USA Today Still Distributing Dangerously Misleading Article About Lockdown Efficacy and Safety
The business of “Fact-Checking” has thankfully been fairly well debunked. Let USA Today know that they have left up a dangerously misleading article.
Citing an array of so-called “Fact-Check” resources and some medical dude’s opinion as their sources on the monopoly on truth, USA Today published this embarrassing article in Feb 2022, full of bravado and certainty, claiming that a position paper published by economists was incorrect.
The paper in question was an evidence-based meta-analysis that examined published, peer-reviewed estimates of the impact of lockdowns on mortality from COVID-19, which came in at merely 0.2%.
The paper, “A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality” was never represented by the authors or the publishing website as a peer-reviewed meta-analysis, but USA Today found some people on the internet who incorrectly described it as such, and used their error as a ding against the paper and its authors, which of course, is non-sequitur.
The paper also reported the massive economic costs of lockdowns, which is unquestionably correct and is now widely established.
But for USA Today, in their opinion, and in the opinion of their “experts”, the findings of the study were “missing context”, citing unidentified “public health and medical experts”.
“Public health and medical experts say the paper is flawed, in part due to its overly broad definition of ‘lockdown.’ Experts have also criticized the working paper’s emphasis on the immediate effect of lockdowns on COVID-19 deaths instead of disease transmission. Other peer-reviewed studies have found lockdowns prevent deaths.”
(See link for article)
USA Today has been previously criticized for falsely labeling truth as “misinformation.” Spin doctors are gonna spin.
Weiler also tackles faulty PCR testing, and the failure to stop COVID in countries which adopted a “zero-COVID” policy and who are now suffering some of the highest rates of COVID, hospitalizations, and yes, even death.
Weiler states we should “remind USA Today that listing their ‘sources’ as a bunch of blog articles expressing someone’s opinion is woefully bad form for a professional media company as they were clearly ALL wrong.”
ACTIV-6 And TOGETHER Trials Bear Strangely Similar Design Fingerprints
By Alexandros Marinos
Nov. 14, 2022
A while ago, I wrote an article enumerating ten questionable features of the TOGETHER trial on ivermectin, conducted in Brazil. What are the chances those same features would make an appearance in the ACTIV-6 trial on ivermectin, conducted by the NIH in the USA? Pretty good, apparently, because that is exactly what seems to be happening.
#1 – Randomization Anomalies
While the shape of the issue is different, the result is the same: the randomization of the trial is under question due to the fact that the treatment and control groups of the trial were drawn from different populations. As the ACTIV-6 trial participant I spoke to revealed, he was asked to pick which drug study he would be enrolled in. In contrast, the placebo group contained patients assigned to other drugs, most or all of whom chose to be randomized into that different drug. This is a systematic difference between the populations not accounted for in the trial.
#2 – Dosing
The ACTIV-6 trial takes the flawed dosing of the TOGETHER trial and makes it worse. This is one of those cases where a picture is worth 1000 words:
Not only does ACTIV-6 underdose those at highest risk the most, it also underdoses people with lower weights, effectively falsifying the dose given to patients.
(See link for article)
- On top of randomization and dosing issues, ACTIV-6 and the TOGETHER trials did not exclude patients who had used ivermectin but allowed them to randomize into other drugs, which means patients allocated to fluvoxamine and fluoxetine may have also been taking ivermectin.
- Placebo patients from all arms were commingled and utilized variable placebos, demonstrating the potential unblinding of the investigators and clinical staff. The TOGETHER trial suffered this issue as well.
- Despite the TOGETHER trial being heavily criticized for using ER visits as the endpoint, ACTIV-6 also used a composite secondary novel endpoint that intermingled ER visits, hospitalizations, and deaths. COVID hospitalizations were not reported separately.
- The trial has missing data such as information on patient populations.
- Determination of dosages used is shrouded in mystery.
- An author of the trial was also an author in the TOGETHER trial.
- No information about the number of patients who actually adhered to the protocol and took their drugs as described was given.
- Both trials failed to have an independent monitoring board, and the public-private partnership has numerous conflicted pharmaceutical companies in its management committee and membership.
- To date, the data has not been made available to any researcher for any reason.
- While the TOGETHER trial started out recruiting high-risk patients, this changed mid-trial towards low-risk patients. They then limited the number the could participate in the trial by adding new inclusion criterion, suggesting that Cytel, the company that “designed and led the TOGETHER trial”—using Clinical Trial optimization simulation software, was running interim data through simulations to figure out which kind of inclusion/exclusion criteria would give them the results they wanted.
- Interestingly, this change made in TOGETHER was in May 2021, the exact date that ACTIV-6 trial protocol was first posed on clinical trials.gov.
- The eery design defects and flawed decisions between both trials raise questions about whether the design of ACTIV-6 trial was informed by interim results of the TOGETHER trial, particularly since Dr. David Boulware is a shared author of both trials.
- Transparency of data would alleviate suspicions but does not appear to be forthcoming.
These are the shenanigans in research now. Question everything. And Thank God for those willing to go through mounds of data with a fine-toothed comb, like this heroic mom with a scientific background who exposes junk COVID shot data.
FYI: Ivermectin and HCQ work:
Why research can not be trusted at face-value: