Ivermectin protects against Covid19 and successfully cures it. Safer than a vaccine. Updates | |
JustmeTX
(OP) User ID: 84369183 United States 01/01/2024 01:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
S-man
User ID: 78755279 Germany 03/06/2024 06:15 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to pierrekorymedicalmusings.com (secure)] The Last of The "Big Seven" Fraudulent Ivermectin Trials Has Finally Been Published For anyone who has read my book, “The War on Ivermectin”, you may recall Chapter 25 called “Counterfeit Trials - The Big Six,” where I detailed the innumerable manipulations in the design and conduct of the six largest trials on ivermectin (two of them funded and conducted by Big Pharma captured NIH (i.e. ACTIV-6) , and another by Bill Gates and FTX (recall that their former CEO Sam Bankman Fried is currently in jail for fraud and awaiting up to a 100 year sentence). The others were all carried out by investigators with deep conflicts of interest (COI) with Big Pharma. Know that this fact made the 6 trials unique amongst ivermectin trials - in the other 32 early treatment trials (the near majority highly positive), I could find no investigators who reported COI with Big Pharma. In that chapter, I mentioned that I could have and should have instead titled it, “The Big Seven” because I knew Oxford’s PRINCIPLE trial was deploying the same tactics as the other 6 trials Last Edited by S-man on 03/06/2024 06:15 AM |
S-man
User ID: 86028581 Norway 04/03/2024 03:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Peer review is so broken.... https://x.com/_/status/1775008700874510527 Alexandros Marinos @alexandrosM Apr 2 This is completely unthinkable. A meta-analysis of ivermectin makes a rookie error (inverting the data for treatment and control). The error is pointed out in the preprint and the relevant figure is corrected. However this correction changed the outcome of the meta-analysis from "ivermectin doesn't work" to "ivermectin works". Yet, somehow... ...the meta-analysis was published in the official journal of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, with the corrected figure but *without correcting the conclusion and the abstract*. I continue to think that the biggest crimes when it comes to ivermectin were committed in the meta-analyses. Many RCTs did what they could to water down the results, but ultimately the signal accumulates. It then came to the meta-analyses to report their findings. The amount of ridiculous errors like the above were more than I can count. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 70991122 Netherlands 04/03/2024 04:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Peer review is so broken.... Quoting: S-man https://x.com/_/status/1775008700874510527 Alexandros Marinos @alexandrosM Apr 2 This is completely unthinkable. A meta-analysis of ivermectin makes a rookie error (inverting the data for treatment and control). The error is pointed out in the preprint and the relevant figure is corrected. However this correction changed the outcome of the meta-analysis from "ivermectin doesn't work" to "ivermectin works". Yet, somehow... ...the meta-analysis was published in the official journal of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, with the corrected figure but *without correcting the conclusion and the abstract*. I continue to think that the biggest crimes when it comes to ivermectin were committed in the meta-analyses. Many RCTs did what they could to water down the results, but ultimately the signal accumulates. It then came to the meta-analyses to report their findings. The amount of ridiculous errors like the above were more than I can count. Bump. Corruption without bounds. Our eyes have seen evil like few before. Thank you for all you do, S-man. |