Another bogus analysis of ivermectin with a shady background, coming from Peru and from US pharma consultants

While it is very hard to create a study showing that a  successful drug does not work, it can be done, with the right people and funding. This appears to have happened in a paper published June 28 by a group of latin american and US authors.

Ivermectin studies were cherrypicked to yield a poor outcome.  This is no easy task, since virtually all of the 60 studies in existence show positive benefits.

Here is the new study that was designed to sink ivermectin treatment of Covid. It was published by Oxford University Press, for the IDSA (the organization that has covered up chronic Lyme disease for over 30 years):

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839

Among the authors are people who you would not expect to be studying ivermectin.

The authors include an employee of Cello Health, the Centro de Investigación, Instituto Peruano de Oncología y Radioterapia (IPOR), and the Unidad de revisiones sistemáticas y meta-análisis, guías de práctica clínica y evaluaciones
de tecnologías sanitarias (URSIGET).  The last 2 are in Peru.

Cello Health is a high end consulting company, mostly to Pharma.  It claims to work with 24 of the top 25 pharma companies in the world.  Its website brags about “Competitor Planning and Response.” One of its consulting jobs is “supporting the Scottish Government in the creation of a series of compelling public health campaigns to drive social distancing and self-isolation…”  

IPOR is a cancer treatment center in Lima, Peru.  Its long list of partners includes the NIH and many large pharmaceutical companies.  When you open the website you see a pop-up offering vaccinations. 

URSIGET, as best I can tell, is a Peruvian organization designed to help train scientists how to write papers and get research grants.

All 3 of these organizations have a focus on consulting and making money.  The authors are not academics.  Yet the paper claims:

Funding: No funding was received for this study. 

Acknowledgment: None. 

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Do you believe it?  I don’t. This looks like another form of paid hit job, grossly similar to the Colombian paper dissing ivermectin I wrote about 4 months ago. It was probably farmed out to a foreign country to make its financial trail harder to identify.

It has been criticized by Tess Lawrie and Pierre Kory’s groups.  Here is a compilation of 60 ivermectin studies so you can compare the overall results with those of this paper.  

Here is a June 17 meticulous meta-analysis of ivermectin studies for Covid by the UK BIRD group. And here is their criticism of the Roman paper.

Here is the Roman/Peruvian paper’s abstract:

Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials 

Yuani M Roman, MD, MPH, Paula Alejandra Burela, BSc, Vinay Pasupuleti, MD, PhD, Alejandro Piscoya, MD, Jose E Vidal, MD, PhD, Adrian V Hernandez, MD, PhD

Clinical Infectious Diseases, ciab591, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab591

Published:

 

28 June 2021

 Article history

Abstract

Background

We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

Published and preprint randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing IVM effects on COVID-19 adult patients were searched until March 22, 2021 in five engines. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, length of stay (LOS), and adverse events (AE). Secondary outcomes included viral clearance and severe AEs. Risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using Cochrane RoB 2·0 tool. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed. with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methodology.

Results

Ten RCTs (n=1173) were included. Controls were standard of care [SOC] in five RCTs and placebo in five RCTs. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in one RCT, and mild and moderate in one RCT. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.13, very low QoE) or LOS vs. controls (MD 0.72 days, 95%CI −0.86 to 2.29, very low QoE). AEs, severe AE and viral clearance were similar between IVM and controls (all outcomes: low QoE). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality in three RCTs at high RoB was reduced with IVM.

Conclusions

In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jarrod
Jarrod
1 year ago

The bad news is that we live in a nightmare dystopia.

The good news is that with every underhanded, phony attempt at refuting/obfuscating self-evident realities, it pries open more and more eyes to the truth. This paper in particular is a case study in how to lie with statistics and teaches how the sausage is made to individuals previously unaware of just how corrupt science has become. Here I’m thinking, for instance, of the comparatively mainstream Bret Weinstein and his massive following, likely comprised of many doctors and scientists, along with an army of interested layman. It is not much of a logical stretch for this group to next ask “if they’ve so blatantly polluted the scientific process on Ivermectin, about what else might they have previously lied? Hopefully they’ll take a look at the cesspool that is vaccine science. The more blatant the corruption, the more the establishment keeps perpetually shooting themselves in the foot. They can’t help themselves.

The Dough Boy
The Dough Boy
1 year ago
Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago

"We did not find data about IVM effects on clinical improvement" these idiots tell us on p.14 — and thus give away the "game" in their final sentences.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article-pdf/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/38834675/ciab591.pdf

This paper allegedly examined ten "Published and preprint randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing IVM effects on COVID-19adult patients"

When these authors went hunting for this ten, they made sure none of them varied from their a priori bias.

They only examined those matching conclusion they had already decided.

They admit: "We did not find data about IVM effects on clinical improvement" — which says it all.

Thus, the purpose was never a science one, at all, right from the outset.

This is the fatal flaw.

This is not a designed experiment in any way shape or form.

It is not even junk science, rather, just junk.

And on this topic of limited hangouts, Alina Chan is at it again, with a couple of ad-hoc tweets-surveys.

Alina Chan
@Ayjchan
17h
[[In your opinion, which of the following contributed the most to what we -currently- know about the possible origin of Covid-19?]] she asked

The obvious, objective answer, since she says "what we know" is: Propaganda, since most of what is published in mass media has been this for well over a year: Propaganda.

Chan, however, offers these four responses:
1 China-WHO investigation
2 Vigilante sleuthing
3 Intel & whistleblowing
4 Analysis by top experts

Of what use is a poll, to Chan or any rational scientist? And why isn't the clear and obvious response, Propaganda, among her response options?

And she TWEETS a second poll question in the past day

Alina Chan
@Ayjchan
18h
[[What is most urgently needed right now so that we can find the origin of Covid-19?]]

The obvious, rational answers is DATA! Along with those skilled in the Science of Data, to discover answers — both of which institutionally blocked, at this time.

Chan, however, allows these four responses
1 A credible investigation
2 More vigilante sleuthing
3 A whistleblower channel
4 It will never be found.

Maybe someone will find the rocks in her head, along with her handlers/partners in propaganda [wittingly or not]. What a disgrace.

The Warren Commission was considered "credible" by its creators.

Vigilante sleuthing is an open invitation to many things, including Chan's apparent specialty: limited hangouts.

Ditto whistleblowing in the present mega-corrupt contemporary environment.

"It will never be found" — her way of saying, Welcome to the World of Science as Nihilism!
-30-

Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago

I'm headed to the Feed Store.

Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago

Thankfully, the Roman paper just got pecked to death by the BIRD group.
Go BIRD!

Scroll to Top