The latest "Ivermectin Doesn't Work" study was published last Friday in The New England Journal of Medicine. If the mistakes we're finding are real, the journal will have no choice but to retract it.
I have first hand experience with covid and ivm. My whole family came down with covid and 4 out of 5 family members took ivm right away. But one member, who has asthma and is obese, took ivm for only one day. Because she believed the msm BS about ivm, she wouldn’t continue treatment. She progressively got worse. Couldn’t stop coughing. By day five, she was so convinced that she was going to die anyway, she relented and started ivm treatment. Within 12 hours, her coughing improved 80%. Within three days of treatment, she was completely better. So, yes, it does work…. I’d also add that following the Flccc protocols for prevention was a game changer. The vitamins and supplements really do strengthen the immune system, and the two people who followed them skipped through covid as if it was nothing.
The Defender has an article about this. Written by Madhava Setty MD, dated 3/31/2022. Sorry I can't post a direct link to it. Also check out the FLCCC Substack. My statistics education is 50+ years ago, so my help would be questionable. But this study sucks for simple reasons - the dosage of IVM is therapeutically too low, the treatment did not commence at disease onset, and no other drugs were used with IVM. Thanks for your continuing excellent work.
I don’t understand why the totals in the days since onset of symptoms entries (for both ivm and placebo) don’t add up to the total number of positive tests (for each of ivm & placebo). Did some participants included in the totals develop symptoms after the day cut off period provided for in the table?
Patients treated after 7 days but should be treated earlier than 7 days. Treatment lasted 3 days should last at least 7 dasy. There were only 2 cases where placebo outperformed IVM, and another case where they were almost. equal. 11 cases IVM seemed better. Sorry I got confused at label in Figure 2. Is the "event" hospitalization or ER visit? Because "better" would mean that IVM should have fewer events. That is the case, it seems, in this study.
I am not a statistician, but here's what I wondered about that I hadn't seen questioned elsewhere:
The Bayesian Chart in question shows 15 data points, and all but 3 are to the left of of the 1.00 vertical line which is labeled "Ivermectin Better". So, why isn't Ivermectin better?
Patients were advised to take the pill on an empty stomach. The absorption of IVM is significantly better when taken with food. Further, only 3 days of treatment with IVM were allowed, which has been noted elsewhere. So, worse absorption with a nonstandard treatment protocol biases the study against IVM.
The per-protocol analysis included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). In the placebo group only about 1/3 of them (228 of 679) qualified for per-protocol analysis. Wouldn't that bias the results?
Bottom line for "Time since onset of symptoms" of 0-3 and 4-7 are for identifying time for initializing entry into the study and have zero to do with any result. A result was assigned favorable to placebo. This line doesn't add up to the 679 subjects participating in each protocol. There are only 524 on the ivermectin side and 517 in the placebo. Where did the others go?
I don't have time to read it but suspect it is flawed. one thing I see frequently in medical research (used to review for Journal of Allied Health) is the use of multiple tests of significance. Ie, if you run multiple tests (e.g, t-tests) on the same dataset, the chances of any given conclusion must be adjusted for multiple tests. in a sense it protects against "curve fitting." Run enough tests and something will be significant by pure chance. There appear to be 16 separate tests for significance presented. Each must be held to a higher standard to avoid one being falsely significance.
I already knew this study is garbage from other articles that covered it, the reduction in mortality and ventilators in the ivm group was substantial, a 60 or 70% reduction iirc. They listed this as a "secondary effect", imagine that!! Also the "didnt prevent severe disease" category was a farce, they counted this as simply having oxygen below 95%, which is ridiculous.
I am over 65, have Immunodeficiencies and mild asthma. Had Covid 2x, took 12mg Ivermectin with VitD and Zinc for 5 days. Both times I went from running a low fever with body aches and chills to literally riding my bike 5 miles after 2 days.
Hello, you might try reading Steve Kirsch's latest post about this article. I haven't looked at the table you point to yet, however, Steve pointed out a few other things that (it seemed to me) weren't in the NEJM article.
Without reading the article, the "Time since onset of symptoms" category is missing some people. The "missing" row would seem to be 16/155 for Ivermectin and 33/162 for the placebo. That is a significant signal.
well first of all this study was underpowered, the control and treatment arms occurred at different times, and IVM was widely available in many of the countries that the study was done. plus a large portion of the control group (I believe) dropped out. I am not sure what your issue is with the chart mentioned. But its confusing to me - doesnt seem to add to the paper.
I have first hand experience with covid and ivm. My whole family came down with covid and 4 out of 5 family members took ivm right away. But one member, who has asthma and is obese, took ivm for only one day. Because she believed the msm BS about ivm, she wouldn’t continue treatment. She progressively got worse. Couldn’t stop coughing. By day five, she was so convinced that she was going to die anyway, she relented and started ivm treatment. Within 12 hours, her coughing improved 80%. Within three days of treatment, she was completely better. So, yes, it does work…. I’d also add that following the Flccc protocols for prevention was a game changer. The vitamins and supplements really do strengthen the immune system, and the two people who followed them skipped through covid as if it was nothing.
I don’t have time, since I’m at work, but Kirsch says that Dr. Kory will be addressing this pronto. Thanks for all that you’re doing, Darby!
Steve Kirsch already wrote about the study on his substack this morning. Check it out.
Is there any new discussion? I've refreshed the page but am seeing only 04/01/22. Thanks!
The Defender has an article about this. Written by Madhava Setty MD, dated 3/31/2022. Sorry I can't post a direct link to it. Also check out the FLCCC Substack. My statistics education is 50+ years ago, so my help would be questionable. But this study sucks for simple reasons - the dosage of IVM is therapeutically too low, the treatment did not commence at disease onset, and no other drugs were used with IVM. Thanks for your continuing excellent work.
I don’t understand why the totals in the days since onset of symptoms entries (for both ivm and placebo) don’t add up to the total number of positive tests (for each of ivm & placebo). Did some participants included in the totals develop symptoms after the day cut off period provided for in the table?
Patients treated after 7 days but should be treated earlier than 7 days. Treatment lasted 3 days should last at least 7 dasy. There were only 2 cases where placebo outperformed IVM, and another case where they were almost. equal. 11 cases IVM seemed better. Sorry I got confused at label in Figure 2. Is the "event" hospitalization or ER visit? Because "better" would mean that IVM should have fewer events. That is the case, it seems, in this study.
I am not a statistician, but here's what I wondered about that I hadn't seen questioned elsewhere:
The Bayesian Chart in question shows 15 data points, and all but 3 are to the left of of the 1.00 vertical line which is labeled "Ivermectin Better". So, why isn't Ivermectin better?
Patients were advised to take the pill on an empty stomach. The absorption of IVM is significantly better when taken with food. Further, only 3 days of treatment with IVM were allowed, which has been noted elsewhere. So, worse absorption with a nonstandard treatment protocol biases the study against IVM.
The per-protocol analysis included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). In the placebo group only about 1/3 of them (228 of 679) qualified for per-protocol analysis. Wouldn't that bias the results?
Bottom line for "Time since onset of symptoms" of 0-3 and 4-7 are for identifying time for initializing entry into the study and have zero to do with any result. A result was assigned favorable to placebo. This line doesn't add up to the 679 subjects participating in each protocol. There are only 524 on the ivermectin side and 517 in the placebo. Where did the others go?
I don't have time to read it but suspect it is flawed. one thing I see frequently in medical research (used to review for Journal of Allied Health) is the use of multiple tests of significance. Ie, if you run multiple tests (e.g, t-tests) on the same dataset, the chances of any given conclusion must be adjusted for multiple tests. in a sense it protects against "curve fitting." Run enough tests and something will be significant by pure chance. There appear to be 16 separate tests for significance presented. Each must be held to a higher standard to avoid one being falsely significance.
I have wasted many a weekend NOT helping humanity, but I do support you doing something more fun like now....best from OR
can you help us understand the flaws?
I already knew this study is garbage from other articles that covered it, the reduction in mortality and ventilators in the ivm group was substantial, a 60 or 70% reduction iirc. They listed this as a "secondary effect", imagine that!! Also the "didnt prevent severe disease" category was a farce, they counted this as simply having oxygen below 95%, which is ridiculous.
I am over 65, have Immunodeficiencies and mild asthma. Had Covid 2x, took 12mg Ivermectin with VitD and Zinc for 5 days. Both times I went from running a low fever with body aches and chills to literally riding my bike 5 miles after 2 days.
Hello, you might try reading Steve Kirsch's latest post about this article. I haven't looked at the table you point to yet, however, Steve pointed out a few other things that (it seemed to me) weren't in the NEJM article.
Without reading the article, the "Time since onset of symptoms" category is missing some people. The "missing" row would seem to be 16/155 for Ivermectin and 33/162 for the placebo. That is a significant signal.
Edit: p = 0.02
well first of all this study was underpowered, the control and treatment arms occurred at different times, and IVM was widely available in many of the countries that the study was done. plus a large portion of the control group (I believe) dropped out. I am not sure what your issue is with the chart mentioned. But its confusing to me - doesnt seem to add to the paper.