Posted on 04/10/2024 9:01:51 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A popular study that claims ivermectin has shown no effectiveness against all-cause mortality contains false information but remains uncorrected.
The meta-analysis, published in 2021 by the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, explores how groups in randomized, controlled trials fared after receiving ivermectin compared to control groups.
Among five trials included for the portion on all-cause mortality, none showed an effect for ivermectin, the authors claimed.
Ivermectin “did not reduce all-cause mortality,” they wrote.
But the claim is wrong. One of the five trials was described as finding ivermectin recipients were more likely to die, but actually found that ivermectin recipients were less likely to die. “The risk base estimation ... confirmed that the average mortality obtained in all of ivermectin treated arms was 3.3%, while it was about 18.3% in standard care and placebo arms,” the authors of that paper said.
Dr. Adrian Hernandez, an associate professor at the University of Connecticut’s School of Pharmacy, and other authors of the meta-analysis are aware of the false information. The group released their study as a preprint before the journal published it. The first version included the false information. A corrected version properly portrayed the trial’s results for all-cause mortality in a figure summarizing the results, but still falsely said none of the trials showed a benefit against all-cause mortality.
Dr. Hernandez and Clinical Infectious Diseases did not respond to requests for comment.
The lingering false information is in a paper that has attracted numerous citations in other studies, in the press, and on social media. Altmetric, which tracks engagement, scores it at 5,900. A score of 20 or means a paper is doing “far better than most of its contemporaries,” according to the company.
Morimasa Yagisawa of Kitasato University and other researchers pointed out the issue in a March review of ivermectin trials, saying they were “concerned about the spread of misinformation and/or disinformation” about trial results.
“The articles on systematic reviews and meta-analyses are often erroneous or misleading. This is perhaps because the authors were not involved in the clinical trials or patient care and only searched for and analyzed articles and databases on clinical trial results,” they wrote. The problems are “particularly serious” in the paper for which Dr. Hernandez was the corresponding author, the researchers said.
“Although it was a clear error, the wrong content of the preprint was published as a major article in Clinical Infectious Diseases, the official journal of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, without being changed,” they wrote. “Many comments were made questioning the insight of the reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief for publishing a paper with such inconsistencies, but the paper is still published without correction. Since this is a prestigious journal of a prestigious society, an early corrective action is required.”
“There have been several fraudulent meta-analyses, and this is a striking one,” Dr. Pierre Kory, president and chief officer of the FLCCC Alliance and author of the book The War on Ivermectin, told The Epoch Times in an email.
“In this meta-analysis, they selected only 10 of the 81 controlled trials, 33 of which were randomized, on ivermectin that were available at the time. Eight of the ten they selected involved mild COVID-19. Typically, mild COVID does not lead to death. And here they were looking at death rates and, as expected, saw very few. The inclusion criteria they used were intended to show no effect. And they succeeded. Conflicted researchers have been doing this to hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin since the beginning of the pandemic,” he added.
Issues in other meta-analyses include the improper inclusion of papers that did not describe clinical trial results, Mr. Yagisawa and his co-authors said.
They noted that a number of trials have found ivermectin recipients were better off. That includes trials cited by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in its position that ivermectin is not effective against COVID-19.
The FDA recently settled a lawsuit over that position, agreeing to take down several web pages and social media posts.
It’s my understanding that ivermectin facilitates the “delivery” of zinc to where it needs to go. Ivermectin, I’ve heard, is not itself the healing medication, but helps in the process.
I think you may have your treatments confused. What you describe sounds like Hydroxychloroquine, the quinine derivative that caused an earlier kerfluffle. I don’t KNOW you’re wrong about Ivermectin, but I am concerned.
yes. acting as an ionophore is one action. IM has many mechanisms of action. for example, since the spike destroys gut bacteria necessary for immune function, IM protects those bacteria. one of it’s many actions against infectious disease. IM turns out to be a wonder drug.
The vestigial media will never report this.
Here’s a good link that describes how IM works: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011
Are you shocked?
After taking the hydroxychloriquine cocktail for five days, I tested negative.
Within 12-24 hours, I felt much better.
It’s all about gut biom. Which affects more than the gut. The relationship between the gut and overall health seems to be neglected by the industry. Because it is effective. Rather than overall wellness pharma targets specifics.
IVM saved my life and rescued me from being tethered to an Oxygen machine. After 3 days in the Intensive Care Unit of a local hospital, I was sent home to die, with an Oxygen machine that didn’t work and meds that were ineffective against a viral lung infection. I went from 195 lbs to 130 lbs in less than 3 weeks.
After 3 double doses of IVM in 24 hours, I no longer needed the Oxygen machine and felt good enough to shower, dress and drive 35 minutes to my employer and get back on the work schedule...even though I only weighed 130 lbs.
.
We cured over 100 people with IVM and zinc. Usually works within 4-8 hours.
I notice that the standard pharma shills haven’t noticed this thread yet. Must not support the narrative.
I’ve noticed too that whenever I go to the pharmacy to pick up meds, I am being questioned about whether I have had certain shots & reminded I can get them at my pharmacy. Some of them I’ve be been asked about & have had them; others I will continue to avoid because I had no information as to whether they are good or bad.
I’ve noticed too that whenever I go to the pharmacy to pick up meds, I am being questioned about whether I have had certain shots & reminded I can get them at my pharmacy. Some of them I’ve be been asked about & have had them; others I will continue to avoid because I had no information as to whether they are good or bad.
That’s amazing!
I took ivermectin (and other things) the first time I got covid, and got through it fairly quickly. It’s safe, and appears to be effective.
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.