Have you read the entire systematic review I posted, as well as all my other responses? Either way, Kory et al. The review you’re talking about includes Elgazzar 2020 and Niaee 2020, the former which is DEMONSTRABLY fraudulent, Plagiarized, cooked data, etc., and the latter which was NOT properly randomized based on the PCR positivity between groups. I **** you not, you can look at the raw data from Elgazzar and see that 79 subjects were fraudulently duplicated (the password to the pdf of the data that they wouldn’t release is 1234). You’re missing the extent to which the ivermectin reviews like kory et al. And sites like ivmmeta ride on two studies that are not credible. Fun fact: those reviews rated each study as “low risk of bias” and were later found to have falsified data and lacked randomization between groups. What does that say about their methodology to assess for bias and error? To paint a clearer picture, here are the data:
View attachment 207256
View attachment 207257
the positive effect on clinical outcomes like death demonstrated in ivermectin reviews like Kory, Hill, ivmmeta, etc. are HEAVILY influenced by studies that are some combination of fraudulent, not properly randomized, and discredited.
the methodology of these reviews was not able to identify these faults, and as far as I know, ivmmeta hasn’t removed them from their analysis. These are just the two major examples; Carvallo 2020 is under fire and looking to follow the same trajectory, and that’s not even exhaustive as far as criticisms of other studies.
I stand by my the assertion that based on rigor, transparency, and methodology, the Cochrane Review is the most accurate representation of the empirical evidence available right now. There is just as much credible data to say that ivermectin helps clinical outcomes as there is that it results in less favorable clinical outcomes. that warrants large scale clinical trials and a degree of caution that ivermectin super fans are ignoring. I could give a **** if adults want to take or not take ivermectin under the supervision of a doctor, but the overly positive view of ivermectin as a silver bullet against Covid is creating a potentially harmful narrative. Since the standard of evidence ITT is perfectly accepting of anecdotes, I will reference the repeated instances of parents giving horse paste ivermectin and fluvoxamine to five and six year olds without physician supervision or breastfeeding women asking the internet if they are going to hurt their 4 month old because they’re not sure if ivermectin concentrates in breast milk. Keep in mind that there is LIMITED research on ivermectin in patients that are compromised with pathology like Covid. IVERCOR (n=500) demonstrated a statistically significant increase in time to ventilation for ivermectin vs. placebo - does that guarantee that’s the case? No, the study is underpowered despite being the largest RCT on ivermectin to date, so it shouldn’t be ignored, but should be verified by large scale clinical trials like TOGETHER, ACTIV-6, and PRINCIPLE.
im in the gym right now so I may come back with a more comprehensive and detailed response, but when other responses are clutching to anecdotes and observational data and the suppression of ivermectin by big pharma $$$. Which, thank you for not saying that, by the way, as my concerns regarding ivermectin are entirely scientific. Almost every single thing I’ve posted on ivermectin is verifiable through statistics, reading studies to find blatant fraud and cooked data, or rigorous, well-established protocols and methodology for clinical RCTs (like Cochrane protocols, randomization, adherence to CONSORT guidelines, pre-registration, predefined primary clinical endpoints, statistical power).
also, in case it isn’t clear by reading the entire Cochrane review, it includes relevant RCTs from other countries, and is simply more strict than Kory et al. based on pre-defined and accepted selection criteria against bias and methodological errors. Why that matters: Kort et al. rated two fraudulent or improperly randomized studies as “low risk for bias,” whereas the Cochrane methodology clearly identified these issues and rightfully excluded them. You can also look at the review by Hill et al. and see that Andrew Hill changed his stance to go against his own meta-analysis upon discovering the compromised Elgazzar and Niaee studies, because he is informing his opinions based on RCTs.
I’m not going to advocate against a consenting adult taking or not taking ivermectin (because I’m not a doctor and none of this is medical advice), but I’m going to call out claims that are verifiably incorrect or deliberately ignore valid, contradictory evidence. I don’t see why it would be irrational to hope that people make informed decisions based on all the evidence available. I would personally want to know if there is some credible evidence that ivermectin might actually have a negative effect on Covid clinical outcomes.