• "Miracle Drug" Ivermectin Only Works On Trump Loyalists

    From Mike Weber@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 14 00:45:30 2021
    XPost: alt.survival, rec.arts.tv, alt.politics
    XPost: alt.checkmate, alt.atheism, alt.rush-limbaugh
    XPost: alt.baldspot, talk.politics.guns, alt.abortion
    XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.journalism.criticism XPost: alt.news-media

    "Miracle Drug" Ivermectin Only Works On Trump Loyalists


    Large Ivermectin Study Retracted
    — Preprint publisher finds evidence of plagiarism, problems with raw data

    by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting,
    MedPage Today July 20, 2021
    share to facebook
    share to twitter
    share to linkedin
    email article
    A box of ivermectin tablets.

    A large Egyptian study of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients has been
    retracted over concerns of plagiarism and serious problems with their raw
    data, the publisher confirmed to MedPage Today.

    Michele Avissar-Whiting, PhD, editor-in-chief of the preprint server
    Research Square, said in an emailed statement that the study was withdrawn
    on July 14 "because we were presented with evidence of both plagiarism and anomalies in the dataset associated with the study, neither of which could reasonably be addressed by the author issuing a revised version of the
    paper."

    Avissar-Whiting noted that the concerns were first raised by Jack
    Lawrence, a British medical student, according to The Guardian.

    "Based on what Jack found, we have reason to believe the preprint's
    conclusions are compromised, so the withdrawal was done to stop its
    propagation as sound science," she said. "This is the strategy employed by
    a number of preprint servers, per best practice guidance."

    The study was one of the largest ivermectin trials in the world, and has
    been included in two recent meta-analyses (Bryant et al. and Hill et al.)
    that received much attention for their positive results -- particularly
    the Hill review, which had been anticipated by a U.S. group that has long promoted ivermectin.

    Some have questioned whether the positive conclusions of those meta-
    analyses would still stand when the Egyptian study is removed.

    David Boulware, MD, MPH, of the University of Minnesota, told MedPage
    Today that the 400-patient Egyptian trial -- from Ahmed Elgazzar, MD, of
    Benha University, and colleagues -- was the largest study included in the
    Hill review and accounted for 20% of the total data.

    Lead author Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool in England,
    said in an email to MedPage Today that his team will be "re-running our analysis with the Elgazzar trial removed."

    Hill added that his team will also include a recently published 500-
    patient randomized controlled trial from Argentina, published in BMC
    Infectious Diseases, which found no effect for ivermectin in terms of preventing hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. It also found that
    those who received ivermectin required invasive ventilation sooner than
    those on placebo.

    "In our published paper, we emphasized the preliminary nature of our
    results and the need to continue more definitive studies," Hill noted in
    the email.

    Boulware echoed Hill's comments: "One problem with meta-analyses is that
    it is dependent on the underlying data," he tweeted. "Phase 3 double-blind randomized clinical trials are needed to provide definitive data."
    (Boulware is currently conducting a COVID-19 outpatient trial, randomizing patients to ivermectin, fluvoxamine, metformin [or a combination of two of those], or standard care within 3 days of diagnosis.)

    Though the Elgazzar study is no longer available online, other
    publications have cited its main findings: Hospitalized patients with
    COVID-19 who were treated with ivermectin were 90% less likely to die than those who didn't receive the drug.

    That conclusion started to fall apart when Lawrence took on a medical
    school assignment that had him look deeper into the paper. First, he found evidence of plagiarism, with entire paragraphs lifted from press releases
    and websites, according to The Guardian.

    Lawrence also found that the raw data, which are available online for
    purchase, contradicted the study on several occasions. Gideon Meyerowitz-
    Katz, an epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong in Australia,
    also highlighted some of those discrepancies in a Medium post.

    "For example, the study reports getting ethical approval and beginning on
    the 8th of June, 2020, but in the data file uploaded by the authors onto
    the website of the preprint fully 1/3 of the people who died from COVID-19
    were already dead when the researchers started to recruit their
    patients," Meyerowitz-Katz wrote.

    "Moreover, about 25% of the entire group of patients who were recruited
    for this supposedly prospective randomized trial appear to have been hospitalized before the study even started, which is either a mind-
    boggling breach of ethics or a very bad sign of potential fraud," he
    continued.

    Elgazzar did not respond to a MedPage Today request for comment.

    There are multiple ongoing phase III randomized controlled trials that
    will likely provide more definitive results on ivermectin, including
    Boulware's study and the U.K.'s PRINCIPLE outpatient trial that is aiming
    to enroll about 1,500 patients in its ivermectin arm.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Weber@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 19 15:51:10 2021
    XPost: alt.survival, rec.arts.tv, alt.politics
    XPost: alt.checkmate, alt.atheism, alt.rush-limbaugh
    XPost: alt.baldspot, talk.politics.guns, alt.abortion
    XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.journalism.criticism XPost: alt.news-media

    "Miracle Drug" Ivermectin Only Works On Trump Loyalists


    Large Ivermectin Study Retracted
    — Preprint publisher finds evidence of plagiarism, problems with raw data

    by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting,
    MedPage Today July 20, 2021
    share to facebook
    share to twitter
    share to linkedin
    email article
    A box of ivermectin tablets.

    A large Egyptian study of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients has been
    retracted over concerns of plagiarism and serious problems with their raw
    data, the publisher confirmed to MedPage Today.

    Michele Avissar-Whiting, PhD, editor-in-chief of the preprint server
    Research Square, said in an emailed statement that the study was withdrawn
    on July 14 "because we were presented with evidence of both plagiarism and anomalies in the dataset associated with the study, neither of which could reasonably be addressed by the author issuing a revised version of the
    paper."

    Avissar-Whiting noted that the concerns were first raised by Jack
    Lawrence, a British medical student, according to The Guardian.

    "Based on what Jack found, we have reason to believe the preprint's
    conclusions are compromised, so the withdrawal was done to stop its
    propagation as sound science," she said. "This is the strategy employed by
    a number of preprint servers, per best practice guidance."

    The study was one of the largest ivermectin trials in the world, and has
    been included in two recent meta-analyses (Bryant et al. and Hill et al.)
    that received much attention for their positive results -- particularly
    the Hill review, which had been anticipated by a U.S. group that has long promoted ivermectin.

    Some have questioned whether the positive conclusions of those meta-
    analyses would still stand when the Egyptian study is removed.

    David Boulware, MD, MPH, of the University of Minnesota, told MedPage
    Today that the 400-patient Egyptian trial -- from Ahmed Elgazzar, MD, of
    Benha University, and colleagues -- was the largest study included in the
    Hill review and accounted for 20% of the total data.

    Lead author Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool in England,
    said in an email to MedPage Today that his team will be "re-running our analysis with the Elgazzar trial removed."

    Hill added that his team will also include a recently published 500-
    patient randomized controlled trial from Argentina, published in BMC
    Infectious Diseases, which found no effect for ivermectin in terms of preventing hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. It also found that
    those who received ivermectin required invasive ventilation sooner than
    those on placebo.

    "In our published paper, we emphasized the preliminary nature of our
    results and the need to continue more definitive studies," Hill noted in
    the email.

    Boulware echoed Hill's comments: "One problem with meta-analyses is that
    it is dependent on the underlying data," he tweeted. "Phase 3 double-blind randomized clinical trials are needed to provide definitive data."
    (Boulware is currently conducting a COVID-19 outpatient trial, randomizing patients to ivermectin, fluvoxamine, metformin [or a combination of two of those], or standard care within 3 days of diagnosis.)

    Though the Elgazzar study is no longer available online, other
    publications have cited its main findings: Hospitalized patients with
    COVID-19 who were treated with ivermectin were 90% less likely to die than those who didn't receive the drug.

    That conclusion started to fall apart when Lawrence took on a medical
    school assignment that had him look deeper into the paper. First, he found evidence of plagiarism, with entire paragraphs lifted from press releases
    and websites, according to The Guardian.

    Lawrence also found that the raw data, which are available online for
    purchase, contradicted the study on several occasions. Gideon Meyerowitz-
    Katz, an epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong in Australia,
    also highlighted some of those discrepancies in a Medium post.

    "For example, the study reports getting ethical approval and beginning on
    the 8th of June, 2020, but in the data file uploaded by the authors onto
    the website of the preprint fully 1/3 of the people who died from COVID-19
    were already dead when the researchers started to recruit their
    patients," Meyerowitz-Katz wrote.

    "Moreover, about 25% of the entire group of patients who were recruited
    for this supposedly prospective randomized trial appear to have been hospitalized before the study even started, which is either a mind-
    boggling breach of ethics or a very bad sign of potential fraud," he
    continued.

    Elgazzar did not respond to a MedPage Today request for comment.

    There are multiple ongoing phase III randomized controlled trials that
    will likely provide more definitive results on ivermectin, including
    Boulware's study and the U.K.'s PRINCIPLE outpatient trial that is aiming
    to enroll about 1,500 patients in its ivermectin arm.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Weber@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 9 15:59:15 2021
    XPost: alt.survival, rec.arts.tv, alt.politics
    XPost: alt.checkmate, alt.atheism, alt.rush-limbaugh
    XPost: alt.baldspot, talk.politics.guns, alt.abortion
    XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.journalism.criticism XPost: alt.news-media

    "Miracle Drug" Ivermectin Only Works On Trump Loyalists


    Large Ivermectin Study Retracted
    — Preprint publisher finds evidence of plagiarism, problems with raw data

    by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting,
    MedPage Today July 20, 2021
    share to facebook
    share to twitter
    share to linkedin
    email article
    A box of ivermectin tablets.

    A large Egyptian study of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients has been
    retracted over concerns of plagiarism and serious problems with their raw
    data, the publisher confirmed to MedPage Today.

    Michele Avissar-Whiting, PhD, editor-in-chief of the preprint server
    Research Square, said in an emailed statement that the study was withdrawn
    on July 14 "because we were presented with evidence of both plagiarism and anomalies in the dataset associated with the study, neither of which could reasonably be addressed by the author issuing a revised version of the
    paper."

    Avissar-Whiting noted that the concerns were first raised by Jack
    Lawrence, a British medical student, according to The Guardian.

    "Based on what Jack found, we have reason to believe the preprint's
    conclusions are compromised, so the withdrawal was done to stop its
    propagation as sound science," she said. "This is the strategy employed by
    a number of preprint servers, per best practice guidance."

    The study was one of the largest ivermectin trials in the world, and has
    been included in two recent meta-analyses (Bryant et al. and Hill et al.)
    that received much attention for their positive results -- particularly
    the Hill review, which had been anticipated by a U.S. group that has long promoted ivermectin.

    Some have questioned whether the positive conclusions of those meta-
    analyses would still stand when the Egyptian study is removed.

    David Boulware, MD, MPH, of the University of Minnesota, told MedPage
    Today that the 400-patient Egyptian trial -- from Ahmed Elgazzar, MD, of
    Benha University, and colleagues -- was the largest study included in the
    Hill review and accounted for 20% of the total data.

    Lead author Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool in England,
    said in an email to MedPage Today that his team will be "re-running our analysis with the Elgazzar trial removed."

    Hill added that his team will also include a recently published 500-
    patient randomized controlled trial from Argentina, published in BMC
    Infectious Diseases, which found no effect for ivermectin in terms of preventing hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. It also found that
    those who received ivermectin required invasive ventilation sooner than
    those on placebo.

    "In our published paper, we emphasized the preliminary nature of our
    results and the need to continue more definitive studies," Hill noted in
    the email.

    Boulware echoed Hill's comments: "One problem with meta-analyses is that
    it is dependent on the underlying data," he tweeted. "Phase 3 double-blind randomized clinical trials are needed to provide definitive data."
    (Boulware is currently conducting a COVID-19 outpatient trial, randomizing patients to ivermectin, fluvoxamine, metformin [or a combination of two of those], or standard care within 3 days of diagnosis.)

    Though the Elgazzar study is no longer available online, other
    publications have cited its main findings: Hospitalized patients with
    COVID-19 who were treated with ivermectin were 90% less likely to die than those who didn't receive the drug.

    That conclusion started to fall apart when Lawrence took on a medical
    school assignment that had him look deeper into the paper. First, he found evidence of plagiarism, with entire paragraphs lifted from press releases
    and websites, according to The Guardian.

    Lawrence also found that the raw data, which are available online for
    purchase, contradicted the study on several occasions. Gideon Meyerowitz-
    Katz, an epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong in Australia,
    also highlighted some of those discrepancies in a Medium post.

    "For example, the study reports getting ethical approval and beginning on
    the 8th of June, 2020, but in the data file uploaded by the authors onto
    the website of the preprint fully 1/3 of the people who died from COVID-19
    were already dead when the researchers started to recruit their
    patients," Meyerowitz-Katz wrote.

    "Moreover, about 25% of the entire group of patients who were recruited
    for this supposedly prospective randomized trial appear to have been hospitalized before the study even started, which is either a mind-
    boggling breach of ethics or a very bad sign of potential fraud," he
    continued.

    Elgazzar did not respond to a MedPage Today request for comment.

    There are multiple ongoing phase III randomized controlled trials that
    will likely provide more definitive results on ivermectin, including
    Boulware's study and the U.K.'s PRINCIPLE outpatient trial that is aiming
    to enroll about 1,500 patients in its ivermectin arm.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Weber@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 3 22:36:12 2021
    XPost: alt.survival, rec.arts.tv, alt.politics
    XPost: alt.checkmate, alt.atheism, alt.rush-limbaugh
    XPost: alt.baldspot, talk.politics.guns, alt.abortion
    XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.journalism.criticism XPost: alt.news-media

    "Miracle Drug" Ivermectin Only Works On Trump Loyalists


    Large Ivermectin Study Retracted
    — Preprint publisher finds evidence of plagiarism, problems with raw data

    by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting,
    MedPage Today July 20, 2021
    share to facebook
    share to twitter
    share to linkedin
    email article
    A box of ivermectin tablets.

    A large Egyptian study of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients has been
    retracted over concerns of plagiarism and serious problems with their raw
    data, the publisher confirmed to MedPage Today.

    Michele Avissar-Whiting, PhD, editor-in-chief of the preprint server
    Research Square, said in an emailed statement that the study was withdrawn
    on July 14 "because we were presented with evidence of both plagiarism and anomalies in the dataset associated with the study, neither of which could reasonably be addressed by the author issuing a revised version of the
    paper."

    Avissar-Whiting noted that the concerns were first raised by Jack
    Lawrence, a British medical student, according to The Guardian.

    "Based on what Jack found, we have reason to believe the preprint's
    conclusions are compromised, so the withdrawal was done to stop its
    propagation as sound science," she said. "This is the strategy employed by
    a number of preprint servers, per best practice guidance."

    The study was one of the largest ivermectin trials in the world, and has
    been included in two recent meta-analyses (Bryant et al. and Hill et al.)
    that received much attention for their positive results -- particularly
    the Hill review, which had been anticipated by a U.S. group that has long promoted ivermectin.

    Some have questioned whether the positive conclusions of those meta-
    analyses would still stand when the Egyptian study is removed.

    David Boulware, MD, MPH, of the University of Minnesota, told MedPage
    Today that the 400-patient Egyptian trial -- from Ahmed Elgazzar, MD, of
    Benha University, and colleagues -- was the largest study included in the
    Hill review and accounted for 20% of the total data.

    Lead author Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool in England,
    said in an email to MedPage Today that his team will be "re-running our analysis with the Elgazzar trial removed."

    Hill added that his team will also include a recently published 500-
    patient randomized controlled trial from Argentina, published in BMC
    Infectious Diseases, which found no effect for ivermectin in terms of preventing hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. It also found that
    those who received ivermectin required invasive ventilation sooner than
    those on placebo.

    "In our published paper, we emphasized the preliminary nature of our
    results and the need to continue more definitive studies," Hill noted in
    the email.

    Boulware echoed Hill's comments: "One problem with meta-analyses is that
    it is dependent on the underlying data," he tweeted. "Phase 3 double-blind randomized clinical trials are needed to provide definitive data."
    (Boulware is currently conducting a COVID-19 outpatient trial, randomizing patients to ivermectin, fluvoxamine, metformin [or a combination of two of those], or standard care within 3 days of diagnosis.)

    Though the Elgazzar study is no longer available online, other
    publications have cited its main findings: Hospitalized patients with
    COVID-19 who were treated with ivermectin were 90% less likely to die than those who didn't receive the drug.

    That conclusion started to fall apart when Lawrence took on a medical
    school assignment that had him look deeper into the paper. First, he found evidence of plagiarism, with entire paragraphs lifted from press releases
    and websites, according to The Guardian.

    Lawrence also found that the raw data, which are available online for
    purchase, contradicted the study on several occasions. Gideon Meyerowitz-
    Katz, an epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong in Australia,
    also highlighted some of those discrepancies in a Medium post.

    "For example, the study reports getting ethical approval and beginning on
    the 8th of June, 2020, but in the data file uploaded by the authors onto
    the website of the preprint fully 1/3 of the people who died from COVID-19
    were already dead when the researchers started to recruit their
    patients," Meyerowitz-Katz wrote.

    "Moreover, about 25% of the entire group of patients who were recruited
    for this supposedly prospective randomized trial appear to have been hospitalized before the study even started, which is either a mind-
    boggling breach of ethics or a very bad sign of potential fraud," he
    continued.

    Elgazzar did not respond to a MedPage Today request for comment.

    There are multiple ongoing phase III randomized controlled trials that
    will likely provide more definitive results on ivermectin, including
    Boulware's study and the U.K.'s PRINCIPLE outpatient trial that is aiming
    to enroll about 1,500 patients in its ivermectin arm.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Weber@21:1/5 to All on Tue Dec 7 21:27:03 2021
    XPost: alt.survival, rec.arts.tv, alt.politics
    XPost: alt.checkmate, alt.atheism, alt.rush-limbaugh
    XPost: alt.baldspot, talk.politics.guns, alt.abortion
    XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.journalism.criticism XPost: alt.news-media

    "Miracle Drug" Ivermectin Only Works On Trump Loyalists


    Large Ivermectin Study Retracted
    — Preprint publisher finds evidence of plagiarism, problems with raw data

    by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting,
    MedPage Today July 20, 2021
    share to facebook
    share to twitter
    share to linkedin
    email article
    A box of ivermectin tablets.

    A large Egyptian study of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients has been
    retracted over concerns of plagiarism and serious problems with their raw
    data, the publisher confirmed to MedPage Today.

    Michele Avissar-Whiting, PhD, editor-in-chief of the preprint server
    Research Square, said in an emailed statement that the study was withdrawn
    on July 14 "because we were presented with evidence of both plagiarism and anomalies in the dataset associated with the study, neither of which could reasonably be addressed by the author issuing a revised version of the
    paper."

    Avissar-Whiting noted that the concerns were first raised by Jack
    Lawrence, a British medical student, according to The Guardian.

    "Based on what Jack found, we have reason to believe the preprint's
    conclusions are compromised, so the withdrawal was done to stop its
    propagation as sound science," she said. "This is the strategy employed by
    a number of preprint servers, per best practice guidance."

    The study was one of the largest ivermectin trials in the world, and has
    been included in two recent meta-analyses (Bryant et al. and Hill et al.)
    that received much attention for their positive results -- particularly
    the Hill review, which had been anticipated by a U.S. group that has long promoted ivermectin.

    Some have questioned whether the positive conclusions of those meta-
    analyses would still stand when the Egyptian study is removed.

    David Boulware, MD, MPH, of the University of Minnesota, told MedPage
    Today that the 400-patient Egyptian trial -- from Ahmed Elgazzar, MD, of
    Benha University, and colleagues -- was the largest study included in the
    Hill review and accounted for 20% of the total data.

    Lead author Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool in England,
    said in an email to MedPage Today that his team will be "re-running our analysis with the Elgazzar trial removed."

    Hill added that his team will also include a recently published 500-
    patient randomized controlled trial from Argentina, published in BMC
    Infectious Diseases, which found no effect for ivermectin in terms of preventing hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. It also found that
    those who received ivermectin required invasive ventilation sooner than
    those on placebo.

    "In our published paper, we emphasized the preliminary nature of our
    results and the need to continue more definitive studies," Hill noted in
    the email.

    Boulware echoed Hill's comments: "One problem with meta-analyses is that
    it is dependent on the underlying data," he tweeted. "Phase 3 double-blind randomized clinical trials are needed to provide definitive data."
    (Boulware is currently conducting a COVID-19 outpatient trial, randomizing patients to ivermectin, fluvoxamine, metformin [or a combination of two of those], or standard care within 3 days of diagnosis.)

    Though the Elgazzar study is no longer available online, other
    publications have cited its main findings: Hospitalized patients with
    COVID-19 who were treated with ivermectin were 90% less likely to die than those who didn't receive the drug.

    That conclusion started to fall apart when Lawrence took on a medical
    school assignment that had him look deeper into the paper. First, he found evidence of plagiarism, with entire paragraphs lifted from press releases
    and websites, according to The Guardian.

    Lawrence also found that the raw data, which are available online for
    purchase, contradicted the study on several occasions. Gideon Meyerowitz-
    Katz, an epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong in Australia,
    also highlighted some of those discrepancies in a Medium post.

    "For example, the study reports getting ethical approval and beginning on
    the 8th of June, 2020, but in the data file uploaded by the authors onto
    the website of the preprint fully 1/3 of the people who died from COVID-19
    were already dead when the researchers started to recruit their
    patients," Meyerowitz-Katz wrote.

    "Moreover, about 25% of the entire group of patients who were recruited
    for this supposedly prospective randomized trial appear to have been hospitalized before the study even started, which is either a mind-
    boggling breach of ethics or a very bad sign of potential fraud," he
    continued.

    Elgazzar did not respond to a MedPage Today request for comment.

    There are multiple ongoing phase III randomized controlled trials that
    will likely provide more definitive results on ivermectin, including
    Boulware's study and the U.K.'s PRINCIPLE outpatient trial that is aiming
    to enroll about 1,500 patients in its ivermectin arm.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Weber@21:1/5 to All on Tue Dec 7 22:42:08 2021
    XPost: alt.survival, rec.arts.tv, alt.politics
    XPost: alt.checkmate, alt.atheism, alt.rush-limbaugh
    XPost: alt.baldspot, talk.politics.guns, alt.abortion
    XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.journalism.criticism XPost: alt.news-media

    "Miracle Drug" Ivermectin Only Works On Trump Loyalists


    Large Ivermectin Study Retracted
    — Preprint publisher finds evidence of plagiarism, problems with raw data

    by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting,
    MedPage Today July 20, 2021
    share to facebook
    share to twitter
    share to linkedin
    email article
    A box of ivermectin tablets.

    A large Egyptian study of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients has been
    retracted over concerns of plagiarism and serious problems with their raw
    data, the publisher confirmed to MedPage Today.

    Michele Avissar-Whiting, PhD, editor-in-chief of the preprint server
    Research Square, said in an emailed statement that the study was withdrawn
    on July 14 "because we were presented with evidence of both plagiarism and anomalies in the dataset associated with the study, neither of which could reasonably be addressed by the author issuing a revised version of the
    paper."

    Avissar-Whiting noted that the concerns were first raised by Jack
    Lawrence, a British medical student, according to The Guardian.

    "Based on what Jack found, we have reason to believe the preprint's
    conclusions are compromised, so the withdrawal was done to stop its
    propagation as sound science," she said. "This is the strategy employed by
    a number of preprint servers, per best practice guidance."

    The study was one of the largest ivermectin trials in the world, and has
    been included in two recent meta-analyses (Bryant et al. and Hill et al.)
    that received much attention for their positive results -- particularly
    the Hill review, which had been anticipated by a U.S. group that has long promoted ivermectin.

    Some have questioned whether the positive conclusions of those meta-
    analyses would still stand when the Egyptian study is removed.

    David Boulware, MD, MPH, of the University of Minnesota, told MedPage
    Today that the 400-patient Egyptian trial -- from Ahmed Elgazzar, MD, of
    Benha University, and colleagues -- was the largest study included in the
    Hill review and accounted for 20% of the total data.

    Lead author Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool in England,
    said in an email to MedPage Today that his team will be "re-running our analysis with the Elgazzar trial removed."

    Hill added that his team will also include a recently published 500-
    patient randomized controlled trial from Argentina, published in BMC
    Infectious Diseases, which found no effect for ivermectin in terms of preventing hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. It also found that
    those who received ivermectin required invasive ventilation sooner than
    those on placebo.

    "In our published paper, we emphasized the preliminary nature of our
    results and the need to continue more definitive studies," Hill noted in
    the email.

    Boulware echoed Hill's comments: "One problem with meta-analyses is that
    it is dependent on the underlying data," he tweeted. "Phase 3 double-blind randomized clinical trials are needed to provide definitive data."
    (Boulware is currently conducting a COVID-19 outpatient trial, randomizing patients to ivermectin, fluvoxamine, metformin [or a combination of two of those], or standard care within 3 days of diagnosis.)

    Though the Elgazzar study is no longer available online, other
    publications have cited its main findings: Hospitalized patients with
    COVID-19 who were treated with ivermectin were 90% less likely to die than those who didn't receive the drug.

    That conclusion started to fall apart when Lawrence took on a medical
    school assignment that had him look deeper into the paper. First, he found evidence of plagiarism, with entire paragraphs lifted from press releases
    and websites, according to The Guardian.

    Lawrence also found that the raw data, which are available online for
    purchase, contradicted the study on several occasions. Gideon Meyerowitz-
    Katz, an epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong in Australia,
    also highlighted some of those discrepancies in a Medium post.

    "For example, the study reports getting ethical approval and beginning on
    the 8th of June, 2020, but in the data file uploaded by the authors onto
    the website of the preprint fully 1/3 of the people who died from COVID-19
    were already dead when the researchers started to recruit their
    patients," Meyerowitz-Katz wrote.

    "Moreover, about 25% of the entire group of patients who were recruited
    for this supposedly prospective randomized trial appear to have been hospitalized before the study even started, which is either a mind-
    boggling breach of ethics or a very bad sign of potential fraud," he
    continued.

    Elgazzar did not respond to a MedPage Today request for comment.

    There are multiple ongoing phase III randomized controlled trials that
    will likely provide more definitive results on ivermectin, including
    Boulware's study and the U.K.'s PRINCIPLE outpatient trial that is aiming
    to enroll about 1,500 patients in its ivermectin arm.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Weber@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 11 21:42:29 2022
    XPost: alt.survival, rec.arts.tv, alt.politics
    XPost: alt.checkmate, alt.atheism, alt.rush-limbaugh
    XPost: alt.baldspot, talk.politics.guns, alt.abortion
    XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.journalism.criticism XPost: alt.news-media

    "Miracle Drug" Ivermectin Only Works On Trump Loyalists


    Large Ivermectin Study Retracted
    — Preprint publisher finds evidence of plagiarism, problems with raw data

    by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting,
    MedPage Today July 20, 2021
    share to facebook
    share to twitter
    share to linkedin
    email article
    A box of ivermectin tablets.

    A large Egyptian study of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients has been
    retracted over concerns of plagiarism and serious problems with their raw
    data, the publisher confirmed to MedPage Today.

    Michele Avissar-Whiting, PhD, editor-in-chief of the preprint server
    Research Square, said in an emailed statement that the study was withdrawn
    on July 14 "because we were presented with evidence of both plagiarism and anomalies in the dataset associated with the study, neither of which could reasonably be addressed by the author issuing a revised version of the
    paper."

    Avissar-Whiting noted that the concerns were first raised by Jack
    Lawrence, a British medical student, according to The Guardian.

    "Based on what Jack found, we have reason to believe the preprint's
    conclusions are compromised, so the withdrawal was done to stop its
    propagation as sound science," she said. "This is the strategy employed by
    a number of preprint servers, per best practice guidance."

    The study was one of the largest ivermectin trials in the world, and has
    been included in two recent meta-analyses (Bryant et al. and Hill et al.)
    that received much attention for their positive results -- particularly
    the Hill review, which had been anticipated by a U.S. group that has long promoted ivermectin.

    Some have questioned whether the positive conclusions of those meta-
    analyses would still stand when the Egyptian study is removed.

    David Boulware, MD, MPH, of the University of Minnesota, told MedPage
    Today that the 400-patient Egyptian trial -- from Ahmed Elgazzar, MD, of
    Benha University, and colleagues -- was the largest study included in the
    Hill review and accounted for 20% of the total data.

    Lead author Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool in England,
    said in an email to MedPage Today that his team will be "re-running our analysis with the Elgazzar trial removed."

    Hill added that his team will also include a recently published 500-
    patient randomized controlled trial from Argentina, published in BMC
    Infectious Diseases, which found no effect for ivermectin in terms of preventing hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. It also found that
    those who received ivermectin required invasive ventilation sooner than
    those on placebo.

    "In our published paper, we emphasized the preliminary nature of our
    results and the need to continue more definitive studies," Hill noted in
    the email.

    Boulware echoed Hill's comments: "One problem with meta-analyses is that
    it is dependent on the underlying data," he tweeted. "Phase 3 double-blind randomized clinical trials are needed to provide definitive data."
    (Boulware is currently conducting a COVID-19 outpatient trial, randomizing patients to ivermectin, fluvoxamine, metformin [or a combination of two of those], or standard care within 3 days of diagnosis.)

    Though the Elgazzar study is no longer available online, other
    publications have cited its main findings: Hospitalized patients with
    COVID-19 who were treated with ivermectin were 90% less likely to die than those who didn't receive the drug.

    That conclusion started to fall apart when Lawrence took on a medical
    school assignment that had him look deeper into the paper. First, he found evidence of plagiarism, with entire paragraphs lifted from press releases
    and websites, according to The Guardian.

    Lawrence also found that the raw data, which are available online for
    purchase, contradicted the study on several occasions. Gideon Meyerowitz-
    Katz, an epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong in Australia,
    also highlighted some of those discrepancies in a Medium post.

    "For example, the study reports getting ethical approval and beginning on
    the 8th of June, 2020, but in the data file uploaded by the authors onto
    the website of the preprint fully 1/3 of the people who died from COVID-19
    were already dead when the researchers started to recruit their
    patients," Meyerowitz-Katz wrote.

    "Moreover, about 25% of the entire group of patients who were recruited
    for this supposedly prospective randomized trial appear to have been hospitalized before the study even started, which is either a mind-
    boggling breach of ethics or a very bad sign of potential fraud," he
    continued.

    Elgazzar did not respond to a MedPage Today request for comment.

    There are multiple ongoing phase III randomized controlled trials that
    will likely provide more definitive results on ivermectin, including
    Boulware's study and the U.K.'s PRINCIPLE outpatient trial that is aiming
    to enroll about 1,500 patients in its ivermectin arm.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Weber@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 12 23:30:28 2022
    XPost: alt.survival, rec.arts.tv, alt.politics
    XPost: alt.checkmate, alt.atheism, alt.rush-limbaugh
    XPost: alt.baldspot, talk.politics.guns, alt.abortion
    XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.journalism.criticism XPost: alt.news-media

    "Miracle Drug" Ivermectin Only Works On Trump Loyalists


    Large Ivermectin Study Retracted
    — Preprint publisher finds evidence of plagiarism, problems with raw data

    by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting,
    MedPage Today July 20, 2021
    share to facebook
    share to twitter
    share to linkedin
    email article
    A box of ivermectin tablets.

    A large Egyptian study of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients has been
    retracted over concerns of plagiarism and serious problems with their raw
    data, the publisher confirmed to MedPage Today.

    Michele Avissar-Whiting, PhD, editor-in-chief of the preprint server
    Research Square, said in an emailed statement that the study was withdrawn
    on July 14 "because we were presented with evidence of both plagiarism and anomalies in the dataset associated with the study, neither of which could reasonably be addressed by the author issuing a revised version of the
    paper."

    Avissar-Whiting noted that the concerns were first raised by Jack
    Lawrence, a British medical student, according to The Guardian.

    "Based on what Jack found, we have reason to believe the preprint's
    conclusions are compromised, so the withdrawal was done to stop its
    propagation as sound science," she said. "This is the strategy employed by
    a number of preprint servers, per best practice guidance."

    The study was one of the largest ivermectin trials in the world, and has
    been included in two recent meta-analyses (Bryant et al. and Hill et al.)
    that received much attention for their positive results -- particularly
    the Hill review, which had been anticipated by a U.S. group that has long promoted ivermectin.

    Some have questioned whether the positive conclusions of those meta-
    analyses would still stand when the Egyptian study is removed.

    David Boulware, MD, MPH, of the University of Minnesota, told MedPage
    Today that the 400-patient Egyptian trial -- from Ahmed Elgazzar, MD, of
    Benha University, and colleagues -- was the largest study included in the
    Hill review and accounted for 20% of the total data.

    Lead author Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool in England,
    said in an email to MedPage Today that his team will be "re-running our analysis with the Elgazzar trial removed."

    Hill added that his team will also include a recently published 500-
    patient randomized controlled trial from Argentina, published in BMC
    Infectious Diseases, which found no effect for ivermectin in terms of preventing hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. It also found that
    those who received ivermectin required invasive ventilation sooner than
    those on placebo.

    "In our published paper, we emphasized the preliminary nature of our
    results and the need to continue more definitive studies," Hill noted in
    the email.

    Boulware echoed Hill's comments: "One problem with meta-analyses is that
    it is dependent on the underlying data," he tweeted. "Phase 3 double-blind randomized clinical trials are needed to provide definitive data."
    (Boulware is currently conducting a COVID-19 outpatient trial, randomizing patients to ivermectin, fluvoxamine, metformin [or a combination of two of those], or standard care within 3 days of diagnosis.)

    Though the Elgazzar study is no longer available online, other
    publications have cited its main findings: Hospitalized patients with
    COVID-19 who were treated with ivermectin were 90% less likely to die than those who didn't receive the drug.

    That conclusion started to fall apart when Lawrence took on a medical
    school assignment that had him look deeper into the paper. First, he found evidence of plagiarism, with entire paragraphs lifted from press releases
    and websites, according to The Guardian.

    Lawrence also found that the raw data, which are available online for
    purchase, contradicted the study on several occasions. Gideon Meyerowitz-
    Katz, an epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong in Australia,
    also highlighted some of those discrepancies in a Medium post.

    "For example, the study reports getting ethical approval and beginning on
    the 8th of June, 2020, but in the data file uploaded by the authors onto
    the website of the preprint fully 1/3 of the people who died from COVID-19
    were already dead when the researchers started to recruit their
    patients," Meyerowitz-Katz wrote.

    "Moreover, about 25% of the entire group of patients who were recruited
    for this supposedly prospective randomized trial appear to have been hospitalized before the study even started, which is either a mind-
    boggling breach of ethics or a very bad sign of potential fraud," he
    continued.

    Elgazzar did not respond to a MedPage Today request for comment.

    There are multiple ongoing phase III randomized controlled trials that
    will likely provide more definitive results on ivermectin, including
    Boulware's study and the U.K.'s PRINCIPLE outpatient trial that is aiming
    to enroll about 1,500 patients in its ivermectin arm.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Weber@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jan 23 03:34:29 2022
    XPost: alt.survival, rec.arts.tv, alt.politics
    XPost: alt.checkmate, alt.atheism, alt.rush-limbaugh
    XPost: alt.baldspot, talk.politics.guns, alt.abortion
    XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.journalism.criticism XPost: alt.news-media

    "Miracle Drug" Ivermectin Only Works On Trump Loyalists


    Large Ivermectin Study Retracted
    — Preprint publisher finds evidence of plagiarism, problems with raw data

    by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting,
    MedPage Today July 20, 2021
    share to facebook
    share to twitter
    share to linkedin
    email article
    A box of ivermectin tablets.

    A large Egyptian study of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients has been
    retracted over concerns of plagiarism and serious problems with their raw
    data, the publisher confirmed to MedPage Today.

    Michele Avissar-Whiting, PhD, editor-in-chief of the preprint server
    Research Square, said in an emailed statement that the study was withdrawn
    on July 14 "because we were presented with evidence of both plagiarism and anomalies in the dataset associated with the study, neither of which could reasonably be addressed by the author issuing a revised version of the
    paper."

    Avissar-Whiting noted that the concerns were first raised by Jack
    Lawrence, a British medical student, according to The Guardian.

    "Based on what Jack found, we have reason to believe the preprint's
    conclusions are compromised, so the withdrawal was done to stop its
    propagation as sound science," she said. "This is the strategy employed by
    a number of preprint servers, per best practice guidance."

    The study was one of the largest ivermectin trials in the world, and has
    been included in two recent meta-analyses (Bryant et al. and Hill et al.)
    that received much attention for their positive results -- particularly
    the Hill review, which had been anticipated by a U.S. group that has long promoted ivermectin.

    Some have questioned whether the positive conclusions of those meta-
    analyses would still stand when the Egyptian study is removed.

    David Boulware, MD, MPH, of the University of Minnesota, told MedPage
    Today that the 400-patient Egyptian trial -- from Ahmed Elgazzar, MD, of
    Benha University, and colleagues -- was the largest study included in the
    Hill review and accounted for 20% of the total data.

    Lead author Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool in England,
    said in an email to MedPage Today that his team will be "re-running our analysis with the Elgazzar trial removed."

    Hill added that his team will also include a recently published 500-
    patient randomized controlled trial from Argentina, published in BMC
    Infectious Diseases, which found no effect for ivermectin in terms of preventing hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. It also found that
    those who received ivermectin required invasive ventilation sooner than
    those on placebo.

    "In our published paper, we emphasized the preliminary nature of our
    results and the need to continue more definitive studies," Hill noted in
    the email.

    Boulware echoed Hill's comments: "One problem with meta-analyses is that
    it is dependent on the underlying data," he tweeted. "Phase 3 double-blind randomized clinical trials are needed to provide definitive data."
    (Boulware is currently conducting a COVID-19 outpatient trial, randomizing patients to ivermectin, fluvoxamine, metformin [or a combination of two of those], or standard care within 3 days of diagnosis.)

    Though the Elgazzar study is no longer available online, other
    publications have cited its main findings: Hospitalized patients with
    COVID-19 who were treated with ivermectin were 90% less likely to die than those who didn't receive the drug.

    That conclusion started to fall apart when Lawrence took on a medical
    school assignment that had him look deeper into the paper. First, he found evidence of plagiarism, with entire paragraphs lifted from press releases
    and websites, according to The Guardian.

    Lawrence also found that the raw data, which are available online for
    purchase, contradicted the study on several occasions. Gideon Meyerowitz-
    Katz, an epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong in Australia,
    also highlighted some of those discrepancies in a Medium post.

    "For example, the study reports getting ethical approval and beginning on
    the 8th of June, 2020, but in the data file uploaded by the authors onto
    the website of the preprint fully 1/3 of the people who died from COVID-19
    were already dead when the researchers started to recruit their
    patients," Meyerowitz-Katz wrote.

    "Moreover, about 25% of the entire group of patients who were recruited
    for this supposedly prospective randomized trial appear to have been hospitalized before the study even started, which is either a mind-
    boggling breach of ethics or a very bad sign of potential fraud," he
    continued.

    Elgazzar did not respond to a MedPage Today request for comment.

    There are multiple ongoing phase III randomized controlled trials that
    will likely provide more definitive results on ivermectin, including
    Boulware's study and the U.K.'s PRINCIPLE outpatient trial that is aiming
    to enroll about 1,500 patients in its ivermectin arm.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Weber@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 28 02:08:53 2022
    XPost: alt.survival, rec.arts.tv, alt.politics
    XPost: alt.checkmate, alt.atheism, alt.rush-limbaugh
    XPost: alt.baldspot, talk.politics.guns, alt.abortion
    XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.journalism.criticism XPost: alt.news-media

    "Miracle Drug" Ivermectin Only Works On Trump Loyalists


    Large Ivermectin Study Retracted
    — Preprint publisher finds evidence of plagiarism, problems with raw data

    by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting,
    MedPage Today July 20, 2021
    share to facebook
    share to twitter
    share to linkedin
    email article
    A box of ivermectin tablets.

    A large Egyptian study of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients has been
    retracted over concerns of plagiarism and serious problems with their raw
    data, the publisher confirmed to MedPage Today.

    Michele Avissar-Whiting, PhD, editor-in-chief of the preprint server
    Research Square, said in an emailed statement that the study was withdrawn
    on July 14 "because we were presented with evidence of both plagiarism and anomalies in the dataset associated with the study, neither of which could reasonably be addressed by the author issuing a revised version of the
    paper."

    Avissar-Whiting noted that the concerns were first raised by Jack
    Lawrence, a British medical student, according to The Guardian.

    "Based on what Jack found, we have reason to believe the preprint's
    conclusions are compromised, so the withdrawal was done to stop its
    propagation as sound science," she said. "This is the strategy employed by
    a number of preprint servers, per best practice guidance."

    The study was one of the largest ivermectin trials in the world, and has
    been included in two recent meta-analyses (Bryant et al. and Hill et al.)
    that received much attention for their positive results -- particularly
    the Hill review, which had been anticipated by a U.S. group that has long promoted ivermectin.

    Some have questioned whether the positive conclusions of those meta-
    analyses would still stand when the Egyptian study is removed.

    David Boulware, MD, MPH, of the University of Minnesota, told MedPage
    Today that the 400-patient Egyptian trial -- from Ahmed Elgazzar, MD, of
    Benha University, and colleagues -- was the largest study included in the
    Hill review and accounted for 20% of the total data.

    Lead author Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool in England,
    said in an email to MedPage Today that his team will be "re-running our analysis with the Elgazzar trial removed."

    Hill added that his team will also include a recently published 500-
    patient randomized controlled trial from Argentina, published in BMC
    Infectious Diseases, which found no effect for ivermectin in terms of preventing hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. It also found that
    those who received ivermectin required invasive ventilation sooner than
    those on placebo.

    "In our published paper, we emphasized the preliminary nature of our
    results and the need to continue more definitive studies," Hill noted in
    the email.

    Boulware echoed Hill's comments: "One problem with meta-analyses is that
    it is dependent on the underlying data," he tweeted. "Phase 3 double-blind randomized clinical trials are needed to provide definitive data."
    (Boulware is currently conducting a COVID-19 outpatient trial, randomizing patients to ivermectin, fluvoxamine, metformin [or a combination of two of those], or standard care within 3 days of diagnosis.)

    Though the Elgazzar study is no longer available online, other
    publications have cited its main findings: Hospitalized patients with
    COVID-19 who were treated with ivermectin were 90% less likely to die than those who didn't receive the drug.

    That conclusion started to fall apart when Lawrence took on a medical
    school assignment that had him look deeper into the paper. First, he found evidence of plagiarism, with entire paragraphs lifted from press releases
    and websites, according to The Guardian.

    Lawrence also found that the raw data, which are available online for
    purchase, contradicted the study on several occasions. Gideon Meyerowitz-
    Katz, an epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong in Australia,
    also highlighted some of those discrepancies in a Medium post.

    "For example, the study reports getting ethical approval and beginning on
    the 8th of June, 2020, but in the data file uploaded by the authors onto
    the website of the preprint fully 1/3 of the people who died from COVID-19
    were already dead when the researchers started to recruit their
    patients," Meyerowitz-Katz wrote.

    "Moreover, about 25% of the entire group of patients who were recruited
    for this supposedly prospective randomized trial appear to have been hospitalized before the study even started, which is either a mind-
    boggling breach of ethics or a very bad sign of potential fraud," he
    continued.

    Elgazzar did not respond to a MedPage Today request for comment.

    There are multiple ongoing phase III randomized controlled trials that
    will likely provide more definitive results on ivermectin, including
    Boulware's study and the U.K.'s PRINCIPLE outpatient trial that is aiming
    to enroll about 1,500 patients in its ivermectin arm.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Weber@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 10 21:41:08 2022
    XPost: alt.survival, rec.arts.tv, alt.politics
    XPost: alt.checkmate, alt.atheism, alt.rush-limbaugh
    XPost: alt.baldspot, talk.politics.guns, alt.abortion
    XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.journalism.criticism XPost: alt.news-media

    "Miracle Drug" Ivermectin Only Works On Trump Loyalists


    Large Ivermectin Study Retracted
    — Preprint publisher finds evidence of plagiarism, problems with raw data

    by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting,
    MedPage Today July 20, 2021
    share to facebook
    share to twitter
    share to linkedin
    email article
    A box of ivermectin tablets.

    A large Egyptian study of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients has been
    retracted over concerns of plagiarism and serious problems with their raw
    data, the publisher confirmed to MedPage Today.

    Michele Avissar-Whiting, PhD, editor-in-chief of the preprint server
    Research Square, said in an emailed statement that the study was withdrawn
    on July 14 "because we were presented with evidence of both plagiarism and anomalies in the dataset associated with the study, neither of which could reasonably be addressed by the author issuing a revised version of the
    paper."

    Avissar-Whiting noted that the concerns were first raised by Jack
    Lawrence, a British medical student, according to The Guardian.

    "Based on what Jack found, we have reason to believe the preprint's
    conclusions are compromised, so the withdrawal was done to stop its
    propagation as sound science," she said. "This is the strategy employed by
    a number of preprint servers, per best practice guidance."

    The study was one of the largest ivermectin trials in the world, and has
    been included in two recent meta-analyses (Bryant et al. and Hill et al.)
    that received much attention for their positive results -- particularly
    the Hill review, which had been anticipated by a U.S. group that has long promoted ivermectin.

    Some have questioned whether the positive conclusions of those meta-
    analyses would still stand when the Egyptian study is removed.

    David Boulware, MD, MPH, of the University of Minnesota, told MedPage
    Today that the 400-patient Egyptian trial -- from Ahmed Elgazzar, MD, of
    Benha University, and colleagues -- was the largest study included in the
    Hill review and accounted for 20% of the total data.

    Lead author Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool in England,
    said in an email to MedPage Today that his team will be "re-running our analysis with the Elgazzar trial removed."

    Hill added that his team will also include a recently published 500-
    patient randomized controlled trial from Argentina, published in BMC
    Infectious Diseases, which found no effect for ivermectin in terms of preventing hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. It also found that
    those who received ivermectin required invasive ventilation sooner than
    those on placebo.

    "In our published paper, we emphasized the preliminary nature of our
    results and the need to continue more definitive studies," Hill noted in
    the email.

    Boulware echoed Hill's comments: "One problem with meta-analyses is that
    it is dependent on the underlying data," he tweeted. "Phase 3 double-blind randomized clinical trials are needed to provide definitive data."
    (Boulware is currently conducting a COVID-19 outpatient trial, randomizing patients to ivermectin, fluvoxamine, metformin [or a combination of two of those], or standard care within 3 days of diagnosis.)

    Though the Elgazzar study is no longer available online, other
    publications have cited its main findings: Hospitalized patients with
    COVID-19 who were treated with ivermectin were 90% less likely to die than those who didn't receive the drug.

    That conclusion started to fall apart when Lawrence took on a medical
    school assignment that had him look deeper into the paper. First, he found evidence of plagiarism, with entire paragraphs lifted from press releases
    and websites, according to The Guardian.

    Lawrence also found that the raw data, which are available online for
    purchase, contradicted the study on several occasions. Gideon Meyerowitz-
    Katz, an epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong in Australia,
    also highlighted some of those discrepancies in a Medium post.

    "For example, the study reports getting ethical approval and beginning on
    the 8th of June, 2020, but in the data file uploaded by the authors onto
    the website of the preprint fully 1/3 of the people who died from COVID-19
    were already dead when the researchers started to recruit their
    patients," Meyerowitz-Katz wrote.

    "Moreover, about 25% of the entire group of patients who were recruited
    for this supposedly prospective randomized trial appear to have been hospitalized before the study even started, which is either a mind-
    boggling breach of ethics or a very bad sign of potential fraud," he
    continued.

    Elgazzar did not respond to a MedPage Today request for comment.

    There are multiple ongoing phase III randomized controlled trials that
    will likely provide more definitive results on ivermectin, including
    Boulware's study and the U.K.'s PRINCIPLE outpatient trial that is aiming
    to enroll about 1,500 patients in its ivermectin arm.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)