Global Events & Politics Überthread

Throughout the pandemic, the anti-parasite drug ivermectin has attracted much attention, particularly in Latin America, as a potential way to treat COVID-19. But scientists say that recent, shocking revelations of widespread flaws in the data of a preprint study reporting that the medication greatly reduces COVID-19 deaths dampens ivermectin’s promise — and highlights the challenges of investigating drug efficacy during a pandemic.

“I was shocked, as everyone in the scientific community probably were,” says Eduardo López-Medina, a paediatrician at the Centre for the Study of Paediatric Infections in Cali, Colombia, who was not involved with the study and who has investigated whether ivermectin can improve COVID-19 symptoms. “It was one of the first papers that led everyone to get into the idea ivermectin worked” in a clinical-trial setting, he adds.

The paper summarized the results of a clinical trial seeming to show that ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 death rates by more than 90%1 — among the largest studies of the drug’s ability to treat COVID-19 to date. But on 14 July, after internet sleuths raised concerns about plagiarism and data manipulation, the preprint server Research Square withdrew the paper because of “ethical concerns”.

Ahmed Elgazzar at Benha University in Egypt, who is one of the authors on the paper, told Nature he was not given a chance to defend his work before it was removed.

Early in the pandemic, scientists showed that ivermectin could inhibit the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in cells in laboratory studies2. But data on ivermectin’s efficacy against COVID-19 in people are still scarce, and study conclusions conflict greatly, making the withdrawal of a major trial particularly noteworthy.

The paper’s irregularities came to light when Jack Lawrence, a master’s student at the University of London, was reading it for a class assignment and noticed that some phrases were identical to those in other published work. When he contacted researchers who specialize in detecting fraud in scientific publications, the group found other causes for concern, including dozens of patient records that seemed to be duplicates, inconsistencies between the raw data and the information in the paper, patients whose records indicate they died before the study’s start date, and numbers that seemed to be too consistent to have occurred by chance.

Before its withdrawal, the paper was viewed more than 150,000 times, cited more than 30 times and included in a number of meta-analyses that collect trial findings into a single, statistically weighted result. In one recent meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics that found ivermectin greatly reduced COVID-19 deaths4, the Elgazzar paper accounted for 15.5% of the effect.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

the Lord's work is never done

glad to see the fake data from 2021 are still a thang in certain circles

i have to say this is pathetic even by y'all's standards...but hey tap's wife has a lot of common sense (a quality that abounds in the entire family) and has researched the matter more deeply than anyone else

yes indeed Ivermectin Man has a lot of common sense...and wife of Ivermectin Man has even more common sense...color me impressed
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
Throughout the pandemic, the anti-parasite drug ivermectin has attracted much attention, particularly in Latin America, as a potential way to treat COVID-19. But scientists say that recent, shocking revelations of widespread flaws in the data of a preprint study reporting that the medication greatly reduces COVID-19 deaths dampens ivermectin’s promise — and highlights the challenges of investigating drug efficacy during a pandemic.

“I was shocked, as everyone in the scientific community probably were,” says Eduardo López-Medina, a paediatrician at the Centre for the Study of Paediatric Infections in Cali, Colombia, who was not involved with the study and who has investigated whether ivermectin can improve COVID-19 symptoms. “It was one of the first papers that led everyone to get into the idea ivermectin worked” in a clinical-trial setting, he adds.

The paper summarized the results of a clinical trial seeming to show that ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 death rates by more than 90%1 — among the largest studies of the drug’s ability to treat COVID-19 to date. But on 14 July, after internet sleuths raised concerns about plagiarism and data manipulation, the preprint server Research Square withdrew the paper because of “ethical concerns”.

Ahmed Elgazzar at Benha University in Egypt, who is one of the authors on the paper, told Nature he was not given a chance to defend his work before it was removed.

Early in the pandemic, scientists showed that ivermectin could inhibit the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in cells in laboratory studies2. But data on ivermectin’s efficacy against COVID-19 in people are still scarce, and study conclusions conflict greatly, making the withdrawal of a major trial particularly noteworthy.

The paper’s irregularities came to light when Jack Lawrence, a master’s student at the University of London, was reading it for a class assignment and noticed that some phrases were identical to those in other published work. When he contacted researchers who specialize in detecting fraud in scientific publications, the group found other causes for concern, including dozens of patient records that seemed to be duplicates, inconsistencies between the raw data and the information in the paper, patients whose records indicate they died before the study’s start date, and numbers that seemed to be too consistent to have occurred by chance.

Before its withdrawal, the paper was viewed more than 150,000 times, cited more than 30 times and included in a number of meta-analyses that collect trial findings into a single, statistically weighted result. In one recent meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics that found ivermectin greatly reduced COVID-19 deaths4, the Elgazzar paper accounted for 15.5% of the effect.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

the Lord's work is never done

glad to see the fake data from 2021 are still a thang in certain circles

i have to say this is pathetic even by your standards...but hey tap's wife has a lot of common sense (a quality that abounds in the entire family) and has researched the matter more deeply than anyone else
Click to expand...

You found one study that might not be real. Now do the other 14 in that paper and the other 60+ elsewhere. lol. I suppose all of those doctors on the frontline can't be right either.
 
Garmel said:
Is she in the medical field?
Click to expand...

Yes, Oncology Pharmacy currently with a background in clinical pharmacy for the prior 12 years.

Lot of time under the hood these days allows her to listen to tons of research and medical reviews.

There are tons of other variants of how Ivermec was used, and what dosages. An along with multiple rounds of other helpful agents it was proven to be effective.

No one has ever said to just use ivermec alone and judge efficacy.

The definition of efficacy can certainly be up for debate, but it really isn't in dispute that it helped and was much less detrimental to the patient.
 
Tapate50 said:
He has certainly unbanned himself from all of these threads all of a sudden. That ego must be burnt.
Click to expand...

btw does the wife know that you conceded multiple times on these boards that you were wrong about ivermectin...you even noted that this showed you were enough of a man to admit when you were wrong

i think you need to discuss this with her

what kind of man goes behind his wife's back admitting all that research she's been doing is nothing but junk
 
Last edited:
Tapate50 said:
He has certainly unbanned himself from all of these threads all of a sudden. That ego must be burnt.
Click to expand...

He doesn't seem to understand the same experts who were wrong on nearly everything involving Covid are also the ones attacking HCQ and Ivermectin saying they don't work. One day he might surprise us and show an ability for critical thinking.
 
Garmel said:
He doesn't seem to understand the same experts who were wrong on nearly everything involving Covid are also the ones attacking HCQ and Ivermectin saying they don't work. One day he might surprise us and show an ability for critical thinking.
Click to expand...

hope springs eternal in the spotless mind
 
striker42 said:
It depends on the sanctions. Tepid sanctions will likely damage the Russian economy but Putin will ride them out like he did in 2014. Severe sanctions (ones that cause pain both for the west and for Russia) would devastate the Russian economy.

You say Russia could just start selling to China. It's not as easy as that. Currently the infrastructure for moving Russian oil and gas is heavily directed towards Europe. If the west cut off the purchase of Russian oil and gas, it would take a huge effort to shift selling it to other countries in the quantities it sells to Europe.

Then there's the fact that China can't offer everything the west can. Western finance is hugely important. Then there are technologies that can only be supplied by the west. If those were cut off from Russia they'd struggle to keep up with the rest of the world. Also, think of the concentration of the worlds largest corporations in the west. 8 of the 10 largest companies in the world are located in western countries (including Japan in this). If the west forbid these companies from doing business in Russia it would cripple the Russian economy.

Russia is economically tied to the west. Those ties can't be quickly severed without massive damage to the Russian economy.

And if there's one area that's soft for Putin, it's money. Hitting him and his oligarchs in the wallet is where it will hurt them the most.
Click to expand...

Brillance!
 
striker42 said:
You have a lot of faith in China's ability to operate without western money flowing in. You also way overrate how committed to Russia China really is. China is an ally of Russia and will do business with them when others wont but they're not going to stick their neck out for Russia.

Just because certain technological parts or devices are manufactured in China doesn't mean that China will just turn around and sell them to Russia. These factories are in bed with western companies. They're not going to kick out the company that buys 99% of what they produce just so they can sell some to Russia. And if the company that buys all of the production from these factories doesn't sell to Russia, China doesn't care.

So much of what Russia needs to operate flows through the west. Could Russia change that? Sure, but it would take decades to get to that point.
Click to expand...

L
O
L
 
Remember how leftists were scared ****less that trump was gonna start world war 3, and are now cheering about us starting world war 3?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top