For this I am looking at what FLCCC did to reach its conclusions. This is from the bottom of the first page of the report (WARNING: Wall of text):
"RESULTS Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group)"
I posted that to show reading a mass of statistics written out is really hard. When someone wants to hide what they do not want to admit openly, then writing out statistics in natural language is the way to make it as confusing as possible. What FLCCC did was go through this text, put the numbers into a table (Just like all the other data except these. Now lets make that text a little more readable:
Event: group statistics
Ivermectin Control
mechanical
ventilation 4 (1.7%) 10 (4.0%) RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17
ICU admin 6 (2.4%) 8 (3.2%) RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79
28-day
in-hospital
death 3 (1.2%) 10 (4.0%) RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09
Most common adverse event:
diarrhea 14 (5.8%) 4 (1.6%) - no details given - This matches what FLCCC got out of the study. My conclusions:
First, the authors say this supports that "For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups", which is contradicted by what was found for ventilation and 28 day in hospital death. ICU admission was the only one where they were close, and one out of three is not a majority. Both mechanical ventilation and death are more severe secondary outcomes than ICU admission, when ICU is common for Covid.
Second, "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", when it prevented patient death better than the control. Because patients on ivermectin still got sick, then it was not considered to work, even though fewer were put on ventilators or died. "Not dying" is more important than "not having more severe symptoms and treatment".
Third, Ivermectin at 0.4 mg/kg may be too low. FLCCC recommends 0.6 mg/kg for hospitalized patients. I am not a doctor, so I can't comment beyond this.
Forth, those who advocate Ivermectin, support its use for prevention and early treatment, not after the disease has gotten to the point that inpatient care is needed. For this study, the patients were all but guaranteed to go from mild to severe disease. This study answers a question that no one supporting the use of Ivermectin is claiming.
When it comes to Covid, prevention and eartly treatment are effectively outlawed and forbidden subjects in scientific study. Finally, this is JAMA. They have politicized research and sacked members who question their politics in the past. This looks like they are still using their same old tricks now.
