The microbiologists in Brussels loved it, and by March of 1983 I was incredibly confident. During that year Robin and I wrote the full paper. But everything was rejected. Whenever we presented our stuff to gastroenterologists, we got the same campaign of negativism. I had this discovery that could undermine a $3 billion industry, not just the drugs but the entire field of endoscopy. Every gastroenterologist was doing 20 or 30 patients a week who might have ulcers, and 25 percent of them would. Because it was a recurring disease that you could never cure, the patients kept coming back. And here I was handing it on a platter to the infectious-disease guys.
In 2005, he got a Nobel Prize.
[1] https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-doctor-who-drank...
> "My impression of WHO is that I feel sorry for being caught in a dilemma. Until now, I have only seen bright light in my life as a researcher. But this time, I learned for the first time after reading this article that shadows also exist in the world... Ivermectin is no longer a scientific issue, but a political issue." --Satoshi Omura
It seems like big tech's misinformation crusade is biting us and science in the ass.
[0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33495752/
[1]: https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/of...
[2]: https://twitter.com/michaelcapuzzo/status/141062676916673331...
[3]: https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/92c85ad9476f56a6fc51daec56...
It does also bring into question the validity of Tess Lowrie's systematic review of ivermectin efficacy.
Also, your systematic review [1] includes the Elgazzar as "low risk" of bias... when in fact Elgazzar had GLARING errors.
It also makes me question the competence of everyone involved in this systematic review that they can't find these glaring errors but some random med student can.
You really cannot trust the raw risk estimates that they give on this site. But it's the most comprehensive list of trials for ivermectin there is, and a place for you to form your own opinion. Elgazzar has already been removed as a data point.
Surely the point of the OP's post is that the reader can't evaluate these studies on their own. At least not without undertaking the kind of review and background research that is not reasonable for even the expert reader.
Not to mention the irony of accusing the GP of cherry-picking when the site you linked is a cherry-picked list of trials curated by anonymous alleged HCWs.
The point of the parent article is that it's impossible to assess a paper by reading it. There's no way to, for example, determine that studies on which a paper relies were fictional without further research. Ability doesn't matter - there isn't sufficient information in the paper alone to make an assessment. That is the crux of the crisis.
> And second, what's wrong with anonymous alleged HCWs? Seems like the intersection of politics and science has gotten out of hand if you ask me. Also, if you could please find me a well-laid out superset of the articles in ivmmeta.com, I will gladly replace the link.
It's hard to believe this comment is made in good faith. You yourself insinuated that another poster was cherry-picking, which is exactly what you did in your response. I can only assume you are trolling or otherwise commenting in bad faith?
https://mobile.twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/141654059008...
(Spoiler: not much.)
This study [2] from the early days of the epidemic indicated that the patients receiving ivermectin needed invasive ventilation much earlier. Which is not a good result.
[1] https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/ant...
Also, I think fraud is easier to miss (which may seem as it being tolerated) if it's something people expect or is not such a big change from the norm. For example, I don't remember the specifics but there's a story of some constant that was estimated a long time ago, and as people tried to measure it more accurately, those who calculated a value too different from the previous estimate were rejected.
I bring that up because in this case, Wakefield's claim may have been so outlandish as to provoke intense scrutiny, which, as the paper you linked to says, led to findings of fraud.
Are you implying that he was let off easy? Should have gone to jail, IMO: "The panel found he had subjected 11 children to invasive tests such as lumbar punctures and colonoscopies that they did not need, without ethical approval."
Performing unfounded experiments on children while committing fraud should be treated as criminal, not simply reputation-destroying, IMO.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jan/28/andrew-wakef...
(I understand we need to protect researchers from some liabilities in the ethical pursuit of progress, but he was so far over the line that the "slippery slope" argument is kind of silly. Should medical researchers be immune to all prosecution no matter what they do or what lies they tell?)