One third of the ivermectin COVID studies shown to be fraudulent

[Hip]

BBC article on new data from by Dr Kyle Sheldrick investigating fraudulent activity in the ivermectin studies: Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug.

Here is a BBC TV interview with paper author Dr Kyle Sheldrick. He basically found that a third of the ivermectin studies were fraudulent, especially the ones claiming miraculous results.

Extract from the BBC interview with Dr Sheldrick:

A very large number of these [ivermectin] studies are simply fake. They are false, they either did not happen at all, did not happen as the authors describe them, or reported false results.


It's not all of the trials, but it's close to a third of them, and it's universally the trials that were making these miracle claims of 80% and 90% lower rates of death. And they were really holding out the conclusion that ivermectin had any positive effect in COVID. With these trials removed, that evidence has now collapsed.

Dr Kyle Sheldrick's investigation is here. It states:

The authors of one recently published meta-analysis of ivermectin for COVID-19 have publicly stated that they will now reanalyze and republish their now-retracted meta-analysis and will no longer include either of the two papers just mentioned.

As these two papers were the only studies included in that meta-analysis to demonstrate an independently significant reduction in mortality, the revision will probably show no mortality benefit for ivermectin.

Several other studies that claim a clinical benefit for ivermectin are similarly fraught, and contain impossible numbers in their results, unexplainable mismatches between trial registry updates and published patient demographics, purported timelines that are not consistent with the veracity of the data collection, and substantial methodological weaknesses.

We expect further studies supporting ivermectin to be withdrawn over the coming months.

Ivermectin is not antiviral for coronavirus in vivo, this was shown ages ago, in a published study in July 2020. That study showed plasma concentrations of ivermectin would be 250 times too low to achieve an antiviral effect in vivo. So no reason to suspect in advance that ivermectin would have any benefit for COVID.


Seems like the FLCCC, the group promoting ivermectin, are so far silent regarding this new paper, as there is nothing on their site about Dr Kyle Sheldrick's investigative study.

 

[hapl808]

This is one of the (many) reasons I've been skeptical of ivermectin treatment for COVID. Too many people have a vested interest in its success or failure, and I don't believe one bit in the pristine sanctity of drugs studies.

Sadly, it's also why I'm skeptical of things like Remdesevir - which is the wonder drug every single time a new viral illness threatens, until more sober reviews show it wasn't as much of a wonder drug as people thought. But with Remdesevir, most of the people studying it stand to gain billions if it's successful.

This is the problem with the way our drug trials operate. Often companies can just keep doing studies until they get the results they want, then suppress the bad results and release the good ones. Or change endpoints in mid-study (like PACE) to prove the outcome they want.

It's a messed up stew but unfortunately our only option.

 

[BrightCandle]

There is a sickness at the route of medicine that is driven by profit and greed not by helping people. We are a sick society that has completely lost its way in the pursuit of growth and personal wealth to the point of fraud being normal. While no one goes to jail for the fraud it will continue as they only ever see the upsides of misinformation and what profit it can bring them.

 

[Hip]

There is a sickness at the route of medicine that is driven by profit and greed not by helping people.

The fraudulent ivermectin studies were the ones from developing countries, rather than first world nations. So this particular incident is not a reflection on Western society.

We are awaiting the results of the University of Oxford PRINCIPLE trial on ivermectin.

PRINCIPLE is "the world’s largest clinical trial of possible COVID-19 treatments for recovery at home and in other non-hospital settings".

 

[Oliver3]

BBC article on new data from by Dr Kyle Sheldrick investigating fraudulent activity in the ivermectin studies: Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug.

Here is a BBC TV interview with paper author Dr Kyle Sheldrick. He basically found that a third of the ivermectin studies were fraudulent, especially the ones claiming miraculous results.

Dr Kyle Sheldrick's investigation is here. It states:




Seems like the FLCCC, the group promoting ivermectin, are so far silent regarding this new paper, as there is nothing on their site about Dr Kyle Sheldrick's investigative study.

The BBC are no longer a bastion of investigative journalism anymore. Its pretty embarrassing.
What annoys me about ivermectin is Kory flagged the use of the drug before the vaccine rollout and yet, in the jaws of an emergency, no one did anything.
We could know one way or the other if this works instead of all this politicisation of a drug

 

[Hip]

The BBC are no longer a bastion of investigative journalism anymore.

This was Dr Kyle Sheldrick's investigation, not the BBC's. The BBC just reported on it.

Dr Sheldrick is an Australian medical researcher with a special interest in medical research fraud.

We could know one way or the other if this works instead of all this politicisation of a drug

We know from theoretical calculations that ivermectin does not have any antiviral effect for coronavirus in vivo. That was known last year.

The original reason ivermectin was proposed as a COVID treatment was because it was found to be antiviral in vitro. But calculations soon showed that the very high concentrations of ivermectin used in vitro could not be obtained in vivo. So the reality is that ivermectin cannot have any antiviral effects against coronavirus in clinical use.

It is possible ivermectin might have some other benefits for COVID; for example it might stimulate the immune system; one study found ivermectin stimulates the production of antibodies by B-cells, via a mechanism involving T-cells. But it does not appear to be antiviral.

 

[Pyrrhus]

The original reason ivermectin was proposed as a COVID treatment was because it was found to be antiviral in vitro. But calculations soon showed that the very high concentrations of ivermectin used in vitro could not be obtained in vivo. So the reality is that ivermectin cannot have any antiviral effects against coronavirus in clinical use.

...Unless it can be combined with other antiviral compounds as part of a synergistic antiviral cocktail...

 

[Rufous McKinney]

But 2/3rds are not fraudulent?

 

[Oliver3]

This was Dr Kyle Sheldrick's investigation, not the BBC's. The BBC just reported on it.

Dr Sheldrick is an Australian medical researcher with a special interest in medical research fraud.





We know from theoretical calculations that ivermectin does not have any antiviral effect for coronavirus in vivo. That was known last year.

The original reason ivermectin was proposed as a COVID treatment was because it was found to be antiviral in vitro. But calculations soon showed that the very high concentrations of ivermectin used in vitro could not be obtained in vivo. So the reality is that ivermectin cannot have any antiviral effects against coronavirus in clinical use.

It is possible ivermectin might have some other benefits for COVID; for example it might stimulate the immune system; one study found ivermectin stimulates the production of antibodies by B-cells, via a mechanism involving T-cells. But it does not appear to be antiviral.

Let's see what happens with Oxford.
I'm really wary of these fervent narratives that want to prove that certain drugs are bad or good.
Until proper trials are done it's conjecture.
There is enough data for a trial to be done so let's see what Oxford comes up with.
If it turns out that ivermectin is useful, what a missed opportunity.
It may have anti viral properties, we don't know, it seems to have anti inflammatory properties hence we should give it a try, especially since it's cheap with a good safety profile

 

[Hip]

...Unless it can be combined with other antiviral compounds as part of a synergistic antiviral cocktail...

I am not sure how that could work: when you do the maths, you see that when given orally, ivermectin levels in the blood are hundreds of times lower than the levels which are shown to have an antiviral effect in vitro. It's not that ivermectin has a weak antiviral effect; it would appear from theoretical pharmacokinetic calculations to have no in vivo antiviral effect at all.

If you found a bunch of antivirals which each had weak effects against coronavirus, and placed many of these in a cocktail, then sure, you may be able to get additive effects which might be clinically useful. But the maths shows oral ivermectin does not seem to have any antiviral effect.

it seems to have anti inflammatory properties hence we should give it a try, especially since it's cheap with a good safety profile

Agreed, it could have anti-inflammatory effects which might be beneficial for COVID. It does not help though when some researchers are blatantly faking their ivermectin studies.

Getting false information can set people down the wrong track. If ivermectin works, we want to know about it. If it does not work, we also want to know about it, so that we can move on to something else. What did these researchers think they were doing when they decided to fake their ivermectin studies?

 

[Pyrrhus]

If you found a bunch of antivirals which each had weak effects against coronavirus, and placed many of these in a cocktail, then sure, you may be able to get additive effects which might be clinically useful.

Note that I was referring to synergistic effects, not additive effects.

For example, Ribavirin was used for many years in a synergistic cocktail to treat the Hepatitis C virus, despite the fact that the blood concentrations of Ribavirin were hundreds of times lower than the concentration needed to suppress the virus in vitro. But it still was useful when included in a synergistic cocktail alongside both interferon and a protease inhibitor.

 

[Hip]

Ribavirin was used for many years in a synergistic cocktail to treat the Hepatitis C virus, despite the fact that the blood concentrations of Ribavirin were hundreds of times lower than the concentration needed to suppress the virus in vitro.

Ribavirin does have some mild to moderate direct antiviral effects against some enteroviruses, according to some calculations I did years ago. But I think ribavirin may also fight viruses by an immunomodulatory action, in addition to its antiviral effects. So that's likely the reason ribavirin has a stronger effect against viruses than its mild antiviral action would suggest.

 

[Oliver3]

I am not sure how that could work: when you do the maths, you see that when given orally, ivermectin levels in the blood are hundreds of times lower than the levels which are shown to have an antiviral effect in vitro. It's not that ivermectin has a weak antiviral effect; it would appear from theoretical pharmacokinetic calculations to have no in vivo antiviral effect at all.

If you found a bunch of antivirals which each had weak effects against coronavirus, and placed many of these in a cocktail, then sure, you may be able to get additive effects which might be clinically useful. But the maths shows oral ivermectin does not seem to have any antiviral effect.

What is an anti viral effect. Do we know how antivirals fully work. On the one hand youre saying one third of studies are corrupt, on the other hand you're saying there's little anti viral effect. But if we haven't got the proper studies, we cannot know that.
There's , by your own admission, two thirds of studies showing efficacy. The fact it's been sat on for so long in an emergency doesn't sit well.
This all depends who you ask as to how effective it is. Tess lowrie wouldn't agree with you, or Dr Malone etc. Again we're gonna start politicising stuff unnecessarily. I just want trials done
I'm saying, I don't know. I don't think you can know because we need gold standard trials But can anyone explain to me why they haven't been done?. That's the extremely uncomfortable thing here for me.

To me hip, ones mind cannot be made up either way.
One thing I also know is Pfizer et Al are also known for being a bit creative with their data.
I believe the vaccines work but for me I'd love a cheap, safe alternative to a vaccine if that's available at all. The medical establishment barely recognises us as a real problem, let alone tracking how our very sensitive community react to this new vaccine.
I've had covid personally. Nasty flu for me and some long term effects. This was before there was a vaccine.
Anecdotally, in forums, I've heard many people say ivermectin has reduced of got rid of their long covid symptoms. Given its similarity to m.e. and my exposure to covid, I'd love to see studies done as a maintenance prophylactic and perhaps as an anti inflammatory treatment for long covid / m.e.
This desire to denigrate a " right wing" drug is potentially harmful. Let's explore all the avenues properly.
If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but until decent studies come in, I feel it's important we keep our minds open and keep pushing for decent trials

 

[Oliver3]

I am not sure how that could work: when you do the maths, you see that when given orally, ivermectin levels in the blood are hundreds of times lower than the levels which are shown to have an antiviral effect in vitro. It's not that ivermectin has a weak antiviral effect; it would appear from theoretical pharmacokinetic calculations to have no in vivo antiviral effect at all.

If you found a bunch of antivirals which each had weak effects against coronavirus, and placed many of these in a cocktail, then sure, you may be able to get additive effects which might be clinically useful. But the maths shows oral ivermectin does not seem to have any antiviral effect.

I have read the reports. I don't buy it. There's been so much activism against this drug, I want Oxford to do this properly. If it doesn't work.great. no skin off my nose but just as going down a wrong road is s problem, not pursuing a road is too.
And as we know, the killer part of covid is the cytokine storm. Ivermectin seems to help with that.
Researchers on all sides of this response fudge results. Let's be honest. Remdesivir seems pretty useless. The history of pharmaceutical endeavour is littered with similar stori3 to the ivermectin one.
One fifth of all FDA approved drugs eventually get recalled after going through gold standard trials. You could ask why that is.
The usual answer is...money.

 

[Hip]

This is one of the (many) reasons I've been skeptical of ivermectin treatment for COVID. Too many people have a vested interest in its success or failure, and I don't believe one bit in the pristine sanctity of drugs studies.

It's the other away around, as far as I can see. Ivermectin has been heavily promoted by people like the FLCCC, and ivermectin has attained a sort of cult status on social media as a miracle drug for COVID.

Yet there is no theoretical reason to believe ivermectin might help, it's just a random drug really.

And in terms of empirical data, it is now clear there is little evidence of benefit for COVID, given that the third world studies which claimed ivermectin was beneficial have turned out to be fraudulent.



The research into ivermectin as a COVID treatment is actually quite an irrational and illogical one: we know from the in vitro antiviral studies and the pharmacokinetic data that oral ivermectin will have no antiviral benefit for COVID.

But it seems some medical researchers got excited by the in vitro antiviral results, and went ahead with clinical trials anyway, even though they should have been wiser, and should have examined the pharmacokinetics.

The reality is that there is no reason to suspect in advance that ivermectin might help COVID, it is just a random drug. If you are going to start investigating random drugs for possible COVID benefits, well then there are plenty to choose from. There are over 20,000 different pharmaceutical drugs that you might randomly investigate.

Ivermectin is just a random drug that got swept under the pandemic spotlight, and has thereafter entered in to a crazy world of social media cult status and political activism.


I might turn out that ivermectin does have some benefit for COVID. But then so might any of the other 20,000 different pharmaceutical drugs.

 

[Oliver3]

It's the other away around, as far as I can see. Ivermectin has been heavily promoted by people like the FLCCC, and ivermectin has attained a sort of cult status on social media as a miracle drug for COVID.

Yet there is no theoretical reason to believe ivermectin might help, it's just a random drug really.

And in terms of empirical data, it is now clear there is little evidence of benefit for COVID, given that the third world studies which claimed ivermectin was beneficial have turned out to be fraudulent.



The research into ivermectin as a COVID treatment is actually quite an irrational and illogical one: we know from the in vitro antiviral studies and the pharmacokinetic data that oral ivermectin will have no antiviral benefit for COVID.

But it seems some medical researchers got excited by the in vitro antiviral results, and went ahead with clinical trials anyway, even though they should have been wiser, and should have examined the pharmacokinetics.

The reality is that there is no reason to suspect in advance that ivermectin might help COVID, it is just a random drug. If you are going to start investigating random drugs for possible COVID benefits, well then there are plenty to choose from. There are over 20,000 different pharmaceutical drugs that you might randomly investigate.

Ivermectin is just a random drug that got swept under the pandemic spotlight, and has thereafter entered in to a crazy world of social media cult status and political activism.


I might turn out that ivermectin does have some benefit for COVID. But then so might any of the other 20,000 different pharmaceutical drugs.

There is evidence it works.
It should be pursued til we know. That's all there is to it.
The vaccine roll out us still carrying on. We need as many interventions as possible.

 

[Oliver3]

It's the other away around, as far as I can see. Ivermectin has been heavily promoted by people like the FLCCC, and ivermectin has attained a sort of cult status on social media as a miracle drug for COVID.

Yet there is no theoretical reason to believe ivermectin might help, it's just a random drug really.

And in terms of empirical data, it is now clear there is little evidence of benefit for COVID, given that the third world studies which claimed ivermectin was beneficial have turned out to be fraudulent.



The research into ivermectin as a COVID treatment is actually quite an irrational and illogical one: we know from the in vitro antiviral studies and the pharmacokinetic data that oral ivermectin will have no antiviral benefit for COVID.

But it seems some medical researchers got excited by the in vitro antiviral results, and went ahead with clinical trials anyway, even though they should have been wiser, and should have examined the pharmacokinetics.

The reality is that there is no reason to suspect in advance that ivermectin might help COVID, it is just a random drug. If you are going to start investigating random drugs for possible COVID benefits, well then there are plenty to choose from. There are over 20,000 different pharmaceutical drugs that you might randomly investigate.

Ivermectin is just a random drug that got swept under the pandemic spotlight, and has thereafter entered in to a crazy world of social media cult status and political activism.


I might turn out that ivermectin does have some benefit for COVID. But then so might any of the other 20,000 different pharmaceutical drugs.

No it got flagged by Pierre Kory...that's how it happened. I don't understand your objection to it.
Mainstream media has done everything possible to smear it anyway, calling it horse dewormer etc.
Kory testified to Congress didn't he. It was like they out a tail on a donkey and chose any drug.
The resistance to even trying it properly is what flabbergast me. Supposed emergency. Therefore have a go.
Here in the UK, we spent 22 billion pounds on a track n trace system that didn't work.
How much would a decent ivermectin trial cost?

 

[Oliver3]

There is evidence it works.
It should be pursued til we know. That's all there is to it.
The vaccine roll out us still carrying on. We need as many interventions as possible.

Its not a random drug. And the assertion that one third of the studies were fraudulent. That may be the case. But the FDA reports a problem with a third if drugs that go through placebo controlled randomised trials.
We all know of the mendacity involved in medicine. I think your cherry picking what you want to be right.
The fact is, we don't know. Ivermectin has been flagged in many poor countries that can't afford vaccines for it to be tried.
Try it, if it doesn't work, move on

 

[Rufous McKinney]

Its like you are ivermectin phobic haha

I have Rx Ivermectin here, from my Doctor. If I should come down with COVID I will likely take it. Its right here.

 

[Oliver3]

I have Rx Ivermectin here, from my Doctor. If I should come down with COVID I will likely take it. Its right here.

Its very safe supposedly so good call rufous