447 replies to this topic

[Dorian Grey]

All I know is that if you go to Pubmed and enter in HCQ and clinical trial all of the recent studies I see are negative.. There is so much crappy science, and crappy analysis of science with these treatments that I can understand how people are fooled: "Meta analysis, must be real!" But if you dig deep, really look at the studies, it doesn't look like HCQ has much benefit. The real story here is not that there is a grand conspiracy to suppress data about miraculous drugs, the real story is how much crappy science has been spewed out during the pandemic.

 

The FDA put the fix in when they assigned the EUA for HCQ.  This halted all outpatient use and triggered a boatload of studies on "hospitalized patients".  If you're familiar with Tamiflu, & its prescribing guidelines, you should know treatment of fast moving respiratory viral infections requires swift action.  You don't wait till patients are hospitalized in respiratory distress before you administer the first dose of your therapeutic.  

 

There actually were large scale Gates/Wellcome outpatient trials for HCQ being launched when Surgisphere/Lancet dropped their bombshell.  Amazing timing!  Outpatient trials were scrubbed.  When the Surgisphere paper was lifted, the outpatient trials were never restarted.  Something about difficulty finding enough patients willing to enroll in a HCQ trial in the post Surgisphere world.  

 

If this was a movie plot, no one would buy it.  Way too contrived, and contrived it was.  Halt outpatient use...  Do a bunch of futile expensive high profile trials of inpatient populations, which get published...  Drop the Surgisphere bomb just as outpatient trials are being launched...  Then just call it quits.  

 

We live in interesting times!  Seriously though, spend a bit of time here: https://c19hcq.com/

 

100% rubbish?  All 293 trials?  Almost half a million patients?  

 

"HCQ is not effective when used very late with high dosages over a long period (RECOVERY/SOLIDARITY), effectiveness improves with earlier usage and improved dosing. Early treatment consistently shows positive effects. Negative evaluations typically ignore treatment time, often focusing on a subset of late stage studies."

Edited by Dorian Grey, 10 October 2021 - 11:07 PM.

[geo12the]

The FDA put the fix in when they assigned the EUA for HCQ.  This halted all outpatient use and triggered a boatload of studies on "hospitalized patients".  If you're familiar with Tamiflu, & its prescribing guidelines, you should know treatment of fast moving respiratory viral infections requires swift action.  You don't wait till patients are hospitalized in respiratory distress before you administer the first dose of your therapeutic.  

 

There actually were large scale Gates/Wellcome outpatient trials for HCQ being launched when Surgisphere/Lancet dropped their bombshell.  Amazing timing!  Outpatient trials were scrubbed.  When the Surgisphere paper was lifted, the outpatient trials were never restarted.  Something about difficulty finding enough patients willing to enroll in a HCQ trial in the post Surgisphere world.  

 

If this was a movie plot, no one would buy it.  Way too contrived, and contrived it was.  Halt outpatient use...  Do a bunch of futile expensive high profile trials of inpatient populations, which get published...  Drop the Surgisphere bomb just as outpatient trials are being launched...  Then just call it quits.  

 

We live in interesting times!  Seriously though, spend a bit of time here: https://c19hcq.com/

 

100% rubbish?  All 293 trials?  Almost half a million patients?  

 

"HCQ is not effective when used very late with high dosages over a long period (RECOVERY/SOLIDARITY), effectiveness improves with earlier usage and improved dosing. Early treatment consistently shows positive effects. Negative evaluations typically ignore treatment time, often focusing on a subset of late stage studies."

 

Latest early treatment clinical trial I read shows no benefit. Many of the studies in the c19hcq site are unpublished and from places like Nigeria. Not saying it's 100% rubbish but the % of rubbish is high enough to render it not believable.

 

We do live in interesting times. People are manipulated into believing nonsense by all kinds of charlatans and political hacks. QANON, Stop the steal, HCQ is a miracle cure, it's all nonsense. Social media has amplified human idiocy. 

 

Int J Antimicrob Agents

 

•  
•  
•  

. 2021 Aug 25;106428.

 doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106428. Online ahead of print.

Hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin early treatment of mild COVID-19 in an outpatient setting: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating viral clearance

Cristhieni Rodrigues 1, Rodrigo S Freitas-Santos 2, José Eduardo Levi 3, Andreza A Senerchia 4, Ana Tarina A Lopes 5, Sergio R Santos 6, Rinaldo F Siciliano 7, Lígia C Pierrotti 8

Affiliations expand

• PMID: 34454044
•  
• PMCID: PMC8386096
•  
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106428

Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: Hydroxychloroquine has shown potential to block viral replication of SARS-CoV-2 in some in vitro studies. This randomised, double-blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial evaluated the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (HCQ/AZT) in reducing viral loads in patients with early and mild SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Methods: A single-centre randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted with outpatients with early and mild SARS-CoV-2 infection. Inclusion criteria were: patients aged 18-65 years with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 for < 5 days, no significant comorbidities, and positive nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab screening tests (POCT-PCR). Randomised patients received either hydroxychloroquine for 7 days plus azithromycin for 5 days or placebo. The primary endpoint was viral clearance within a 9-day period. Secondary endpoints included viral load reduction, clinical evolution, hospitalization rates, chest computed tomography evolution, and adverse effects.

Results: From 107 potential trial participants, 84 were enrolled following predetermined criteria. Statistical analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat (N = 84) and per-protocol (PP) basis (N = 70). On the PP analysis, the treatment (N = 36) and placebo (N = 34) groups displayed similar demographic characteristics. At 95% CI, no statistically significant between-group differences were found in viral clearance rates within 9 days following enrolment (P = 0.26).

Conclusions: This randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating outpatients with early and mild COVID-19 showed that viral clearance rates within a 9-day period from enrolment did not change with HCQ/AZT treatment compared with placebo, although no major cardiovascular events were observed in participants without comorbidities. Secondary outcomes were also not significantly improved with HCQ/AZT treatment compared with placebo. These findings do not support use of HCQ/AZT in this setting.

Keywords: Azithromycin; COVID-19; Hydroxychloroquine; RCT; SARS-CoV-2.

[Hip]

We do live in interesting times. People are manipulated into believing nonsense by all kinds of charlatans and political hacks. QANON, Stop the steal, HCQ is a miracle cure, it's all nonsense. Social media has amplified human idiocy. 

 

Indeed! The Zuckerbergization of society is amplifying human idiocy much like binge drinking alcohol increases human aggression.

[Dorian Grey]

"patients aged 18-65 years with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 for < 5 days, no significant comorbidities"

 

Oh dear.  You'd need tens of thousands in a trial like this just to get a good signal.  Try a risk stratified group 55+ WITH some comorbidities, and get them started on your med within 48 hours, & I bet you'd get a clearer picture.  

 

Days to viral clearance is not anything I'd be interested in anyway.  I'm looking to avoid hospitalization and hopefully death!  

[Hip]

Does anyone know why hydroxychloroquine was proposed as a COVID treatment? Who proposed it, and what was the original reason this drug was considered as a COVID treatment? Hydroxychloroquine is an anti-malarial drug, but the malaria parasite is a very different thing to a virus.

 

So there must have been a reason for thinking hydroxychloroquine would have an effect against coronavirus. What was that reason? Do any of the hydroxychloroquine aficionados here know?

 

 

 

I think is quite funny (funny in a strange sense) the way a drug or substance gets picked up on the COVID pandemic radar, usually for erroneous reasons, and then the world becomes obsessed with it.

 

Once a drug appears on the COVID radar, the general public go crazy for it, and the scientists start performing clinical trials. Then when the clinical trials show poor or negative results, the conspiracy theorists step in, and start spinning their imaginative yarns that "the powers that be" want to suppress this treatment. This then causes even more gullible people to go crazy for the treatment, and results in even more studies, which usually to continue to show negative results. What a crazy race the human race is. 

 

Ivermectin was originally picked up on the COVID radar because of a misleading study which found it was antiviral for coronavirus in vivo, even though it was blatantly obvious to anyone with scientific savvy that ivermectin could not possibly antiviral in vivo, as they used impossibly high doses in vitro. So there was no basis whatsoever for thinking ivermectin could be useful for COVID, yet this de-wormer drug got picked up on the COVID radar, and became the obsessed focus of people throughout the world.

 

Tomorrow if someone suggests that salted peanuts can treat COVID, we would start this process all over again, with the general public buying up all the peanut supplies.

 

 

Anyway, does anyone know why hydroxychloroquine was originally proposed as a COVID treatment? Or has that information got lost in all the laughable vagaries of the pandemic? 

Edited by Hip, 11 October 2021 - 12:24 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC1232869/

 

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread

 

Published online 2005 

 

We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.

Conclusion

Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.

 

Edited by Dorian Grey, 11 October 2021 - 12:32 AM.

[Hip]

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC1232869/

 

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread

 

Published online 2005 

 

 

OK, interesting, so the in vitro antiviral effect of chloroquine against SARS-CoV-1 was the inspiration for seeing if chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine might work against SARS-CoV-2.

 

 

Well I found this May 2020 study looking at the antiviral effects of hydroxychloroquine against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. The study found that the IC50 concentration of hydroxychloroquine for SARS-CoV-2 was 2.9 μM.

 

In case you do not know, the IC50 or EC50 is the concentration of the substance which reduces viral replication by 50% in vitro.

 

However, reducing viral replication by 50% will not do very much in clinical cases.

 

If you look at most commercial antivirals, like HIV drugs, they will achieve blood concentrations around 30 or 40 times the IC50, and thus correspondingly much higher inhibition of viral replication. Even the very weakest of commercial antivirals will result in blood concentrations which are 5 to 10 times higher than the IC50. I've looked at hundreds of antiviral studies, so I know about this.

 

So at a minimum, if we are going to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication, in patients we need to achieve a hydroxychloroquine blood concentration of about 5 x 2.9 = 14.5 μM. This is the minimum concentration which is going to have any useful antiviral effect.

 

 

So what concentration of hydroxychloroquine can be achieved in the blood? Well this pharmacokinetic study showed that humans given hydroxychloroquine 200 mg achieved a mean peak blood concentration of 0.1296 μg/ml. That is equivalent of 0.39 μM.

 

 

Well that's a total failure, as it is clear that 0.39 μM is nowhere near the required 14.5 μM concentration to have an antiviral effect. 

 

 

 

The bottom line from this simple pharmacokinetic analysis is that hydroxychloroquine does not stand a hope in hell of inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 in the human body. It will have no antiviral effects against SARS-CoV-2, which is very apparent by the above calculation.

 

If only these medical scientists knew a bit more about mathematics, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble, by performing the simple calculation I did above, and proving in advance that hydroxychloroquine will not work in vivo.

 

 

Last year I did the same sort of pharmacokinetic calculation on ivermectin, and showed that would not work either. 

 

If you know a bit about pharmacokinetics, you can do these calculations, and you can demonstrate in advance whether an antiviral will work or not.

Edited by Hip, 11 October 2021 - 01:06 AM.

[Hip]

There was a numerical error in my earlier post about the efficacy of various vaccines. For the AstraZeneca vaccine, the correct data is:

 

 

Oxford/AstraZeneca = 94% protection from hospitalization = a reduction in hospitalization by a factor of about 13.

[Hip]

It's amazing how many morons read Longecity. I add a very important correction to an error made in an earlier post, and the Longecity morons appear, and mark the post time-wasting.  

 

 

[Dorian Grey]

'Twas not I Hip.  I haven't dinged you once in the recent past, and have actually given credit when I felt it was due.  

 

I enjoy debate, & the jousting we have done.  Got to have thick skin in cyberspace.  Let it roll, like water off a duck.  

 

It's a sign your words are being heard and compelling thought in others.  

[Gal220]

New analysis of IVM in Mexico city(100,000 patients) - Link

 

"Results

We found a significant reduction in hospitalizations among patients who received the ivermectin-based medical kit; the range of the effect is 52%-76% depending on model specification.

 

Conclusions

The study supports ivermectin-based interventions to assuage the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health system"

 

Rumble video with Kory

Edited by Gal220, 15 October 2021 - 02:41 AM.

[Hip]

Rumble video with Kory

 

Why hasn't Dr Pierre Kory mentioned anything about the fact that one third of ivermectin studies were found to be fraudulent? 

 

Dr Kyle Sheldrick's investigation published on 22 September 2021 demonstrated that about one third of the ivermectin studies — mainly the studies which found very positive effects from ivermectin — were blatant fraud.

 

Why hasn't Kory addressed this major issue? 

 

All the main studies showing ivermectin has benefits turned out to be fraud, and Kory remains silent?!

 

And the FLCCC (Kory is their president) say nothing on their website about this major fraud. This makes me think there is something very fishy about Kory and the FLCCC.

Edited by Hip, 16 October 2021 - 03:11 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re post #81

 

"Dr Kyle Sheldrick's investigation published on 22 September 2021 demonstrated that about one third of the ivermectin studies — mainly the studies which found very positive effects from ivermectin — were blatant fraud."

 

Hip, nowhere in your link is "one third" directly mentioned (if it's in one of the 7 references, then cite that reference). Nor, are the words "blatant fraud". Where are you getting these apparently manufactured "facts"?

[Hip]

Re post #81

 

"Dr Kyle Sheldrick's investigation published on 22 September 2021 demonstrated that about one third of the ivermectin studies — mainly the studies which found very positive effects from ivermectin — were blatant fraud."

 

Hip, nowhere in your link is "one third" directly mentioned (if it's in one of the 7 references, then cite that reference). Nor, are the words "blatant fraud". Where are you getting these apparently manufactured "facts"?

 

See: 

 

Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug 

 

Covid: Scientist concerned over fake Ivermectin claims 

 

 

Dr Sheldrick is an Australian medical researcher with a special interest in medical research fraud.

 

 

Edited by Hip, 16 October 2021 - 04:00 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

From your second link in post #83 (now your first link)

 

"The BBC can reveal that more than a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud. None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness."

 

The BBC  provides no reference for that claim. So, an interested reader cannot examine the information from which the BBC makes its claim--i.e. a worthless claim in terms of being able to be verified. If you know where the BBC got its facts, please provide a link.

 

I got a 404 page cannot be found error on your first link. Until you changed it.

 

Hip, how about doing a direct quote from your links where "one third" (not the BBC, who don't provide a verifiable reference for their claim) and "blatant fraud" are mentioned, as you claimed earlier.

 

Until a quote is provided, I'll go with either confabulation or prevarication as a source of your "facts". Right, Hebbeh?

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 16 October 2021 - 05:01 AM.

[Gal220]

See: 

 

Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug 

 

Covid: Scientist concerned over fake Ivermectin claims 

 

Dr Sheldrick is an Australian medical researcher with a special interest in medical research fraud.

 

If there is criticism of IVM, it isnt here.  I dont see how you find this remotely credible, I thought John Campbell made short work of this in the previous page, where is their actual published analysis?

If you check out https://ivmmeta.com/ , they do analysis with exclusions a ways down the page.  Also links to other treatments at the top.

 

Fareed and Varon have treated the most people with excellent results, seriously it is criminal when the people winning arent copied.  Fauci and the NIH own some of this, but states have the ability to approve treatment also, at the very least inform patients whose winning and offer that treatment, MANDATE THAT.

 

Varon has been interviewed by any and everybody, and he tried to tell all of them his protocols, but only one reporter(who was fired for it) put that information out there,

https://t.co/L2NTAFiCxe?amp=1

 

I dont simply dont see how you dont acknowledge practicing physicians who are winning..

Edited by Gal220, 16 October 2021 - 07:33 AM.

[Hip]

The BBC  provides no reference for that claim. So, an interested reader cannot examine the information from which the BBC makes its claim--i.e. a worthless claim in terms of being able to be verified. If you know where the BBC got its facts, please provide a link.

 
Were you able to view the video of a BBC interview with Dr Kyle Sheldrick that I posted above? It's only 2 minutes long, but contains all the information you are looking for.
 
Extract from the interview with Dr Sheldrick:

A very large number of these [ivermectin] studies are simply fake. They are false, they either did not happen at all, did not happen as the authors describe them, or reported false results.

 
It's not all of the trials, but it's close to a third of them, and it's universally the trials that were making these miracle claims of 80% and 90% lower rates of death. And they were really holding out the conclusion that ivermectin had any positive effect in COVID. With these trials removed, that evidence has now collapsed.

Edited by Hip, 16 October 2021 - 01:32 PM.

[Hip]

If there is criticism of IVM, it isnt here.

It's not merely criticism, it is damning indictment, demonstrating that the ivermectin researchers who studies claimed ivermectin is highly effective for COVID are just con men from the third world. These third world ivermectin studies have been proven fraudulent and fake.

The only studies which were found to be honest were the ones which did not find any benefit for COVID.

 

 

Dr Sheldrick is an Australian medical researcher who investigates medical research fraud.

 

So unlike the many gullible readers of Longecity, Sheldrick knows bullshit when he sees it. He uses mathematical forensic tools to uncover dishonest, fake data in studies.

 

I am sure in a previous age, Longecity readers would be believing in the power of holy water to cure disease. That's the sort of readership you find on Longecity. Many here have not yet developed the critical faculties that enables them to examine medical claims. It takes time and experience to develop a good bullshit detector. 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 16 October 2021 - 01:34 PM.

[Hip]

 I thought John Campbell made short work of this in the previous page, where is their actual published analysis?

 

John Campbell is not even a medical doctor, he is a retired nurse. Any medical professional worth their salt who purports to examine the studies and data in depth would have examined the ivermectin study data themselves, and would have worked out they were fraudulent. Campbell did not do this, so he has questionable credibility, in terms of his ability to get to the bottom of these issues.

Edited by Hip, 16 October 2021 - 01:28 PM.

[geo12the]

 

 

Fareed and Varon have treated the most people with excellent results, seriously it is criminal when the people winning arent copied.  Fauci and the NIH own some of this, but states have the ability to approve treatment also, at the very least inform patients whose winning and offer that treatment, MANDATE THAT.

 

 

 

Sigh. LOL. Have you ever stopped to consider that the reason that Fareed and Varon are not copied is that they are NOT winning??? Have you ever stopped to think there are MDs that tried HCQ and found that it didn't work? Have you ever stopped to think about the mountains of high quality studies showing that it doesn't work?  You only believe what you want to believe, what validates your views.  In any case it's over. With all the vaccinated folks and those infected we are reaching herd immunity. The pandemic of conspiratorial idiocy will still be with us unfortunately. There is no vaccine for closed minds.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post #86

 

 Hip writes:

"Were you able to view the video of a BBC interview with Dr Kyle Sheldrick that I posted above? It's only 2 minutes long, but contains all the information you are looking for."

 

The video contains a regurgitation of the claims as reported by the BBC--for which the BBC provides no links to studies supporting the claims. In the video Sheldrick is seen making his claims, that's all. Ho hum.

 

As mentioned in other posts, an actual article concerning the mythical 26 studies, has yet to be discovered. By anyone. Ever.

 

If a study exists, then give a link to it, so Longecity readers can assess its claims.

 

Making baseless claims, which you have done, is unscientific--as science requires evidence and you, like Sheldrick, have provided none. Right, Hebbeh?

 

 

 

 

[Hip]

The video contains a regurgitation of the claims as reported by the BBC--for which the BBC provides no links to studies supporting the claims. In the video Sheldrick is seen making his claims, that's all. Ho hum.

 

No, you got the wrong way around.  

 

Dr Kyle Sheldrick conducted a forensic investigation into the ivermectin studies, and found that about one third were fraudulent. 

 

The BBC then reported on Dr Kyle Sheldrick's findings. 

 

It is not the BBC who make this claim, but Dr Kyle Sheldrick. The BBC are just reporting on Dr Kyle Sheldrick research into the ivermectin fraud.

 

 

 

This comes after a major ivermectin study from Egypt was retracted due to irregularities a few months back.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re post #92

 

Sorry, Hip, it's you that got it wrong.

 

I wrote:

 

"The video contains a regurgitation of the claims as reported by the BBC--for which the BBC provides no links to studies supporting the claims. In the video Sheldrick is seen making his claims, that's all. Ho hum."

 

I didn't write that the BBC made the claims. I wrote that the claims were "reported by the BBC". Get it? Reported.

 

You wrote:

 

"Dr Kyle Sheldrick conducted a forensic investigation into the ivermectin studies, and found that about one third were fraudulent."

 

Ok, so give a link to the forensic investigation. I'd like to read what the "about one third" fraudulent studies had to say.

 

When you read Sheldrick's paper, where he lists study by study, for 26 studies why each study was considered to be either 'fraudulent" or valid, did you consider his analyses credible?

 

You did read his original work about the 26 studies, correct?

 

What was the link where you found the article that you carefully read?

 

 

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 16 October 2021 - 07:01 PM.

[Hip]

the BBC provides no links to studies supporting the claims.

 
I still think you got it the wrong way around. The claims are made by Dr Sheldrick, so you should be asking Dr Sheldrick about links to studies supporting the claims, not the BBC. 

 

Possibly Dr Sheldrick might be publish his findings shortly, but I don't know. He told us in the interview that his new investigation found a third of the ivermectin studies were fraudulent.

 

And Dr Sheldrick said in the light of the evidence of fraud he provided to the authors of one of the ivermectin meta-analyses, they are now going to re-do that meta-analysis, and so we can await for updated results. 

 

No doubt when that meta-analysis is revised, it will include details of the frauds which were perpetrated.

 

Sheldrick believes that with all the fraudulent studies removed, there will likely be no overall evidence whatsoever showing that ivermectin works for COVID.

 

Which seems fairly obvious anyway, as ivermectin is not antiviral for coronavirus in vivo, this was shown ages ago, in a published study last year. That study showed plasma concentrations of ivermectin would be 250 times too low to achieve an antiviral effect in vivo. Pretty damn obvious ivermectin cannot have an antiviral effect, for anyone who can do simple arithmetic. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there, including doctors, who do not understand basic mathematics.

Edited by Hip, 16 October 2021 - 08:24 PM.

[Hip]

Tweet by Kyle Sheldrick, which shows the lack of logic displayed by ivermectin promotors:

I see that BIRD in the UK are attacking both the ACTIV-6 and UMN Covid-OUT trials as "designed to fail" for giving too little ivermectin.

This is despite the dose being higher than every single ivermectin arm in the Niaee trial which they celebrated.

Edited by Hip, 16 October 2021 - 08:05 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post #94

 

Hip, did you read Sheldrick's original work about the 26 ivermectin studies?

 

It is unscientific to believe a claim without examining the evidence. Isn't that correct, Hebbeh?

 

 

 

 

[Hip]

It is unscientific to believe a claim without examining the evidence. Isn't that correct, Hebbeh?

 
If you are really interested in this, you could go back to the original published studies that Dr Kyle Sheldrick said were fraudulent.
 
He said that all the third world studies which appeared to show a reduction in death by 80 to 90% from ivermectin were found to be fraudulent. These third world studies are all published, so you can read them if you like. They should be listed in some of the reviews and meta-analyses on ivermectin, like this one, this and this. 
 
If you have Dr Kyle Sheldrick's talents, you should be able to spot the same fraudulence in the data presented in those third world studies. 
 
 
 
For the Egyptian ivermectin study by Elgazzar et al, it was said that:
 

Thousands of highly trained scientists, physicians, pharmacists and at least four major drug regulators overlooked a fraud so blatant it might as well have come with a blinking neon sign.

You pride yourself on your abilities to dissect papers, so you should be able to spot the fraud in at least this Egyptian study.

Edited by Hip, 16 October 2021 - 11:02 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Hip, did you read Sheldrick's original work about the 26 ivermectin studies?

[Hip]

Hip, did you read Sheldrick's original work about the 26 ivermectin studies?

 

Nothing is published yet, as you know, so we can only go by Sheldrick's video, and what he says on his Twitter account. 

 

You claim it is unscientific to believe Sheldrick's assertions without examining the evidence. Well you might be right.

 

But in which case, the whole damn ivermectin movement — the FLCCC and BIRD — are utterly unscientific, because clearly they have not examined the evidence. If they had, they would have seen that all the positive ivermectin studies were fraudulent. They were foolish enough to be conned by third world researchers.

 

If you start believing in third world studies, the next thing is that you'll get taken in by some Nigerian email scam, where someone from Nigeria says they will put a million dollars in your bank account, as long as you can provide them with all your banking details. 

Edited by Hip, 16 October 2021 - 11:44 PM.

[Hip]

BUT early on, I would have liked to see more US studies,

 

Why? What would be the rationale for studying ivermectin for COVID?

 

There are around 20,000 pharmaceutical drugs, and any of these potentially might have some benefit for COVID. But you need a reason if you are going pick out some drugs from these 20,000, and study them as a potential COVID treatment. We cannot test all of these 20,000 drugs in clinical trials, as we have not got the time or manpower. So you need a reason in advance to pick out a drug and study it for COVID.

 

 

We know ivermectin has no in vivo antiviral effect for coronavirus, as that was demonstrated in a study last year. And so there is no reason in advance to suspect ivermectin might have any benefit for COVID.

 

So on what basis should anyone be conducting studies on ivermectin? It's really just a random drug, one of 20,000 available drugs.

 

Can you explain why you think ivermectin should have been tested early on? Can you give your rationale?

Edited by Hip, 17 October 2021 - 01:06 AM.