Dr. Paul Marik, 2nd Most Published Doctor In The World, Fired For Questioning Narrative

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

From your source:


Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19
Popp et al., Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3 (Preprint)
Highly biased meta analysis. Authors originally wrote a highly biased meta analysis that avoided statistical significance on individual outcomes with extreme exclusions [Popp], although efficacy was still seen when looking across all outcomes. Authors modified the protocol published a short time before, thereby performing a retrospective analysis, clearly designed to produce a desired outcome.
Authors indicated they would update the analysis but did not for a very long time. Authors would have been unable to maintain the lack of statistical significance with the protocol. In this new meta analysis, authors invented a new method to exclude most studies, thereby producing another retrospective analysis, again clearly designed to produce the desired outcome.
Authors included only 14 of 60 studies in the original analysis. For the update, they include even fewer studies, 11 of 87. A key method used was excluding studies without confirmation of prospective registration, however authors violate this to include the Together Trial [twitter.com], which accounts for 40% of the patients in the extreme subset selected.
In the companion article for the new exclusion methods, authors note that one indicator for exclusion is if the observed risk reduction is too large [medrxiv.org, twitter.com (B)]. The trial resulting in Paxlovid approval would be excluded on this basis.
As just one example of extreme bias, authors classify the Together Trial as low risk of bias. In fact, this trial has refused to release data despite pledging to, has reported multiple impossible numbers, and had blinding failure and randomization failure, along with many other issues [Reis].
The analysis is also very out of date, including trials only up to April 2022, and including only trials with >1,000 patients since Dec 16, 2021 (yet another cherry-picking mechanism).
With regards to ivmmeta:
- authors claim ivmmeta "states the FLCCC and BIRD as its resources". This is false, there is no relationship with FLCCC or BIRD.
- author's discussion of pooled estimates is disingenuous. ivmmeta reports individual outcome results which are the first item discussed in the abstract. The advantages and disadvantages of pooled estimates are clearly discussed.
- authors statement that there is no prospective protocol is highly disingenuous. The ivmmeta protocol was published in November 2020, is unchanged from the same protocol published in October 2020 used for another medication, and the same protocol is used for 42 treatments. The ivmmeta analysis has been updated regularly with the same protocol. In contrast, authors have published their meta analysis only twice, both times changing the protocol creating a retrospective analysis. Further, authors have created a new unique protocol for this treatment.
- authors claim that "there is no assessment of the risk of bias or the certainty of evidence". This is false, studies are evaluated and 29 are excluded in exclusion analyses. Authors could note that ivmmeta focuses on actual bias as opposed to theoretical risk of bias. While authors assess risk of bias, their assessment is implausible, as shown with the example of the Together Trial above. Note that not only does the Together Trial have extreme actual bias, the theoretical risk of bias is also extremely high due to the conflicts of interest and trial design.
See [Popp] for many other issues.

Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial

www.youtube.com...

FDA Exec on Camera Reveals Future COVID Policy "Biden Wants To Inoculate As Many People As Possible"

www.youtube.com...

VAERS Whistleblower Nurse Speaks Out On Pediatric Myocarditis Cases

link

Ivermectin discussion with Dr Tess Lawrie

www.youtube.com...

A Letter to Andrew Hill | Dr Tess Lawrie - Ivermectin Suppression Likely Killed Millions

link

I recommend ^^^^^^ that video. You think its not a cover up???????

Cause it would mean ...emergency use of the £vaccine£ would be unnecessary and by that point BILLIONS had already exchanged hands, it was already planned to roll out no matter what they found, no matter what negative effects. This is pure DAMNING evidence.

Spread the word!

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Again posting from websites with unconfirmed data.

Different websites (such as ivmmeta.com... c19ivermectin.com... tratamientotemprano.org... among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates.
Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol.

BMJ

a reply to: thethinkingman

Just wondering, do you folk spend endless hours searching for stuff to feed your biased agenda?

Any comment on my link, above?

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0



Wrong.

Thanks for proving my point in you all just grab anything that fits your narrative and then say "wrong" using some unknown pro ivermectin site as your proof. I really do not want to get into this again and again and again with you.

“From multiple, large well-conducted, double-blind randomized clinical trials of now thousands of participants, ivermectin has not been shown to have any meaningful clinical benefit for the early, outpatient treatment of COVID-19,” Dr. David Boulware, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School and an adviser for two large trials in the U.S., told us in an email.

“Specifically, two large, multi-site randomized clinical trials (Covid-Out; ACTIV-6) have been completed in the United States. These two trials both failed to detect any statistically significant benefit of ivermectin,” Boulware added.

There is a lot of real data out there now...

I love being biased towards the truth. Cross my heart and hope to die.

a reply to: Xtrozero

FLCCC Responds to Results of ACTIV-6 Trial

In public statements, the study's authors and the mass media have positioned the trial (known as
ACTIV-6) as demonstrating a negative outcome for ivermectin,whereas the trial proved the
opposite.

So data shows works, summary says doesn't - who or what to believe.

We believe positive outcomes in the ACTIV-6 add to the existing evidence of efficacy for
ivermectin. With over 85 controlled trials showing large, statistically significant reductions in
hospitalization, death, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance, the discussion on
ivermectin and COVID-19 should be focused on strategies to optimize its use, in combination
with other effective therapies, to prevent and treat the virus.

a reply to: thethinkingman

Not grown up then?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0



Wrong.

Thanks for proving my point in you all just grab anything that fits your narrative and then say "wrong" using some unknown pro ivermectin site as your proof. I really do not want to get into this again and again and again with you.

“From multiple, large well-conducted, double-blind randomized clinical trials of now thousands of participants, ivermectin has not been shown to have any meaningful clinical benefit for the early, outpatient treatment of COVID-19,” Dr. David Boulware, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School and an adviser for two large trials in the U.S., told us in an email.

“Specifically, two large, multi-site randomized clinical trials (Covid-Out; ACTIV-6) have been completed in the United States. These two trials both failed to detect any statistically significant benefit of ivermectin,” Boulware added.

There is a lot of real data out there now...

Did you even read the link? That's one of the largest meta analysis ever done. Period.

Oh you's are quick to talk crap you have no idea about. Words are just words but actions speak louder than words.
Oh wheres the admission of being wrong guys??? Oh can't even apologise??? You know what this means?

It means you NEED TO LOOK RIGHT, thats whats important to you's, not things adding up, not the truth. Its proven by your actions. It means if people "think" you're right, you're right!!!!! wow so simple. Unfortunately for you guys, things are just a wee bit more complicated than that.

This means you do not care about what the truth is, you only care about what YOU come across like.

These people have no regard for you or anyones own thinking.... they dont care about how other people might come to their own conclusions. NO! if you aren't saying what they say you're just wrong...because that would mean they'll...be wrong and they can't be living with that.

Although they do live with it every second of every day. They just like to live a lie to avoid the reality.

a reply to: thethinkingman

The Latest Peer-Reviewed Research: Ivermectin Reduces Mortality Rate
from COVID-19 by 92% With Regular Use
A strictly controlled study of over 88,000 people showed a direct relationship between the
dose of ivermectin and the level of protection against the SARS-CoV-2 virus

The actual paper
Conclusion
Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin. This dose-response efficacy reinforces the prophylactic effects of ivermectin against COVID-19.


Humm, wonder if the truth will be let out?

Or will the be more distractions to hide the profits.

a reply to: puzzled2

Its already out, people just need to see. People need to realise they've been COMPLETELY LIED TOO. So the people that did that are NEVER going to admit it if they dont have too. They will ONLY admit it when they're caught and cannot possibly escape. It will go on and on until then.

People need to stop following these people that told them to do all this, no point in using laws and politics. Simply disobey them, simply do not do what they say en masse.

a reply to: thethinkingman

Forgotten how to use the reply button?

And please stop shouting in capitals.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Did you even read my above link, to your own source?

Any chance of a response?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

"Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19
Popp et al., Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3 (Preprint)
Highly biased meta analysis. Authors originally wrote a highly biased meta analysis that avoided statistical significance on individual outcomes with extreme exclusions [Popp], although efficacy was still seen when looking across all outcomes. Authors modified the protocol published a short time before, thereby performing a retrospective analysis, clearly designed to produce a desired outcome.
Authors indicated they would update the analysis but did not for a very long time. Authors would have been unable to maintain the lack of statistical significance with the protocol. In this new meta analysis, authors invented a new method to exclude most studies, thereby producing another retrospective analysis, again clearly designed to produce the desired outcome.
Authors included only 14 of 60 studies in the original analysis. For the update, they include even fewer studies, 11 of 87. A key method used was excluding studies without confirmation of prospective registration, however authors violate this to include the Together Trial [twitter.com], which accounts for 40% of the patients in the extreme subset selected.
In the companion article for the new exclusion methods, authors note that one indicator for exclusion is if the observed risk reduction is too large [medrxiv.org, twitter.com (B)]. The trial resulting in Paxlovid approval would be excluded on this basis.
As just one example of extreme bias, authors classify the Together Trial as low risk of bias. In fact, this trial has refused to release data despite pledging to, has reported multiple impossible numbers, and had blinding failure and randomization failure, along with many other issues [Reis].
The analysis is also very out of date, including trials only up to April 2022, and including only trials with >1,000 patients since Dec 16, 2021 (yet another cherry-picking mechanism).
With regards to ivmmeta:
- authors claim ivmmeta "states the FLCCC and BIRD as its resources". This is false, there is no relationship with FLCCC or BIRD.
- author's discussion of pooled estimates is disingenuous. ivmmeta reports individual outcome results which are the first item discussed in the abstract. The advantages and disadvantages of pooled estimates are clearly discussed.
- authors statement that there is no prospective protocol is highly disingenuous. The ivmmeta protocol was published in November 2020, is unchanged from the same protocol published in October 2020 used for another medication, and the same protocol is used for 42 treatments. The ivmmeta analysis has been updated regularly with the same protocol. In contrast, authors have published their meta analysis only twice, both times changing the protocol creating a retrospective analysis. Further, authors have created a new unique protocol for this treatment.
- authors claim that "there is no assessment of the risk of bias or the certainty of evidence". This is false, studies are evaluated and 29 are excluded in exclusion analyses. Authors could note that ivmmeta focuses on actual bias as opposed to theoretical risk of bias. While authors assess risk of bias, their assessment is implausible, as shown with the example of the Together Trial above. Note that not only does the Together Trial have extreme actual bias, the theoretical risk of bias is also extremely high due to the conflicts of interest and trial design.
See [Popp] for many other issues."

I will ask you again.

From comments on your own source.

Do you have any response or are you just a muppett?

originally posted by: puzzled2


So data shows works, summary says doesn't - who or what to believe.

We believe positive outcomes in the ACTIV-6 add to the existing evidence of efficacy for
ivermectin. With over 85 controlled trials showing large, statistically significant reductions in
hospitalization, death, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance, the discussion on
ivermectin and COVID-19 should be focused on strategies to optimize its use, in combination
with other effective therapies, to prevent and treat the virus.

"We believe" isn't even a summery, just a statement, and one from very bias group. So I kind of wonder why are we even talking about ivermectin anymore with COVID now not being any worst then a normal flu.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

"Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19
Popp et al., Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3 (Preprint)
Highly biased meta analysis. Authors originally wrote a highly biased meta analysis that avoided statistical significance on individual outcomes with extreme exclusions [Popp], although efficacy was still seen when looking across all outcomes. Authors modified the protocol published a short time before, thereby performing a retrospective analysis, clearly designed to produce a desired outcome.
Authors indicated they would update the analysis but did not for a very long time. Authors would have been unable to maintain the lack of statistical significance with the protocol. In this new meta analysis, authors invented a new method to exclude most studies, thereby producing another retrospective analysis, again clearly designed to produce the desired outcome.
Authors included only 14 of 60 studies in the original analysis. For the update, they include even fewer studies, 11 of 87. A key method used was excluding studies without confirmation of prospective registration, however authors violate this to include the Together Trial [twitter.com], which accounts for 40% of the patients in the extreme subset selected.
In the companion article for the new exclusion methods, authors note that one indicator for exclusion is if the observed risk reduction is too large [medrxiv.org, twitter.com (B)]. The trial resulting in Paxlovid approval would be excluded on this basis.
As just one example of extreme bias, authors classify the Together Trial as low risk of bias. In fact, this trial has refused to release data despite pledging to, has reported multiple impossible numbers, and had blinding failure and randomization failure, along with many other issues [Reis].
The analysis is also very out of date, including trials only up to April 2022, and including only trials with >1,000 patients since Dec 16, 2021 (yet another cherry-picking mechanism).
With regards to ivmmeta:
- authors claim ivmmeta "states the FLCCC and BIRD as its resources". This is false, there is no relationship with FLCCC or BIRD.
- author's discussion of pooled estimates is disingenuous. ivmmeta reports individual outcome results which are the first item discussed in the abstract. The advantages and disadvantages of pooled estimates are clearly discussed.
- authors statement that there is no prospective protocol is highly disingenuous. The ivmmeta protocol was published in November 2020, is unchanged from the same protocol published in October 2020 used for another medication, and the same protocol is used for 42 treatments. The ivmmeta analysis has been updated regularly with the same protocol. In contrast, authors have published their meta analysis only twice, both times changing the protocol creating a retrospective analysis. Further, authors have created a new unique protocol for this treatment.
- authors claim that "there is no assessment of the risk of bias or the certainty of evidence". This is false, studies are evaluated and 29 are excluded in exclusion analyses. Authors could note that ivmmeta focuses on actual bias as opposed to theoretical risk of bias. While authors assess risk of bias, their assessment is implausible, as shown with the example of the Together Trial above. Note that not only does the Together Trial have extreme actual bias, the theoretical risk of bias is also extremely high due to the conflicts of interest and trial design.
See [Popp] for many other issues."

I will ask you again.

From comments on your own source.

Do you have any response or are you just a muppett?

muppett

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I think describing Dr Malone as the "founder and inventor" of MRNA tech is not completely accurate.

Also describing him as a quack is not completely accurate .