JodyLee By JodyLee on Mon 26th July 2021checked Fact Checked
Share

Uncertainty As Huge Ivermectin COVID Treatment Study Removed

Disbelief when researchers found "glaring discrepancies in the data"

The Guardian attempted to discredit Ivermectin, but it should raise warning flags. Their opening paragraph sets a political stance. But do their claims stack up?

The efficacy of a drug being promoted by rightwing figures worldwide for treating Covid-19 is in serious doubt after a major study suggesting the treatment is effective against the virus was withdrawn.

Surely, that's an onion gag. Anyone supporting an alternative therapy to vaccination must be opposite to the liberal-lefty Guardian. While leftwing, rightwing, centre whatever has nothing to do with it.

In reality, solutions to help us out of the COVID pandemonia shouldn't have anything to do with politics. Science and logic should lead the way. But emotions and fear and ignorance take control.

Remove that political layer, and you're left with scientific misgivings. Claims of "serious doubt".

The problem is, the article is full of hypothetical fluff. As a result, it does a good job convincing non-scientific people.

Actually, I found myself cerebrally roaring at the radio. To the point, I searched for LBC's number. In the end, it was too late. The show was almost over. A spillage of misinformation had rippled through the airwaves.

Nick Ferrari, LBC's fantastic breakfast talk show host, claimed he cleared up a callers ivermectin assertion. "There's already reams of evidence showing Ivermectin has been successful in treating cases", the caller declared.

Granted, Nick Ferrari had the commercial break to find an adequate response. But he and his team landed on The Guardian article and cited that as evidence why Ivermectin should not be used to treat COVID.

I chuckle now. Because Nick Ferrari often rips into those that stumble on news through social media. And yet, they have searched for Ivermectin and COVID and then, seemingly, landed on the first result.

Our civilisation has crushed good journalism, science, and research. Our urgency to deliver and natural segregation only amplifies with tech. They are dragging us to our knees.

Nevertheless, The Guardian's argument cracks under pressure. You can see the fractures when you have a few facts to hand.

First of all, you need to know that Ivermectin works in two ways.

It prevents transmission and disease, and it is a treatment for diseased COVID patients

Secondly, the star witness backing up Ivermectin's ability is a meta-analysis of multiple research papers, not just one. Any journalist worth their credit would know this.

Incidentally, Dr Ahmed Elgazzar's randomised control trial is insignificant to Ivermectins effectiveness. But The Guardian article suggested it held weight. It said, "a randomised control trial, a type of study crucial in medicine because it is considered to provide the most reliable evidence on the effectiveness of interventions".

When, in fact, science considers our star witness to provide the most reliable evidence. A meta-analysis is on the top of the evidence pyramid.

Regarding the meta-analysis, The Guardian turned to an "expert". Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz said, “because the Elgazzar study is so large, and so massively positive – showing a 90% reduction in mortality – it hugely skews the evidence in favour of ivermectin”.

Does it? That's just speculation.

Why not ask the authors of the meta-analysis?

After The Guardian's smear attempt, Dr Bret Weinstein interviewed Dr Theresa Lawrie, one of the lead authors of the meta-analysis. In the interview, Dr Lawrie revealed their concerns over the Elgazzar study.

As it happens, Dr Lawrie's team ranked the Elgazzar study with an unclear risk of bises. Not high or low, because they were concerned after speaking with Dr Elgazzar.

Anyway, the great thing about a meta-analysis is you can easily remove a study from the data and hit the refresh button. She did this on camera to show how that study affected the results.

For Ivermectin's effect on preventing you from catching COVID, Dr Lawrie showed an...

86% reduction in COVID infections with Ivermectin. When you remove the Elgazzar data, it doesn't really change much. We've got an 87% reduction.

However, the Elgazzar study impacted the treatment effect. The meta-analysis started with a 62% reduction in death and dropped to a 49% reduction in death.

Either way, the meta-analysis still demonstrates the ability to save lives. Therefore, if you were sick with COVID, wouldn't you want this medicine available to help you recover?

More importantly, would you want to take it to prevent transmitting COVID in the first place?

The Guardian claims the efficacy of Ivermectin is in serious doubt. I cannot see it, can you?

Share
  • Effective Ivermectin Treatment To Prevent COVID-19 Disease

    Ivermectin Medicine Protects You From Coronavirus Disease

    Medicine protects you from coronavirus. In fact, Ivermectin prevents COVID by 86%. The studies prove this medication reduces the spread of infection. Therefore, Ivermectin offers protection for just about everyone. Especially people with high-risk factors like the sick and the elderly.

    Read More

  • Nutraceutical Coronavirus Treatment

    nutritional food with vitamins and minerals

    Boost and balance your immune system with micronutrients to reduce your risk of COVID-19 Disease. Optimise your nutrition because you're going to be infected... So protect yourself!

    Read More

Coronavirus