TrumpLyftAlles | 7 points
Ivermectin and COVID-19: How a Flawed Database Shaped the COVID-19 Response of Several Latin-American Countries (Carlos Chaccour, 2020-05-29)[-] [deleted] | 1 points
My twitter response to this report, unrolled manually, since the automated one left out most of the tweets (it doesn't recurse up the tweet chain, apparently?)
Here is the beginning of the thread:
https://twitter.com/ISGLOBALorg/status/1266450512456671232
I find Dr. Chaccour's criticisms weak.
Usefulness data doesn't match "known" data, e.g. # of covid19 cases in Africa. Easy retort: the researchers have more accurate data! Surgisphere gets hospital data in real time. Where does "known" data come from?
Data seems off: ventilation rate in Spain is lower, mortality of ventilator patients in NYC is higher.
This is really cheap criticism. Find a number in Usefulness then find different numbers elsewhere. Cherry-picking proving nothing. ALL study's could be nit-picked this way.
Risks of going with ivermectin:
Diversion of drug supply: OK, it is happening. What's more important, treatment/prevent of COVID19, or scabies?
When the supply of ivermectin runs short, officials can take measures, like the Municipal Council of El Alto, Brazil deciding to make ivermectin prescription-required. Isn't that that step is available in most/all jurisdictions?!
https://viralbolivia.info/2020/05/concejo-municipal-aprueba-leyes-para-regular-dias-de-feria-en-el-alto-y-uso-de-ivermectina/
If countries experience short supply, that could be turn out really important if ivermectin turns out to be the magic pill we all hope it will be: orders from countries who want to buy a lot so they can mass dose signal manufacturers that it's time to ramp up production!
Use of veterinary formulations: Dr. Chaccour cannot present an iota of evidence that this is a real problem because there isn't any.
It's anecdotal -- no company will spend $$$$ to prove that $7 horse paste ivermectin is safe for human consumption -- but here are 18 reviews on Amazon by people who ATE the horse paste variety and report a positive experience.
Biggest downside: yucky.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/goq70h/looking_through_amazon_reviews_of_the_horse_paste/frhdxnh/
Another "risk":
Mass deworming due to ivermectin could have repercussions on the severity of COVID-19.
This is a made-up theoretical concern. Dr. Chaccour has no evidence; it could be the cast that the mass dewormings reduce the severity of COVID-19.
This is nonsensical regardless of how mass dewormings affect COVID-19.
The mass dewormings are DONE. The issue is whether Latin American countries should use ivermectin going forward to treat/prevent COVID-19.
Why are the mass dewormings even relevant? They aren't.
Another risk:
Moral hazard, due to a false feeling of protection or treatment with the drug.
OK, this one is kind of valid. This makes Dr. Chaccour's paper slightly useful: people that believe it will be less inclined to feel protected.
Another risk:
Impossibility to conduct clinical trials should ivermectin become the new standard of care.
Seriously?
Q1 when screening prospective patients: Have you taken ivermectin?
Problem solved! LOL.
Proof of how ridiculous this "risk" is:
Colombia registered a clinical trial of ivermectin vs covid19 yesterday.
I guess the researchers ALSO disagree that clinical trials are impossible.
Efficacy of Ivermectin in Adult Patients With Early Stages of COVID-19
Dr. Chaccour's qualifier:
should ivermectin become the new standard of care.
True: they can't have a control group NOT getting ivermectin, if everyone is getting it already.
That's OK, there are ~20 other trials underway. Latin Americans don't need to die for science.
Regarding risk:
Dr. Chaccour's weak risk threats have to be weighed against the risk of COVID-19 spreading more widely and being treated less effectively.
In a pandemic, some risk is warranted.
He fails to mention that ivermectin has an incredibly good safety record.
An upside of the Latin American countries applying ivermectin, IMO, besides very possibly reducing infection rates, reducing severity of the illness, and saving lives... is getting more experience with ivermectin vs COVID-19.
For example, 350K doses being distributed to the residents of Trinidad. Look at that city's rate of infection over time and see if it changes at the point that ivermectin is distributed. After a few weeks, compare Trinidad's COVID-19 statistics with a comparable untreated city.
Another advantage of countries getting experience with ivermectin is understand the supply chain (where can we buy a LOT?) and distribution (mass administrations require organization, probably technology).
Why wait until the RCTs finally come in, to start those learnings?
By trying ivermectin now, they learn more about ivermectin, even if their learning isn't worthy of publication in Lancet.
Veterinary ivermectin gives good results in Peru:
https://t.co/boQqMEzIqN?amp=1
A doctor in Chile says the results are promising:
"we are seeing that 85% of patients at 48 hours no longer have viruses in the polymerase chain reaction. This is that the viremic stage is shortened and we only have to deal with the inflammatory stage."
https://t.co/kYt2iZOdxo?amp=1
If ivermectin works, then production of beef in the Beni region of Bolivia will be protected because the Scientific Committee there concluded ivermectin was worth distributing to town residents and eventually the region.
https://t.co/qD42PdE3yj?amp=1
COVID-19 infection is spreading in Peru, Chile and Brazil. It's a deadly disease that ravages many of its victims who survive the virus.
What is Dr. Chaccour's advice?
WAIT UNTIL PERFECT STUDIES ARE AVAILABLE????
There are no perfect studies. People are dying, etc NOW.
Forgot to post the link:
How South America became a coronavirus epicenter
Brazil, Peru, and Chile have made South America one of the world’s worst Covid-19 hot spots.
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/26/21270376/south-america-covid-19-coronavirus-brazil-peru-chile
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
This is the trial being conducted by IS_GLOBAL -- by Dr Chaccour and colleagues. Dr. Chaccour is quoted talking about the trial in this article. The trial is discussed in reddit's science-heavy subreddit /r/covid19 here. My summary of the study, that I wrote on 2020-05-16:
A dose of 400mcg is average; the range of the trials is 150mcg to 600mcg.
The sample size of 24 is disappointingly low but time to completing the trial is comparatively fast. IIRC, only one trial is expected to be done before this one.
Trials have been ADDED since I wrote that Dr Chaccour's would be the second one to complete.
On ClinicalTrials.gov there are ivermectin trials with N = 30 (June 10 completion), N = 100 (July completion), N = 77 (July), N = 400 (August), N = 66 (August) and N = 50 (August). All 6 trials have larger N's than Dr. Chaccour's study, a couple with MUCH bigger N's. 3 trials will be completed before Dr. Chaccour's trial, and 3 more will be completed in the same month as his. ALL 6 of them are going to have more statistical power than Dr. Chaccour's study, a function of N.
Dr. Chaccour's trial is only going to have 12 experiment subjects, giving it relatively little statistical power. His may well conclude that "Differences between the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant; ivermectin was not shown to be effective against COVID-19" -- ONLY* because Dr. Chaccour's N is so small. One wonders: what were they thinking? Maybe they can boost the N?
Still, I suppose Dr. Chaccour's study is worth completing. Even if N = 24 turns out to be too low to produce statistically significant results, it will still contribute to the growing scientific consensus about ivermetin.
*Go here for an explanation of statistical power. Sample size (N) is critical. "A power analysis can be used to estimate the minimum sample size required for an experiment". It appears possible that Dr. Chaccour did not do that analysis.
What does this mean? “Rural regions of Latin America have a high prevalence of intestinal helminths. These parasite are known to modulate one type of immune response that favors viral clearance. Mass deworming due to ivermectin could have repercussions on the severity of COVID-19.” These parasites help against the coronavirus?
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
My best guess? There was a paper recently that said repeated dosings of ivermectin reduced the level of some genes that help clear viruses.
This part, however:
Mass deworming due to ivermectin could have repercussions on the severity of COVID-19.
Makes no sense whatsoever. The mass dosings are DONE. They have whatever effect they have.
These parasites help against the coronavirus?
MAYBE he meant that? Doubt it. No evidence of that AFAIK.
[-] DuePomegranate | 2 points
It is the same objection that I brought up earlier, only that I thought it was scabies. The problem with Usefulness, even if you take the Surgisphere data at face value, is that given the time line, any doctors who prescribed ivermectin likely did it for its known anti-parasite properties. Because the study on ivermectin and SARS-CoV-2 in culture has not yet come out. There is a possibility that having parasites at the time of Covid infection has beneficial properties. Parasites alter the Th1/Th2 immune balance. It has long been recognised that populations with worms hardly get allergies, and after deworming that population, allergies go up. Parasites may reduce/prevent cytokines storm.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
There is a possibility that having parasites at the time of Covid infection has beneficial properties. Parasites alter the Th1/Th2 immune balance. It has long been recognised that populations with worms hardly get allergies, and after deworming that population, allergies go up. Parasites may reduce/prevent cytokines storm.
Wow: I never heard of that. Really interesting idea! Thanks for expanding my mind a little. :)
[-] DuePomegranate | 1 points
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200519/Do-parasites-protect-against-SARS-CoV-2.aspx
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I hope this strikes you as funny, but not entirely beyond the realm.
For 23 years places with endemic parasite infestations have been the locus of Mass Drug Administrations of ivermectin. Last year a billion doses were given to 540 million people.
I'm too tired and stupid to undertake it now, but I'll try to take a close look at the study that your link is about, to see if they somehow controlled for that. First impression: They mention that immunity goes away when people move away from the parasite-ridden regions. The MDAs for river blindness and filariasis are done annually, so...
[-] DuePomegranate | 2 points
There's no real data yet, just speculation based on regions/countries. Basically just boils down to third world countries have a lot of parasites and few COVID cases, hardly definitive.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
But what if there's a correlation between the places that got the MDAs and those that didn't, and the prevalence of covid19? I'll get back to you about that.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Searching pubmed for "th1 th2 SARS" turns up 27 hits. Feeling energetic? ;)
I'm ill-equipped, with my one college-level biology course where I earned a C, IIRC. I get the impression that your background is a lot stronger.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
The problem with Usefulness, even if you take the Surgisphere data at face value, is that given the time line, any doctors who prescribed ivermectin likely did it for its known anti-parasite properties. Because the study on ivermectin and SARS-CoV-2 in culture has not yet come out.
This seems like sound reasoning to me. The Usefullness patients must have been treated for some parasite or another. So what offers the protection that the authors observed? The parasites or the drug?
You know the explanation I prefer. We're not going to start dosing the world with parasites.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
TL;DR: By attacking HCQ, the Usefulness authors made themselves targets of Trump supporters who are more inclined to see corruption and conspiracy than accept the result that HCQ doesn't work.
This is my response to an attack on the Surgisphere database underlying the Lancent hydroxychloroquine article and the Usefulness study that this article (Flawed Database) attacks.
Three of the four authors of Usefulness of Ivermectin subsequently wrote an article published in Lancet:
The article found that hydroxychloroquine use was associated with a 34% increase in death and a 137% increase in serious heart arrhythmias in the study of 96,032 hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
As a result of the Lancet article, WHO issued a recommendation that HCQ should NOT be used other than in clinical trials. Apparently WHO called off some trials, though I haven't verified that.
HCQ advocates have responded by attacking the study and its authors.
The criticism focuses on the source of the data cited in the anti-HCQ Lancet article, which is a company Surgisphere, which is run by one of the authors of the Lancet article. The Usefulness of Ivermectin article is based on the same database. It is a proprietary database, so no transparency. A lot of the criticism is along the lines "The paper says there were 72 covid19 patients in region X at a time when the official count was 2."
The pro-HCQ crowd feels that the Lancet team (which is 3/4th the Usefulnes team) must be corrupt. "Trying to make money for Gilead (maker of Remdesivir )" is one prominent theory.
In my strong opinion, based on reading many tweets by those attacking the study, is that this controversy boils down to partisanship. The syllogism is obvious:
The conspiracy nonsense is telling: the conservative brain is more disposed to believe conspiracy theories.
Not all of the critics are partisans, I assume -- but Trump supporters kicked off the fire storm and others are piling on.
The authors in common across the two papers are:
Amit N. Patel MD, MS, a professor in the Department of Bioengineering, University of Utah.
Sapan S. Desai MD PhD MBA, head of Surgisphere Corporation in Chicago
Mandeep R. Mehra MD, MSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
That is a lot of degrees. MD PhD MBA: Does anyone else on the planet have those three degrees? Weird that people who have all that education decide to throw away their careers by publishing papers based on fake data, right? When there's no obvious reason for them to do so? Writing about HCQ and ivermectin, two off-license drugs, one of which their research boosts (ivermectin): there's plainly no money angle.
Dr. Mehra is especially impressive.
Among Dr. Mehra's credentials:
Dr. Mehra serves as The William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine and as Executive Director of the Center for Advanced Heart Disease, Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He is a Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation.
Dr. Mehra is a Past-President (2008) of the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) and past president (2016) of the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA). He has authored and published over 500 scholarly papers with a specific focus on Advanced Heart Failure. Dr. Mehra has also completed a Master of Science in Health Economics and Management at the London School of Economics in 2018, a degree earned through his designation as a “Braunwald Scholar”.
Dr. Mehra is recognized as one of the leading cardiologists in advanced heart failure and cardiac transplantation worldwide and his research focuses on mechanical circulatory support devices, the practice of cardiac transplantation, and innovative care processes for Advanced Heart Failure with a focus on value as we transition into a new Healthcare Era.
1) A team of highly accomplished researchers, one of whom occupies a chair at Harvard, published a fake pro-ivermectin study as cover so later they could publish a fake study against HCQ so Gilead makes more money.
2) The researchers looked at the data and reported what they found.
The second possibility wins. That's obvious to me, anyway, but I'm a fanboy. Which do YOU think is more likely?
I can't speak to the Surgisphere database, except to note that it is a real-time database, so it always has current information. This explains why the Johns Hopkins covid19 tracking can say a region has X covid19 patients while Surgisphere says it has X + Y: Surgisphere is up-to-date and Hopkins lags.
Patel, et al, have responded to the criticism by calling for an academic audit of their data. They clearly do not have anything to hide.
The Lancet authors explained one discrepancy as a coding problem, something like a hospital was mistakenly grouped with Africa when it is really somewhere else.
Someone defending the Lancet article, possibly a peer reviewer, said the data errors were not significant in the sense that they didn't alter the outcome of the study.
But because of the outburst of hostility toward the Lancet article, a lot of people believe that it and Usefulness are based on bad data. That's incorrect, IMO.
The Lancet article has not been withdrawn, and Usefulness is still up also.
Edit: The researchers decided that an audit will not happen and both articles have been withdrawn.
[-] DuePomegranate | 3 points
I don’t think it’s a conspiracy type of fraud. But I think the Surgisphere CEO tricked or over-sold their data to the two famous doctors. And it will turn out that Surgisphere fabricated some of their data. Maybe not intentionally to factor ivermectin or diss HCQ, but some data may have been pseudo-randomly generated to add to their database, so that Surgisphere can draw more subscribers.
[-] UsefulOrange6 | 2 points
For what its worth, I agree with your assessment.
There simply is no plausible motive for faking the study. Maybe they made some mistakes but actual fraud seems very unlikely.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Thanks for letting me know!
This will all come out in the wash.
We're on the verge of having completed ivermectin trials so Usefulness won't be the only good research: 1st is June 10, then 2 in July and 4 in August.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
This article highlights some political aspects of the attack on the Lancet article:
Withdrawn drug study adds more politics, distrust to coronavirus science
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
This is another article about the "scandal" that offers some additional information. Accurate? Who knows?
How medicine was hoodwinked by bogus COVID-19 studies
In the midst of a global pandemic and a civil rights crisis, one of the most extraordinary things happened in the world of medicine. Unfortunately, it wasn’t positive. The two most prestigious journals in medicine, The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, retracted two papers. The Lancet paper concluded that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine increased the mortality rate when used for the treatment of COVID-19 disease. The NEJM paper looked at cardiovascular disease and mortality. There was a common thread, though: the authors were the same.
The Lancet study essentially made the medical world conclude that hydroxychloroquine was not only ineffective, but harmful in COVID-19 disease, with 23.8 percent of patients dying v.s 9.3 percent in the placebo arm. This caused the World Health Organization and drug companies to halt all trials of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine.
Now, it was always a dream of mine to get published in these two journals. I was always proud of the rigor involved of the data and the peer reviewed process. Anything that appeared in these journals was assumed to be scientific fact. So how did this whole sordid episode play out?
The authors were from prestigious institutions. Among them: Dr. Amit Patel and Dr. Sapan Desai, a vascular surgeon who ran a little-known company called Surgisphere, based in Chicago. But the studies unraveled, not because of our medical leadership at these prestigious institutions, but because of simple questions asked by regular clinicians, when the data did not make any sense. The first questions were about the company collecting the data. Surgisphere claims to have access to medical data from 46 countries in six continents. When questioned about how he was able to manage all the different patient confidentiality laws and access to different computer systems, Desai said that they used artificial intelligence to analyze data. He did get the artificial part correct.
I'm unaware of clinicians raising issues. Most of what I have seen is niggling stuff about case counts, e.g. Surgisphere vs John Hopkins. In truth I haven't looked very much at the critiques.
The second question that arose was the number of patients out of Africa, which totaled 4,402 patients out of which 561 died. The number of patients with electronic health records in African countries was implausible. In addition, the number of deaths reported in Australian hospitals exceeded the country’s official death statistic. The authors addressed this by giving a correction, saying patients from an Asian hospital were included in the Australian analysis.
Niggling. The Lancet (maybe a peer reviewer) said the data errors didn't impact the study's conclusions.
As the discrepancies began climbing, clinicians and researchers wrote an open letter to the journal questioning the data. The authors asked for an independent audit, which Surgisphere did not comply with, citing patient confidentiality. It gets worse. Desai and Patel also authored a study on the benefits of an antiparasitic drug named Ivermectin for COVID-19, which resulted in the drug being used freely in the treatment of the disease in South America. In the Ivermectin study the authors claim to have three patients from Africa who received the drug, when at the time there were only two confirmed cases.
Surgisphere did call for an "academic audit" -- and then they changed their mind. This makes the confidentiality thing more credible to me: Desai sent some emails or consulted lawyers, realized an audit wasn't feasible. I'm making up this scenario.
The data from Surgisphere have been used in other studies regarding cardiovascular outcomes, and a tool that predicts risk associated with COVID-19 disease. The authors say they relied on the data from Surgisphere, but it’s quite stunning that neither of them took the time to actually look at and verify the data.
How could they verify the data? It's de-identified. I'm sure Desai only provided aggregates.
I couldn’t make this up if I wanted to. They were all on TV, talking about the dangerous effects of hydroxychloroquine, with Desai even questioning the need for further randomized trials in the presence of such, ahem, robust data.
Why would someone go to the extent of making a potential treatment option seem dangerous? Why wouldn’t our esteemed medical leadership ask some basic questions before publishing this data? Is it politics, money or plain old hubris? There are more questions than answers unfortunately, and I will leave the speculation to the reader. More than likely chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine will not be the magic pills we are searching for. Those generally don’t exist and the preponderance of other data seem to indicate that. The WHO trial named “Solidarity” has resumed. We have shifted to other crises. Our heroes, as always, haven’t failed to disappoint.
Why? They didn't set out to do anything. They looked at their data and presented what it said.
On 17 June 2020, WHO announced that the hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) arm of the Solidarity Trial to find an effective COVID-19 treatment was being stopped.
The trial's Executive Group and principal investigators made the decision based on evidence from the Solidarity trial, UK's Recovery trial and a Cochrane review of other evidence on hydroxychloroquine.
Data from Solidarity (including the French Discovery trial data) and the recently announced results from the UK's Recovery trial both showed that hydroxychloroquine does not result in the reduction of mortality of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, when compared with standard of care.
Investigators will not randomize further patients to hydroxychloroquine in the Solidarity trial. Patients who have already started hydroxychloroquine but who have not yet finished their course in the trial may complete their course or stop at the discretion of the supervising physician.
This decision applies only to the conduct of the Solidarity trial and does not apply to the use or evaluation of hydroxychloroquine in pre or post-exposure prophylaxis in patients exposed to COVID-19.
SOLIDARITY is stopped again. Presumably it was still resumed when this article was written on 2020-06-14.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
And yet another article.
Lancet, NEJM Retract Surgisphere Studies on COVID-19 Patients (TheScientist, 2020-06-04)
Selected bits:
Today, three authors—all the coauthors on the study except Surgisphere founder and CEO Sapan Desai—contacted The Lancet to retract their report. “They were unable to complete an independent audit of the data underpinning their analysis,” the retraction notice in The Lancet reads. “As a result, they have concluded that they ‘can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.’”
In a joint statement published on The Lancet’s website, they write that a set of independent peer reviewers “informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO [International Organization for Standardization] audit report to their servers for analysis as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements. As such, our reviewers were not able to conduct an independent and private peer review and therefore notified us of their withdrawal from the peer-review process.”
WOW. That is a serious demand. I thought the idea was to get someone deemed authoritative to privately audit the data and make an evaluation. Demanding turning over the data is clearly way beyond reasonable.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
[-] howardc64 | 2 points | May 29 2020 22:14:26
Indeed the key Ivermectin study is likely false data source similar to Lancet's HCQ article by the same author.
Regions with less medical research and medical infrastructure have high motivation to use out-patient drugs even with anecdotes from bedside doctors.
High medical research countries like US is more rigorous. However, such rigor is slow moving behind 3+ months per trial iteration. Furthermore, data is heavily skewed by big pharma's funding for trials and lobbying.
Highly desirable data comes from all over the world in their own unique ways. I am however less optimistic high research countries like US will practically use knowledge gained outside of its control.
permalink
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points | May 29 2020 23:11:03
Indeed the key Ivermectin study is likely false data source similar to Lancet's HCQ article by the same author.
Could you give me a couple links where people try to make this claim?
It's my understanding that the data comes from Surgisphere, which is in the business of real-time monitoring of hospital data. I'm making up this example from a long ago job with a company in the same business: A hospital's average length-of-stay for a c-section delivery has been 2.2 days but Surgisphere notices it creeping up to 2.5, and further notices that a new guy on the staff Dr Keepemlongtime is the one running up the average. They notify the hospital and the hospital gives Dr Keepemlongtimea dope slap.
Because of this real-time model, Surgisphere has daily or even continuous feeds of hospital data from all over the world -- "169 hospitals across 3 continents (North America, Europe and Asia)".
THAT is very good data.
I would need some really strong evidence before I chose some other data source over theirs.
Regions with less medical research and medical infrastructure have high motivation to use out-patient drugs even with anecdotes from bedside doctors.
I think the motivation comes from wanting to help their citizens. The Usefulness study is literally the only decent ivermectin study thus far. It's results are amazing. The drug is cheap and safe. Why NOT go for it?
The rest of your comments sound plausible to me.
permalink
[-] howardc64 | 2 points | May 30 2020 01:15:07
No doubt big data medical analysis can be a great solution. Unfortunately probably no where as easily to get with HIPPA. Surgisphere is an opportunistic marketing shell company. You can find some of summary and big long twitter investigation thread below
https://www.medicineuncensored.com/a-study-out-of-thin-air
https://twitter.com/JamesTodaroMD/status/1266061879002247169
CEO's name along with Utah and Harvard doctor's name are on the Ivermectin and the Lancet's Hydroxychloroquine paper. Surgisphere CEO is obviously the data source to both papers. Link to both papers
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3580524
Download complete PDF to see author list (only single author shows on Ivermectin link without PDF)
Pretty amazing how far this false data source got.
Anyhow, I'm all for anti-virals (looks like 5 total so far) that have shown quicker shedding virus when used early. And do hope we get more good data out of South America where Ivermectin seems most heavily used. US medical research body like NIH is stuck on a single shiny new object (Remdesivir). Looks like it can achieve similar benefits as Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine but is only IV form so no way to achieve early disease out-patient use.
Hope this info is helpful.
permalink
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points | May 30 2020 01:21:20
It's funny how minds work.
I read the out-of-thin-air thing and actually laughed out loud. A discrepancy in three counts is proof -- of -- what?
The archive.org thing is just dumb.
You seem like a smart guy. You buy the fraud story, right?
I don't, not even a little.
Occam's Razor:
1) A team of respected researchers, one of whom occupies a chair at Harvard, published an ivermectin study as cover so later they could publish against HCQ so Gilead makes more money.
2) The researchers looked at the data and reported what they found.
LOL.
To me, this is a shame, because the Usefulness of Ivermectin study is the best we have. I think it's good. The MedCram guy thinks it's good.
Usefulness will be tainted by this HCQ Lancet story, though.
permalink
[-] [deleted] | 1 points | May 30 2020 01:28:48
[deleted]
permalink