“More recently, the evidence for ivermectin’s efficacy relied very substantially on a single piece of research,...”
This is lie. It is not merely wrong, or an error, it is a deliberate untruth.
Its correct that science fraud can flourish and fly under the radar and the system needs to change. Not sure about the specific case, as I thought there was more than one positive study...but maybe K am mistaken.
My question with this is the same as HCQ.
What is the method of action? Why does it work?
That doesn’t make sense to me.
The good thing about Ivermectin is that it’s alternative medicine. The bad thing about Ivermectin is that like most alternative medicine, it’s complete quackery.
The fact that a scientist will be dishonest in order to serve his own ends is no more remarkable than the fact that an auto mechanic will tell you that your car needs repairs that it doesn’t really need. It’s an aspect of human nature that permeates every area of human activity, particularly where a large body of specialized expertise is involved.
Even if the article is true, there’s no reason to believe that the drug is harmful in itself, to prohibit people from taking it, or to cancel researchers who are calling for additional scientific study.
This article really applies to the experimental vaccines not Ivermectin. This is a load of crap.
There are hundreds of actual peer reviewed studies now on both Ivermectin and Hydroxycloroquin that prove both are effective. Along with hundreds of doctors and entire countries like India that have used both drugs successfully. The recent India outbreak was caused by one state suddenly stopping the free distribution of Ivermectin. When they re-enacted the distribution, the outbreak went away.
This site is run by real doctors treating covid patients and has all of this information.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/
Blah, blah, blah, and frickin’ blah!
“triggering a massive wave of use for the drug across the globe.’
“caused thousands if not millions of people to get ivermectin to treat and/or prevent COVID-19.”
Well???? Did it WORK or not?
Who gives two shites about your stupid pee-er reviews. You have a “massive wave” of “thousands if not millions” of people who took Ivermectin for COVID. Did it work for them?
STUDY THAT! Then get back to me.
This story is deadly propaganda from the Fauci wing of bad science. It should have a “barf” tag after the title.
Dayum!
Coronavirus PING!
There are bad apples in every walk of life. Perhaps even more in science and medicine as they’re required to present research for tenure, money and fame.
https://ivmmeta.com/ is the meta-analysis, which already REMOVED the study in your article.
Even after removing that work, the meta-analysis shows "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)."
Of more importance, is the "withdrawn" study.
It's funny how your article doesn't trace its provenance.
According to an article in The GuardianL on the withdrawn study,
“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.”
This whole thing sounds like a set-up or hit job on Ivermectin.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis
A recent editorial in the British Medical Journal argued that it might be time to change our basic perspective on health research, and assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise.
That is to say, not to assume that all researchers are dishonest, but to begin the receipt of new information in health research from a categorically different baseline level of skepticism as opposed to blind trust.
This might sound extreme, but if the alternative is accepting that occasionally millions of people will receive medications based on unvetted research that is later withdrawn entirely, it may actually be a very small price to pay.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis
Summary:
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field.
In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance.
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true.
Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.
In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
I know it stings for true believers but this article is probably true. Most of the studies on Ivermectin are not randomized clinical trial (RCT’s)(the same ones that show masks don’t work and no RCT shows masks work).
Of the RCT’s on Ivermectin....majority are pre-print (only 1 in 4 pre-prints survive peer review to get published).
The issues with COVID-19 is that 99.9% survive without any treatment. Thus the “I survived It’s a wonder drug!”
Ivermectin in COVID-19:
We regard ivermectin as a core medication in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. For comprehensive information on ivermectin please refer to our Review of the Emerging Evidence Supporting the Use of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 and the included references.
A more recent paper, Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials of Ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 Infection was accepted for publication July 6, 2021, by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. This study was done by Dr. Andrew Hill and the team that researched ivermectin’s efficacy in COVID-19 treatment for the WHO. The data is overwhelmingly positive and was discussed in detail by Dr. Pierre Kory on the FLCCC’s July 7, 2021, Weekly Update. Another recent paper, Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines was published online June 17, 2021, by the American Journal of Therapeutics. It concludes, “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”
These pages contain the scientific rationale that justifies the use of ivermectin in COVID-19.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/