Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXY86q3XAGI

In Discussion With Dr Tess Lawrie - Full Interview

Jan 28, 2021

MedicalUpdateOnline

390 subscribers

 

rough partial transcript:

16:00 - what are the next steps?

Govt etc have relied on Cochrane reviews as foundations (for treatment) ..

So Dr Andy Hill (Dr Andrew Hill) up in University of Liverpool and myself have decided to team and we are going to do a Cochrane review - a rapid Cochrane review which we hope to have done in the next 3 weeks if all goes well - and hopefully that will settle the question once and for all.

 

Reference:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/lkpt5d World Health Organization confirms that in 6 weeks there will be news about the use of Ivermectin in early treatment for Covid19. Media briefing, 15 Feb 2021

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_(organisation) Cochrane (organisation)

However Cochrane while well regarded, is not without accusations of cosiness to pharmaceutical industry:

Gøtzsche remains an outspoken critic of Cochrane's relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. The Cochrane board stated that Gøtzsche was expelled for his behavior, which had been reviewed by an independent counsel hired by Cochrane.[21] Key criticisms that have been directed at Cochrane's studies include a failure to include a sufficiently large number of unpublished studies, failure to pre-specify or failure to abide by pre-specified rules for endpoint[29] or trial[30] inclusion, insufficiently frequent updating of reviews, an excessively high percentage of inconclusive reviews,[31] and a high incidence of ghostwriting and honorary authorship.[32][33] In some cases Cochrane's internal structure may make it difficult to publish studies that run against the preconceived opinions of internal subject matter experts.[34]

But then it also has a good relationship with the WHO, which may be useful:

World Health Organization Cochrane maintains an official relationship with the World Health Organization[35] that affords Cochrane the right to appoint nonvoting representatives to WHO meetings, including sessions of the World Health Assembly, and make statements on WHO resolutions.[36] Wikipedia Wikipedia and Cochrane collaborate to increase the incorporation of Cochrane research into Wikipedia articles and provide Wikipedia editors with resources for interpreting medical data.[37] Cochrane and John Wiley and Sons, publisher of Cochrane reviews, make one hundred free Cochrane accounts available to Wikipedia medical editors—the financial value of which has been estimated by Cochrane at between thirty thousand and eighty thousand US dollars per annum—and pay a nominal stipend and travel expenses to support a Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane.[

 

---

Article:

https://medicalupdateonline.com/2021/01/ivermectin-meta-analysis-the-findings/ Ivermectin meta-analysis – the findings

January 26, 2021

Interview and article by Christine Clark.

Dr Tess Lawrie, Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, describes the key findings from her recently-published meta-analysis of ivermectin trials for covid-19.

The first finding was that ivermectin substantially reduces death amongst hospitalised patients with mild, moderate or severe covid-19. Six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included and the pooled estimate of reduction in the risk of death was 83% (95% CI 67-92%). “We don’t know what the precise estimate is, but even if it is on the lower estimate or even half as good it is still a substantial reduction in deaths”, say Dr Lawrie. This was graded as ‘moderate certainty’ evidence. The uncertainty is not related to whether or not ivermectin prevents death, but the estimate of the size of the effect. “We know – the evidence shows –  it prevents death; the only uncertainly is by how much”, emphasises Dr Lawrie.

“We found a substantial reduction in the risk of death if you receive ivermectin instead of receiving the control [treatment] and it was consistent across all of the studies that we included”, she says. Furthermore, the statistical measure that is used to measure the consistency of the data showed no inconsistency,  “so all the studies were showing the same thing – that ivermectin reduces death substantially in hospitalised patients…… whichever way you are looking at it, it is a massive reduction”, adds Dr Lawrie

Prophylaxis

The trials of ivermectin prophylaxis included both RCTs and observational trials.  “It doesn’t really matter whether you include OCTs and RCTs or RCTs only  –  all the studies are saying the same thing”,  comments Dr Lawrie,

There were four studies that reported data on covid prophylaxis with ivermectin. They were conducted amongst health care workers and people who had been exposed to covid-19.  The analysis found an 88% reduction, on average, in the risk of acquiring a covid infection amongst the people who had received ivermectin compared with controls In absolute terms this amounts to an infection rate of about 4% in those who had received ivermectin compared with 35% infection rate in the control group. This evidence was graded as ‘moderate certainty’, mainly because of study design limitations. However, the findings were consistent across all four studies. “So again it’s not a question of whether ivermectin reduces the risk of infection, but it’s just a question of how much”, says Dr Lawrie.

Placebo-controlled trials

Regarding future trials Dr Lawrie points out that placebo controlled trials for ivermectin treatment of covid are no longer ethical. The absolute risk of death in hospitalised covid-19 patients treated with ivermectin is 1.3% but for those who receive placebo as control treatment the risk of death is about 8%. “A doctor enrolling someone in a study would have to say,  “Well, the existing evidence shows that if you get ivermectin you’ll have a 1%  chance of dying and if we don’t give it to you you’ll have a 8% chance of dying”, so I can’t really imagine that anybody would be prepared to sign a form like that”, explains Dr Lawrie.

permalink