2021-07-08 05:55:11
Attempt to Discredit Landmark British Ivermectin Study: What You Need to Know
@COVID19Up: The July 3 episode of Tim Harford’s
“More or Less: Behind the Stats”, broadcast on BBC Radio 4 and the World Service, spread more medical disinformation with a piece entitled
“Is ivermectin a COVID wonder drug?". Timed to follow publication of an article in Clinical Infectious Diseases by Roman et al on June 28, this piece seems a clumsy attempt to discredit the landmark British study of Bryant, Lawrie et al which was published by the peer-reviewed American Journal of Therapeutics in June.
Though published by British authors—based at Dr Tess Lawrie’s Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd in Bath and the University of Newcastle—and despite these authors lacking any conflicts of interest, BBC Radio 4 made no attempt to contact any of the study authors for interview or ‘right of reply’, which is a fairness obligation under the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. Instead, Harford instead spoke to one Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia.
Bryant, Lawrie et al have published the world’s first Cochrane-standards systematic review and meta-analysis of available randomised clinical trials of ivermectin in treatment and prevention of COVID-19. Review of 3,406 patients in 24 randomised trials demonstrated a mortality risk reduction of 62% on ‘moderate certainty’ evidence. The documentation is meticulous and comprehensive. Its restriction was to ‘randomised’ clinical trials because non-randomised studies are typically disregarded by regulatory authorities. There was no ‘cherry picking’: all available trials at the study cut-off date were included.
Meyerowitz-Katz referred to Roman et al, with an almost identical but not the same title, which also claims to be a systematic review and meta-analysis. The study surveys only 1,173 patients over 10 studies, with the remaining known randomised trials arbitrarily excluded. Moreover, the article misreports published clinical trial data in a way that verges on falsification of data, as an Open Letter to the Editor-in-Chief has detailed. The initial misreporting while on the preprint server medRxiv included a farcical reversal of the treatment and control ‘arms’ of the clinical trial of Niaee et al, drawing protest from Dr Niaee himself which can still be found in the comments section of medRxiv. Unfortunately for Clinical Infectious Diseases, further misreporting (undetected by the journal’s peer reviewers) remains, in a way that renders the article worthless. Further background on the sources can be found here.
These facts seemed unknown to Meyerowitz-Katz, who presented it as a contrasting study arriving at opposite conclusions.
➔ COVID19Up.org for more!
Join the discussion:
➔
@COVID1984chat
711 views02:55