Free Republic

Proponents of ivermectin for COVID-19 have long been talking about an expected review and meta-analysis led by Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool.These results were finally published this week in Open Forum Infectious Diseases, and they're positive -- but they haven't escaped criticism, and most researchers still want results from a randomized controlled trial.The review and meta-analysis was conducted as part of the International Ivermectin Project Team from December 2020 to May 2021. Ivermectin proponents said Hill was conducting the analysis for the WHO, but Hill recently told MedPage Today the analysis was supported by Fort Worth, Texas-based...

Back in January I wrote an article about four randomized controlled trials of ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19 that had at that time released their results to the public. Each of those four trials had promising results, but each was also too small individually to show any meaningful impact on the hard outcomes we really care about, like death. When I meta-analyzed them together however, the results suddenly appeared very impressive. Here’s what that meta-analysis looked like:It showed a massive 78% reduction in mortality in patients treated with covid-19. Mortality is the hardest of hard end points, which means...

•100% of the 35 studies to date report positive effects. Early treatment is more successful, with an estimated reduction of 84% in the effect measured using a random effects meta-analysis, RR 0.16 [0.08-0.33]. Prophylactic use also shows high effectiveness. •100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) report positive effects, with an estimated reduction of 71%, RR 0.29 [0.17-0.51].•The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 35 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 34 billion (p = 0.000000000029).IntroductionWe analyze all significant studies concerning the use of ivermectin for COVID-19. Search methods, inclusion criteria,...

Last week, The Journal of the American Medical Association published a study questioning the effectiveness of antidepressant drugs. The drugs are useful in cases of severe depression, it said. But for most patients, those with mild to moderate cases, the most commonly used antidepressants are generally no better than a placebo. For the millions of people who take these drugs, and the doctors who prescribe them, this provocative claim had to be confusing, if not alarming. It contradicted literally hundreds of well-designed trials, not to mention considerable clinical experience, showing antidepressants to be effective for a wide array of depressed...

Vitamin supplements taken by millions of people every day for their health could be increasing their risk of death a new Danish-led study suggests. The study is published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The international research team reviewed the published evidence on beta carotene, vitamin A, vitamin E, Vitamin C and selenium. The team was led by Dr Goran Bjelakovic, from Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark. These dietary supplements are marketed as antioxidants and people take them in the hope they will improve health and guard against diseases like cancer and heart disease by eliminating the free radicals...

From: mail@abortionbreastcancer.com Date: November 29, 2004 11:26:02 AM MST To: "Leslie Hanks" Subject: ABORTION-BREAST CANCER NEWS HEADLINES - "The Corruption of Science by Ideology" Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer Newsletter Dear Friends: An editor of a bioethics journal, Ethics and Medics, has written a scathing editorial criticizing the British journal Lancet in particular and the scientific community in general for allowing ideology to corrupt science. The editorial by Ed Furton, MA, Ph.D. follows an article by Associate Professor of Surgery Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS in Ethics and Medics last month. Lanfranchi identified serious flaws in a Lancet "collaborative review" of the...