This article is part of a series on the TOGETHER trial. More articles from this series here. Summary: The recently published ivermectin trial from the TOGETHER trial authors claims that placebo and treatment patients had been randomized from March 23rd onwards. This article demonstrates that this could not be true, or at least contradicts other published statements by the same authors. The most likely explanation is that 75 patients had been included in the trial earlier than March 23rd, and most of them earlier than the official approval of the trial by the Brazilian ethics board. Besides the ethical issues, this creates issues with the randomization and blinding claims of the study.
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.
TOGETHER Trial: Impossible Numbers and How "Independent" Monitoring Failed Us
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.