Re: “First, since the graph shows us 713 Fluvoxamine patients, there are an additional 30 patients randomized to the same arm some time in the last few weeks.”
If I’m understanding things correctly, this should be based on the 741 patients allocated to Fluvoxamine, no? If that’s the case, I would expect there to be an additional 28 (741 - 713) patients rather than 30. Just offering up the thought to help with precision of the article if I’m right, but please also let me know if I’m misunderstanding anything
I just finished the DarkHorse podcast that you recorded. Excellent job. I came to this post to note how appropriate the term "academic soulmates" appears for Mills and Thorlund. Because you were forced to critically analyze a published study without seeing all the underlying data despite your request, I suspect neither you nor any other third party will see the data. I appreciate the care exercised and willingness to challenge your assumptions, hypotheses and tentative conclusions.
I refuse to get completely sucked back into Covid stories but am keeping tabs. Curious about this since the NYT declared Ivermectin officially ineffective. Thanks for the doing the work. The part that drives me crazy is if Pharma and Gates and Co. are so corrupt than why are there breadcrumbs that can be discovered at all? If 'they' have been lying so much why leave any truth out their to be discovered? Large view takeaway this looks like the perfect landing spot. The establishment gets Ivermecting debunked. The early treatment folks can hold on to their version of the truth and that will be as clear as it ever gets. Which to me is frustrating. I'd love a clarity and for the mainstream to at least get a sense of how early treatment has been suppressed.
Then again, define mainstream. As people on the street and I bet its 50/50 on Ivermectin. Just so happens the 50 that believe it has some effect don't get acknowledged by MSNBC/CNN/NYT/WP. That doesn't make it not mainstream.
This is also my explanation for the many cases in which the abstract or press release for a given paper says X and the actual paper and its data say Y, where X is what, one presumes, big pharma and the funding sources want the paper to say.
Even honest scientists know which side their bread is buttered on; if the options are 1) perform the above mental gymnastics or 2) don't get funded and don't do the trial it's not necessarily the worst thing in the world if you can at least put the Y findings out there.
The Malaysian ivermectin trial was a good example. It was reported as showing no benefit, but even if you took into account the (deliberately?) bad design of the trial in terms of dosage, timing it STILL showed a beneficial effect; albeit that this was perhaps statistical noise insofar as it said anything if didn't say what they said it said.
This post has incontrovertible evidence of placebo being offset and the authors lying about it. I'm sorry if you can't see it. That's a statement about your ability to read, not about what's in the document.
As for other studies, that has nothing to do with the unethical behavior and false claims by the authors here.
Ivermectin studies in general have been scrutinised more than drug any in history, both by the pro and anti-IVM crowd. Difference is when the “fraud busters” found possible fraud it made headline international headline news. Not so much this time for the Together trial.
If Andrew Hill had of stuck to his original assessment and ignored the influence of Unitaid then IVM would have been in worldwide use from early 2021. We then would have found if the beliefs of those who use it and swear by it (Fareed/Tyson etc) are true. Additionally ongoing studies would have been performed and then we would have found its true role. Like many medical innovations (drugs or procedures) they start as wonder treatments then with learning and real life experience are wound back to specific indications, with modified roles and tailored administration to optimise outcomes. It is unlikely however that it would have returned to being fully banned like it is in many places (Australia for example).
Given its low cost and extraordinary safety surely you would have to agree that this would have not resulted in net harm. But alas, Andrew Hill gave in and let Unitaid write the conclusion to his review
It would appear in the video that at the time of publication of his review he was of the belief the evidence showed IVM had value. He also states Unitaid influenced the outcome of the paper yet no authors from Unitaid were accredited. With investigation, evidence has been uncovered suggesting Andrew Owen may have altered the paper. Owen was not listed in the authors either. If true, then in my opinion that is scientific misconduct. You may think that is neither here nor there but I would suggest the rest of the scientific community would disagree with you.
Like I said, if he didn’t back down and stuck to his opinion we would be using it. Interestingly Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz in a recent review summarised his small group of studies that he thought were valid...and his forest plot showed a slight benefit to IVM.
Maybe if Hill stuck to his guns then this slight benefit GMK describes could have been put to use
"but that are stacking the deck by gullibly accepting any low-quality or fraudulent study as long as it supports a given point of view..."
? Did you look through the ivm meta site (or the entire site and not just the one about IVM)? It has ALL studies of EVERY drug (including EVERY study done on IVM) that's been tested concerning COVID and applies the same methodology to all the ones with enough studies to perform a meta. They don't 'accept' anything. Regardless of whether that methodology is appropriate or not they apply it equally to all medicines on the site.
Re: “First, since the graph shows us 713 Fluvoxamine patients, there are an additional 30 patients randomized to the same arm some time in the last few weeks.”
If I’m understanding things correctly, this should be based on the 741 patients allocated to Fluvoxamine, no? If that’s the case, I would expect there to be an additional 28 (741 - 713) patients rather than 30. Just offering up the thought to help with precision of the article if I’m right, but please also let me know if I’m misunderstanding anything
I just finished the DarkHorse podcast that you recorded. Excellent job. I came to this post to note how appropriate the term "academic soulmates" appears for Mills and Thorlund. Because you were forced to critically analyze a published study without seeing all the underlying data despite your request, I suspect neither you nor any other third party will see the data. I appreciate the care exercised and willingness to challenge your assumptions, hypotheses and tentative conclusions.
I refuse to get completely sucked back into Covid stories but am keeping tabs. Curious about this since the NYT declared Ivermectin officially ineffective. Thanks for the doing the work. The part that drives me crazy is if Pharma and Gates and Co. are so corrupt than why are there breadcrumbs that can be discovered at all? If 'they' have been lying so much why leave any truth out their to be discovered? Large view takeaway this looks like the perfect landing spot. The establishment gets Ivermecting debunked. The early treatment folks can hold on to their version of the truth and that will be as clear as it ever gets. Which to me is frustrating. I'd love a clarity and for the mainstream to at least get a sense of how early treatment has been suppressed.
Then again, define mainstream. As people on the street and I bet its 50/50 on Ivermectin. Just so happens the 50 that believe it has some effect don't get acknowledged by MSNBC/CNN/NYT/WP. That doesn't make it not mainstream.
Thanks again.
I think most people involved in trials are honest, and so there is only so much tweaking of results that is possible.
This is also my explanation for the many cases in which the abstract or press release for a given paper says X and the actual paper and its data say Y, where X is what, one presumes, big pharma and the funding sources want the paper to say.
Even honest scientists know which side their bread is buttered on; if the options are 1) perform the above mental gymnastics or 2) don't get funded and don't do the trial it's not necessarily the worst thing in the world if you can at least put the Y findings out there.
The Malaysian ivermectin trial was a good example. It was reported as showing no benefit, but even if you took into account the (deliberately?) bad design of the trial in terms of dosage, timing it STILL showed a beneficial effect; albeit that this was perhaps statistical noise insofar as it said anything if didn't say what they said it said.
This post has incontrovertible evidence of placebo being offset and the authors lying about it. I'm sorry if you can't see it. That's a statement about your ability to read, not about what's in the document.
As for other studies, that has nothing to do with the unethical behavior and false claims by the authors here.
Classic Stuart.
The article you are responding to explains my statement.
Don't worry about it stu. Leave an angry comment. 😘
Ivermectin studies in general have been scrutinised more than drug any in history, both by the pro and anti-IVM crowd. Difference is when the “fraud busters” found possible fraud it made headline international headline news. Not so much this time for the Together trial.
If Andrew Hill had of stuck to his original assessment and ignored the influence of Unitaid then IVM would have been in worldwide use from early 2021. We then would have found if the beliefs of those who use it and swear by it (Fareed/Tyson etc) are true. Additionally ongoing studies would have been performed and then we would have found its true role. Like many medical innovations (drugs or procedures) they start as wonder treatments then with learning and real life experience are wound back to specific indications, with modified roles and tailored administration to optimise outcomes. It is unlikely however that it would have returned to being fully banned like it is in many places (Australia for example).
Given its low cost and extraordinary safety surely you would have to agree that this would have not resulted in net harm. But alas, Andrew Hill gave in and let Unitaid write the conclusion to his review
It would appear in the video that at the time of publication of his review he was of the belief the evidence showed IVM had value. He also states Unitaid influenced the outcome of the paper yet no authors from Unitaid were accredited. With investigation, evidence has been uncovered suggesting Andrew Owen may have altered the paper. Owen was not listed in the authors either. If true, then in my opinion that is scientific misconduct. You may think that is neither here nor there but I would suggest the rest of the scientific community would disagree with you.
Like I said, if he didn’t back down and stuck to his opinion we would be using it. Interestingly Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz in a recent review summarised his small group of studies that he thought were valid...and his forest plot showed a slight benefit to IVM.
Maybe if Hill stuck to his guns then this slight benefit GMK describes could have been put to use
Twitter visits Substack: 🤣
"I don't understand your detailed essay argument. Pls summarise in no more than 3 sentences!"
Plus
"Whatabout, whatabout!?"
If you understand it, go ahead and write a summary of the argument.
"but that are stacking the deck by gullibly accepting any low-quality or fraudulent study as long as it supports a given point of view..."
? Did you look through the ivm meta site (or the entire site and not just the one about IVM)? It has ALL studies of EVERY drug (including EVERY study done on IVM) that's been tested concerning COVID and applies the same methodology to all the ones with enough studies to perform a meta. They don't 'accept' anything. Regardless of whether that methodology is appropriate or not they apply it equally to all medicines on the site.