin story.
While Kory is not famous, he and an organization he helped found have played a big role in popularizing ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. A critical-care physician, Kory practiced medicine at the University of Wisconsin Health hospital in Madison until he resigned over his frustration about the hospital’s COVID-19 care practices. Now he’s one of the founders of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, an organization known as FLCCC that promotes an outpatient, inpatient, and long COVID-19 treatment plan.
Kory remembers when the first preprint assessing ivermectin’s viability as a COVID-19 treatment was published in April 2020. Preprints, which are studies that haven’t been reviewed by other experts, have long been used in economics and math, but they became widely used in the pandemic to speed up the dissemination of new medical and scientific findings. The ivermectin preprint that got Kory’s attention had been published by researchers in Australia. It described an in-vitro study, meaning it was conducted in a laboratory and not in people or animals. In very large doses, ivermectin demonstrated antiviral action against the virus.
““A lot of the debate and discussion is driven by people who, for whatever reason, think ivermectin is a miracle cure, even despite the evidence that it probably isn’t.””
— Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, chronic disease research, University of Wollongong
Some researchers had immediately disregarded the study, though well-designed, based on the dosing.
“I saw that when it came out, and I did the mathematical calculation of, is this a drug level you can achieve?” Boulware told me. “I quickly realized, no, this is 50 to 100 times higher than you’d ever get in a human. It took me about 15 minutes to figure out that this was not going to be useful as an antiviral. I set it aside and moved onwards.”
There was little interest in ivermectin in the U.S. in those days, though the FDA began warning people that same month not to self-medicate with ivermectin formulations intended for animals. Ivermectin is considered a very good and safe treatment for parasitic worms that can cause diseases in people like river blindness, and is also known for being used to treat worms in livestock and pets.
In the spring and summer of 2020, much of the nation’s focus was on three other therapies: hydroxychloroquine, a drug that received emergency authorization as a COVID-19 treatment in March 2020; convalescent plasma, which received an EUA of its own in August 2020; and Gilead Sciences’
GILD,
-2.28%
remdesivir, an antiviral that was eventually approved by the FDA and is now considered part of the standard of COVID-19 care for very sick patients.
“What then happened was a series of very low-quality studies published towards the end of [2020], and they reported huge benefits for ivermectin,” Meyerowitz-Katz said.
It was around October of that year that Kory, back in Wisconsin, says he saw promising preliminary data out of research conducted in Bangladesh, the Dominican Republic, and Peru. He began prescribing ivermectin to COVID-19 patients.
At that time, Roche Holding’s
ROG,
-1.10%
“tocilizumab was not looking good. Hydroxychloroquine from the randomized control trials was not looking good. Convalescent plasma…These are all things that were being used therapeutically,” Kory said. “And when we saw ivermectin—this is mid-October 2020—we were just astounded by the consistency and reproducibility from a number of different trials from countries around the world.”
Within a month, the FLCCC published its first outpatient COVID-19 protocol, which included ivermectin, and then Sen. Johnson extended the second invitation to Kory to testify in front of Congress.
At a Senate hearing on Dec. 8, 2020, three days before the first COVID-19 vaccine was authorized in the U.S., Kory’s testimony described ivermectin as a “miracle drug” that could be used more quickly than the vaccines, which would take months to roll out. His testimony several times referenced the Benha University preprint promising major clinical benefits, and video of the testimony went viral on YouTube.
“Nearly all studies are demonstrating the therapeutic potency and safety of ivermectin in preventing transmission and progression of illness in nearly all who take the drug,” Kory wrote in his testimony.
The video of the testimony was removed from YouTube, but ivermectin’s ascension into the mainstream had begun. The number of ivermectin prescriptions in the U.S. doubled in a single month—to nearly 154,000 scripts in December 2020, from 72,000 in November 2020, according to the IQVIA data.
From that point on, it became clear that there was a fan base dedicated to ivermectin and its purported COVID-19 benefits. Politicians like Johnson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) touted it. Rodgers, the famous quarterback, and conservative talk show host Glenn Beck, both said in interviews they took it after testing positive for the virus. So did Joe Rogan, who also talked about the benefits on his popular Spotify podcast, where he described getting a recommendation for ivermectin from Kory.
The ivermectin story changed as Jack Lawrence, the University of London graduate student, started contacting other researchers to verify his initial findings in the flawed Benha preprint.
In June 2021, he reached out to Nick Brown, a psychologist and researcher at Linnaeus University in Sweden known for hunting fraud in research, who connected him to Meyerowitz-Katz, the Australian epidemiologist. Lawrence essentially asked them to double-check his work before messaging Research Square about what he’d found. He was just a graduate student and wanted to make sure he hadn’t missed something.
“I’d read about [Brown] before,” Lawrence said, “so I sent him that, and he immediately found a whole range of different duplicate values, far more than I could ever have found.”
Michele Avissar-Whiting, Research Square’s editor in chief, said in a statement that “based on what Jack found, we have reason to believe the preprint’s conclusions are compromised, so the withdrawal was done to stop its propagation as sound science.”
It was one of the most high-profile retractions of ivermectin research to date, but it was not the first. The problems have also extended to peer-reviewed work. In mid-2020, an ivermectin study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine was retracted. It included data from Surgisphere, a company that also provided inaccurate patient data to a study about hydroxychloroquine that was retracted as well. Experts say the peer-reviewed study was especially problematic because its findings had been used to inform Peru’s decision to allow ivermectin as a COVID-19 drug in the early months of the pandemic. (That approval was eventually revoked in 2021, according to the Guardian.)
Then came the Benha retraction. Next up was a meta-analysis of trials that treated COVID-19 patients with ivermectin, published last summer in Open Forum Infectious Diseases. It had to be corrected in August 2021 after it cited a fraudulent study. (Andrew Hill, one of the paper’s authors and a researcher at the University of Liverpool, wrote last fall in The Guardian that he received death threats after he revised his research.)
The Journal of Antibiotics in September retracted a study published in June, saying the editor is no longer confident in the research’s findings. This was followed by the October retraction of a study conducted by researchers in Lebanon and published in the journal Viruses that said ivermectin reduced symptoms and lowered viral load. In November, the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine retracted research published by FLCCC physicians over concerns about the accuracy of some of the data.
“We can say with some confidence at this point that the very large benefits that people were proposing for ivermectin were based on studies that probably never happened,” Meyerowitz-Katz said. “There may still be benefits for ivermectin, but they’re probably going to be quite a bit smaller than many people had hoped earlier [in 2021], when they were relying on this potentially fabricated research.”
What is unclear is whether the retractions and withdrawals of some of the key scientific data underpinning the case for ivermectin will change anything for the people who believe in the drug’s potential.
“What people are doing [is] essentially weaponizing the scientific self-correction process, which, by the way, is a very flawed process,” said Ivan Oransky, a longtime health care journalist and co-founder of Retraction Watch, a site that tracks retractions in scientific research. “What they’re doing is sort of weaponizing any corrections or any retractions or any sort of doubt—the kind of skepticism you want—and turning it into why they’re right.”
Kory now says that the Benha study is deeply flawed—“that paper stinks,” he told me. But Kory puts the blame for the wave of retractions and withdrawals of ivermectin studies on pharmaceutical companies that he said have spent decades developing disinformation campaigns that aim to restrict the repurposing of cheap generic drugs.
“It would dry up the sales of remdesivir and Paxlovid and molnupiravir,” said Kory, referring to some of the most prominent therapeutics that have been developed by Gilead, Pfizer
PFE,
-0.71%,
and Merck & Co.
MRK,
-0.57%
and authorized to treat COVID-19. “You name it. Monoclonal antibodies. It literally threatened the market value of almost anything out there on a global pandemic.” Kory added: “What we’re talking about, a historic corruption, the disinformation campaign waged against a repurposed drug.”
Still, even simple scientific information has been falsely used to promote the effectiveness of ivermectin. For example, some ivermectin proponents, including Rep. Greene, cite the fact that the scientists who discovered ivermectin won a Nobel Prize in 2015, without making clear the prestigious award was given to recognize the drug’s effectiveness against parasitic disease, and had nothing to do with COVID-19.
“People who are drawn to these sorts of ideas like doing their own research and like happening upon these very convenient Easter egg-type facts,” said Philip Corlett, an associate professor of psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine who has researched paranoia in the pandemic. “They’re like, ‘I found it. The mainstream medical establishment and the media ignored it.’…It becomes something that you’ve cultivated. You’ve uncovered it. You’ve helped propagate. You feel a real sense of belonging over it, too.”
For those who have been involved in ensuring the scientific data about ivermectin is up to snuff, the combination of the pandemic and armchair epidemiology has at times been unsettling. Retraction Watch’s Oransky says he’s worried about the tone of some tweets that have mentioned an old home address, which is where he had originally registered the organization that houses Retraction Watch.
“You get scared a little bit,” Oransky said.
There’s one website often cited by ivermectin’s supporters: c19early.com. It’s got a clean, white layout and says it has pulled together “real-time analysis of 1,387 studies” for a wide-ranging list of potential COVID-19 therapies that can be used for early treatment, as of Feb. 7. It includes URLs like Ivmmeta.com and Hcqmeta.com.
No one I spoke with, including Kory, knows who runs the website. The website’s Twitter account has been suspended, and emails asking for information about who owns or operates the site were not returned. Some of the treatment protocols listed are provided by the FLCCC.
“It would be fascinating to know who’s behind such a massive effort,” Meyerowitz-Katz said. “It’s pseudoscientific nonsense, but it is also absolutely a huge effort.”
When I first dropped a sentence written several times on the site—“Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution”—into Google, several websites with URLs that have nothing to do with COVID-19 or health care pop up with that description. Many of the top search results lead to online pages that have been moved or deleted, but one link redirects to a website selling Stromectol, the brand-name for the form of ivermectin marketed by drug giant Merck to treat parasitic worms. That site, which says it is owned by Canadian Pharmacy Ltd., lists phone numbers for London and New York City. Both numbers go directly to a generic voicemail.
Boulware, who is based in Minneapolis, said he messaged a website promoting ivermectin about a year ago, to see if they wanted help with the medical information they were putting out. The site has some great charts, he said; but, in some cases, the data were not valid. When the responses to his emails were returned in the middle of the night, it made him wonder if the site’s operators were based in a foreign country. He speculated that maybe the website could be Russian disinformation or coming from a generic drug maker in India trying to skirt FDA regulations.
“Those websites are a lot of effort. They’re really detailed,” Boulware said. “So it’s got to be either someone who has a lot of free time on their hands, or someone’s got a financial motivation or a political disinformation motivation.”
It’s become virtually impossible for anyone without a scientific background or a working knowledge of misinformation and disinformation to make sense of the sheer volume of information about the virus, treatments, and vaccines that is generated every day—real or not.
About half of the 6,785 studies published in 2021 on the preprint server MedRxiv had to do with the pandemic.
“Every fact in COVID-19 context is being contested,” said Kasisomayajula Viswanath, a professor of health communication at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “Facts are changing constantly because the science is changing. And that has provided room for people to interpret it from their own perspective. I think that’s one reason. The second is because it has become extremely politicized.”
The people who believe ivermectin is a safe and effective COVID-19 treatment tend to be white men who are not vaccinated and identify as Republican voters, according to Liz Hamel, the director of public opinion and survey research at the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is conducting ongoing research on attitudes about COVID-19 during the pandemic.
“It seems to peak among 50 to 64-year-olds,” she said. “We do see that people over 65, regardless of partisanship, have been taking this disease more seriously. And young people tend to have more liberal political attitudes. So we often see that it’s people in the middle-age categories who stand out.”
But Kory said support for ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment is not driven by political affiliation. “We’re not some right-wing conservative group,” Kory said. “In fact, the opposite. However, I don’t know whether it was the era of Trump that did it because he spoke well of hydroxychloroquine, but my take on the politicization of the science is that because our recommendations run contrary to the prevailing ones from the agencies, that means we’re a contrarian group.”
Even people who work in health care and medicine have had to learn how to interpret scientific research differently. In the past, companies or researchers conducted studies and then submitted the research to a medical journal, where it was peer-reviewed and then eventually published. Before the pandemic, the scientific process was much slower, usually taking months or even years to lock down a standard of care or scientific consensus. Now, companies sometimes share snippets of data in news releases, and much of the pandemic research has been published first as a preprint and is only peer-reviewed later.
For people who are inexperienced with medical research, pieces of data and some half-baked preprints can be even harder to decipher. They can be strung together and shared online with a link, and then picked up by politicians or media outlets. At the same time, algorithms are tracking what users are watching and reading and serving up similar content.
“That’s what I call a spiral of amplification,” Viswanath said. “It starts small in some obscure corner—one study, one preprint—and or one person [or] group saying something, and a few groups talking about it on social media. Somehow it is picked up by certain political actors. And then it starts going mainstream. And that’s what has been happening with hydroxychloroquine, and that’s what has been happening with ivermectin.”
Sometime this winter or early spring, a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health that is testing ivermectin in 1,000 patients is expected to have results, says Dr. Susanna Naggie, the vice dean for clinical research at Duke University’s medical school and the researcher running the trial.
The University of Minnesota’s randomized study has enrolled 1,196 participants, one-third of whom received ivermectin. (Both trials are evaluating several repurposed drugs as possible COVID-19 treatments.) Within the next few weeks, the University of Minnesota is expected to share the first findings from the ivermectin part of its trial, nearly two years after the first preprint examining ivermectin’s viability was published.
In pandemic time, this may feel overly lengthy, but for the scientists conducting these trials, it’s still a pretty quick turnaround. The experts I spoke to seem to think that ivermectin could demonstrate a small benefit for some COVID-19 patients, but none think it’s likely that the pill will produce any of the major benefits promised by the fraudulent trials.
Edward Mills, a health sciences professor at Canada’s McMaster University, is co-investigator of the Together clinical trial, another rigorous study that is evaluating nine different repurposed drugs as COVID-19 therapies, including ivermectin. It recently completed the ivermectin analysis but found it “did not demonstrate an important benefit,” Mills said in an email. The research may be published this month, he said.
Nevertheless, there is an idea circulating among scientists like Mills that ivermectin may be more likely to benefit COVID-19 patients in areas of the world with a high prevalence of parasitic worms. “What is possible is that co-infection of parasites with COVID may worsen health outcomes,” Mills said.
This is an idea also raised by Boulware, the scientist working on the University of Minnesota’s ivermectin study. Corticosteroids, like dexamethasone, are now considered the standard of care for severely ill COVID-19 patients; however, these drugs can cause what is called a “hyperinfection” or sometimes be fatal in someone who has a parasitic infection. It’s possible that additional data about ivermectin gathered from different patient populations could show the drug being more beneficial in people who live in parasitic regions of the world, they say.
However, most native-born Americans don’t have parasites. And, since 2005, the U.S. policy has been to recommend that refugees from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and the Caribbean receive treatment or presumptive antiparasitic treatment—including ivermectin—before arriving in the U.S.
“In certain patient populations, if you have a parasitic infection, it certainly can be beneficial if you’re giving steroids,” Boulware said. “Does that mean [as an] outpatient setting early therapy in the U.S. that there’s a benefit? We don’t know that, and so I think that is an unknown question.”
For now, the health care professionals who have been put in the position of saying “no” to prescribing ivermectin are waiting on the data from the U.S. trials. Dr. Rani Sebti, an infectious disease physician at Hackensack Meridian Health hospital system in New Jersey, says he’s been fielding calls from primary-care doctors in the U.S. and abroad about whether to prescribe ivermectin when patients ask for it.
“I cannot sit here and tell you ivermectin is the worst drug in the world,” he said. “I need to see a good prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. And then when we get that study, it will answer the question for good.”
Amazing isn’t it....Nahhhh. It’s their game. Destroy anything not like them.
I just saw a meme today, alluding to the truck drivers in Ottawa.
Liberals in Dec 2021...Make life as difficult as possible for the uvaccinated. Don’t let them work or go out in public. Make them feel pain
Liberals in Feb 2022...Why won’t they stop honking?
But, to them, any evidence is anecdotal unless it supports their agenda, right? Especially the stuff that proves them wrong. And, in this country, we only have 2 members of Congress, that I can think of, that are willing to challenge the status quo.
In the legal world there is statute law and case law. Case law sometimes differs from the statute because upon further examination, ie..a court case where a valid and common sense argument is made, the statute may not be written with any common sense. Therefore, case law will take precedent over the statute, unless a Republican is being prosecuted
Let’s crush this “corruptionbuzz” fakery.
1.”It’s just one of several retractions and withdrawals of studies saying ivermectin is a viable COVID-19 treatment, and the impact of this kind of fraudulent research is still reverberating. “
Oh yeah? The Elgazzer study was indeed retracted, but I know of no other ivermectin studies that were retracted.
2.”the drug has been touted by celebrities and politicians, as well as a mysterious and popular website with no known authors.”
https://ivmmeta.com/ lists 78 studies of ivermectin. The site has links to the papers, and each paper lists numerous authors
3. “Yet no comprehensive clinical trials have found that ivermectin works as a COVID-19 treatment”
Of the 78 studies, 75 show it works as a Covid19 treatment.
4.“A lot of the debate and discussion is driven by people who, for whatever reason, think ivermectin is a miracle cure, even despite the evidence that it probably isn’t,”
Sorry, the 78 studies overwhelmingly prove it is an effective. The term “miracle cure” is a red herring, no drug is a “miracle cure”, which would literally mean God or Jesus was involved.
5. “There’s tons of people prescribing [ivermectin], but there’s actually very little data,” Boulware says.
Sorry 78 clinical trials is a lot of data.
6. “It took me about 15 minutes to figure out that this was not going to be useful as an antiviral. I set it aside and moved onwards.”
It took him 15 minutes to infer that because a high dose was used in one lab study, a lower dose would not work. LOL
7.”remdesivir, an antiviral that was eventually approved by the FDA and is now considered part of the standard of COVID-19 care for very sick patients. “
Remdesivir was approved after only ONE study not 78, and the WHO concluded it doesn’t work, but it is still approved as the standard of care “ ROTFL
8. “The video of the testimony was removed from YouTube, but ivermectin’s ascension into the mainstream had begun. “ OMG because a video was removed by Youtube, it means the 78 studies were all wrong. BARF
9. “flawed Benha preprint.” one of the 79 studies was flawed and retracted, so that repudiates the other 78? RETCHING
10.”Then came the Benha retraction. Next up was a meta-analysis of trials that treated COVID-19 patients with ivermectin, published last summer in Open Forum Infectious Diseases. It had to be corrected in August 2021 after it cited a fraudulent study. “ The Hill study was corrected after it removed the Benha (Elgazzer)study and it still showed overwhelming positive results.
11.”In November, the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine retracted research published by FLCCC physicians over concerns about the accuracy of some of the data. “
The retraction by Kory is irrelevant to the 78 positive studies of Ivermectin, none of which were done by Pierre Kory.
12.”“There may still be benefits for ivermectin, but they’re probably going to be quite a bit smaller than many people had hoped earlier [in 2021], when they were relying on this potentially fabricated research.””
Sure, if people were expecting a 100 percent cure rate, they will be disappointed. The vaccines are only 80(??) percent effective, especially Astra Zeneca.
13.” But Kory puts the blame for the wave of retractions and withdrawals of ivermectin studies on pharmaceutical companies that he said have spent decades developing disinformation campaigns that aim to restrict the repurposing of cheap generic drugs. “
What wave of retractions??? 1 study out of 79 was retracted!!!
14.”“People who are drawn to these sorts of ideas like doing their own research and like happening upon these very convenient Easter egg-type facts,” said Philip Corlett, an associate professor of psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine “
Oh great a Psychiatrist is going to be judge jury and executioner rather than relying on 78 clinical trials. OMG LOL BARF again.
15 ““It’s pseudoscientific nonsense, but it is also absolutely a huge effort.”
what a jackass, its a collection of links to clinical trials
16 “When I first dropped a sentence written several times on the site—“Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution”—into Google, several websites with URLs that have nothing to do with COVID-19 or health care pop up with that description.”
Oh my goodness, if you get funny results from a google search, that must mean the 78 clinical trials are all wrong or fake! see how it works?
17.”It’s become virtually impossible for anyone without a scientific background or a working knowledge of misinformation and disinformation to make sense of the sheer volume of information about the virus, treatments, and vaccines that is generated every day—real or not. “
I’m no doctor but reading clinical trials about Covid is easy. They die, they live, they get out of the hospital quickly or they don’t.
18.”The people who believe ivermectin is a safe and effective COVID-19 treatment tend to be white men who are not vaccinated and identify as Republican voters, according to Liz Hamel, the director of public opinion and survey research at the Kaiser Family Foundation, “
So now the 78 clinical trials are wrong because it’s white men who believe in them. I guess math is all wrong too!
BTW I’m betting Lucy Kerr is not white man.
https://c19ivermectin.com/kerr.html
19. “and some half-baked preprints can be even harder to decipher” Its actually easy to read them and they aren’t
“half-baked”
20. “It recently completed the ivermectin analysis but found it “did not demonstrate an important benefit,” Mills said in an email. The research may be published this month, he said.”
18 percent reduction in mortality, not great but better then Remdesivir!
21 ““In certain patient populations, if you have a parasitic infection, it certainly can be beneficial if you’re giving steroids,” Boulware said. “ red herring, there are 78 trials. I repeat, 78 trials. who cares about parasites.
22. “I cannot sit here and tell you ivermectin is the worst drug in the world,” he said. “I need to see a good prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. And then when we get that study, it will answer the question for good.”
about 30 of the studies are double blind RCTs, what a dufus.
I'm not sure how many people know exactly how many viruses are floating around you in a bad infection. I was once treated for a nasty viral infection: the virus titers were measured in billions of viruses per milliliter.
“...And then when we get that study, it will answer the question for good.”
Just give the drug already. We know it’s harmless.
5. “There’s tons of people prescribing [ivermectin], but there’s actually very little data,” Boulware says.
Sorry 78 clinical trials is a lot of data.......I’ll take the doctors in the FLCCC for $2000, Alex.
7.”remdesivir, an antiviral that was eventually approved by the FDA and is now considered part of the standard of COVID-19 care for very sick patients. “
Remdesivir was approved after only ONE study not 78, and the WHO concluded it doesn’t work, but it is still approved as the standard of care “ ROTFL ..... well, it appears that Remdesivir and the ventilators are what might be killing people. One doctor, early on, deduced that the ventilators were making things worse, he was fired.
18.”The people who believe ivermectin is a safe and effective COVID-19 treatment tend to be white men who are not vaccinated and identify as Republican voters, according to Liz Hamel, the director of public opinion and survey research at the Kaiser Family Foundation, “......Guess all those White, Unvaccinated, Men and Women in Africa, India, Central & South America didn’t get the memo.
The pandemic is now into it’s 3rd year and the CDC and the NIH have still not done an ironclad double-blind study of ivermectin or HCQ. That right there tells you something about where the real corruption is.
They can get vaccines rushed to market in a year, but no treatment studies.
I work with a lady that has an oxygen machine and shuffles around with a walker. When the virus started I had her as dead if she ever got the virus. She got the rona at the tail end of the first wave. She said she went to the doctor and he gave her pills and she started improving within hours. I asked what she was given and she reluctantly said—ivermectin.
This is the study I will go with. Along with India.
did the student see the ivermectin clinical trial for cancer treatments? And he only found one trial. THere are hundreds of clinical trials of ivermectin and covid. Most of the analysis seems to be meta data where they consolodate results of many of the trials. not sure why that would be
Bookmark
I want that choice and I don't want the govt leftists telling me I can't......
I want the choice.
Dr Kory TWICE presented 30+ studies during US Senate hearings showing stellar results albeit NOT USA approved double blind studies.
All Dr. Kory was requesting was the NIH, CDC look at what he presented to the Senate hearings to evaluate if true double blind studies would be indicated by such initial success.
Twice the commiecrats in the US Senate REFUSED to demand the NIH and CDC evaluate Dr. Kory’s submissions and the NIH and CDC refused to take up a review on their own.
In one study, a hospital in Argentina which was treating Wuhan flu patients gave Ivermectin to 800 of their staff [Doctors, nurses, clerks, maintenance etc} and ZERO contracted the Wuhan flu. Another 500+ were NOT given Ivermectin and 237 contracted Wuhan flu.
Now that is FAR from a double blind study HOWEVER, the statistics SCREAM for a double blind study but commiecrats don’t want an inexpensive, safe solution to this Crisis which they are not about to ever let go to waste.
I did not get that from the article. It clearly said more research is needed about the effectivness of Invermectin in places where high parisite problems exist. I believe that is talking about India amoung others.
Bottom line, some very early articles supporting Invermectin were flawed, thats all It also said some doctors have changed their minds from support to wait and see. New studies being readied for publication.
Just pro-vaccine propaganda. Ivermectin works against the virus, as everyone ought to know https://flccc.substack.com/p/large-peer-reviewed-research-study and the vaccines kill people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.