Pro-Ivermectin study retracted due to fraud

[tas8831]

Almost a trend.

A big metastudy that was looking like good news for the use of Ivermectin to treat Covid once you already have it was retracted. The main reason was that one of the individual studies used in this metastudy - one that apparently skewed the overall analysis to the pro-Ivermectin side, was exposed as fraudulent:

On July 6, 2021, Open Forum Infectious Diseases published the article “Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials of Ivermectin to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infection” by Hill, et al. Subsequently, we and the authors have learned that one of the studies on which this analysis was based has been withdrawn due to fraudulent data. The authors will be submitting a revised version excluding this study, and the currently posted paper will be retracted.​

The Guardian had a more detailed examination of the reason for the retraction.

"He found the introduction section of the paper appeared to have been almost entirely plagiarised.

It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. “Humorously, this led to them changing ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’ to ‘extreme intense respiratory syndrome’ on one occasion,” Lawrence said.

The data also looked suspicious to Lawrence, with the raw data apparently contradicting the study protocol on several occasions...."

“The authors claimed to have done the study only on 18-80 year olds, but at least three patients in the dataset were under 18,” Lawrence said.
​

And so on...
But hey - if Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson said Ivermectin is gold, why should a little fraud matter...

 

[The Hammer]

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A drug promoted by whackos, nuts, loonies, and partisan politics who refuse to accept prevention is better than treatment had a very problematic issue with a study?
Whoddathunkit.

 

[Revoltingest]

Opinion | Writers Missed Ivermectin Study Retraction
Excerpted...
We, the authors of “Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?” (op-ed, July 29), have egg on our faces. Relying on a summary of studies published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, we quoted the results from a study of 200 healthcare workers. After our article was published, we learned that this study, by Ahmed Elgazzar of Benha University in Egypt, has recently been retracted due to serious charges of data manipulation.

We retract the part of our article that relied on the data from Dr. Elgazzar’s study. But the broader point stands: There’s strong evidence of ivermectin’s efficacy in treating Covid-19.

David R. Henderson

 

[We Never Know]

View attachment 55064

 

[The Hammer]

Opinion | Writers Missed Ivermectin Study Retraction
Excerpted...
We, the authors of “Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?” (op-ed, July 29), have egg on our faces. Relying on a summary of studies published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, we quoted the results from a study of 200 healthcare workers. After our article was published, we learned that this study, by Ahmed Elgazzar of Benha University in Egypt, has recently been retracted due to serious charges of data manipulation.

We retract the part of our article that relied on the data from Dr. Elgazzar’s study. But the broader point stands: There’s strong evidence of ivermectin’s efficacy in treating Covid-19.

David R. Henderson

I still prefer my study on what was helping, on your other thread.

Too bad that post had to be deleted because I'm bad about rules and such.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Opinion | Writers Missed Ivermectin Study Retraction
Excerpted...
We, the authors of “Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?” (op-ed, July 29), have egg on our faces. Relying on a summary of studies published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, we quoted the results from a study of 200 healthcare workers. After our article was published, we learned that this study, by Ahmed Elgazzar of Benha University in Egypt, has recently been retracted due to serious charges of data manipulation.

We retract the part of our article that relied on the data from Dr. Elgazzar’s study. But the broader point stands: There’s strong evidence of ivermectin’s efficacy in treating Covid-19.

David R. Henderson

I couldn't see the article through the pay wall. What were the main points?

 

[Revoltingest]

I couldn't see the article through the pay wall. What were the main points?

I quoted the entire short oopise article.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I quoted the entire short oopise article.

Thanks.

So basically, they were saying that there was still reason to consider ivermectin as a potential treatment for Covid.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks.

So basically, they were saying that there was still reason to consider ivermectin as a potential treatment for Covid.

No.
I don't know if they ever did treat it thus.
But this killed any positive disposition
they might've had.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I couldn't see the article through the pay wall. What were the main points?

The main points are that the two studies that show Ivermectin has efficacy against Covid are deeply flawed, one of them appears to be actively fraudulent.

If you like podcasts, the Behind the ******** podcast breaks this all down extremely thoroughly (language warning) ‎Behind the ********: Part One: The Ivermectin Episode on Apple Podcasts

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Almost a trend.

A big metastudy that was looking like good news for the use of Ivermectin to treat Covid once you already have it was retracted. The main reason was that one of the individual studies used in this metastudy - one that apparently skewed the overall analysis to the pro-Ivermectin side, was exposed as fraudulent:

On July 6, 2021, Open Forum Infectious Diseases published the article “Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials of Ivermectin to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infection” by Hill, et al. Subsequently, we and the authors have learned that one of the studies on which this analysis was based has been withdrawn due to fraudulent data. The authors will be submitting a revised version excluding this study, and the currently posted paper will be retracted.​

The Guardian had a more detailed examination of the reason for the retraction.

"He found the introduction section of the paper appeared to have been almost entirely plagiarised.

It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. “Humorously, this led to them changing ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’ to ‘extreme intense respiratory syndrome’ on one occasion,” Lawrence said.

The data also looked suspicious to Lawrence, with the raw data apparently contradicting the study protocol on several occasions...."

“The authors claimed to have done the study only on 18-80 year olds, but at least three patients in the dataset were under 18,” Lawrence said.
​

And so on...
But hey - if Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson said Ivermectin is gold, why should a little fraud matter...

Can we just remind everyone that literally 1 second after Joe Rogan says he took Ivermectin, he also said he took monoclonal antibodies? Could all the people fixated on "Joe Rogan took Ivermectin and got better!" as a talking point address THAT little point, please?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No.
I don't know if they ever did treat it thus.
But this killed any positive disposition
they might've had.

OK. It wasn't clear to me that they were not saying that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Here's info on it Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19 Customer updates on FDA site.

 

[tas8831]

Can we just remind everyone that literally 1 second after Joe Rogan says he took Ivermectin, he also said he took monoclonal antibodies? Could all the people fixated on "Joe Rogan took Ivermectin and got better!" as a talking point address THAT little point, please?

Exactly. He also took some other things, as well. It is that selective hearing of the anti-vaxxer type... My kids had that problem... when they were in grade school.