Posted on 10/23/2021 12:17:29 PM PDT by DeweyCA
I work on a small team of researchers who do what one might call “forensic peer review.” In the standard process for scientific publishing, peer reviewers take a manuscript mostly at face value: They ensure that the study makes sense as it’s described. We do something else: We check everything, and try to ferret out any potential biases in reported patterns of digits, statistical impossibilities, inconsistencies between what researchers said they’d do and what they actually did, and plagiarized sentences or paragraphs. And we often find fatal flaws hidden behind a veil of two-dollar words and statistical jargon.
The ivermectin literature has been no exception. Over the past six months, we’ve examined about 30 studies of the drug’s use for treating or preventing COVID-19, focusing on randomized studies, or nonrandomized ones that have been influential, with at least 100 participants. We’ve reached out directly to the authors of these studies to discuss our findings, sometimes engaging in lengthy back-and-forths; when appropriate, we’ve sent messages to the journals in which studies have been published. In our opinion, a bare minimum of five ivermectin papers are either misconceived, inaccurate, or otherwise based on studies that cannot exist as described. One study has already been withdrawn on the basis of our work; the other four very much should be…
Most problematic, the studies we are certain are unreliable happen to be the same ones that show ivermectin as most effective. In general, we’ve found that many of the inconclusive trials appear to have been adequately conducted. Those of reasonable size with spectacular results, implying the miraculous effects that have garnered so much public attention and digital notoriety, have not.
We don’t know because they won’t fund a proper randomized controlled study. But there is plenty of evidence of benefit and near zero evidence of harm with IVM.
Of all Trump did I think his biggest mistake was not directing some of the Warp Speed money to study IVM and HCQ type regimens. It wouldn’t have taken much especially in Spring of 2020 when there were millions of potential subjects to recruit.
I read a small study where they took people put into quarantine hotels after arrival at an airport. It was small but those who received IVM cleared the virus 2.5x faster than those who did not. A study like that done on a larger scale would have been cheap and fast to conduct. And if proven, studied further. But as we know, there is no profit in that drug thus a massive push by vested interests to discredit it. The authors of this piece need to look into that bias too.
Well it’s not that the “science is bad”, more that this is Not. Actual. Science.
India gave us the largest RCT in the world, albeit, not double blind. The results? It works.
Fake test and fake report were not science...
‘”Follow the science” doesn’t work when the science is this bad’
“Follow the science” doesn’t work when it doesn’t fit the Democrats’ narrative.
There, fixed it
Since the author claims to be so diligent in investigating studies, perhaps he and his crew should have applied these same efforts and standards to the Pfizer studies on their own mRNA drug. Doesn’t that warrant even more attention since it is being forced on millions more people than ivermectin?
You could drive a semi through the holes in that piece of “research”. It’s absolute crap.
What it is is pure political propaganda and a political lie.
They rely on funding from organizations and the government so right there it tells you its corrupt
"Hot Air" is a bunch of never Trump @$$holes.
CDC recommends COVID vaccines because of few adverse effects reported.
OSHA explicitly is disinterested in adverse effects of mandated vaccines.
This does not add up to good science.
Whoever thought football games, where everyone is packed in like sardines for 7 weeks with no surge is the best science on the planet. (and the only truth)
all you gotta do is watch people’s actions...
our government’s actions and double standards prove the kung flu is a scam...
All claims to “follow the science” are nothing but political fakes. I don’t “follow” any science, I try to follow the data. This article has zero data. It’s worthless.
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.