A while ago, I wrote an article enumerating ten questionable features of the TOGETHER trial on ivermectin, conducted in Brazil. What are the chances those same features would make an appearance in the ACTIV-6 trial on ivermectin, conducted by the NIH in the USA? Pretty good, apparently, because that is exactly what seems to be happening.
Along with many, I agree blocking early treatment is murder.
Putting out more fraudulent trials is not going to help their case.
In fact, these fraudulent trials are additional evidence against their crimes.
I think one of the problems why this is not getting more attention is that there is just too much going on. The reaction of many is, ah well, it can't be that bad. But it is mind blowing.
Since your persistence is amazing, could I recommend to do a spreadsheet like comparison with Paxlovid & Molnupiravirs trials? I am curious to if the rules in those trials were applied to ACTIV-6 and TOGETHER, what result would we've seen?
Careful. Robert Wright called Bret Weinstein a conspiracy theorist.
He may come for you next. Although admittedly he hasnt looked at any of the data.
With good reasons... I’m suspicious of anything associated with FTX (they funded Together).
Amazing work on this substack, truly Feel free to consider submitting a definitive overview of methodological malfeasance in these trials to the IPAK journal, Science, Public Health Policy & the Law for peer-reviewed publication. - James Lyons-Weiler, Editor-in-Chief - https://www.publichealthpolicyjournal.com/
“game-changer for the way clinical research is conducted” - lol - subtle but accurate
I read there was a high dose arm of ACTIVE 6. If so, any results?
Have these trials been gamed., as Pierre Kory explains?
Are they double blinded, so as to remove bias?
And as I keep asking, why are they not using multicomponent therapies, like all the successful protocols do. It would be like riding a bicycle without a crank shaft.
I hope you don’t mind I pinned your report as a response to someone telling Bret Weinstein how great the ACTIV 6 study was. Please keep up the good work.
Again, why are they not evaluating multi component protocols, like those of Fareed-Tyson, McCullough et al, Zalenko, Chatty, WCH and others?
I hope you can get this to Senator Ron Johnson and Gov DeSantis who is going to clobber these guys. Get it to both of them -- they will understand the criticism and have major audiences. Gov DeSantis is especially gifted with brief, crystal clear summaries for the average bear -- that truly excoriate the wicked in such a way as to warm the cockles of the heart -- So the Gov gives the same message as the most honorable Senator -- but there some pleasure to offset the bitterness of the truth. If one could elaborate on the hearing -- maybe using SNL writers -- I would like to see ALL the IRBs, University and Health Systems enablers, journal editors and peer reviewers of papers (if there were any), brought into discuss their roles and qualifications for assessing the study design and implementation. Then, call in the academics who taught these slithering science imitators. I could see a major tv series where the public could get lessons on what actual scientific method looks like and maybe some higher level debates on the cultism around RCTs (ie., fueling the madness of ignoring line docs who pulled tens of thousands thru Covid in other study species and observational designs).
Thanks for pointing this out. The one with the switched Niaee results has "V" as a middle initial
Thank You !! The principal investigator of this study is Dr. A.V. Hernandez, who was the lead author of the Roman et al meta-analysis with the switched Niaee results
Is this link legit? I never know anymore.