Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns

[Quixote1818]

Here we go again. Bill Maher, Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein and others who tend to jump the gun, were pushing ivermectin as a miracle drug just a few weeks ago and shaming mainstream science for being bias against it based on one BS research paper.

Melissa Davey - The Guardian
@MelissaLDavey
Thu 15 Jul 2021 13.30 EDT

The preprint endorsing ivermectin as a coronavirus therapy has been widely cited, but independent researchers find glaring discrepancies in the data

The efficacy of a drug being promoted by rightwing figures worldwide for treating Covid-19 is in serious doubt after a major study suggesting the treatment is effective against the virus was withdrawn due to “ethical concerns”.

The preprint study on the efficacy and safety of ivermectin – a drug used against parasites such as worms and headlice – in treating Covid-19, led by Dr Ahmed Elgazzar from Benha University in Egypt, was published on the Research Square website in November.

It claimed to be a randomised control trial, a type of study crucial in medicine because it is considered to provide the most reliable evidence on the effectiveness of interventions due to the minimal risk of confounding factors influencing the results. Elgazzar is listed as chief editor of the Benha Medical Journal, and is an editorial board member.

A pharmacist holds the anti-parasite drug ivermectin for sale to the public in Bolivia
Unreliable data: how doubt snowballed over Covid-19 drug research that swept the world
Read more
The study found that patients with Covid-19 treated in hospital who “received ivermectin early reported substantial recovery” and that there was “a substantial improvement and reduction in mortality rate in ivermectin treated groups” by 90%.

But the drug’s promise as a treatment for the virus is in serious doubt after the Elgazzar study was pulled from the Research Square website on Thursday “due to ethical concerns”. Research Square did not outline what those concerns were.

More: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns

[hlthe2b]

1. There were a handful pushing here too (as there was way back when hydroxychoroquine was the "rage")

I wish the MSM still had well-qualified science advisors who could competently read and interpret the medical literature, including pre-publication studies. We are really in a bad place on this score. What the public doesn't understand is that with every new virus of public health importance researchers try any number of drugs, chemicals, additives IN VITRO to see what might inhibit the pathogen. Unfortunately, lots of things can work in vitro while having minimal to zero real-world effects in humans (and potentially several serious adverse effects).

I don't know what we can do to educate the public on the need to be skeptical, look for quality, quantity, and reproducibility of scientific evidence, and how to differentiate between good and bad sources of information. I just know we have to or we are sunk.

[IbogaProject]

2. Yikes

Yikes, i read the Guardian article, and the discrepancies they cite are all alarming. While I studied statistics as one of my two university undergraduate majors, I don't have the time or patience to wade through the analysis showing the problems.

[IbogaProject]

3. key note of caution was "preprint"

The key note of caution would be that it was a "preprint" article, which means it hadn't undergone "peer review".

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. "We won't get vaxed....Now if you'll excuse us, we're off to the farm store for animal medicine."

I have seen this drug promoted on the RWNJ sites.

Link to tweet