Ivermectin debacle exposes flaws in meta-analysis methodology https://www.chemistryworld.com/news...-in-meta-analysis-methodology/4014477.article Evidence that anti-parasitic drug ivermectin can save lives in Covid-19 cases has gone up in smoke. Key studies have been deemed suspect or downright fraudulent. Supporters of this anti-parasitic drug pointed to a meta-analysis from the University of Liverpool, which reported that the death rate in those taking ivermectin was 56% lower, but this is now rejected by those who led the study. ‘When we take out the trials at risk of bias or fraud, we don’t see any effects of ivermectin on survival and don’t see any effects on clinical recovery,’ says Andrew Hill at the University of Liverpool, who led the meta-analysis. Twenty-four randomised clinical trials of ivermectin with 3328 patients were assessed. Now, a letter in Nature Medicine argues that summary data alone are not to be trusted for such studies. It proposes all individual patient data should be requested and personally reviewed. ‘The way we do meta-analyses is fundamentally broken, because we take individual trials on trust,’ says medical researcher Kyle Sheldrick at the University of New South Wales, Australia, who signed the correspondence. He estimates that of the 18 randomised control trials about a third are either fake or not conducted as described. ‘There’s not a single randomised control trial which reliably says ivermectin saves lives,’ says Sheldrick. A key conclusion for him is that ‘trust is toxic in research’ and that starting from a position of trust ‘is one of the biggest things that needs to change’. The letter highlight two suspect trials from Egypt and Iran. In the case of the Egyptian study, there are 600 patients with values where the last digit is rarely number three, notes Sheldrick. ‘You were 50 times more likely to have a result ending in eight, than three.’ Source: © Andrew Hill/University of Liverpool A risk of bias (ROB) analysis of studies in a meta-review of ivermectin’s effects on patient survival found that studies that suggested the drug was beneficial against Covid-19 were more likely to be fraudulent. The greater the statistical significance of the study, the more likely it was to be suspect ‘The thing that really shocked me and my co-authors is how much of it is deliberate fraud,’ says Sheldrick. ‘Things like the same 11 patients copied and pasted, over and over.’ In another example, hundreds of patients were supposedly recruited using complicated protocols in incredibly short time scales with a team of three. Hill says his group followed the best practice guidelines for assessing bias. ‘There are safeguards to make sure the studies [in meta-analyses] are of good quality, but they don’t work if people lie in their replies to questions,’ says Hill. ‘I’ve worked on HIV for 30 years. We don’t get fraud. We get trustworthy doctors, from a whole range of countries.’ ‘The people who’ve done these meta-analyses haven’t stuffed up,’ Sheldrick says. ‘They haven’t deviated from accepted standards or made big mistakes.’ Instead, there is a fundamental flaw in the approach, and investigators need to ask those running trials to send them their data, the letter states. ‘Any study for which authors are not able or not willing to provide suitable anonymised [individual patient data] should be considered at high risk of bias for incomplete reporting and/or excluded entirely from meta-syntheses,’ the letter notes. There may, however, be difficulties in obtaining patient data from government agencies, and pharmaceutical companies may want to retain it as part of their intellectual property. The fraud has had repercussions, with people against or concerned about Covid-19 vaccines resorting to what is an unproven treatment. Some even took ivermectin intended for horses. Moreover, proponents of ivermectin on social media platforms have suggested unusually high doses. ‘Some recommend 3000µg of ivermectin over five days,’ notes Sheldrick, who says Australia has some experience with prescribing this drug for parasitic infections such as scabies. ‘That is 20 times what we give for river blindness, where we give a single dose of 150µg.’ Meanwhile, large-scale clinical trials such as Remap-Cap, which evaluates multiple repurposed interventions, are continuing and may yet show a benefit from ivermectin. But for now, there is no evidence showing that it works for Covid-19, and strong evidence for many early trials being untrustworthy.
Remember to thank the dumb Ivermectin cultists for killing the animals. Ivermectin shortage because of false Covid cure claims may result in animals being sent to slaughter https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...hortage-covid-animals-slaughter-b1929148.html
Hey Ivermectin cultists... I have an opportunity for you. To actually take Ivermectin in a controlled Covid study by a respected medical institution. Study on effectiveness of Ivermectin, Flonase to treat COVID seeks 15,000 people https://www.mlive.com/news/2021/09/...lonase-to-treat-covid-seeks-15000-people.html Sign-ups are underway for a new clinical trial to test the effectiveness of three common drugs against COVID-19. The Duke Clinical Research Institute is conducting the nationwide study and is seeking to enroll some 15,000 participants. The test, called ACTIV-6, involves three drugs: Ivermectin – A drug used to treat parasitic infections in humans and livestock Fluticasone – Known as Flonase, it is an inhaled steroid commonly prescribed for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and Fluvoxamine - An antidepressant that comes in pill form The trial will be studying the effectiveness of the medicines to treat mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Each of the medications has already been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for other uses. “We have treatments for people with severe COVID-19 who are at high risk for hospitalization or death, but they are complex to administer,” said Adrian Hernandez, MD, the study’s administrative principal investigator and executive director of the DCRI. “Currently, there are no approved prescription medications that can be easily given at home to treat mild-to-moderate symptoms of the virus early in its course to prevent worsening of COVID-19.” To be eligible, participants must be 30 years old or older, have had a positive COVID-19 test within the past 10 days, and have at least two symptoms of the illness for seven days or less. Symptoms include fatigue, difficulty breathing, fever, cough, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, body aches, chills, headache, sore throat, nasal symptoms, and/or new loss of sense of taste or smell. Enrollment is available via web and phone through https://activ6study.org, and call center, 833-385-1880. People can participate from anywhere in the United States, and medications are shipped at no cost. Participation involves taking the medication and keeping track of symptoms over 90 days through online surveys.
So yesterday you post studies that claim Ivermectin treatment fraud, and now an esteemed medical institution is doing a study? Would Duke be wasting time on this if it was a fraud, or are they part of the grand conspiracy? Bottom line, Ivermectin has proven to be somewhat effective in some cases, effective enough for further investigation which frankly should have happened months ago. The vax or die cult wouldn't have it. One can only wonder how many have fallen ill and/or died while waiting for a greenlight to actually study it.
I have always supported proper studies to investigate drugs for the treatment of Covid-19. Remember most of the these mainstream studies land up demonstrating the drugs tried for Covid-19 prevention or treatment have no benefit. The underlying purpose of studies can be to conclusively rule drugs or therapies out as well. Keep in mind that ALL the proper mainstream studies of Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid to date have demonstrated no benefit in the prevention or treatment of Covid. The only studies showing Ivermectin has any benefit in treating Covid have been fraudulent and/or created by people pushing Ivermectin. The "meta-analysis" studies of Ivermectin have included fraudulent studies in their data-sets leading to incorrect results --- when reviewed with the fraudulent studies removed then all the "meta analysis" studies show no benefit in treating Covid-19 with Ivermectin. There is no lack of studies looking at Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19. In fact it has been studied endlessly at this point. The only medicine with more studies for Covid-19 treatment is hydroxychloroquine. And all the mainstream studies have showed neither medicine offers any benefit in the prevention or treatment of Covid-19. In fact the manufacturer of Ivermectin, Merck, states very directly the drug has no benefit in the treatment of Covid-19.
Yeah but they really want the data on the antidepressant and the flonase. Now there are only dumb Ivermectin cultists remaining offering it is the smart move to recruit Sign up, you could do with some Fluvoxamine. Might help you get out of that ditch. They stated they included it to end the arguing over other studies. Should it be found to be not much use, well Duke will be attacked as hacks and bad people anyway. FYI, nebuliser delivered Ivermectin more than likely works somewhat. Of course those doses have never been experienced by humans.. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-74084-y Ivermectin bong maybe? 'A serious issue': New Mexico health officials suspect two people dead from ivermectin poisoning September 23, 2021 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5830791001
The unhinged Ivermectin cultists are at it again... this time trying to claim that the new drug being introduced by Merck is just Ivermectin in disguise. Let's take a look at the reality. "Pfizer launches final study for COVID drug that's suspiciously similar to 'horse paste'” ivermectin. Drug Pfizer is studying for COVID-19 not ‘suspiciously similar’ to ivermectin https://www.politifact.com/factchec...fizer-studying-covid-19-not-suspiciously-sim/ The Reality: The Pfizer drug now being studied is structurally different from ivermectin. The claim is FALSE. On the good news front -- the new drug, Molnupiravir, from Merck is effective against Covid-19. Merck says experimental pill cuts worst effects of COVID-19 https://apnews.com/article/merck-sa...orst-effects-a9a2245fdcee324f6bbd776a0fffcc60 Merck to seek emergency authorization for oral Covid treatment after ‘compelling results’ in trials https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/01/mer...uthorization-for-oral-covid-19-treatment.html A phase 3 trial of Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics’ oral antiviral treatment molnupiravir showed it reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by around 50% in Covid patients. Merck plans to seek emergency use authorization in the U.S. and submit marketing applications to other global drug regulators. If authorized by regulatory bodies, molnupiravir could be the first oral antiviral medicine for Covid. (More at above url)
Brazil found out the hard way that Ivermectin is useless in preventing or treating Covid-19. A lesson that cost thousands of lives. Brazil's tragic ivermectin frenzy is a warning to the US, experts say https://www.businessinsider.com/bra...for-covid-frenzy-warning-to-us-experts-2021-9 In Brazil, ivermectin is a commonly prescribed anti parasitic drug. Early on in the pandemic, Brazilians thought that ivermectin might also help treat and prevent COVID-19. But, as one ICU doctor put it: "We Brazilians had to learn in the hardest way that ivermectin didn't work." Brazilians used to spend around $30 a head on what they called the "kit COVID." It was a mix of vitamins and other pills that President Jair Bolsonaro touted as early treatments for COVID-19, well before vaccines became widely available to prevent and minimize coronavirus infections. Among the "kit" drugs were the malaria pill hydroxychloroquine and the antiparasitic tablet ivermectin. Brazilian authorities even at one point launched an app, called TrateCov, ("TreatCov[id]" in English) which recommended the same seven "kit"drugs to all its users. (The evidence base for that protocol leaned heavily on data from Dr. Flávio Cadegiani, who's now a member of the FLCCC, a US-based ivermectin propaganda machine.) But Brazilians quickly discovered — through heart-wrenching personal experience — the limits of treating COVID-19 with ivermectin. Brazil suffered some of its worst death rates yet in late 2020 and early 2021, even in heavily ivermectin-dosed areas, as the more transmissible P1 variant spread quickly across the country. "Look at what happened in Brazil," Natália Taschner, a Brazilian microbiologist and research scholar at Columbia University in New York City, said. "Then wonder: if this drug worked, would Brazil be in such bad shape?" Entire cities took ivermectin — it didn't work The ivermectin strategy was once so popular in Brazil that entire towns tried it out. (Ivermectin is cheap and available in pharmacies across the country.) In July of 2020, ivermectin was available for free to all residents of Itajai, to the tune of around $826,000 USD in government spending. The Mayor of Itajai, physician Volnei Morastoni, said at that time that ivermectin was but "one more weapon in our war against the coronavirus." As infection rates soared, some people were taking excessively high doses of the medicine every day, hoping to stave off COVID-19, but in a few rare cases that move prompted liver failure. Other patients were unknowingly given the "kit" drugs by doctors in private hospitals instead of more standard treatments —and some of them died. "The [ivermectin] prescription practices didn't upend the tragedy of COVID here in Brazil in terms of preventing infections, preventing hospitalizations, and then preventing deaths," Dr. Kevan Akrami, an infectious disease and critical care physician working in the northeastern city of Salvador, said. "Whether somebody was taking it or not didn't seem to have any impact on whether or not they got hospitalized or ended up dying from their COVID infection." The use of ivermectin might have contributed to COVID deaths in other ways, researchers suspect, as some people who assumed they were well protected from infection by ivermectin tossed aside their masks. "There was a political promotion behind it, to make people feel safe, so that they would continue with their regular life," Taschner said. Hospitals in Manaus ran out of oxygen in January, as the area recorded one of the highest death rates in the world. 'I have cared for many patients who took ivermectin and were still in the ICU' Dr. Ana Carolina Antonio, who works at a government hospital in Porto Alegre, Brazil, told Insider many of her ICU patients took ivermectin in the spring — some trying to prevent COVID-19, others "to early treat their first symptoms." Their strategy didn't work. In fact, Antonio estimated roughly 70% of her ICU patients admitted during the country's deadly second wave (in late 2020 and early 2021) had taken ivermectin, and "I regret to say most of those patients have died," she said. About half of all her critically ill patients died, and 80% of ventilated patients didn't make it, regardless of whether they'd tried ivermectin. She called the heartbreak of the situation "indescribable." "I've never seen so many young and previously healthy patients dying," she said. "I have already cared for many patients who took ivermectin and were still in the ICU for COVID-19." Antonio was telling the wives of patients "my husband's age," with "children like mine," that their spouse was dead. She worried about getting her own family sick, including her husband who wasn't a health care worker, and therefore was ineligible for vaccination at the time. (He's now vaccinated, she said.) Brazilians now want vaccines, not more ivermectin Attitudes about ivermectin have quickly changed in the months since then. "In the absence of evidence, we'll try certain things," Akrami said. "But at this point in the pandemic, we really don't have any reason to continue prescribing ineffective medications for prophylaxis or treatment." The "kit" which was once widely prescribed (and self-dosed) in Cuiaba, Macapá, Natal, and Manaus, is now being thrown out by the government. Brazil has a new health minister— a cardiologist who replaced a military general — and vaccines are more widely available. "We've seen a huge decrease in the number of cases and the number of hospital admissions," Antonio said of the period since vaccinations began. "We Brazilians had to learn in the hardest way that ivermectin didn't work." More than 9 in 10 Brazilians say they've been vaccinated, or intend to get their shots, according to a May 2021 poll. "Across political divides, most people still are being rational and saying, 'I should get vaccinated to protect myself,'" Akrami said. "There's a pretty proud tradition of getting vaccinated here. It's kind of seen as like your civic duty." Itajai Mayor Morastoni's Facebook page is peppered with celebrations of vaccine milestones in his city, and information on how and where to get vaccinated. (He hasn't mentioned ivermectin once on his page since vaccinations started being administered to health care workers in his city in January.) "People are tired of all the lies, and the manipulation, and the promotion of miracle cures that they realize don't work," Taschner said. It's possible ivermectin could one day play a small role in COVID-19 treatment, but it's not looking terribly promising Major health agencies (including the World Health Organization and US National Institutes of Health) have yet to weigh in definitively on whether ivermectin works to prevent or treat COVID-19. More conclusive studies are on the way, but the most recent rigorous research of ivermectin for COVID-19 doesn't look promising. The Brazilian government has issued new protocols for COVID-19 treatment, which recommend against using ivermectin in hospitalized patients, because they say there isn't good evidence it does anything. "It might look interesting," Antonio said, referencing studies showing that ivermectin can kill COVID-19 in a petri dish, "but in humans, you have plenty of complex pathways competing for the virus in your body." It is still possible that, in combination with other drugs, the antiparasitic could be one item used in a multi-layered system of treatment for COVID, perhaps to speed recovery in the early stages of disease. But other early treatment options, like Merck's new pill, appear far more promising in human trials. It is "to my surprise," Antonio said, that countries including the US and UK are "becoming crazy for" ivermectin now, with weekly prescriptions for the drug surging more than 2,300% across the US since before the pandemic,according to August data from the CDC. "I really thought it was exclusive Brazilian stuff," she said. When fear and frustration abound, it's tempting to put one's faith in a simple pill or a kit that promises to erase all suffering. But "we're not snake oil salesman anymore," Akrami said. Instead, the best medical care today is informed by rigorous research that examines which treatments actually work to improve a patient's status. "'What's the harm?' is usually the argument," Taschner said of the common refrains given for using unproven treatments like ivermectin. "The harm is it gives people a false impression of security. It makes them feel safe when they are not safe. It drives people away from what really makes them safe, and that's vaccination." "Take a hard look at Brazil, realistically," she said, "and then come to your own conclusions."
The obvious result... An Ohio COVID patient treated with ivermectin after wife sued hospital has died https://www.post-gazette.com/news/h...-hospital-wife-sued-dies/stories/202110040083