Posted on 07/16/2021 3:31:18 AM PDT by semimojo
The efficacy of a drug being promoted by rightwing figures worldwide for treating Covid-19 is in serious doubt after a major study suggesting the treatment is effective against the virus was withdrawn due to “ethical concerns”…
He found the introduction section of the paper appeared to have been almost entirely plagiarised.
It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. “Humorously, this led to them changing ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’ to ‘extreme intense respiratory syndrome’ on one occasion,” Lawrence said….
“Because the Elgazzar study is so large, and so massively positive – showing a 90% reduction in mortality – it hugely skews the evidence in favour of ivermectin,” Meyerowitz-Katz said.
“If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19. Indeed, if you get rid of just this research, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
(Raises eyebrow doubtfully)
Could the issue be conflating SARS-CoV-2 with COVID-X. The CPC was very good with this slight of hand. I feel most here are aware that Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, etc., are only/mostly useful in inhibiting the virus or reducing viral load. Dr. P. Kory may bring up IVM has some ACE-2 neutralizing affect (above .400-.500mg/Kg dose), but the emphasis is on the virus. The MATH+ protocols tend to slide over to the disease, COVID, but a true, real safe vaccine may be the overarching answer. Possibly everyone contributing to this discussion is correct - some see the head of the elephant some see the tail (virus vs disease).
No, the plagiarism raised the researchers interest. The other problems with the paper are what got it withdrawn:
”The authors claimed to have done the study only on 18-80 year olds, but at least three patients in the dataset were under 18,” Lawrence said.“The authors claimed they conducted the study between the 8th of June and 20th of September 2020, however most of the patients who died were admitted into hospital and died before the 8th of June according to the raw data. The data was also terribly formatted, and includes one patient who left hospital on the non-existent date of 31/06/2020.”…
“In their paper, the authors claim that four out of 100 patients died in their standard treatment group for mild and moderate Covid-19,” Lawrence said. “According to the original data, the number was 0, the same as the ivermectin treatment group. In their ivermectin treatment group for severe Covid-19, the authors claim two patients died, but the number in their raw data is four.”…
” The main error is that at least 79 of the patient records are obvious clones of other records,” Brown told the Guardian. “It’s certainly the hardest to explain away as innocent error, especially since the clones aren’t even pure copies. There are signs that they have tried to change one or two fields to make them look more natural.””
”The authors claimed to have done the study only on 18-80 year olds, but at least three patients in the dataset were under 18,” Lawrence said.“The authors claimed they conducted the study between the 8th of June and 20th of September 2020, however most of the patients who died were admitted into hospital and died before the 8th of June according to the raw data. The data was also terribly formatted, and includes one patient who left hospital on the non-existent date of 31/06/2020.”…
“In their paper, the authors claim that four out of 100 patients died in their standard treatment group for mild and moderate Covid-19,” Lawrence said. “According to the original data, the number was 0, the same as the ivermectin treatment group. In their ivermectin treatment group for severe Covid-19, the authors claim two patients died, but the number in their raw data is four.”…
” The main error is that at least 79 of the patient records are obvious clones of other records,” Brown told the Guardian. “It’s certainly the hardest to explain away as innocent error, especially since the clones aren’t even pure copies. There are signs that they have tried to change one or two fields to make them look more natural.””
Looks like it was pretty much a completely falsified study. Maybe it was written by climate scientists.
Huh, that’s not what the earlier complaint in the thread said.
Thanks for those details.
I’ll try and find time over the weekend (no guarantees, have some work related training to do) to look at the study and/or critiques a little closer.
Good comment. Well said.
“Viral Load”……….I was trying think come up with that but could not.
To much multi tasking today.
Most of the people unable to get Ivermectin, and told there are no treatments for Covid, died and few if any are posting on FR.
Those who found a way around the CDC/FDA/FAUCI and their own medical doctors to obtain Ivermectin are here to post on FR.
It seems what many people really want is validation from the same scientific establishment they claim to distrust.
We'd like the scientific establishment to stop fielding false studies and lying as they try to harm as many people as possible because they are supposed to protect Americans, not kill them.
Mic drop if I ever saw one.
Good job.
“ Looks like it was pretty much a completely falsified study. Maybe it was written by climate scientists.”
—————————————————————————————
It’s pretty scary that people were citing this study and some were basing decisions on it.
Make me wonder what the author’s agenda is.
Does it really pay that much to get clicks at a blog or YouTube video?
Pretty funny comment given the subject of this thread.
The plagiarism in the introduction was mentioned first, then the other errors you mention.
What I found telling was this:
"“Although science trends towards self-correction, something is clearly broken in a system that can allow a study as full of problems as the Elgazzar paper to run unchallenged for seven months,” he said.
“Thousands of highly educated scientists, doctors, pharmacists, and at least four major medicines regulators missed a fraud so apparent that it might as well have come with a flashing neon sign. That this all happened amid an ongoing global health crisis of epic proportions is all the more terrifying.”"
Peer review. And then a lone heroic Master's student finds all these errors.
Because SCIENCE!™
Like I told some other pro-jab troll, I don't trust peer review, the process is busted.
Or, more precisely, just because someone has a semi-defined process, and slaps the label Peer-Reviewed (angel chorus) on it, doesn't mean what they're doing really catches pertinent or systematic errors, or eliminates groupthink.
Seems like he's not very accurate in that, looking at https://ivmmeta.com/ as supplied by @FreedomPoster.
Note that his site already REMOVED Elgazzar from the meta-analysis.
Nice attempt at a hit job. Fail.
•Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 74% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.26 [0.16-0.43] and 0.15 [0.08-0.25]), with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis, restriction to peer-reviewed studies, and restriction to Randomized Controlled Trials. •64% and 96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.36 [0.15-0.85] and 0.04 [0.00-0.59]). Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.
Studies Prophylaxis Early treatment Late treatment Patients Authors
All studies 60 85% [75‑92%] 74% [57‑84%] 43% [26‑56%] 21,849 573
With exclusions 50 88% [75‑94%] 76% [66‑83%] 49% [28‑64%] 17,448 512
Peer-reviewed 38 88% [70‑95%] 75% [59‑84%] 42% [19‑58%] 11,464 401
Randomized Controlled Trials 30 84% [25‑96%] 67% [54‑76%] 29% [3‑48%] 5,217 357
Mortality results 23 96% [41‑100%] 64% [15‑85%] 58% [34‑73%] 10,808 235
Percentage improvement with ivermectin treatment
•The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 60 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 193 billion (p = 0.0000000000052).
Exactly. This is the sort of protect the EUAs for the experimental therapies hit piece we’ve been seeing for a year now.
Exactly right.
There has been at least 18 months to determine a standard of care to treat this coof. It is criminal that there still is not one-apparently due to the need to keep the EUA active. The idea that we simply don’t give treatment till people are so bad they can’t breathe is inhumane and criminal. Thank God for doctors that at least try to help their patients.
Meanwhile, this study pretty much details why the current Vax is ill-advised:
publication date, January 2021. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-020-00808-x.pdf
Summary of key points analysis by Karl Denninger:
The entire reason for the demand for mass-vaccination relied on a lie; that this was a “novel” virus to which nobody had existing resistance.
That’s false; 81% of the population does have existing immunity. That immunity is strengthened, materially so, by natural infection.
From a public health perspective you want those people who are not going to be seriously harmed to get it naturally, not take a shot because it is that perfection of immunity that stops the disease from being of harm to the public on a durable basis.
The existing vaccines are worthless for building said perfected immunity since the data is that the nucleocapsid section, which the vaccines do not code, is where most of the pre-existing resistance against serious disease resides.
we do not even know if the nucleocapsid portion of the virus, inactivated, is pathogenic.
It very well might not be and had we produced inactivated vaccines via that route without the spike protein being present they would likely have a similar risk profile to the seasonal flu shot.
Instead - they are 100 or more times as dangerous. At the same time, the inactivated vaccine would have provided durable protection that all of the current shots do not because they omit said nucleocapsid sequences on purpose.
To continue said activity in the face of science documenting that you did it wrong goes beyond the realm of stupid and into the realm of criminal culpability for which no immunity should be recognized by anyone, ever, period.
Young people particularly should not get the Vax. The future of the world in terms of public health in fact requires that they be allowed to develop said natural, perfected immunity.
Preventing that by giving them a shot is felonious and anyone involved in it should be indicted, prosecuted and lose their life as the mass-murderers they will prove to be.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=242205
True, and peer review isn't really designed to catch outright frau, which seems to be the case here. There's a presumption of good faith from one's peers and the process is designed to validate the authors' stated protocols and methodologies, not root out knowing deception.
When dealing with honest people peer review is still a valuable tool.
...SMH.
A little obvious consistency checking is in order.
Sure, the process isn't always what we want it to be but what's the better alternative?
What do you do when the practice of science is itself a cargo cult scientism? instead of the rigorous original practice scientody?
My favorite was the hotshot Harvard cardiologist who got nailed when someone actually read one of his papers and noticed that according to the tables in it, one of his patients had become a father at 7 years old...
If anyone questions the vaccines effectiveness or points to anyone harmed by the vaccines, the posse of pious harpies and Biden followers will attack, censor and cancel viciously…
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.