Are you implying what we are thinking, that the reason the IVM placebo arm did so well, better than the other placebo groups, is because they were unblinded due to IVM being available over the counter in Brazil, so the IVM placebo patients realized they weren’t getting IVM and just went and bought their own?
I think unblinding would have particularly affected the ivermectin placebo arm, and not the other placebo arms, because residents of Brazil know exactly what ivermectin is supposed to look like, since it’s available over the counter. And they can also go out and get their own IVM. The trial papers do not claim to have dosed identical placebo pills, only identical bottles, and there was no order placed for identical placebo pills with the sole possible provider in Brazil, nor permission to import.
That's interesting -- I've not seen material on this anywhere. Can you say a bit more about how we know who would be the sole provider in Brazil, and whether they filed for permission to import? Has anyone written on this?
Alexandros, I am sorry if I have not put you in touch with Flavio about this - Brucha is right. Flavio spoke with the manufacturer of the IVM pills for the trial.. and they confirmed that they did not manufacture matching placebos at any time during the trial
Yes. Dr. Flavio Cadegiani has been corresponding with us about it. He lives in Brazil and is very familiar with the details. I’ll look for what he wrote.
I love your work Alexandros but my question is where is it going from here?
The “fraud busters” would probably have taken everything you’ve done so far to the media and declare they’ve discovered fraud, which would then make major news.
I’m guessing you are going to be a bit more circumspect than that and approach the journal with your concerns or write a letter to the editor with questions for the authors.
Apr 20, 2022·edited Apr 20, 2022Liked by Alexandros Marinos
Fair enough, you condone a public accusation of fraud without anything resembling due process, based on the reasoning that you believe Marik is generally dishonest.
Analysis by a couple of guys in the comments section (not to mention Fenton and Crawford) puts those bold statements in doubt.
Are you implying what we are thinking, that the reason the IVM placebo arm did so well, better than the other placebo groups, is because they were unblinded due to IVM being available over the counter in Brazil, so the IVM placebo patients realized they weren’t getting IVM and just went and bought their own?
No, or at least this isn't related. The 3-dose arm was allocated from different times than the ivm treatment arm, with different background mortality.
Unblinding or other background use could have been at play, though I imagine it would have affected all placebo patients more or less the same.
I think unblinding would have particularly affected the ivermectin placebo arm, and not the other placebo arms, because residents of Brazil know exactly what ivermectin is supposed to look like, since it’s available over the counter. And they can also go out and get their own IVM. The trial papers do not claim to have dosed identical placebo pills, only identical bottles, and there was no order placed for identical placebo pills with the sole possible provider in Brazil, nor permission to import.
That's interesting -- I've not seen material on this anywhere. Can you say a bit more about how we know who would be the sole provider in Brazil, and whether they filed for permission to import? Has anyone written on this?
Alexandros, I am sorry if I have not put you in touch with Flavio about this - Brucha is right. Flavio spoke with the manufacturer of the IVM pills for the trial.. and they confirmed that they did not manufacture matching placebos at any time during the trial
Yes. Dr. Flavio Cadegiani has been corresponding with us about it. He lives in Brazil and is very familiar with the details. I’ll look for what he wrote.
I love your work Alexandros but my question is where is it going from here?
The “fraud busters” would probably have taken everything you’ve done so far to the media and declare they’ve discovered fraud, which would then make major news.
I’m guessing you are going to be a bit more circumspect than that and approach the journal with your concerns or write a letter to the editor with questions for the authors.
Is that the plan?
Do you think Sheldrick got it right when he publicly shared his accusation of fraud against Marik et al?
Fair enough, you condone a public accusation of fraud without anything resembling due process, based on the reasoning that you believe Marik is generally dishonest.
Analysis by a couple of guys in the comments section (not to mention Fenton and Crawford) puts those bold statements in doubt.
http://kylesheldrick.blogspot.com/2022/03/evidence-of-fabricated-data-in-vitamin.html?m=1
I guess that’s where we are different, I view Sheldrick’s conduct as reprehensible, fraud or no fraud