That last example was fairly minor, but this is the big one. The last remaining significant randomised clinical trial that claimed significant benefit for a reduced mortality: it showed a staggering 70% reduction in mortality for covid patients using ivermectin over placebo. This is the well-known Niaee et al Iranian study much beloved by C19 Ivermectin fans. This was highly significant and counted for a lot of the supposed benefit in the
@lamb22 oft cited meta-analyses -the quote below is from the medium article linked further down in this post.
Unlike some of the other studies covered in this multi-part investigation, the impact of this trial was not small. It was covered in the news, read by 10,000s, and made a HUGE difference to the scientific literature.
The Niaee et al study, still online here:
www.apjtm.org
This article below explains why it's likely this study had major methodological problems, or much more likely, was never actually conducted at all. They made up the data. The authors of the study refused to reply to the data scientists - they did eventually supply some data to the BBC,who passed it on to the data scientists who conducted the analysis described below.
I quote:
Earlier this year, a number of very positive meta-analyses came out showing a massive benefit for ivermectin. Now, as I reported before, if you remove the likely fraudulent Elgazzar trial from these meta-analyses it almost entirely changes the result. However, once you’ve taken out Elgazzar, the entire mortality benefit rests on the Niaee et al study.
Full discussion of the dodgy data and evidence of fraud here;
The only remaining randomized trial that found a benefit for ivermectin on Covid-19 mortality has serious issues
gidmk.medium.com
This is the BBC article that mentions this study.
Thousands worldwide have taken ivermectin to fight Covid. But what's the evidence?
www.bbc.com
Watch
@lamb22 come back and tell me "but I have 65 studies done by 655 scientists and you be disrespecting them". Yep, when they are exposed as frauds damn straight I disrespect them. I'm going to enjoy pointing that out when more of these trials are exposed as fraudulent and the real trials like Together and Principle continue to show no significant benefit. Buckle up
@lamb22
Last pedantic point (for now) -
@lamb22 is a big fan of Tess Lawrie. In the BBC article it notes:
When asked during an online panel what evidence might persuade her ivermectin didn't work she (Lawrie) replied: "Ivermectin works. There's nothing that will persuade me." She told the BBC: "The only issues with the evidence base are the relentless efforts to undermine it."
No self-respecting objective scientist ever says "there's nothing that will persuade me". It's an inherently unscientific position - science works only through falsifiability. For reasons of mental illness, desire to make a fast buck, social media adulation, love of notoriety or whatever, she's unreliable. She's bought into the mythology. She can't be convinced otherwise, even when more and more of these studies are being exposed as outright research fraud.
So why is this anto/lamby argumentative nonsense important? It's because people are literally dying because of this misinformation. The numbers who die directly from non-prescribed overdoses of Ivermectin are small, but the numbers that are dying because they don't trust medical science and/or are unwilling to get vaccinated are huge. Fortunately no-one here on PRE seems to buy into the Ivermectin BS enough to risk their health through non-vaccination or rejecting the standard Covid treatments, but hundreds of thousands in the US and other places are.
Enjoy your weekend
@lamb22 and maybe bone up on some critical thinking and arguing from first principles. Boy, you are going to need it.
www.abc.net.au
Lockdown Dan made a boo boo. Who knows... maybe he's showing off what 2022 might bring.
).
