The ‘New Norm:’ Authors Rewrite Positive Ivermectin Findings To Make Them Appear Negative

People Who Received Ivermectin Were Better Off, Study Finds

Ivermectin recipients recovered faster than others.

People who tested positive for COVID-19 and took ivermectin as a treatment recovered faster than a comparison group, a new study found.

The time to self-reported recovery was a median of two days faster among the ivermectin recipients, according to the large UK study.

The quicker recovery period was statistically significant.

People who received ivermectin were also less likely to be hospitalized or die, with 1.6 percent of ivermectin recipients being hospitalized or dying versus 4 percent of the comparison group, which received typical care, which in the UK is largely focused on managing symptoms.

Ivermectin recipients also enjoyed a reduction of severe symptoms and sustained recovery, according to the study.

The paper was published by the Journal of Infection on Feb. 29. (See link for article)

_________________

SUMMARY:

Only in the topsy-turvy world of COVID do study authors rewrite positive findings into negative ones

The PRINCIPLE trial came up with an unneeded specified hazard ratio to make the findings appear insignificant. In the real world, if a HR is >1.0, and is statistically significant, it is a robust finding.

Further, the findings should be interpreted in the context of

recipients only receive ONE dose per day across three days
recipients were directed to refrain from eating food 2 hours before and after administration when previous research found that taking it with food increases plasma concentration
recipients received ivermectin a median of 5 days after symptom onset, a time some consider to be too late since the drug works best within 24 hours according to a meta-regression

There have been additional studies that found ivermectin works against COVID-19.

Dr. David Boulware who helped run the trial argued that faster recovery with ivermectin was similar to the open-trial findings of molnupiravir; however, according to James Lyons-Weiler, the FDA dropped the ball completely on this supposed ‘game changer’ which gave people higher live SARS-CoV-2 viral titers and more viral evolution two weeks after start of treatment, but was still FDA approved.

Go here for a quick review of costs between FDA approved and FDA unapproved COVID treatments. This says it all.

PRINCIPLE Trial Fails to Refute Evidence of Ivermectin’s Efficacy in Covid-19

By World Council for Health March 5, 2024

Results from the Oxford-managed PRINCIPLE trial of ivermectin in out-patient Covid-19 were published in the Journal of Infection on 29 February 2024, over a year and half after the trial’s closure in July 2022, and over 2 years since the originally planned termination. The unexpected pause in January 2022 (said to be due to supply problems, denied by the supplier) remains unexplained. PRINCIPLE is funded by the NIHR, i.e. by the British taxpayer.

The trial design was criticised by FLCCC and BiRD International on 1 July 2021, because of enrollment up to 14 days of symptoms. The comprehensive summary of clinical evidence at c19ivm.org thus categorises this as a “Late Treatment” RCT. The protocol treatment, with weak dosing, short duration, fasting administration minimising serum concentrations, confined to a monotherapy with disregard of ubiquitous adjuncts, and of the concurrent corticosteroids indicated at later disease stages, did not correspond to any treatments adopted by clinicians using ivermectin with success. Overall the majority of patients were low-risk, after enrollment criteria were changed in July 2021 to accommodate all adults.

https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack post media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc5127434 1c08 4610 8bf1

In spite of the low-risk population, under-dosing, and late treatment, statistically significant improvements in times to recovery on various metrics are found, Fig. S6(b) opposite, though not graphed in the main paper. The authors’ summary rejects these as not clinically significant, based on an arbitrary, pre-defined, metric: – “Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARSCov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted.” This does not follow from the evidence. A rational response to statistically significant improvement in recovery time, demonstrating a positive quantified effect, would be to seek to optimise the protocol. Also the alleviation of Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-Cov-2 (PASC) i.e. “Long Covid”, as detailed here from data in the Supplementaries, is clear, and at variance with the negative conclusion on “longer term outcomes”.

BiRD International and the World Council for Health agree however that further trials of ivermectin alone are unwarranted, the weight of evidence summarised at covid19.org being so overwhelming that the remaining issues concern dosage, adjuncts, and mechanism, rather than further empirical evidence of clinical effect. The paper’s opening statement “The evidence … is contested” does not survive scrutiny of all available evidence, even after this report. Multiple critiques of design and implementation remain unanswered, data sharing is only offered subject to contracts, and an undeclared conflict of interest is Prof Chris Butler’s parallel PANORAMIC trial of molnupiravir, a proprietary drug.

We find the results unsurprising in view of the poor trial design; they do little or nothing to refute the accumulated worldwide evidence on the efficacy of ivermectin in Covid-19.

_______________

**Comment**

And there you have it. Yet another manipulated study for a pre-determined outcome by an author with a vested interest in a treatment that competes with ivermectin. Case closed.

For more:

Madison Area Lyme Support Group