We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

unscientific science • 1 year ago

This is the new version of the article:

https://www.medrxiv.org/con...

Enzo • 1 year ago

With many mistakes remaining...

unscientific science • 1 year ago

This is the new version of the article. Please post your critique also there:

https://www.medrxiv.org/con...

Robert Clark • 1 year ago

To the authors: with millions of lives at stake, you do not want to be on the wrong side of history on this.

The most ethical response considering the extreme importance of the issue is to go beyond just retracting and actually rewrite to conclude IVM by best available evidence does appear to have effectiveness as a treatment for COVID.

Robert Clark

Steve Kirsch • 1 year ago

Why hasn't this paper been retracted yet?

They reversed the numbers for the Niaee study which was pivotal to their conclusion. See this tweet from CovidAnalysis for details on the switch. There is also a video from Niaee himself attesting to the fact ivermectin works.

When you use the correct data, it shows ivermectin works. No surprise.

مرتضی نیایی • 1 year ago

Hi, I'm Dr.Niaee and I was surprised that even basic data from our RCT is completely mispresented and is WRONG. We had 60 indivisuals in control groups and 120 in intervention groups and even this simple thing is mispresrntated.

Andrew David Shiller MD • 1 year ago

Interesting. I see all the comments reporting that the authors mixed up the data. Very disturbing, but exactly why we have peer review. What's odd is that those comments show up here in version 1 of the medrxiv publication. And there is also a "version 2" of the publication (https://www.medrxiv.org/con... which appears to have the same abstract, but no comments pointing toward the mixed up data and conclusions. What's up with that?

unscientific science • 1 year ago

when you look up the link you must remove the ) sign at the end, otherwise the link will not function.

Marek J • 1 year ago

You have wrong data in the mortality analysis for Niaee study. You swaped IVM for Control. According to the study, 4 deaths from 116 occured in IVM and 11/49 occured in Control.

Looking forward to your recalculation.

Enzo • 1 year ago

There's even an additional mistake : According to the study, 4 deaths from 120 occured in IVM and 11/60 occured in Control.

Green Ranger • 1 year ago

The results and conclusions of this study are wrong. The authors mistook the ivermectin and control arms of one of the RCTs that they included. Look at figure 2. The results from Niaee 2020 are dramatically misreported. The actual results for that study are as follows:

Control groups: 11 deaths out of 60 patients.
Ivermectin groups: 4 deaths out of 90 patients.

When this is corrected, the results of this meta-analysis confirm what other meta-analyses have found. Ivermectin use is associated with approximately 66% reduction in Covid fatalities. And this result is statistically significant.

A source for this.

Stephen J. Collings • 1 year ago

Looks like an error in the extraction of data from Niaee 2020 has led to an incorrect mortality conclusion. Please correct as a matter of urgency.

debernardis • 1 year ago

As Juan Chamie first pointed out (https://twitter.com/AOlavar... you inverted the results of Niaee 2020. This invalidates your conclusions re mortality. It's better to retract, probably.

Ghatotpach Pilandi • 1 year ago

Beltrane is not "moderate." They first had "moderate" in the title, then changed it to "Severe." The introduction still uses "moderate" but the inclusion criteria in the main text is "severe hypoxemic respiratory failure" plus more indicators of severity. Did tje meta study authors read the study?

Dinofelis • 1 year ago

The results for Niaee are inverted between control group and ivermectin group. Control group 11 death, IVM group: 4 death. See https://www.researchsquare....

Didn't check others.