27
posted ago by EloiEloi ago by EloiEloi +27 / -0

Quick overview for those not following the Ivermectin story:

Many small studies into Ivermectin have been done around the world (sample sizes ~12 - ~800)

The agencies (WHO, NIH, EMA etc) claim that these studies are insufficient to demonstrate Ivermectin's effectiveness - due to size and quality.

The FLCCC, BIRD-Group and others have been pointing to the meta-analysis of these numerous studies (now about 60) to show that the threshold for proving ivermectin's effectiveness has been reached. Claims have been made directly by Kory et all, and implied by Tess Lawrie, that the WHO's assessment of what to include in meta-analysis has been non-transparent and doesn't match independant assessment of study bias and quality ( https://bird-group.org/flccc-alliance-statement-on-the-irregular-actions-of-public-health-agencies-and-the-widespread-disinformation-campaign-against-ivermectin/)

The implication has been that the independant meta-analysis of these independant researchers is more transparent and of a higher quality than that of the WHO. (https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx)

However, Bryant, Kory and Hill all included the Elgazzar study in their meta-analyses, also critiquing the WHO and Roman et al who - whilst their respective meta-analyses had various other issues - did exclude the Elgazzar study.

(FLCCC/BIRD critique of Roman: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/RomanRebuttal_v7_EF_letterhead_ML-1.pdf)

The FLCCC and BIRD-group have put out a statement that the retraction of the Elgazzar study does not significantly impact the overall conclusion of the meta-analysis into Ivermectin - although I haven't seen revised calculations for this yet - probably not yet completed ready for publishing as this all happened only a few days ago.

(https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FLCCC-BIRD-Guardian-Elgazzar-Study-FINAL-1.pdf)

The problem as I see it is this:

The fact that Bryant and Hill and Kory included the Elgazzar study whilst the WHO did not undermines the idea that the WHO was somehow disingenuous in its process for deciding which studies to include and exclude. I don't think the efficacy of Ivermectin has in any way been weakened by the retraction of the study - not unless they are all fraudulent and all the front-line doctors have imagined the benefit the drug has provided. But I do think the merit of the meta-analyses and the creditability of their authors have been weakened...

What do others think? I'm going to have to go and be upfront about this on Fascist book, otherwise I'm a hypocrite, so I want to get as full an understanding as I can...