Andrew Hill, in his paper titled “Ivermectin for COVID-19: Addressing Potential Bias and Medical Fraud“, concludes that clinical trials must urgently up their game:
Why did Ed Mills partner with Pontifica Universidade Catholica de Minas Gerais (World ranking #1401) rather than Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (World ranking #456)? Both are in the same city, Belo Horizonte.
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerias is the largest Federal university in Brazil and ranked variously as #5 or #9 in Latin America. Pontifica Universidade Catholica de Minas Gerias does not have an individual ranking but rather is ranked in the zone #101-125 for Latin American universities.
The PUC universities in Brazil are privately funded and very expensive, at least compared to the Federal universities where tuition is minimal for those applicants who have passed the "vestibular," an exam like SAT.
I would like to see Mills justify his choice of university partner, but if he won't release basic data, then mine is a forlorn hope.
I had missed that 'trail of the year' thing. But even before that, I was kind of amazed at the amount of hype it was apparently possible to generate, around an upcoming scientific study. And there was something forced to it, how often it would show up in my google news feed, before a single result was known. Most scientific research groups do not have a well staffed PR department with a google ads budget and social media influencers to push their message; so that cant be it? Certainly, none of the 'science journalists' reposting such stories had actually read the study protocol, or were in a position to appreciate it; we know that much for sure.
Maybe this was just some organic phenomenon; sometimes the flock of sheep randomly startles and runs to the left; then it runs to the right? Or maybe when organisations like unitaid give you an 'unlimited grant', that does come with a budget for a PR campaign nowadays?
Thats all just speculation and I dont have any concrete pointers in any direction. But if someone does have a deeper insight in the dynamics of hype around upcoming scientific studies, I think thatd be fascinating.
"A simple preliminary report with accurate numbers will do just as well. Is that not worth it, in the name of setting a good example for other scientists across the world?
At the very least, they owe it to the patients who participated in the TOGETHER clinical trial in the hopes of contributing something to humanity."
Abso-frigging-lutely the very least they can do is report basic results but the entire drug study racket is so infested with sleight of hand & deception that they exclude, exempt and redact far more than is shared. Failed trials dwarf successful ones and FDA buries them so all we learn is Fauci and Pharma call the shots. Informed consent my Aunt Fannie!
Why did Ed Mills partner with Pontifica Universidade Catholica de Minas Gerais (World ranking #1401) rather than Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (World ranking #456)? Both are in the same city, Belo Horizonte.
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerias is the largest Federal university in Brazil and ranked variously as #5 or #9 in Latin America. Pontifica Universidade Catholica de Minas Gerias does not have an individual ranking but rather is ranked in the zone #101-125 for Latin American universities.
The PUC universities in Brazil are privately funded and very expensive, at least compared to the Federal universities where tuition is minimal for those applicants who have passed the "vestibular," an exam like SAT.
I would like to see Mills justify his choice of university partner, but if he won't release basic data, then mine is a forlorn hope.
Thank you for your careful detailed analysis. I hope it prompts answers.
I had missed that 'trail of the year' thing. But even before that, I was kind of amazed at the amount of hype it was apparently possible to generate, around an upcoming scientific study. And there was something forced to it, how often it would show up in my google news feed, before a single result was known. Most scientific research groups do not have a well staffed PR department with a google ads budget and social media influencers to push their message; so that cant be it? Certainly, none of the 'science journalists' reposting such stories had actually read the study protocol, or were in a position to appreciate it; we know that much for sure.
Maybe this was just some organic phenomenon; sometimes the flock of sheep randomly startles and runs to the left; then it runs to the right? Or maybe when organisations like unitaid give you an 'unlimited grant', that does come with a budget for a PR campaign nowadays?
Thats all just speculation and I dont have any concrete pointers in any direction. But if someone does have a deeper insight in the dynamics of hype around upcoming scientific studies, I think thatd be fascinating.
You raise an excellent point. The PR operation around the TOGETHER trial was second to none, and I'm not too sure what exactly went on.
"A simple preliminary report with accurate numbers will do just as well. Is that not worth it, in the name of setting a good example for other scientists across the world?
At the very least, they owe it to the patients who participated in the TOGETHER clinical trial in the hopes of contributing something to humanity."
Abso-frigging-lutely the very least they can do is report basic results but the entire drug study racket is so infested with sleight of hand & deception that they exclude, exempt and redact far more than is shared. Failed trials dwarf successful ones and FDA buries them so all we learn is Fauci and Pharma call the shots. Informed consent my Aunt Fannie!
Trying to place a cookie so a serious reporter that comes by can now conclude that this is a crank site?
Who needs cookies when you can simply turn on Bluetooth (low-energy, I presume).