I am absolutely confident Oxford will find the same thing as Tess Lawrie, repeatability is how science works.
Except that it appears that they will not be repeating:
It's a better test than Tess Lawrie's meta analysis as it involves giving the compound to sick patients!
So you'd add Oxford University to the axis of evil along with SAGE, the WHO, China, the government, all Big Pharma, EMA, HMRA, FDA, every government in the western hemisphere ...
Or are you are merely stalking fon out of disappointment that he has demolished one of the theories you obsess so much about? So I'll add your new conspiracy theories to the infinitely deep, ever expanding,elaborate fractal pattern of paranoid nested theories and ideas, see last lines below.
I think you adhere to most of these beliefs, MikeAustin, since you latch onto every crackpot paranoid idea that comes along.
You've added three lines in one go . The chance of all these paranoid ideas being true is zero, but there is a small chance they are not all false.
The logical follow on is that the Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) for the 'vaccine' products becomes invalid
Only once there are there are adequate, approved, and available alternatives. At present there are none. At present the vaccines are doing a very good job, so I would expect to see use of vaccine and ivermectin for a while.
EMA and HMRA have repeatedly stated that vaccine benefits far out weigh the costs, in most circumstances. If ivermectin turns out to be as good or better than every vaccine, that might change in due course.
Fon has told me before that I'm thick so please don't let me influence anyone
Fon has checked and only three posts by fon contain the word thick, in one case directed at Devi Sridhar and and the govt. in another case. The last time, it was directed at scientists in general, so unless Jane G is a scientist, then she's lying or exaggerating.
I am absolutely confident Oxford will find the same thing as Tess Lawrie, repeatability is how science works.
Except that it appears that they will not be repeating
Please disregard the https://covid19up.org , they are nutters.Oxford's a good but subtle methodology designed excellently. They are randomising across a population of already sick, vulnerable people.Since a large selection (e.g > 5%) of those might be expected to succumb hence even the faintest positive signal from ivermectin should be greatly amplified against the higher background death rate of the placebo group, who are equally sick and vulnerable. The choice of the limited lowest dose is also ingenius, as it reduces the likelihood of negative signal (via overdose) hence comparatively boosting the likelihood of observation of any positive signal from ivermectin. These details work in favour of the proponents of ivermectin. You can trust Oxford, I think.
Those dimwits complaining about the trial think a successful trial outcome depends on saving people from dying, it actually also depends on people in the placebo group dying. That is why the choice of already sick, vulnerable people looks so ingenious. It is the difference that counts in an RCT, we are not comparing it to cases outside the trial, so the overall death rate is of no consequence. So the choice of already sick, vulnerable people has no impact on the trial. They are all equally already sick, and vulnerable , whether they get ivermectin or not.
Critics do not realise that this method might work to the advantage of ivermectin, since the controls are random. if Ivermectin is half as good as the hype, the signal should be clear. If it does not work, both groups will suffer the exact same fate. It is the lack of this sort of data that has caused the problems. Meta studies alone cannot get at that data.
This has been an ethical dilemma with obvious ramifications. Just because you are in the trial does not mean you get ivermectin.Hence the selection of participants who are already sick, vulnerable people is a good thing for the trial, since it amplifies results. If ivermectin gives a signal Oxford will find it. If it does not, it's a dud.
1. The Oxford study is highly unlikely to address the potential of Ivermectin as prophylactic or early benefit as it has not been designed to address this and so will probably fail. It is almost as if this has been intentionally done
2. Those internet experts who constantly say that all Ivermectin studies have been "poor" and so metanalyses are on "poor" studies have the burden of proof on them to demonstrate why the latest metanalyses done to Cochrane standards, are poor, given these have gone through peer review and have been published by people with no conflict of interest and some of the most relevant expertise to do such analyses. In addition, it would be pertinent when using the adjective "poor" to describe a study, to define exactly what is meant. Poor because they aren't double blind randomised control? Poorly controlled? Poorly analysed? Poorly powered to detect statistical significance? Poorly designed to meet primary endpoints? Poorly defined endpoints? What is meant by poor? Poor has to be defined.
To this point, let's take an example. You take 1000 people, you ask them if they want to take a pill or not. 600 of them say they do, and 400 say they don't. Of the 600, none get an illness that all 1000 are at risk of. Of the 400, 200 get the illness. Now there are several explanations for that: 1) chance or some sort of selection bias (e.g. those willing to take the pill are more careful with hygiene, behave different, correlate to some protective benefit not known); 2) the study was rigged and falsified/incorrectly reported on or not fairly compared (e.g. followed those who took the pill for only 7d whereas those who did not they followed for 28d, as an example); or 3) the pill has some protective benefit.
The questions are here: was this trial poorly designed? Yes and no - if intentionally designed as an observational trial it may not have been poorly designed. If your definition of poor design is "must be a DBP RCT study etc, then "yes" but again, poorly designed for WHAT? To detect a signal that the pill might provide protective benefit? Well no, one could argue that the magnitude of effect is so stark that unless you have to claim there is dishonesty, then this study provides some evidence. To conform to standard study requirements for drug approval? Then yes, it is poor relative to that.
If you are going to label things poor, we need to be precise in what we mean.
