bionemporium.blogg.se

"Amazingly, the study found that people treated with ivermectin were 90% less likely to die than people who got the placebo, which if true would make ivermectin the most incredibly effective treatment ever to be discovered in modern medicine," epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz from the University of Wollongong wrote in a blog post combing through the study's various errors. The study was pulled after independent researchers, and one master's degree student doing an assignment for class, raised concerns that the data was potentially fabricated, and large sections of the study were plagiarized. The study was pulled after concerns were raised that the data was potentially fabricated, and large sections of the study were plagiarized. (The Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, where this study was published, did not respond to Insider's questions about whether this study was being investigated and/or retracted.) "You have to read about research in a critical way," Susanna Priest, editor in chief of the peer-reviewed journal Science Communication, previously told Insider. "What we have here is a conflict between our commitment to freedom of speech, and a clash with the nature of scientific truth." That could be one reason why they didn't fare as well in the trial, which has nothing to do with the ivermectin. Patients were ferried into different groups in seemingly haphazard ways, making it impossible to draw firm conclusions about what effect the medicine might've had on their outcomes.įor example, there is a far greater percentage of patients in the non-ivermectin group with hypertension (12.9%, compared to 7.9% in the ivermectin group).

In order for a study like this to truly be randomized, patients "should be divided into equally sized-groups," based on their conditions and comorbidities, professor Ben Mol of Monash University, who independently reviewed the study and complained to the journal that published it, said. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (They are committed to conducting further research on the drug to better answer that question.) Kevan Akrami, an infectious-disease and critical-care physician working in Salvador, Brazil, recently told Insider.Įven the study authors from Monash say their work does not "provide a definitive answer to whether or not ivermectin is a potential treatment for COVID-19." "There's effective ways to kill viruses in a lab that don't translate into what we could safely do in people," Dr. In other words, just because something works in a petri dish doesn't mean it'll do the same thing in humans.Ĭhagla, and many other experts, have also pointed out that the ivermectin dosage used in the study is far higher than anything that could safely be given to us. Joe's Hamilton and associate professor at McMaster University in Canada, said. Zain Chagla, an infectious-disease physician at St. "It doesn't say that this drug is effective in real life clinical practice, but it gives you the hint that it needs to be studied further," Dr. The study in question, published in the peer-reviewed journal Antiviral Research, is what researchers sometimes refer to as "hypothesis-generating" research. If a study is conducted "in vitro" that means it was done in a petri dish or test tube, and the results don't necessarily apply directly to real people.