JAMA Study-- Horse Paste Doesn't Mitigate COVID Infections

[DrSchadenfreude]

Efficacy of Ivermectin Treatment on Disease Progression Among Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19 and Comorbidities

The I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial

jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362?guestAccessKey=58760460-df0f-4790-9257-8f3682dca39b&utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=021822

February 18, 2022

Key Points

Question Does adding ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, to the standard of care reduce the risk of severe disease in patients with COVID-19 and comorbidities?



Findings In this open-label randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with COVID-19 in Malaysia, a 5-day course of oral ivermectin administered during the first week of illness did not reduce the risk of developing severe disease compared with standard of care alone.



Meaning The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.



Abstract

Importance Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19. Evidence-based data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin are needed.



Objective To determine the efficacy of ivermectin in preventing progression to severe disease among high-risk patients with COVID-19.



Design, Setting, and Participants The Ivermectin Treatment Efficacy in COVID-19 High-Risk Patients (I-TECH) study was an open-label randomized clinical trial conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and October 25, 2021. Within the first week of patients’ symptom onset, the study enrolled patients 50 years and older with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, comorbidities, and mild to moderate disease.



Interventions Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral ivermectin, 0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days, plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). The standard of care consisted of symptomatic therapy and monitoring for signs of early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging.



Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease, defined as the hypoxic stage requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain pulse oximetry oxygen saturation of 95% or higher. Secondary outcomes of the trial included the rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events.



Results Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).



Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.

[cbisbig]

Wrong


outbreaknewstoday.com/ivermectin-is-highly-effective-as-a-safe-prophylaxis-and-treatment-for-covid-19-comprehensive-review-12291/

Our latest research shows, once again, that when the totality of the evidence is examined, there is no doubt that ivermectin is highly effective as a safe prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19,” said Paul E. Marik, M.D., FCCM, FCCP, founding member of the FLCCC and Chief, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School. “We can no longer rely on many of the larger health authorities to make an honest examination of the medical and scientific evidence. So, we are calling on regional public health authorities and medical professionals around the world to demand that ivermectin be included in their standard of care right away so we can end this pandemic once and for all.”

[Walter]

Feb 19, 2022 8:13:33 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Wrong


outbreaknewstoday.com/ivermectin-is-highly-effective-as-a-safe-prophylaxis-and-treatment-for-covid-19-comprehensive-review-12291/

Our latest research shows, once again, that when the totality of the evidence is examined, there is no doubt that ivermectin is highly effective as a safe prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19,” said Paul E. Marik, M.D., FCCM, FCCP, founding member of the FLCCC and Chief, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School. “We can no longer rely on many of the larger health authorities to make an honest examination of the medical and scientific evidence. So, we are calling on regional public health authorities and medical professionals around the world to demand that ivermectin be included in their standard of care right away so we can end this pandemic once and for all.”

Marik was lead author of a journal article on the efficacy of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, which had been provisionally accepted for publication by a Frontiers Media journal in early 2021, but which was subsequently rejected on account of what the publisher said were "a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance" meaning that the article did "not offer an objective [or] balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19".

In November 2021, the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine retracted a paper written by Marik and others associated with the FLCCC, including Pierre Kory. The paper promoted a combination of vitamins and drugs as treatment for patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The combination was called MATH+ by the FLCCC and included methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, heparin, and other ingredients. The retraction was triggered when it was found the paper misreported the mortality figures of hospitalized patients treated with MATH+, falsely making it appear to be an effective treatment.

[DrSchadenfreude]

Feb 19, 2022 10:32:26 GMT -5 Walter said:

Feb 19, 2022 8:13:33 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Wrong


outbreaknewstoday.com/ivermectin-is-highly-effective-as-a-safe-prophylaxis-and-treatment-for-covid-19-comprehensive-review-12291/

Our latest research shows, once again, that when the totality of the evidence is examined, there is no doubt that ivermectin is highly effective as a safe prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19,” said Paul E. Marik, M.D., FCCM, FCCP, founding member of the FLCCC and Chief, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School. “We can no longer rely on many of the larger health authorities to make an honest examination of the medical and scientific evidence. So, we are calling on regional public health authorities and medical professionals around the world to demand that ivermectin be included in their standard of care right away so we can end this pandemic once and for all.”

Marik was lead author of a journal article on the efficacy of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, which had been provisionally accepted for publication by a Frontiers Media journal in early 2021, but which was subsequently rejected on account of what the publisher said were "a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance" meaning that the article did "not offer an objective [or] balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19".

In November 2021, the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine retracted a paper written by Marik and others associated with the FLCCC, including Pierre Kory. The paper promoted a combination of vitamins and drugs as treatment for patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The combination was called MATH+ by the FLCCC and included methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, heparin, and other ingredients. The retraction was triggered when it was found the paper misreported the mortality figures of hospitalized patients treated with MATH+, falsely making it appear to be an effective treatment.

[cbisbig]

Feb 19, 2022 10:32:26 GMT -5 Walter said:

Feb 19, 2022 8:13:33 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Wrong


outbreaknewstoday.com/ivermectin-is-highly-effective-as-a-safe-prophylaxis-and-treatment-for-covid-19-comprehensive-review-12291/

Our latest research shows, once again, that when the totality of the evidence is examined, there is no doubt that ivermectin is highly effective as a safe prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19,” said Paul E. Marik, M.D., FCCM, FCCP, founding member of the FLCCC and Chief, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School. “We can no longer rely on many of the larger health authorities to make an honest examination of the medical and scientific evidence. So, we are calling on regional public health authorities and medical professionals around the world to demand that ivermectin be included in their standard of care right away so we can end this pandemic once and for all.”

Marik was lead author of a journal article on the efficacy of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, which had been provisionally accepted for publication by a Frontiers Media journal in early 2021, but which was subsequently rejected on account of what the publisher said were "a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance" meaning that the article did "not offer an objective [or] balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19".

In November 2021, the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine retracted a paper written by Marik and others associated with the FLCCC, including Pierre Kory. The paper promoted a combination of vitamins and drugs as treatment for patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The combination was called MATH+ by the FLCCC and included methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, heparin, and other ingredients. The retraction was triggered when it was found the paper misreported the mortality figures of hospitalized patients treated with MATH+, falsely making it appear to be an effective treatment.

flccc.net/flccc-ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-covid-19/



“100% of 36 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects… using the most serious outcome reported 79% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis respectively…Statistically significant improvements were seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance…100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively, and 93% of all 28 RCTs.)… The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of cases has been remarkable. It is extremely unlikely that the observed results could have occurred by chance.”

[cbisbig]

You guys are 2 peas in a pod!

www.powerofpositivity.com/know-it-all-behaviors/

People who think they have all the answers, who consider themselves infallible, are commonly known as “know-it-alls.” While this might sound like a playground insult, it’s a real phenomenon among people who lack a certain amount of self-awareness to recognize their shortcomings. If you think you’re dealing with a know-it-all, you probably are.

. Shifting goal posts
According to Pamela B. Paresky Ph.D., these types of people often have something closer to the “illusion of knowledge.” They aren’t aware that they don’t know something, which makes them think that they know … well … everything. So, when caught in being wrong, a know-it-all will often shift the goalposts of their argument. Shifting goalposts, or moving goal posts, is a logical fallacy in arguments. It describes the changing of the “goal” of a competition (in this case, the argument) while it is still ongoing. For example, if they use a word incorrectly, they might say they were using the colloquial definition – even if they weren’t.

[Walter]

Feb 20, 2022 8:37:11 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Feb 19, 2022 10:32:26 GMT -5 Walter said:

Marik was lead author of a journal article on the efficacy of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, which had been provisionally accepted for publication by a Frontiers Media journal in early 2021, but which was subsequently rejected on account of what the publisher said were "a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance" meaning that the article did "not offer an objective [or] balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19".

In November 2021, the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine retracted a paper written by Marik and others associated with the FLCCC, including Pierre Kory. The paper promoted a combination of vitamins and drugs as treatment for patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The combination was called MATH+ by the FLCCC and included methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, heparin, and other ingredients. The retraction was triggered when it was found the paper misreported the mortality figures of hospitalized patients treated with MATH+, falsely making it appear to be an effective treatment.

flccc.net/flccc-ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-covid-19/



“100% of 36 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects… using the most serious outcome reported 79% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis respectively…Statistically significant improvements were seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance…100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively, and 93% of all 28 RCTs.)… The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of cases has been remarkable. It is extremely unlikely that the observed results could have occurred by chance.”

Posting bad data twice doesn't make it less wrong.

[Panama pfRedd]

Feb 20, 2022 8:45:39 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

You guys are 2 peas in a pod!

www.powerofpositivity.com/know-it-all-behaviors/

People who think they have all the answers, who consider themselves infallible, are commonly known as “know-it-alls.” While this might sound like a playground insult, it’s a real phenomenon among people who lack a certain amount of self-awareness to recognize their shortcomings. If you think you’re dealing with a know-it-all, you probably are.

. Shifting goal posts
According to Pamela B. Paresky Ph.D., these types of people often have something closer to the “illusion of knowledge.” They aren’t aware that they don’t know something, which makes them think that they know … well … everything. So, when caught in being wrong, a know-it-all will often shift the goalposts of their argument. Shifting goalposts, or moving goal posts, is a logical fallacy in arguments. It describes the changing of the “goal” of a competition (in this case, the argument) while it is still ongoing. For example, if they use a word incorrectly, they might say they were using the colloquial definition – even if they weren’t.

You nailed our clown trio... wolly willie and bubbles.

[cbisbig]

Feb 20, 2022 10:01:25 GMT -5 Walter said:

Feb 20, 2022 8:37:11 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

flccc.net/flccc-ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-covid-19/



“100% of 36 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects… using the most serious outcome reported 79% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis respectively…Statistically significant improvements were seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance…100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively, and 93% of all 28 RCTs.)… The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of cases has been remarkable. It is extremely unlikely that the observed results could have occurred by chance.”

Posting bad data twice doesn't make it less wrong.

Bad data because YOU say so Mr Knowitall?
These Doctors probably know more about saving lives, wouldn't you agree?

[cbisbig]

Feb 20, 2022 11:17:43 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

Feb 20, 2022 8:45:39 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

You guys are 2 peas in a pod!

www.powerofpositivity.com/know-it-all-behaviors/

People who think they have all the answers, who consider themselves infallible, are commonly known as “know-it-alls.” While this might sound like a playground insult, it’s a real phenomenon among people who lack a certain amount of self-awareness to recognize their shortcomings. If you think you’re dealing with a know-it-all, you probably are.

. Shifting goal posts
According to Pamela B. Paresky Ph.D., these types of people often have something closer to the “illusion of knowledge.” They aren’t aware that they don’t know something, which makes them think that they know … well … everything. So, when caught in being wrong, a know-it-all will often shift the goalposts of their argument. Shifting goalposts, or moving goal posts, is a logical fallacy in arguments. It describes the changing of the “goal” of a competition (in this case, the argument) while it is still ongoing. For example, if they use a word incorrectly, they might say they were using the colloquial definition – even if they weren’t.

You nailed our clown trio... wolly willie and bubbles.

I forgot bubbles, my bad

[Walter]

Feb 20, 2022 11:50:31 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Feb 20, 2022 10:01:25 GMT -5 Walter said:

Posting bad data twice doesn't make it less wrong.

Bad data because YOU say so Mr Knowitall?
These Doctors probably know more about saving lives, wouldn't you agree?

Apparently not. Their papers were yanked from publication because of errors and false claims about the data.

[cbisbig]

Feb 20, 2022 12:03:59 GMT -5 Walter said:

Feb 20, 2022 11:50:31 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Bad data because YOU say so Mr Knowitall?
These Doctors probably know more about saving lives, wouldn't you agree?

Apparently not. Their papers were yanked from publication because of errors and false claims about the data.

Apparently Dr Bombay posted the bad data.
Sometimes you have to dig a little deeper to find the truth.

flccc.substack.com/p/jama-ignores-peer-reviewed-evidence?r=nxypy&utm_source=url


But Dr. Pierre Kory, FLCCC president and Chief Medical Officer, says that is flat out wrong and highly misleading.

“In the study’s control group, two and a half times more patients had to be placed on mechanical ventilation —and there were three times more deaths in the control group. This shows that ivermectin causes a 75% risk reduction in death and further strengthens metadata of Ivermectin’s large mortality benefits in severe COVID.”

Dr. Keith Berkowitz, FLCCC co-founder, noted that the study’s strongest p-value (the measure of statistical significance) was for the 28-day hospital mortality. “Overall, this study was too limited and small to even be randomized. Still, the results trended in favor of ivermectin,” said Berkowitz.

[cbisbig]

Feb 18, 2022 15:09:40 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Efficacy of Ivermectin Treatment on Disease Progression Among Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19 and Comorbidities

The I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial

jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362?guestAccessKey=58760460-df0f-4790-9257-8f3682dca39b&utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=021822

February 18, 2022

Key Points

Question Does adding ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, to the standard of care reduce the risk of severe disease in patients with COVID-19 and comorbidities?



Findings In this open-label randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with COVID-19 in Malaysia, a 5-day course of oral ivermectin administered during the first week of illness did not reduce the risk of developing severe disease compared with standard of care alone.



Meaning The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.



Abstract

Importance Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19. Evidence-based data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin are needed.



Objective To determine the efficacy of ivermectin in preventing progression to severe disease among high-risk patients with COVID-19.



Design, Setting, and Participants The Ivermectin Treatment Efficacy in COVID-19 High-Risk Patients (I-TECH) study was an open-label randomized clinical trial conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and October 25, 2021. Within the first week of patients’ symptom onset, the study enrolled patients 50 years and older with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, comorbidities, and mild to moderate disease.



Interventions Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral ivermectin, 0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days, plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). The standard of care consisted of symptomatic therapy and monitoring for signs of early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging.



Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease, defined as the hypoxic stage requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain pulse oximetry oxygen saturation of 95% or higher. Secondary outcomes of the trial included the rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events.



Results Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).



Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.

JAMA Ignores Peer-Reviewed Evidence & Publishes Yet Another Misleading, Underpowered IVM Study
FLCCC Doctors: “We treat patients, not p-values."

FLCCC Alliance
20 hr ago
120
34
JAMA has done it again.

“It” is the February 18, 2022 publication of a study on ivermectin with a conclusion that inexplicably departs from the study’s own data. Even worse, the Malaysian I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial and JAMA itself dismiss the totality of peer-reviewed, published evidence (and a number of summary meta-analyses) showing repeatedly shorter times to clinical recovery, fewer hospitalizations, and far less death when COVID patients are treated with ivermectin.

“This study was clearly designed to fail. The authors selected out patients with mild or moderate disease who were at low risk of having a major event. Consequently it was grossly underpowered for any meaningful patient-centered outcome,” said Dr. Paul Marik, FLCCC Chairman Chief Scientific Officer.

The authors of the study reported that “ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.”

But wait a second.

What happened to the patients when they did progress to severe disease? What did the study find out about its secondary outcomes, which included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events? Let’s take a look:


In which arm of the study would you prefer to be? The study showed that fewer people in the ivermectin arm of the trial required mechanical ventilation or ICU admission. Fewer died, of course, while more experienced diarrhea. It is likely that most would say that they would MUCH prefer to be in the ivermectin arm of the study.
“It is clear that a massive study would have been far better to determine greater statistical significance,” continued Dr. Marik. “But to be honest, this study is in line with the major medical journals which will only publish negative studies on ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. They simply will not publish any of the dozens of positive studies that have emerged. This constitutes enormous, deliberate publication bias, which is immensely injurious to scientific truth—and to patients throughout the world.”

[Walter]

Feb 20, 2022 12:11:36 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Feb 20, 2022 12:03:59 GMT -5 Walter said:

Apparently not. Their papers were yanked from publication because of errors and false claims about the data.

Apparently Dr Bombay posted the bad data.
Sometimes you have to dig a little deeper to find the truth.

flccc.substack.com/p/jama-ignores-peer-reviewed-evidence?r=nxypy&utm_source=url


But Dr. Pierre Kory, FLCCC president and Chief Medical Officer, says that is flat out wrong and highly misleading.

“In the study’s control group, two and a half times more patients had to be placed on mechanical ventilation —and there were three times more deaths in the control group. This shows that ivermectin causes a 75% risk reduction in death and further strengthens metadata of Ivermectin’s large mortality benefits in severe COVID.”

Dr. Keith Berkowitz, FLCCC co-founder, noted that the study’s strongest p-value (the measure of statistical significance) was for the 28-day hospital mortality. “Overall, this study was too limited and small to even be randomized. Still, the results trended in favor of ivermectin,” said Berkowitz.

Attacking JAMA to try to save their internet gravy train isn't surprising.

[cbisbig]

Feb 20, 2022 12:21:32 GMT -5 Walter said:

Feb 20, 2022 12:11:36 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Apparently Dr Bombay posted the bad data.
Sometimes you have to dig a little deeper to find the truth.

flccc.substack.com/p/jama-ignores-peer-reviewed-evidence?r=nxypy&utm_source=url


But Dr. Pierre Kory, FLCCC president and Chief Medical Officer, says that is flat out wrong and highly misleading.

“In the study’s control group, two and a half times more patients had to be placed on mechanical ventilation —and there were three times more deaths in the control group. This shows that ivermectin causes a 75% risk reduction in death and further strengthens metadata of Ivermectin’s large mortality benefits in severe COVID.”

Dr. Keith Berkowitz, FLCCC co-founder, noted that the study’s strongest p-value (the measure of statistical significance) was for the 28-day hospital mortality. “Overall, this study was too limited and small to even be randomized. Still, the results trended in favor of ivermectin,” said Berkowitz.

Attacking JAMA to try to save their internet gravy train isn't surprising.

JAMA hiding the facts isnt surprising either.