Debunking the latest flawed anti-ivermectin study
The fight against ivermectin appears to be never-ending. The newest attempt to discredit the antiviral medicine has been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The study is rife with flaws. Ivermectin is doomed by the selection criterion. Because it is so readily disproved, its findings aren't even worth considering.
Ethical Skeptic’s analogy says it best:
The researchers did not administer ivermectin under the common early treatment protocols but rather exclusively selected patients who were already sick, with significant chances of spiraling downward.
Everyone who had symptomatic COVID for less than 7 days was excluded from the trial. To put it another way, the study completely ignored early ivermectin treatment, which is the standard of care among specialists when it comes to COVID.
The sooner a patient gets on an early treatment protocol, the more likely they are to have positive outcomes. This study excludes that entire group of COVID patients.
The selection profile for the study gets even worse:
The number of days that subjects were given ivermectin, as well as their overall health status, are mentioned by Ethical Skeptic. They only chose obese, COVID-infected patients who were especially vulnerable to unfavorable consequences. Is this what a fair trial looks like?
After an average of 5.2 days, the ivermectin treatment began. Do you want to guess when the typical hospitalization started? Approximately 12-14 hours after starting the treatment.
When you read the headlines at the bottom of this newsletter, keep this deceptive strategy in mind. It's amazing how quickly they twisted this to say that ivermectin has no effect on hospitalizations. This is worse than the ambulance chaser lawyers who look for new clients. The study analyzed people who were practically en route to the emergency room, then quickly administered ivermectin as they were entering the doors.
It gets worse!
The study failed to use ivermectin in combination with zinc. There’s a reason doctors include ivermectin as part of an “early treatment protocol.” A protocol includes a combination of medicines that work in synergy and the timing of the protocol matters. Waiting 5-7 days will not cut it.
It’s like removing Tom Brady’s entire offensive line and then expecting him to go out and lead a comeback while down 30 points with two minutes left in the fourth quarter. Failure to perform in this situation is not indicative of anything. The only thing is shows is that the creators of the study really, REALLY wanted ivermectin to fail.
Not that this study needs more debunking, but here’s more:
Control groups are kind of a big deal in research, no?
Why did they allow ivermectin users to get lumped into the placebo side? Doesn’t this cloud the data just a wee bit?
This study is nothing more than psuedoscience.
It follows the flow chart on the right like a cart on a roller coaster, eventually pulling into the “trust the experts” station.
The entire experiment was designed to make ivermectin look awful. It purposefully excluded those who would benefit from ivermectin, utilized people who might have already benefited from ivermectin as a control group, and then examined the ultra-at-risk obese patients who had been sick for over a week under a microscope. That isn't how science works.
Before COVID, if a person had a cold, it was recommended to take cold medicine on day one.
After COVID, they want us to wait seven days before beginning treatment or ventilator use.
They want people to die. There’s no other honest answer to their behavior.
As you may recall, Sen. Ron Johnson recently chaired a congressional hearing on the assault against early treatment. During the hearing, Dr. Peter McCullough highlighted the importance of early treatment:
In his testimony, Dr.McCullough described the “four pillars of pandemic response” including “Contagion Control,” “Early Home Treatment,” “Hospitalization,” and “Vaccination.” He emphasized that our collective medical response and media portrayal has ignored early treatment.
He then described the stages of COVID-19 illness to include viral replication, cytokine storm, and microthrombosis. He discussed how early outpatient treatment is a multi-drug regimen to disrupt viral replication, thereby reducing the risk of progression to high-morbidity cytokine storm and microthrombosis.
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), the drug most known to the public, is one of several drugs in Dr. McCullough’s published algorithm to not only disrupt viral replication and packaging but to treat the ravaging effects of cytokine storm and microthrombosis.
Dr. McCullough’s protocol uses hydroxychloroquine, but the science is clear regardless of the pharmacuetical intervention - early treatment is critical in reducing viral replication, cytokine storm, and progressively worse outcomes.
This new study completely throws out the most important elements of successful ivermectin protocols, and it was done so by design.
Media spin
As you could expect, the media is already racing with this report, smearing people as anti-scientists. Here are a couple of the headlines that resulted from this nonsense research:
Study finds ivermectin, the horse drug Joe Rogan championed as a COVID treatment, does nothing to cure the virus - Fortune
Ivermectin Does Not Reduce Risk of Covid Hospitalization, Large Study Finds - New York Times
Column: Definitive study shows ivermectin is utterly useless against COVID-19 - Los Angeles Times
In other news:
Floatation devices utterly useless to prevent drowning according to new study (when swimmers are unconscious)
Airbags found to be utterly useless in groundbreaking study (among victims involved in vehicular cliff accidents)
Study shows literally no benefit of CPR (in patients who have already died)
I believe you get my position. These individuals are clowns, and none of their motives can be believed. The war on ivermectin and early treatment isn't founded on science. It's predicated on shifting the responsibility for a large-scale preventable death.
A list of news stories that you may have missed from today:
Chinese city axes plan to KILL all pets belonging to Covid-19 patients
Walensky Admits Natural Immunity is Real, 95% of Americans Have 'Some' Protection Against Covid
Massachusetts Health Department Drops Thousands From COVID-19 Death Count
Horowitz: The stifling of COVID treatment: The case study of aspirin
Another one: FDA expects to authorize 6th mRNA dose in the fall
CAUGHT: NIH Deleted COVID Sequencing from Database, New FOIA Documents Reveal
Heart Damage Found in Teens Months After Second Pfizer Shot, Study Shows
Emails EXPOSE Google Influence On Biden White House’s Covid Office: Report