Comments by "TheFlat EarthTruth" (@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth) on "NIH and ivermectin" video.

@marianogilglz9049 Hi again Mariano, thank you for your reply. I have watched that video and nowhere did I find any suggestion that she has any qualifications or experience in virology or epidemiology so my original point stands. Dr Laurie is an expert in obstetrics and gynaecology, not viruses. Also it is very important to note that her study that she mentions (actually a meta study) was not peer reviewed nor was it published in any reliable journal. Is it not also true that there are major issues with some of the reports that she cites in her meta study? For example the paper Elgazzar A, Eltaweel A, Youssef SA, et al. Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treatment and prophylaxis of covid-19 pandemic. Res Square. 2020, was actually withdrawn in July 2021 due to issues of fabrication of data, plagiarism and also, bizarrely, it turned out that it contained data from patients who had died before the trial had actually started! Several other papers that she cites in the meta study also have been found to have major errors and flaws. In short, Laurie's meta study has been shown to be based on flawed and possibly fabricated research and is not considered reliable in any way. Take care and stay safe.
4
@marianogilglz9049 When you say that "Tess Laurie an expert in coducting (sic) these type of statistical drug evaluations," it is my understanding that she is qualified in obstetrics and gynaecology and does not have qualifications in epidemiology or virology or related fields.. Naturally, please correct me if I am wrong. Take care & stay safe.
3
@theopeterbroers819 The research paper "Three New Estimates of India’s All-Cause Excess Mortality during the COVID-19 Pandemic", Abhishek Anand , Justin Sandefur and Arvind Subramanian, Center for Global Development, July 2021, puts India's excess mortality during the pandemic at around 4 million. Take care.
2
@marianogilglz9049 H again Mariano, thank you for your reply. Why are you going off on a tangent about "big pharma"? Why not stick to the points at hand? (1) Is it not true that Dr Laurie is an expert in obstetrics and gynaecology, not viruses. and she does not has any qualifications or experience in virology or epidemiology (nor in fairness does she claim to in the video) so my original point still stands. (2) Is it not a fact that one of the papers that Laurie relies in in her meta study the paper by Elgazzar A, Eltaweel A, Youssef SA, et al. Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treatment and prophylaxis of covid-19 pandemic. Res Square. 2020, was actually withdrawn last July by the journal that published it due to issues of fabrication of data, plagiarism and also, bizarrely, it turned out that it contained data from patients who had died before the trial had actually started! (3) Is it not also true that several other papers that she cites in the meta study also have been found to have major errors and flaws including the same patient data being used multiple times for supposedly different people. Evidence that selection of patients for test groups was not random. Numbers unlikely to occur naturally/ Percentages calculated incorrectly ? (4) Isn't it also true that the largest and highest quality ivermectin study published so far is the Together trial at the McMaster University in Canada, which found no benefit whatsoever for the drug when it comes to the treatment of Covid-19? Take care & stay safe.
2
@marianogilglz9049 Hi again Mariano "you obviously are somebody paid to do so". It is regrettable that you can not have a civil discussion without resorting to fantasy. You also seem to wish wish to constantly change the topic of our discussion by introducing new material and new names. You have done this before. This discussion is not about you and me, it is about the facts. This discussion is about Therese Laurie, Ivermectin, and your assertion that she is "an expert in coducting (sic) ..drug evaluations" (1) I claim that this is incorrect as she is in fact qualified in obstetrics and gynaecology and does not have qualifications in epidemiology or virology or related fields. (2) I also state clearly that there are major issues with some of the reports that she cites in her meta study? For example the paper Elgazzar A, Eltaweel A, Youssef SA, et al. Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treatment and prophylaxis of covid-19 pandemic. Res Square. 2020, was actually withdrawn in July 2021 due to issues of fabrication of data, plagiarism and also, bizarrely, it turned out that it contained data from patients who had died before the trial had actually started! (3) Several other papers that she cites in the meta study also have been found to have major errors and flaws. In short, Laurie's meta study has been shown to be based on flawed and possibly fabricated research and is not considered reliable in any way. You have not been able to counter my above three points in any way. When you agree that the above 3 points are factual then I am more then happy to discuss further issues. Take care.
2
@peacefuljourney4994 Seriously....you can not engage in reasoned and polite debate and discussion without (attempted) rudeness?? You must be very unsure of your ground if you have to resort to that. You do realise that watching YouTube videos is not evidence or proof of anything. You have not been able to back up your claims with a single piece of evidence! I again repeat, the few studies that claim to show that Ivermectin is somehow effective in treating Covid-19 have been shown to be deeply flawed and the largest study (Ahmed Elgazzar from Benha University in Egypt) has now been withdrawn with more to follow. The Elgazzar paper was central to all meta studies that claimed positive outcomes for Ivermectin, Laurie's included. Without that paper all fall. True, Ivermectin does seem to have a lot of hype among conspiracy theorists, however it is lacking the evidence. Take care, stay safe and discuss with politeness and facts.
2
@peacefuljourney4994 Hi pj thank you for your comment. So many of the papers cited by Laurie have been shown to contain major flaws and others simply did not back up her conclusions. Are you just pushing the same work again? Can you please tell us what studies you are referring to? Otherwise I am unable to comment. Take care.
1
For example the preprint by Elgazzar et al has been withdrawn and retracted over concerns of potential scientific fraud and breach of ethical conduct. This study was the largest study by patient number included in Laurie's meta-analysis, and also had the largest drug effect. This paper was also cited in many other studies. Given the outsize effect this would have on the meta-analysis and concerns of the scientific integrity of the study then the reliability of everything after that must be called into question. I also believe that several other of the papers that she cites are facing similar issues. Take care.
1
@peacefuljourney4994 Again more rhetoric and claims but no evidence and no citations?? Try, Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19-A Randomized Clinical Trial, Eduardo López-Medina, MD, MSc1,2,3; Pío López, MD1,2; Isabel C. Hurtado, MD2,4; et al, Published 2021, which concluded "Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms. The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19," Take care and speak with truth.
1
@pathcoinfirst8936 Hi P, thank you for your reply. That is correct. The paper by Elgazzar et al has been withdrawn and retracted over concerns of potential scientific fraud and breach of ethical conduct. This study was the largest study by patient number included in Laurie's meta-analysis, and also had the largest drug effect, claiming that there was a 90% reduction in deaths in the experimental/ivermectin group This paper was also cited in many other studies. Given the outsize effect this would have on the meta-analysis and concerns of the scientific integrity of the study, then the reliability of everything after that must be called into question. I also believe that several other of the papers that she cites are facing similar issues. I quote the conclusion of Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an Australian chronic disease epidemiologist who after revewing the Elgazzar data, said, "“If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.”. Either way there are some large scale trials from very reputable organisations upcoming (Oxford University and USA) and as always I will follow the reputable and reliable evidence. Take care.
1
@somethingelse9535 By in large that is correct. Several other papers that were cited in Laurie's study are also in serious doubt. It would be truly wonderful if a treatment for Covid-19 was so simple. Unfortunately, the current robust and reliable evidence says otherwise. Large scale major studies are underway in Oxford and the US. We await the results. Take care.
1
@peacefuljourney4994 Thank you again pj. You have told me that several times without still being able to actually direct me to the evidence and reports. This time I draw your attention to "Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID‐19, Maria Popp, Miriam StegemannMaria Metzendorf, Susan Gould, Peter Kranke, Patrick Meybohm, Nicole Skoetz, Stephanie Weibel, Late July 2021, from the Cochrane Organisation which is a not for profit independent network of researchers and health professionals, which after reviewing the available reliable studies, concluded "Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials". Take care, stay good.
1
@marianogilglz9049 Hi again Mariano. You continue to go off on tangents. "you dont have to be a virologist.....(to use) statistical and probabilistic tools"....I accept that as a fair enough point. However, on your point " If one study is flawed....that does not disqualified the meta analysis" then i say, The paper by Elgazzar et al has been withdrawn and retracted over concerns of potential scientific fraud and breach of ethical conduct. This study was the largest study by patient number included in Laurie's meta-analysis, and also had the largest drug effect, claiming that there was a 90% reduction in deaths in the experimental/ivermectin group This paper was also cited in many other studies. Given the outsize effect this would have on the meta-analysis and concerns of the scientific integrity of the study, then the reliability of everything after that must be called into question. I also believe that several other of the papers that she cites are facing similar issues. I quote the conclusion of Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an Australian chronic disease epidemiologist who after revewing the Elgazzar data, said, "“If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.”. Either way there are some large scale trials from very reputable organisations upcoming (Oxford University and USA) and as always I will follow the reputable and reliable evidence. Take care.
1
@peacefuljourney4994 Incorrect...Todays update...zero evidence presented by you. Take care.
1
@pathcoinfirst8936 I am different. I look at the evidence. take care.
1