The Covid19 Assembly is leading an attempt to halt the University of Oxford’s “Principle” study on Ivermectin.
We feel that it is being set up to fail in order to discredit Ivermectin and similar treatments and prophylactics. However, as a result of discrediting Ivermectin the study will likely cause the deaths of people who would otherwise have survived with established treatment.
The Covid19 Assembly is leading an attempt to halt the University of Oxford’s “Principle” study on Ivermectin.
We feel that it is being set up to fail in order to discredit Ivermectin and similar treatments and prophylactics. However, as a result of discrediting Ivermectin the study will likely cause the deaths of people who would otherwise have survived with established treatment.
I try to keep an open mind. But this does look like the quack’s claim that it does work, but because of reasons it’s impossible to show that with methodology sound research. The treatment resembles god, but not in a good way.
We want to very quickly produce a report to prove that the methodology of this study is not how it should be, put the information in front of all people involved and notify the authorities. We want stop the study or discredit it so it cannot in turn discredit Ivermectin.
If they get this "report" out before the study is finished - and the study ends up showing that Ivermectin works really well - watching them tie themselves in knots as they attempt a "reverse-ferret" operation should be quite amusing.
Yes. Ivermectin supporters don't seem to understand what 'low-certainty' and 'moderate-certainty' mean.
The rest of us assume that most positive results from small trials turn out to be wrong. That meta analysis and the others are just pointers that Ivermectin would be worth studying with a large well designed and conducted trail.
Bird on a Fire wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 9:07 am
Have they said what the flaws are yet?
Not afaik. I even asked their scientific advisor but no reply (yet). I've been reduced to imagining what it could possibly be.
Here's the description from the Principle news item:
Following a screening questionnaire to confirm eligibility, participants enrolled in the study will be randomly assigned to receive a three-day course of oral ivermectin treatment. They will be followed-up for 28 days and will be compared with participants who have been assigned to receive the usual standard of NHS care only. People aged 18 to 64 with certain underlying health conditions or shortness of breath from COVID-19, or aged over 65, are eligible to join the trial within the first 14 days of experiencing COVID-19 symptoms or receiving a positive test.
Here's what the C19 assembly say:
We feel that it is being set up to fail in order to discredit Ivermectin and similar treatments and prophylactics. However, as a result of discrediting Ivermectin the study will likely cause the deaths of people who would otherwise have survived with established treatment.
My guess is that they've read "ivermectin vs standard care" as meaning the ivermectin group won't get standard care. Which seems pretty unlikely on the face of it, and even more unlikely given that in the Principle trial of budesonide:
Participants were randomized to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions.
bob sterman wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 10:10 am
So...
We want to very quickly produce a report to prove that the methodology of this study is not how it should be, put the information in front of all people involved and notify the authorities. We want stop the study or discredit it so it cannot in turn discredit Ivermectin.
If they get this "report" out before the study is finished - and the study ends up showing that Ivermectin works really well - watching them tie themselves in knots as they attempt a "reverse-ferret" operation should be quite amusing.
Easy.
'Thanks to our pressure, the researchers were forced to alter the trial protocol'
'Ivermectin is so damned good that, despite their efforts to discredit it, the results were still positive'
I don't mind so much when unqualified idiots like Ivor Cummins or Michael Yeadon spread their b.llsh.t. I object to it, of course, but at least they are not abusing their professional positions to do so. But when this is over, I hope that Clare Craig, Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists, is given a lifetime ban from practising medicine.
Something something hammer something something nail
The Covid19 Assembly is leading an attempt to halt the University of Oxford’s “Principle” study on Ivermectin.
We feel that it is being set up to fail in order to discredit Ivermectin and similar treatments and prophylactics. However, as a result of discrediting Ivermectin the study will likely cause the deaths of people who would otherwise have survived with established treatment.
I went to see if there'd been an update and
Not found.
It looks like nothing was found at this location.
I don't mind so much when unqualified idiots like Ivor Cummins or Michael Yeadon spread their b.llsh.t. I object to it, of course, but at least they are not abusing their professional positions to do so. But when this is over, I hope that Clare Craig, Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists, is given a lifetime ban from practising medicine.
The GMC and Royal College of Pathologists have both been very poor.
And it's not a new issue, look at how long it took before Wakefield was struck off.
At least one of those organisations - I can't remember which claims to adhere to the Nolan Principles of standards in public life. I'd have thought that she failed that at least.
I did try to report her, but it didn't go anywhere, and the form wasn't really appropriate for it
