27 Comments

Beginning to look like the COMING-APART trial ...

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment
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.

Expand full comment

There seem to be more discrepancies between figure 1 in the fluvoxamine paper vs. the fig.1 in the ivermectin paper ...

Expand full comment
May 5, 2022Liked by Alexandros Marinos

Has the NEJM commented on this, or acknowledged reading your assessments?

Expand full comment

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/

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment
May 5, 2022·edited May 5, 2022

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

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment