While I agree with your title, and do think that the AMA is compromised, you need to read the article in entirety, which repudiates the title of this article.
The article hot-links to the source report:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362
Read through and note this conclusion:
“Conclusions-—In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.”
Note: DID NOT prevent progression to severe disease
Your article is faulty.
The conclusion was not supported by the actual data in the study. Read the article, it is all explained.
Your comprehension is faulty. There was a significant reduction in death rates for the Ivermectin group.
Try reading more closely or reading Dr. Kory’s analysis:
https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/the-disinformation-campaign-against?utm_source=url
Read the article instead of the fualty conclusion. The study’s conclusion has been highly critized for not properly represetning the data. Look at the data youself and you will see. The data shows it was very effective. Thier conclusion was based on not being able to have statistical reliability due to sample size. Something they intentionally set up. One might even think they tried to make the study fail.
Hmmm....comparing Ivermectin patients to control:
“Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 patients (1.7%) in the ivermectin group vs 10 (4.0%) in the control group (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.30; P = .17)”
So small numbers but 4 ivermectin patients needed ventilation versus 10 in the control group.
“and intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.5%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27 to 2.20; P = .79).”
ICU = 6 ivermectin vs 8 control.
“The 28-day in-hospital mortality rate was similar for the ivermectin and control groups (3 [1.2%] vs 10 [4.0%]; RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09 to 1.11; P = .09),”
So 28-day mortality was 3 for ivermectin versus 10 in the control....
“as was the length of hospital stay after enrollment (mean [SD], 7.7 [4.4] days vs 7.3 [4.3] days; mean difference, 0.4; 95% CI, −0.4 to 1.3; P = .38).”
In the study, the quoted parts are all one paragraph. These are listed as secondary effects versus measuring the primary goal. Okay...BUT IT LOOKS GOOD FOR IVERMECTIN TO ME!
The biggest problem is the trial involved so few people that the confidence interval essential says “impossible to know”. When I did testing for the military, I’d ask “How many runs will we need for statistical significance?” And the answer was always 10,000+...which was impossible to do in the real world. So we had to accept statistical uncertainty and buy multi-Billion dollar acquisitions based on “more likely than not”.
Looking at this trial, I feel OK about taking horse paste when I had COVID. The tube cost me $6 and I didn’t even use 1/2 of the tube for 3 doses. No diarrhea, no upset tummy. Pretty much NO DOWNSIDE AT ALL. But no statistical certainty, either.
This was circulated about a week ago. The study was for ivermectin efficacy on disease progression. Substance did it’s usual pretzel logic snd tries to turn this into a comparison with the vaccines. It is invalid as it is not part of the study.
You are correct. The study shows that ivermectin fails to prevent progression of disease. The vaccine angle is SK and sun stack 💩
But you will now be excoriated by those choose not to believe plain English in the conclusion.