The data has been analysed and found fallen short.
There are so many things wrong it'd be thrown out as junk by any reputable peer reviewer or journal.
No normalisation of groups, no blind or double blinding, no consistency in treatment regime. No consistency in measurement of effects.
No consistency or normalisation of control groups.
Its a hatchet job analysis built on top of very unreliable data.
This is why its not accepted anywhere at all and wont be until we get data of a robust enough quality to pass clinical trials
That IS addressing the evidence. The studies are so badly done they are not and cannot be accepted by any reputable peer review.
Which begs the question, if the data is supposed to be that good, why is it so hard for them to actually implement and pass a proper clinical trial protocol?
And no, it not "big pharma" nonsense.
Early treatment 81% [62‑91%] 18 175 1,942
Late treatment 43% [27‑56%] 20 143 6,831
Prophylaxis 88% [78‑93%] 12 77 7,011
Mortality 76% [58‑86%] 18 155 7,267
RCTs only 66% [49‑78%] 26 231 3,618
All studies 73% [64‑79%] 50 395 15,784
Highly compelling numbers - should we believe them? I think not.
I've re-read most of the supposed studies (and the ones that didnt get publicity).
Methodology is terrible. Not up to the bare minimum requirements for any sort of trial in terms of data selections, control or anything else.
They're almost as bad as an AstraZenica trial PR statement.
Not yet.
Some pretty poor trials lacking in any useful robust techniques which are then amplified by fairly poor methodology meta-studies of those same trials.
There are some weak "suggestions" of some effects but noting solid.
It looks like budesomide is going to get the nod:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ly9oqnxPvI
27:13,
So, though awtumn, they will rest the treatment push on dexamethazone and budesonide, and the vaccines ... and back off on the lockdown. Maybe booster shost if a sure-fire vaccine busting variant shows up.
Which begs the question, if the data is supposed to be that good, why is it so hard for them to actually implement and pass a proper clinical trial protocol?
It is said to be because, when a large trial starts, the control group is soon switched to ivermectin, since those on it get well so soon, it would be unethical to withhold it from the control group.
People would be better spending their time designing and implementing an actual trial meeting first world standards and then getting it peer reviewed and published than self-user hosting a google website and registering a domain.
Well the problem before, as I understand, is that ivermectin was too good, to the control group was invariably switched to it when it got sick on grounds of ethics, it's hard to get past that.But obviously is create a shit storm, it's too goo to complete a trial, I should imagine that gets spoken about in medical circles, if even I have heard that. But it explain why we see the self-user hosting a google website and registering a domain ....
But now the control group can be switched a new alternative - Inhaled budesonide . So perhaps ivermectin will get a shake?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00160-0/fulltext
then there is this
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-148845/v1
Ivermectin was associated with reduced inflammatory markers (C-Reactive Protein, d-dimer and ferritin) and faster viral clearance by PCR. Viral clearance was treatment dose- and duration-dependent. In six randomized trials of moderate or severe infection, there was a 75% reduction in mortality (Relative Risk=0.25 [95%CI 0.12-0.52]; p=0.0002); 14/650 (2.1%) deaths on ivermectin; 57/597 (9.5%) deaths in controls) with favorable clinical recovery and reduced hospitalization. Many studies included were not peer reviewed and meta-analyses are prone to confounding issues. Ivermectin should be validated in larger, appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities.
just saying.
