Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That study was straight up plagiarized, not to mention there were MANY things wrong with it. Any one with half a brain could see that study was pretty much made up. Of course he didn't defend it because he copied a large portion of it and made up numbers https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZFK...jkqrU7L1l/view
Are you sure these are RCT's? Lets see them
That's what a Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis is for. The current Meta-Analysis that are available show NO benefit of using Ivermectin for COVID.
The accusations of plagiarism are stupid as they’re all based on the introduction paragraphs of the paper and motivation. And has no bearing on the results. He’s Egyptian, he’s not fluent in English. He might have copied some statements on the pandemic, but this is inconsequential to his results.
And almost all meta analysis shows benefit.
And if I post one of these RCT what are you going to do ? If you promise not to post anything on the size of the group I’ll post.
Wasn't there also a major clinical trial underway sponsored by Temple University, then mysteriously stopped mid-stream? No one reports why - we can likely speculate.
They probably were unable to recruit enough participants or could have been funding. You can speculate all you want, the fact is there continues to be research into alternative treatments such as Ivermectin, but I know you are so eager to find that conspiracy theory as to why it's not being used.
The accusations of plagiarism are stupid as they’re all based on the introduction paragraphs of the paper and motivation. And has no bearing on the results. He’s Egyptian, he’s not fluent in English. He might have copied some statements on the pandemic, but this is inconsequential to his results.
AKA No scientific integrity. No legitimate scientific researcher plagiarizes their study. LOL, Outside of the plagiarism, the data have been shown to be all wrong thus it does effect his results.
AKA No scientific integrity. No legitimate scientific researcher plagiarizes their study. LOL, Outside of the plagiarism, the data have been shown to be all wrong thus it does effect his results.
He didn't plagiarize his study. At best he copied the prose for some window dressing introductory paragraphs on the pandemic. No accusations of plagiarism apply to the meat of the study which is important.
I read a lot of scientific papers relating to COVID19, and the pandemic, and a large chunk of the introductory paragraphs are interchangeable. I'm sure he gave the results to a graduate student to put into a paper, and this graduate student found some papers, and followed the prose too closely on the introductory paragraphs. This actually happens all the time, and doesn't warrant a wholesale retraction, just allow the introductory paragraphs to be rewritten.
Quote:
Which ones? Not in the ones that have legitimate studies in them.
Elgazzar's study hasn't been shown to be illegitimate. The introductory paragraph on the pandemic is not the study.
This study re-ran their results without Elgazzar's work, and found the same conclusions: https://ivmmeta.com/
Per their note:
Quote:
Elgazzar. This study was withdrawn and was removed from this analysis on the same day. There was no significant change (excluding 1 of 67 studies has very little effect, and the exclusion actually improves the treatment delay-response relationship).
It's of course a cheap trick to try to discredit all the meta analysis studies based on one study when these studies often include over 10, sometimes 20 or more studies.
Quote:
I will look at the methodology and the data itself. Go ahead lets see which one you have.
About half of all Covid-19 patients in hospital and in intensive care are fully vaccinated against the disease, new figures show.
One-sixth of deaths of people with the virus since April have been categorised as breakthrough infections of fully vaccinated patients, according to Health Service Executive data.
More than one-quarter of ICU admissions since July were also breakthrough infections of fully vaccinated people.
The proportion of vaccinated people requiring treatment in hospital has been increasing over recent months, as the number of vaccinated people in the wider population has risen.
In the Republic of Ireland, health officials are running out of people to blame. This has become embarrassingly obvious in County Waterford. As reported in the Irish Times, the nation’s establishment newspaper, two of the three most COVID-infected electoral areas in Ireland are located in the county “with the highest rate of vaccination in the country.”
About half of all Covid-19 patients in hospital and in intensive care are fully vaccinated against the disease, new figures show.
One-sixth of deaths of people with the virus since April have been categorised as breakthrough infections of fully vaccinated patients, according to Health Service Executive data.
More than one-quarter of ICU admissions since July were also breakthrough infections of fully vaccinated people.
The proportion of vaccinated people requiring treatment in hospital has been increasing over recent months, as the number of vaccinated people in the wider population has risen.
In the Republic of Ireland, health officials are running out of people to blame. This has become embarrassingly obvious in County Waterford. As reported in the Irish Times, the nation’s establishment newspaper, two of the three most COVID-infected electoral areas in Ireland are located in the county “with the highest rate of vaccination in the country.”
A question for you - if 100% were vaccinated what would be the proportion of vaccinated in the hospital?
Be careful, it's a trick question, lol.
here is some helpful material if you are struggling with the question above:
About half of all Covid-19 patients in hospital and in intensive care are fully vaccinated against the disease, new figures show.
One-sixth of deaths of people with the virus since April have been categorised as breakthrough infections of fully vaccinated patients, according to Health Service Executive data.
More than one-quarter of ICU admissions since July were also breakthrough infections of fully vaccinated people.
The proportion of vaccinated people requiring treatment in hospital has been increasing over recent months, as the number of vaccinated people in the wider population has risen.
In the Republic of Ireland, health officials are running out of people to blame. This has become embarrassingly obvious in County Waterford. As reported in the Irish Times, the nation’s establishment newspaper, two of the three most COVID-infected electoral areas in Ireland are located in the county “with the highest rate of vaccination in the country.”
Would you like to compare this data to the data from multiple Eastern European countries with tragically low vaccination rates (of course after adjusting per capita)?
He didn't plagiarize his study. At best he copied the prose for some window dressing introductory paragraphs on the pandemic. No accusations of plagiarism apply to the meat of the study which is important.
I read a lot of scientific papers relating to COVID19, and the pandemic, and a large chunk of the introductory paragraphs are interchangeable. I'm sure he gave the results to a graduate student to put into a paper, and this graduate student found some papers, and followed the prose too closely on the introductory paragraphs. This actually happens all the time, and doesn't warrant a wholesale retraction, just allow the introductory paragraphs to be rewritten. Elgazzar's study hasn't been shown to be illegitimate. The introductory paragraph on the pandemic is not the study.
Anyway you slice it, it's unethical and it's dishonest and it just shows the lack of knowledge about his own study. The plagiarism is just the start to the many issues that plague the study such as the fake data, the extreme terminal digit biases, duplicated patients, deaths in repeating patterns, deaths in control arm, etc. Giving him a pass on the plagiarism just goes to show that you are not valuing scientific integrity and that you have no problem with unethical behavior.
Quote:
Kory's meta analysis is one of the best: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
Of course it includes Elgazzar's study, and there is nothing wrong with that. The results stand independent of the introductory paragraph.
Additionally Elgazzar wasn't the only study in that meta-analysis that was flawed. The Carvallo and Niaee study also showed major errors and inconsistencies. Discounting these studies and the Meta-analysis essentially shows no benefit.
Nope, this study found no benefit for ivermectin on duration of hospitalization.
The people treated with ivermectin stayed longer in hospital than the placebo group.
Quote:
The mean duration of hospitalization after treatment was 9.7 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.1–11.0 days) in the placebo group, 10.1 days (95% CI 8.5–11.8 days) in the ivermectin + doxycycline group, and 9.6 days (95% CI 7.7–11.7 days) in the ivermectin alone group (p = 0.93). None of the patients enrolled required oxygen or had serious adverse drug events recorded. The mean values of the blood biomarkers (CRP, LDH, procalcitonin, and ferritin) dropped from baseline to day 7 in all three groups and these changes were significant for CRP (p = 0.02) and LDH (p = 0.01) in the 5-day ivermectin arm and for LDH in the placebo group (p = 0.01).
And so we are still as square one. No RCT's showing a significant benefit to taking Ivermectin.
Additionally Elgazzar wasn't the only study in that meta-analysis that was flawed. The Carvallo and Niaee study also showed major errors and inconsistencies. Discounting these studies and the Meta-analysis essentially shows no benefit.
I'm sorry Diesel, you cannot pick and choose which studies you think are "flawed" to go into a meta-analysis, because you're just introducing your own biases. A meta-analysis aggregates over many studies, to find if they're converging on a common data point. Unless there was a global cabal trying to push IVM, your desperate attempt at nitpicking will be "smoothed" out in the meta analysis.
Quote:
Nope, this study found no benefit for ivermectin on duration of hospitalization.
Here is what they found, instead of cherry picking:
Quote:
The mean duration to viral clearance was 9.7 days (95% CI 7.8–11.8 days) for the 5-day ivermectin arm (p = 0.02), 11.5 days (95% CI 9.8–13.2 days) for the ivermectin + doxycycline (p = 0.27) arm, and 12.7 days (95% CI 11.3–14.2 days) for the placebo group. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis revealed that the proportion of patients at risk of SARS-CoV-2 was significantly reduced in the 5-day ivermectin group (Figure 1, below). Virological clearance in the 5-day ivermectin group was significantly earlier compared to the placebo group on days 7 and 14 (hazard ratio (HR) 4.1, 95% CI 1.1–14.7 (p = 0.03) and HR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2–6.0 (p = 0.02)). The trend was similar for the ivermectin + doxycycline group on days 7 and 14, but this was not statistically significant (HR 2.3, 95% CI 0.6–9.0 (p = 0.22) and HR 1.7, 95% CI 0.8–4.0 (p = 0.19)).
And their conclusions:
Quote:
the results provide evidence of the potential benefit of early intervention with the drug ivermectin for the treatment of adult patients diagnosed with mild COVID-19. First, early intervention promoted faster viral clearance during disease onset, which might have prevented significant immune system involvement and hastened the recovery. Secondly, early intervention reduced the viral load faster, thus may help block disease transmission in the general population. A larger randomized controlled clinical trial of ivermectin treatment appears to be warranted to validate these important findings.
The hospitalization data was a wash, but based on many factors. This is key from the hospitalizations data.
Quote:
At enrolment, 82.6% (19/23) of patients in the placebo group, 73.9% (17/23) in the ivermectin + doxycycline group, and 77.3% (17/22) in the 5-day ivermectin group were recorded as having a fever, among whom 84.2% (16/19), 94.1% (16/17), and 100% (17/17), respectively, were afebrile on day 7.
So after 5 days, 84% of the control group did not have a fever, but 100% of the IVM group didn't have a fever.
Sample size is small I know, and we agreed to not touch on this, mostly because meta analysis takes care of that part. A bunch of small studies all saying the same thing, from a statistical standpoint, is better, than one large study saying the same thing (provided n for the large study equals the sum of samples of the small studies).
I'm sorry Diesel, you cannot pick and choose which studies you think are "flawed" to go into a meta-analysis, because you're just introducing your own biases. A meta-analysis aggregates over many studies, to find if they're converging on a common data point. Unless there was a global cabal trying to push IVM, your desperate attempt at nitpicking will be "smoothed" out in the meta analysis.
I don't think they are flawed. They have been shown to be flawed. Being that you have read "many" studies I would think you would have been versed and read each study in this meta-analysis but it's apparent you just do the usual copy and paste without reading the actual studies. Carvallo and Niaee studies have flaws and errors. They cannot be used.
Quote:
Here is what they found, instead of cherry picking:
And their conclusions:
The hospitalization data was a wash, but based on many factors. This is key from the hospitalizations data.
So after 5 days, 84% of the control group did not have a fever, but 100% of the IVM group didn't have a fever.
Sample size is small I know, and we agreed to not touch on this, mostly because meta analysis takes care of that part. A bunch of small studies all saying the same thing, from a statistical standpoint, is better, than one large study saying the same thing (provided n for the large study equals the sum of samples of the small studies).
Um no, They should use hospitalization length which is more severe to determine significant benefit of Ivermectin. Also, for the cough the placebo group did better than ivermectin in this trial on cough (p=0.15)
So basically you are hanging your hat on one study that shows the Ivermectin fever group had 2 less people with no fever after Day 5, and you are touting this as showing significant benefit of Ivermectin.
This study would have been impressive if it showed hospital stay were significantly reduced and cough and fever were dropped more significantly than the placebo group. To me this study really doesn't tell us anything about the effectivness against COVID especially severe COVID. And yet we have many RCT's showing no benefit of Ivermectin.
Last edited by Diesel350z; 10-29-2021 at 01:49 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyway you slice it, it's unethical and it's dishonest and it just shows the lack of knowledge about his own study. The plagiarism is just the start to the many issues that plague the study such as the fake data, the extreme terminal digit biases, duplicated patients, deaths in repeating patterns, deaths in control arm, etc. Giving him a pass on the plagiarism just goes to show that you are not valuing scientific integrity and that you have no problem with unethical behavior.