Thank you for this update! Hopefully all of the Alex Berenson followers will see this. By recently disparaging IVM, he, along with JAMA and others have done a great disservice to the community and future covid patients.
If I read the study correctly (and I maintained a solid C- through jr high science👍), all patients
selected had been hospitalized when the study started. As noted in FLCCC response, this is not "early treatment."
The study itself appropriates the term "early treatment" to mean early in the hospitalization, not early at home.
What exactly the protocol was other than ivermectin would be interesting to know as to how closely it followed (or didn't) the FLCCC's. The MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19 is certainly not and never has been 'Ivermectin' on an otherwise blank sheet of paper.
Last but not least, it appears Alex Berenson has swallowed the cool-aid. Maybe he was a D jr high school science student? Regardless, Alex, whatever happened to 'Choice'??
This post does an excellent job of pointing out the flaws in this study, but there is one additional major flaw that has been ignored: the definition of severe COVID. The purported endpoint of the study is the number of cases progressing to severe COVID, which is defined as a pulseox reading of 95 or less. But the FLCCC doesn’t recommend going to the ER until a person’s pulseox hits 88.
So, in my opinion, this study was designed to fail from the outset. Despite that, they still accidentally proved that ivermectin works.
I am so grateful for your clear, comprehensive analysis. I love your complete commitment to truth. Thank you for your courage and trustworthiness! I’d be ill-equipped without it!
Just finished reading RFK Jr Book , The Real Fauci, and he describes exactly how this all plays out, Fauci pulled the same EVIL playbook during the AIDS crisis, JAMA and NEJM, etc are all in bed with corrupt PI, Big Pharma, etc.
In the subgroup table, the IVM group had 20 patients with a BMI BMI > 30
vs 12 in the control group, relative risk=1.82,P=.06. Also, interesting that the IVM group had 22 completely vaccinated vs 12 in the control group, relative risk=1.92, P=.06. Seems significant if the primary outcome was IVM=52 vs control=43.
Negative I-TECH study for IVM (0.4 mg/kg x 5 days), done in Malaysia, published in JAMA Internal Medicine. I open thread 1/
We had already analyzed this study when the Malaysian Government announced its results. Full demographic tables, all outcomes and some subgroup analyzes are now added. 2/
IMPORTANT: the outcomes are contradictory. The IVM group in deterioration rating fares worse (21.6 vs 19.3%), but mortality is LOWER and very close to significance (1.2 vs 4%, p=0.09). The same in patients who required ventilation (1.7 vs 4%, p=0.17). 3/
The most logical thing is that we should see a proportional relationship between the people who deteriorate and those who end up on mechanical ventilation and die. Something is wrong.. /4
The first thing we have to differentiate is that there are outcomes that are more objective than others. For example, a rating of impairment depends on medical criteria, but death is something much more concrete. 5/
Second, this is an OPEN LABEL study, that is, the patients knew they were taking IVM and possibly the treating physicians as well. 6/
Third, those who progressed to severe were defined as those who required oxygen support (not necessarily intubation) to maintain saturation levels above 95%. Did the 20 Malaysian public hospitals have the capacity to give oxygen to ALL who had SpO₂ < 95%? 7/
The reality of emerging countries like Malaysia is that each center will have its own resource allocation criteria, depending on its capabilities. Therefore, the allocation of high-flow oxygen could not be perfectly homogeneous between centers. 8/
This means that the severity rating is not necessarily an objective criterion, especially when there were 20 different centers, many of which surely, and in the midst of the crisis, applied criteria that even the researchers themselves do not know. 9/
In contrast, SI mortality is an objective parameter. And this achieved almost statistical significance. Unfortunately, this outcome was underpowered, since the study was not designed to measure mortality, as the researchers acknowledge. 10/
An open label study like this one, with the same limitations, but if it had been favorable for IVM, I highly doubt that it would have achieved publication in JAMA or any other big journal. 11/
After a good conversation with @masimaux, we can state that, given that the patients were treated on average 5.1 days after the onset of symptoms, and that they progressed to severe in just 3 days, little or nothing an antiviral could do in so little time. 12/
Then, being a LATE treatment, it would be valid to analyze the data from the perspective that the patients would progress anyway. If we compare severe ones that died vs. those that survived, we have a high statistical significance. (p-value=0.0173). 13/
In summary, the study could perfectly conclude that late treatment with IVM achieved a 75% lower risk of mortality in severe patients vs those who did not use it (RR=0.25, 95% CI [0.07,0.84]). 14/
Those who frequently read clinical studies know that in the "Discussion" section the researchers take certain liberties. If they are in favor of the intervention, they usually hypothesize. But here... NOTHING. 15/
"Target cohort is mild to moderate symptomatic Covid-19 (Stage 2-3), high-risk patients aged 50 YEARS AND ABOVE WITH COMORBIDITY, who presented to hospitals within first 7 days of illness."
Even with the odds stacked against them, the oldest and sickest had a 70% reduction in mortality rate. Doctors are murdering patients by withholding treatment. They are now merely drug pushers who push drugs with the highest commission.
I'm Malaysian and I'm sorry to say that we, the taxpayers, funded this junk science. So many people have died needlessly in this medical genocide.
Wait a minute and hold the phone! Now I’m just a squire and don’t know a lot, but one thing I do know is that Alex Berenson always writes the truth because Alex says he always writes the truth so it must be true! I mean both things are true that he writes the truth and that he is truthful when he writes that he writes the truth.
and Alex says this is a well done study that shows ivermectin is ineffective and actually increases hospitalizations - so you’d be a fool to use it or even look more into it right?
and Alex goes on to say in the same sentence that the results are not statistically significant, so that means Alex can draw solid conclusions and write about it and tell the world about this study, which supports the Alex narrative, oops i mean reporting, that there is no proof of any benefit from ivm, right?
He says:
“A well-designed randomized controlled trial out of Malaysia showed it actually increased the risk of progression to severe Covid by 25% (the results were not statistically significant).
Sorry, folks. There are no magic bullets. (At least it doesn’t cause myocarditis.)
and since Alex always writes the truth - because he says he does over and over loudly - he goes on to put all those ivm fanatics in their place with what must be a truthful honest well-written piece that doesn’t have any ad hominem or nasty stuff in it.
and Alex just wants everbody to stop trying to say ivm works because this one well-done RCT outweighs all other research on the topic and we should just listen to Alex’s truth obediently with adulation
“ You know what you sound like?
You sound like Tony Fauci trying to explain why a fourth shot of mRNA is gonna be magic when the first three have failed.”
I think you should put a call out and create a list of all the people that were treated with Ivermectin and lived to tell about it. You can put my name on the list first. JAMA has become a joke.
Also, looking more closely at the data, it appears there is a slight negative correlation between their definition of “severe” and the downrange, secondary endpoints. In other words, more IVM patients fell below the 95% oxygen sat level compared to control (their definition of “severe”) yet far fewer in the IVM group later died. If their definition of “severe” was really severe, wouldn’t it correlate with more severe outcomes, like ventilation or death? Based on this study, I would prefer to have their definition of a “severe” case of Covid with IVM in my system, than a non-severe case with no IVM. I would have a much better chance of walking out of the hospital alive!
Meanwhile, a study that reported the truth about ivermectin, gets censored from even a preprint server.
Pharma-conflicted Washington Post attempts to sully Mexican ivermectin study while promoting killer experimental vaccines and mandates for profit
https://vinuarumugham.substack.com/p/pharma-conflicted-washington-post
Thank you for this update! Hopefully all of the Alex Berenson followers will see this. By recently disparaging IVM, he, along with JAMA and others have done a great disservice to the community and future covid patients.
Thanks for so thoroughly and clearly explaining this study and absolutely debunking a. Berenson who needs to STOP spewing out his crap.
If I read the study correctly (and I maintained a solid C- through jr high science👍), all patients
selected had been hospitalized when the study started. As noted in FLCCC response, this is not "early treatment."
The study itself appropriates the term "early treatment" to mean early in the hospitalization, not early at home.
What exactly the protocol was other than ivermectin would be interesting to know as to how closely it followed (or didn't) the FLCCC's. The MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19 is certainly not and never has been 'Ivermectin' on an otherwise blank sheet of paper.
Last but not least, it appears Alex Berenson has swallowed the cool-aid. Maybe he was a D jr high school science student? Regardless, Alex, whatever happened to 'Choice'??
I am in Mexico and a friendly MD got me IVM locally and pretty inexpensive for a package of 4 ea 6 mg tablets. No side effects.
This post does an excellent job of pointing out the flaws in this study, but there is one additional major flaw that has been ignored: the definition of severe COVID. The purported endpoint of the study is the number of cases progressing to severe COVID, which is defined as a pulseox reading of 95 or less. But the FLCCC doesn’t recommend going to the ER until a person’s pulseox hits 88.
So, in my opinion, this study was designed to fail from the outset. Despite that, they still accidentally proved that ivermectin works.
I am so grateful for your clear, comprehensive analysis. I love your complete commitment to truth. Thank you for your courage and trustworthiness! I’d be ill-equipped without it!
Just finished reading RFK Jr Book , The Real Fauci, and he describes exactly how this all plays out, Fauci pulled the same EVIL playbook during the AIDS crisis, JAMA and NEJM, etc are all in bed with corrupt PI, Big Pharma, etc.
In the subgroup table, the IVM group had 20 patients with a BMI BMI > 30
vs 12 in the control group, relative risk=1.82,P=.06. Also, interesting that the IVM group had 22 completely vaccinated vs 12 in the control group, relative risk=1.92, P=.06. Seems significant if the primary outcome was IVM=52 vs control=43.
Devastating critique of the study’s inexplicable design and conclusions, thank you!
https://mobile.twitter.com/AOlavarria/status/1494755512335970314
Negative I-TECH study for IVM (0.4 mg/kg x 5 days), done in Malaysia, published in JAMA Internal Medicine. I open thread 1/
We had already analyzed this study when the Malaysian Government announced its results. Full demographic tables, all outcomes and some subgroup analyzes are now added. 2/
IMPORTANT: the outcomes are contradictory. The IVM group in deterioration rating fares worse (21.6 vs 19.3%), but mortality is LOWER and very close to significance (1.2 vs 4%, p=0.09). The same in patients who required ventilation (1.7 vs 4%, p=0.17). 3/
The most logical thing is that we should see a proportional relationship between the people who deteriorate and those who end up on mechanical ventilation and die. Something is wrong.. /4
The first thing we have to differentiate is that there are outcomes that are more objective than others. For example, a rating of impairment depends on medical criteria, but death is something much more concrete. 5/
Second, this is an OPEN LABEL study, that is, the patients knew they were taking IVM and possibly the treating physicians as well. 6/
Third, those who progressed to severe were defined as those who required oxygen support (not necessarily intubation) to maintain saturation levels above 95%. Did the 20 Malaysian public hospitals have the capacity to give oxygen to ALL who had SpO₂ < 95%? 7/
The reality of emerging countries like Malaysia is that each center will have its own resource allocation criteria, depending on its capabilities. Therefore, the allocation of high-flow oxygen could not be perfectly homogeneous between centers. 8/
This means that the severity rating is not necessarily an objective criterion, especially when there were 20 different centers, many of which surely, and in the midst of the crisis, applied criteria that even the researchers themselves do not know. 9/
In contrast, SI mortality is an objective parameter. And this achieved almost statistical significance. Unfortunately, this outcome was underpowered, since the study was not designed to measure mortality, as the researchers acknowledge. 10/
An open label study like this one, with the same limitations, but if it had been favorable for IVM, I highly doubt that it would have achieved publication in JAMA or any other big journal. 11/
After a good conversation with @masimaux, we can state that, given that the patients were treated on average 5.1 days after the onset of symptoms, and that they progressed to severe in just 3 days, little or nothing an antiviral could do in so little time. 12/
Then, being a LATE treatment, it would be valid to analyze the data from the perspective that the patients would progress anyway. If we compare severe ones that died vs. those that survived, we have a high statistical significance. (p-value=0.0173). 13/
In summary, the study could perfectly conclude that late treatment with IVM achieved a 75% lower risk of mortality in severe patients vs those who did not use it (RR=0.25, 95% CI [0.07,0.84]). 14/
Those who frequently read clinical studies know that in the "Discussion" section the researchers take certain liberties. If they are in favor of the intervention, they usually hypothesize. But here... NOTHING. 15/
I find the censorship and fiddling with data so alarming.
"Target cohort is mild to moderate symptomatic Covid-19 (Stage 2-3), high-risk patients aged 50 YEARS AND ABOVE WITH COMORBIDITY, who presented to hospitals within first 7 days of illness."
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04920942
Even with the odds stacked against them, the oldest and sickest had a 70% reduction in mortality rate. Doctors are murdering patients by withholding treatment. They are now merely drug pushers who push drugs with the highest commission.
I'm Malaysian and I'm sorry to say that we, the taxpayers, funded this junk science. So many people have died needlessly in this medical genocide.
Wait a minute and hold the phone! Now I’m just a squire and don’t know a lot, but one thing I do know is that Alex Berenson always writes the truth because Alex says he always writes the truth so it must be true! I mean both things are true that he writes the truth and that he is truthful when he writes that he writes the truth.
and Alex says this is a well done study that shows ivermectin is ineffective and actually increases hospitalizations - so you’d be a fool to use it or even look more into it right?
and Alex goes on to say in the same sentence that the results are not statistically significant, so that means Alex can draw solid conclusions and write about it and tell the world about this study, which supports the Alex narrative, oops i mean reporting, that there is no proof of any benefit from ivm, right?
He says:
“A well-designed randomized controlled trial out of Malaysia showed it actually increased the risk of progression to severe Covid by 25% (the results were not statistically significant).
Sorry, folks. There are no magic bullets. (At least it doesn’t cause myocarditis.)
Someone tell Dr. Robert Malone.“
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/ivermectin-fails/comments
and since Alex always writes the truth - because he says he does over and over loudly - he goes on to put all those ivm fanatics in their place with what must be a truthful honest well-written piece that doesn’t have any ad hominem or nasty stuff in it.
and Alex just wants everbody to stop trying to say ivm works because this one well-done RCT outweighs all other research on the topic and we should just listen to Alex’s truth obediently with adulation
“ You know what you sound like?
You sound like Tony Fauci trying to explain why a fourth shot of mRNA is gonna be magic when the first three have failed.”
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/to-the-ivermectin-fanatics/comments
I’m just a squire and i like to ask questions so i’m wondering how can anyone possibly disagree with Alex “I write the Truth” Berenson ?
I think you should put a call out and create a list of all the people that were treated with Ivermectin and lived to tell about it. You can put my name on the list first. JAMA has become a joke.
Also, looking more closely at the data, it appears there is a slight negative correlation between their definition of “severe” and the downrange, secondary endpoints. In other words, more IVM patients fell below the 95% oxygen sat level compared to control (their definition of “severe”) yet far fewer in the IVM group later died. If their definition of “severe” was really severe, wouldn’t it correlate with more severe outcomes, like ventilation or death? Based on this study, I would prefer to have their definition of a “severe” case of Covid with IVM in my system, than a non-severe case with no IVM. I would have a much better chance of walking out of the hospital alive!