Horowitz: 120 doctors ask JAMA to retract misleading Colombian study downplaying efficacy of ivermectin


Why is there such an agenda to discredit cheap, repurposed drugs?

We knew this would happen. The health establishment didn’t use fabricated data from a study authored by a science fiction writer and porn star (later retracted), as they did with hydroxychloroquine, but it was almost as bad.

No, they didn’t find any harm from ivermectin, but after every study showing the amazing efficacy of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2 at every stage of the disease, the media breathlessly promoted a Colombian study supposedly showing no statistically meaningful benefit among those COVID-19 patients who were treated with it.

Last month, a group of Colombian researchers published a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluding that, contrary to the findings of every other study, ivermectin showed no signs of bettering outcomes in COVID-19 patients in Cali, Colombia.

“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,” concluded the authors. “The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes.”

(See link for article)

Once again the spin-doctors are hard at work discrediting a powerful, cheap drug that works on COVID.
The article points out:

After ignoring dozens of other studies on ivermectin for months, the New York Times got hold of this study the day it was published and penned an article titled, “Popular Drug Does Not Alleviate Mild Covid-19 Symptoms, Study Finds.”

Horowitz points out the study was flawed from the beginning and its results do not support the authors’ conclusions.
Thankfully, honest doctors are screaming bloody-murder and have written a letter  to JAMA:

The study’s flaws span subject population, design, execution and controls. The small sample size (n = 400) had a median age of 37 and a BMI of 26, making them extremely low risk for COVID-19 hard endpoints. Faced with this low-relevance study group, the study authors improperly changed primary endpoint midway, moving the main endpoint to full symptom resolution by day 21. This self-reported subjective endpoint, obtained through telephone survey, is not credible for avoiding nondifferential nullward bias of the results.

The authors incorrectly administered ivermectin on an empty stomach, reducing drug bioavailability in lung tissue, the critical drug target, by a factor of roughly 2.5. Additionally, ivermectin is readily available over-the-counter in Colombia, where sales have been ubiquitous (1.6 doses per COVID-19 case) in Cali during the study period.[2] Lack of serum testing in the study prevented identification of subjects who may have used the drug at intervals longer than the study lookback.

Thus, you literally had a placebo control group where they didn’t ensure they were not taking ivermectin! On top of this, the department of health in the state of Valle del Cauca – where this study took place – began distributing ivermectin to COVID patients right when the study period began.

Also, just from June to July of last year when the study period began, over-the-counter sales of ivermectin in the Cali region quintupled.

The doctors protesting this study originally sent this letter to JAMA to be published, but after JAMA declined, the authors posted it as an open letter on their own landing page.

Horowitz also points out they violated participant consent rules by not telling the study participants they were receiving ivermectin.

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), which is the lead group in the United States promoting ivermectin as the staple of COVID early therapeutic treatment, wrote a paper calling into question the protocols of the study, noting that a labeling error substituted 38 ivermectin doses as part of the placebo group.

They also accuse the authors of a conflict of interest for receiving grants from “Sanofi Pasteur, a vaccine manufacturer; Janssen, a J&J vaccine partner; and GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Gilead, which manufacture COVID-19 drugs.”


Meanwhile, Gilead is raking in the dough through its sale of Remdesivir (over $3K per treatment) despite ZERO evidence of efficacy.  It’s still being used as the only major treatment, while the FDA is now going after anyone who mentions things like vitamin C, zinc, and other natural remedies.

And never, ever forget the atrocious, fraudulent, government funded study on HCQ which was finally retracted, and the fact the AAPS sued the FDA for “irrational” interference of Access to life-saving Hydroxychloroquine.”

All research needs independent scrutiny.  I’m eternally grateful for the doctors and researchers who do this work on their own dime.  Without this exposure, the world would blindly accept fraudulent studies.  It’s also up to us to educate others on this diabolical take-over of science and the need to question ALL OF IT.
We are living in 1984.

%d bloggers like this: