Is there an explanation as to why the trial data hasn't been made available? Is this propietary data? If there are already papers released discussing the results of the trial, the data should exist in an organized manner no? And if the data backs up the claims made by the authors of the trial wouldn't they release the data without hesitation? I'm just confused because it would seem like releasing the data is the easiest and most convincing way to end controversy surrounding the study
Eric Rubin, when asked by the FDA if "Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine when administered as a 2-dose series outweigh its risks for use in children 5-11 years of age [for emergency use authorization]?", he answered "We're Never Gonna Learn About How Safe The Vaccine Is Until We Start Giving It".
The failure of his journal to properly review data is by design.
May 5, 2022·edited May 5, 2022Liked by Alexandros Marinos
Fig.1 in the Ivermectin paper and in the Fluvoxamine paper give different figures. Some of the differences might be part of an explanation, but they don't solve evrything.
In Fig.1, Ivermectin paper says "10467 Patients were assessed for eligibility"
In Fig.1, Fluvoxamine paper says "9803 patients screened for eligibility"
Since Ivermectin recruitment ended one day later than for Fluvoxamine, the explanation could be 664 patients were assessed for eligibilty on Aug. 6th. It's an unusually high number but it's not impossible.
Then, still in Fig.1 of each paper :
Ivermectin: "6952 Were excluded" and "3515 Underwent randomization"
Fluvoxamine: "6480 excluded" and "3323 randomly assigned"
Out of the 664 patients assessed on Aug. 6th, 192 (ie 3515 - 3323) may have been randomized into the ongoing trials : Ivermectin, Doxazosin and Interferon lambda. Not impossible, even if it's not coherent with the "Recruitment over time" chart on p.17 of the Together document you previously mentioned: https://dcricollab.dcri.duke.edu/sites/NIHKR/KR/GR-Slides-08-06-21.pdf
Then, in the right column of Fig.1 in the Fluvoxamine paper: among "1826 allocated to other treatment groups", we can read "739 ivermectin". That obviously includes low dose and high dose ivermectin since no other box in that column mentions ivermectin.
In the Ivermectin paper, Fig.1 says "679 were assessed to receive ivermectin (400µg/kg) for 3 days" (left column) and "77 were assessed to receive ivermectin (400µg/kg) for 1 day" (right column).
Since 679 + 77 = 756, which is 17 more than 739, it could be coherent: out ot the 192 patients recruited on Aug 6th, 17 may have received ivermectin. As for the remaining 175 patients recruited on Aug. 6th, they may have been divided into three groups :
- doxasozin (probably 30 of them, since the doxazosin boxes in the right column of Fig.1 say "91 doxazosin" in the Fluvoxamine trial vs "121 doxazosin" in the ivermetin trial")
- interferon lambda (probably 74, for the same reason: 96 vs 170)
- which leaves 71 patients for the placebo group. Out of whom at least 20 had CPD, 44 asthma, 3 CKD and 3 CCD. Mathematically coherent, but statistically highly unlikely.
Your fabrication hypothesis can't be ruled out, and definitely, making the data available would be the only way to put an end to suspicions of fraud.
The hcq paper shows them having assessed 1568 patients for eligibility in the 120 days between June 2 and September 30, 2020. (about 13 patients per day)
This leaves 8235 patients for them to have assessed in 197 days between Jan 20th and August 5th, or about 41.8 patients per day.
It's not realistic for them to have assessed 664 patients in a single day, or 16 times faster than they were assessing until August 5.
The obvious interpretation is that the numbers shown in the ivermectin paper are taken from a date a couple of weeks after the ivermectin trial was over. Something like August 21 or something.
Why would they show a later date? I can't think of a reason other than to create confusion.
As you say, the best approach is to share the data and dispel all doubt.
See my response to Enzo, the obvious interpretation is that the ivermectin paper figure 1 is taken from a time later in the trial, some time in the second half of August.
I know the authors have been sent my articles, I'm not sure about the journal, their process is quite complicated. I know people are working on a letter to the editor, and what is in this article will likely end up in a published article somewhere at some point, but I have no idea if the journal has seen my critiques officially speaking.
Love the Sherlock Holmes quote.. what remains is a criminal cabal with a legacy that stinks like week old fish, obscene profit motives and possible Enron accounting in clinical trial data. hmm?
Fun while you're waiting for a reply.. check the study folks funding... NIH has a really spiffy database search to see who got paid how much to do ? https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/
Agree with Anon poster. Just outright accuse them of fraud as they have done to other ivermectin studies with different outcomes. Demand the data or a retraction.
If you’re confident in your assessment then I guess one way to do it is formally accuse the authors of fraud, smear their name publicly and then see what they do.
If they fight it you’ll have to defend yourself and justify your assessment, possibly a long and costly process. If they stay silent then neither a victory nor a loss.
This is the general approach of the modern fraud buster.
However, I believe the authors will not respond to anybody unless legally bound to do so.
Remember, a formal retraction is massive for the NEJM, and will start the dominoes falling all the way back to Andrew Hill.
It might happen but I doubt it.
They’ll save face and get away with it. Best you can hope for is that any restrictions on prescribing Ivermectin are lifted and that those doctors who believe it works are free to prescribe it
A refreshing, dignified and mature approach...compare and contrast with some of the health nerds and fraud busters of this world. But they somehow make the big news, maybe there is a systematic conspiracy against Ivermectin after all
Doing our own research is primarily for ourselves and our closest family members because when you see something that just isn't right and you stay on it til you figure it out, at some point you get called everything but a sane individual by others. Even now, when the CDC, the FDA, NIH and HHS have been seen by the public (I mean well and truly seen) for the unorganized, screwed up, and educated stupidity they seem to be champions at practicing, people will STILL lose their entire mind if you happen to point out their "mistakes" (which I just call lies now). When you can quote one of the world's TOP emergency medicine doctors saying these trials are seriously a mess and a very long way from proving the point for which it was undertaken and still have people argue, not with you, but with the information from that doctor, society is proving that it is devolving into a herd of brainless sheep following the one with the loudest voice saying the correct combo of words. This entire mess for the last two years and then some has damaged my faith in humanity and a lot of other people are struggling with the same loss of faith.
Even if you laid this out in crayon for the ENTIRE country, you know they wouldn't admit that it was a correct if it did show that IVM works, because that means there WAS a treatment for this nasty mess and they went so far as to kink the lines in the medical community so thoroughly that people were unable to get it to treat themselves, parents were harassed and threatened to the point of hiding their children from CPS over a months old dose of IVM, for the love of all things.
I'm afraid it doesn't matter if you figure out what you're looking for because no one will allow it to be so. They would then need to admit that people, THOUSANDS of them, died and it was preventable but they blocked access in favor of a pharmaceutical company and the dollars it pays the government. I still follow along with you, though , because sometimes hope hits me again.
Beginning to look like the COMING-APART trial ...
Is there an explanation as to why the trial data hasn't been made available? Is this propietary data? If there are already papers released discussing the results of the trial, the data should exist in an organized manner no? And if the data backs up the claims made by the authors of the trial wouldn't they release the data without hesitation? I'm just confused because it would seem like releasing the data is the easiest and most convincing way to end controversy surrounding the study
I wholeheartedly agree.
Eric Rubin, editor in chief at the NEJM, straight-up told Flavio Cadegiani that they don't have the capacity to review data.
That's it, no one sees the data, yet it's "The Science".
https://twitter.com/FlavioCadegiani/status/1520740132156059648?t=8TU7yrY-mBwpafn5Qw2yCQ&s=19
Only by examining the data can a paper be truly peer reviewed. Great editors!
Eric Rubin, when asked by the FDA if "Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine when administered as a 2-dose series outweigh its risks for use in children 5-11 years of age [for emergency use authorization]?", he answered "We're Never Gonna Learn About How Safe The Vaccine Is Until We Start Giving It".
The failure of his journal to properly review data is by design.
yes, you're correct.
Fig.1 in the Ivermectin paper and in the Fluvoxamine paper give different figures. Some of the differences might be part of an explanation, but they don't solve evrything.
In Fig.1, Ivermectin paper says "10467 Patients were assessed for eligibility"
In Fig.1, Fluvoxamine paper says "9803 patients screened for eligibility"
Since Ivermectin recruitment ended one day later than for Fluvoxamine, the explanation could be 664 patients were assessed for eligibilty on Aug. 6th. It's an unusually high number but it's not impossible.
Then, still in Fig.1 of each paper :
Ivermectin: "6952 Were excluded" and "3515 Underwent randomization"
Fluvoxamine: "6480 excluded" and "3323 randomly assigned"
Out of the 664 patients assessed on Aug. 6th, 192 (ie 3515 - 3323) may have been randomized into the ongoing trials : Ivermectin, Doxazosin and Interferon lambda. Not impossible, even if it's not coherent with the "Recruitment over time" chart on p.17 of the Together document you previously mentioned: https://dcricollab.dcri.duke.edu/sites/NIHKR/KR/GR-Slides-08-06-21.pdf
Then, in the right column of Fig.1 in the Fluvoxamine paper: among "1826 allocated to other treatment groups", we can read "739 ivermectin". That obviously includes low dose and high dose ivermectin since no other box in that column mentions ivermectin.
In the Ivermectin paper, Fig.1 says "679 were assessed to receive ivermectin (400µg/kg) for 3 days" (left column) and "77 were assessed to receive ivermectin (400µg/kg) for 1 day" (right column).
Since 679 + 77 = 756, which is 17 more than 739, it could be coherent: out ot the 192 patients recruited on Aug 6th, 17 may have received ivermectin. As for the remaining 175 patients recruited on Aug. 6th, they may have been divided into three groups :
- doxasozin (probably 30 of them, since the doxazosin boxes in the right column of Fig.1 say "91 doxazosin" in the Fluvoxamine trial vs "121 doxazosin" in the ivermetin trial")
- interferon lambda (probably 74, for the same reason: 96 vs 170)
- which leaves 71 patients for the placebo group. Out of whom at least 20 had CPD, 44 asthma, 3 CKD and 3 CCD. Mathematically coherent, but statistically highly unlikely.
Your fabrication hypothesis can't be ruled out, and definitely, making the data available would be the only way to put an end to suspicions of fraud.
The hcq paper shows them having assessed 1568 patients for eligibility in the 120 days between June 2 and September 30, 2020. (about 13 patients per day)
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2779044
This leaves 8235 patients for them to have assessed in 197 days between Jan 20th and August 5th, or about 41.8 patients per day.
It's not realistic for them to have assessed 664 patients in a single day, or 16 times faster than they were assessing until August 5.
The obvious interpretation is that the numbers shown in the ivermectin paper are taken from a date a couple of weeks after the ivermectin trial was over. Something like August 21 or something.
Why would they show a later date? I can't think of a reason other than to create confusion.
As you say, the best approach is to share the data and dispel all doubt.
By the way, in the slides released on August 6, with a file creation date of 5:38am, the ivermectin placebo group is reported as including 678 patients, just 1 less than the final numbers. https://dcricollab.dcri.duke.edu/sites/NIHKR/KR/GR-Slides-08-06-21.pdf
Any recruitment that did happen on August 6 was minimal.
With the time difference, it probably was 8:38, 9:38 or 10:38am in Brasil, but that strictly doesn't change your point.
(It seems file creation time in metadata adapts to the time zone of who *reads* it : in France, I read "creation time: Aug 6 - 2:38:41pm")
Oh fascinating. So it's in UTC. Thanks, this nails down the time even better. I think Minas Gerais is in the 9:38 timezone.
There seem to be more discrepancies between figure 1 in the fluvoxamine paper vs. the fig.1 in the ivermectin paper ...
See my response to Enzo, the obvious interpretation is that the ivermectin paper figure 1 is taken from a time later in the trial, some time in the second half of August.
Has the NEJM commented on this, or acknowledged reading your assessments?
I know the authors have been sent my articles, I'm not sure about the journal, their process is quite complicated. I know people are working on a letter to the editor, and what is in this article will likely end up in a published article somewhere at some point, but I have no idea if the journal has seen my critiques officially speaking.
Love the Sherlock Holmes quote.. what remains is a criminal cabal with a legacy that stinks like week old fish, obscene profit motives and possible Enron accounting in clinical trial data. hmm?
Fun while you're waiting for a reply.. check the study folks funding... NIH has a really spiffy database search to see who got paid how much to do ? https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/
Whoa thanks for that link.
Delighted to share.. dirtbag hunting is my best sport! *smirk*
Agree with Anon poster. Just outright accuse them of fraud as they have done to other ivermectin studies with different outcomes. Demand the data or a retraction.
If you’re confident in your assessment then I guess one way to do it is formally accuse the authors of fraud, smear their name publicly and then see what they do.
If they fight it you’ll have to defend yourself and justify your assessment, possibly a long and costly process. If they stay silent then neither a victory nor a loss.
This is the general approach of the modern fraud buster.
However, I believe the authors will not respond to anybody unless legally bound to do so.
Remember, a formal retraction is massive for the NEJM, and will start the dominoes falling all the way back to Andrew Hill.
It might happen but I doubt it.
They’ll save face and get away with it. Best you can hope for is that any restrictions on prescribing Ivermectin are lifted and that those doctors who believe it works are free to prescribe it
I really don't like using big words for the sake of effect. I try to go only as far as what I see will allow me to go.
A refreshing, dignified and mature approach...compare and contrast with some of the health nerds and fraud busters of this world. But they somehow make the big news, maybe there is a systematic conspiracy against Ivermectin after all
They are, after all, collaborators with Mills now... Fascinating, no? https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201612
Christ o mighty...no wonder Sheldrick is quiet as a mouse.
If GMK, JL and Sheldrick were serious about busting fraud they would reach out to you and collaborate to get to the bottom of all this.
Fat chance
Also, it is very likely that the data is manipulated
Doing our own research is primarily for ourselves and our closest family members because when you see something that just isn't right and you stay on it til you figure it out, at some point you get called everything but a sane individual by others. Even now, when the CDC, the FDA, NIH and HHS have been seen by the public (I mean well and truly seen) for the unorganized, screwed up, and educated stupidity they seem to be champions at practicing, people will STILL lose their entire mind if you happen to point out their "mistakes" (which I just call lies now). When you can quote one of the world's TOP emergency medicine doctors saying these trials are seriously a mess and a very long way from proving the point for which it was undertaken and still have people argue, not with you, but with the information from that doctor, society is proving that it is devolving into a herd of brainless sheep following the one with the loudest voice saying the correct combo of words. This entire mess for the last two years and then some has damaged my faith in humanity and a lot of other people are struggling with the same loss of faith.
Even if you laid this out in crayon for the ENTIRE country, you know they wouldn't admit that it was a correct if it did show that IVM works, because that means there WAS a treatment for this nasty mess and they went so far as to kink the lines in the medical community so thoroughly that people were unable to get it to treat themselves, parents were harassed and threatened to the point of hiding their children from CPS over a months old dose of IVM, for the love of all things.
I'm afraid it doesn't matter if you figure out what you're looking for because no one will allow it to be so. They would then need to admit that people, THOUSANDS of them, died and it was preventable but they blocked access in favor of a pharmaceutical company and the dollars it pays the government. I still follow along with you, though , because sometimes hope hits me again.