I would suspect most trials (Ivermectin or not) if put under the microscope like this would have similar anomalies if you looked hard enough. The big difference here is the headlines this trial made, perhaps even pro-actively generated by the trial authors (or sponsors) themselves.
In such a setting, the trial therefore deserves to be picked apart at the seams.
You mention the better outcomes seen with the subgroup receiving the first dose within three days of symptoms. Couple this with an analysis excluding all those who received less than 400mcg/kg and I think you would almost certainly get a statistically significant result.
Once you get access to the raw data I’d encourage you to do this analysis.
I don’t think they’ll give you the data though, it may very well mean the end of Ed Mills career as a researcher.
Also, I’d presume Ed and the others involved in this trial are reading every word you write (and these comments) and are quietly panicking.
I’m guessing they’re leaving it as long as possible until they release the data so as to formulate a strategy so as to best defend themselves. Sometimes the best form of defence is attack and therefore they maybe be preparing a strategy to take you down...be careful!
I am guessing if you couple <30 BMI (aka. properly dosed) and focus only on hospitalizations (not the bogus ER Observation >6h) you might get a statistically significant result. Or if you rectify the placebo/treatment offsetting.
It would mean that the trial then assessed 400mcg/kg, given early and its effect on disease severity...but wait, wasn’t that what the trial was supposed to do??
In regard to the greater than 6hrs in Emergency, I’m still not sure about it. It is a weird parameter no doubt but if most of those ended up being admitted anyway then it won’t change much.
However, a fudge factor perhaps not mentioned in the discussion is when does the 6hrs start? From time of triage? On busy days with minor symptoms you can wait 2 hrs (sometimes more) after triage to be seen then obviously only need to be in the ED for about 4hrs to count.
Many ED’s keep stats on prolonged admissions to ED which in effect are hospital admissions so maybe that’s why they included it.
However, I agree that hard endpoints such as hospitalisation, ICU, ventilation and mortality are clearly better.
Another great article.
I would suspect most trials (Ivermectin or not) if put under the microscope like this would have similar anomalies if you looked hard enough. The big difference here is the headlines this trial made, perhaps even pro-actively generated by the trial authors (or sponsors) themselves.
In such a setting, the trial therefore deserves to be picked apart at the seams.
You mention the better outcomes seen with the subgroup receiving the first dose within three days of symptoms. Couple this with an analysis excluding all those who received less than 400mcg/kg and I think you would almost certainly get a statistically significant result.
Once you get access to the raw data I’d encourage you to do this analysis.
I don’t think they’ll give you the data though, it may very well mean the end of Ed Mills career as a researcher.
Also, I’d presume Ed and the others involved in this trial are reading every word you write (and these comments) and are quietly panicking.
I’m guessing they’re leaving it as long as possible until they release the data so as to formulate a strategy so as to best defend themselves. Sometimes the best form of defence is attack and therefore they maybe be preparing a strategy to take you down...be careful!
I am guessing if you couple <30 BMI (aka. properly dosed) and focus only on hospitalizations (not the bogus ER Observation >6h) you might get a statistically significant result. Or if you rectify the placebo/treatment offsetting.
Yes Alexandros, that would be ideal.
It would mean that the trial then assessed 400mcg/kg, given early and its effect on disease severity...but wait, wasn’t that what the trial was supposed to do??
In regard to the greater than 6hrs in Emergency, I’m still not sure about it. It is a weird parameter no doubt but if most of those ended up being admitted anyway then it won’t change much.
However, a fudge factor perhaps not mentioned in the discussion is when does the 6hrs start? From time of triage? On busy days with minor symptoms you can wait 2 hrs (sometimes more) after triage to be seen then obviously only need to be in the ED for about 4hrs to count.
Many ED’s keep stats on prolonged admissions to ED which in effect are hospital admissions so maybe that’s why they included it.
However, I agree that hard endpoints such as hospitalisation, ICU, ventilation and mortality are clearly better.
Bottom line is you need the raw data.
Then you can do multiple subgroup analyses.
Again, all the best, good luck with it
Thank you for persisting. I take great interest in this investigation.
An interesting series of articles.
So many holes in that paper it looks like crochet work