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treating Covid-19 is in serious doubt after a major study suggesting the treatment is effective against the virus was withdrawn due to “ethical concerns”…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 ...
Qui bono?
Discrediting Ivermectin plays into hands of vaccine makers. Ivermectin isn’t going to make pharma rich like the mRNA injections.
Always have to be skeptical of the Guardian’s motives.
Vaccines and treatments are both extremely valuable and complementary. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. Denying the efficacy of any method increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage. We do not provide medical advice.
The withsrawal of this study which is plagiarized from popular press makes the rest of the data far more equivocal because this study was the largest. Therefore it skews the meta the most. Further, this simply confirms what many of us have seen clinically. Ivermectin is at best weak at turning this disease around. You can argue the conspiracy all you want but the study was withdrawn which means it is no kn get in the data set. The largest number taken away obliterates the data. Most of us stopped with ivermectin because it delayed proper treatment and gave a very fallse hope
The bright side is that people can now focus on the reality of how to end this. If Sick, without delay seek monoclonals. Specifically regeneron. And as per your evidence, vaccination and treatment are complementary. Both play an important role in preventing and ending the pandemic. Choosing to get vaccinated both reduces your risk of disease and virtually eliminates disease progress to critical illness.
These are the facts. This comes from a synthesis of the data you present snd all the literature. And this is the closest to reality as to what all the physicians who share the opinion who have actually treated this thing for the last 18 months see at bedside.
Wow the squealing is loud on this.
Did you read the last paragraph and this is all you can come up with. I was just quoting the data you supplied.
“It’s damning how far they will go to keep people from safe, effective medications .... They will do ANYTHING to force people to die”
Well put.
Note in vitro vs in vivo. Lots of stuff happens in a beaker that does not occur in an actual living system.
It smells of a Big Pharma orchestated set up. Americas front line doctors, who work in the trenches every day know the drug saves lives. These so called studies are cooked up trash. Recall the great Lancet fiasco of a few month ago.
I can’t decide whether what you just posted is an ad hominem or an appeal to emotion...
Still fallacious, though, which is no way to win an argument.
I know that very well.
I was around for the Swine Flu vaccine debacle in ‘76.
Cui bono.
It’s alarming how far people will go to defend a study withdrawn because of plagiarism in order to keep a narrative alive. Part of reasoning is not getting so married to an idea that one cannot deal with having that idea obliterated. Thank you for posting this most important article When the majority of data dies on the hill of being discredited it follows that we must not let people die because we have to believe that the reality is a conspiracy instead of the truth. Discernment is simple. But it is not easy as we are seeing by some of these posts.
Thanks again for posting this.
What I posted was a reasoned question and if you are referring to the above longer post it was entirely data driven. I am sorry you don’t like the fact that this article is entirely damaging to a very strongly held narrative
Check out the last 3 sentences of the abstract.
Billions of people on the planet. I would think docs would like a plethora of treatments available since not all patients respond the same way to a given treatment.
Ad hominem, I think...
But then CoupFlu has NEVER been about public health, has it...
Link to where anyone here is defending the withdrawn study?
I will wait patiently.
The article is damning to one study.
The article is damming to the largest study. That severely skews the Meta. You take the largest favorable study out and the numbers suddenly look equivocal. You did read the entire article I assume. It is very well explained. And if you understand meta analysis you understand this without having to have a detailed explanation.
This is not only damming to one study. It completely changes the narrative of the meta analysis that includes this study.
Her mind is made up, she doesn’t want to be confused with the facts.
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.