When Blind Ideology is Fraud
Segment # 033
Recently the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal both with bold headlines declared that the question of Ivermectin had finally been solved. It just doesn’t work. The fact that these bold assertions came before the “together Trial” was published was not lost on some thoughtful data statisticians and medical scientists. Look below at an analysis of the Study and then put that in the context of the clip with Andrew Hill admitting on tape in a zoom with Tess Lawrie that Unitaid (funded by Gates) altered his opinion on his IVM study..then clearly the issue is totally political and has nothing to do with science.
The Problem With The TOGETHER Trial
The most sophisticated trial of early treatments for COVID-19 doesn't quite add up
Apr 13
The TOGETHER trial has been hailed as a methodological marvel, and proof that ivermectin can’t possibly help against COVID-19.
Despite the trial’s sophisticated design, however, I’ve come to believe that its execution was flawed and its conclusions illusory, and this article will demonstrate why, using materials released by the trial investigators themselves.
While that doesn’t imply that ivermectin does work, I believe any fair-minded reader—regardless of their views on any particular molecule—will agree that the results cannot be taken at face value, simply by reviewing the evidence as released by the trial investigators and analyzed here.
The TOGETHER trial is an adaptive platform trial that has produced numerous publications over the last year. Its recent paper has sparked an online effort across wide ranging fields of expertise has emerged, aiming to reconstruct the study’s context from the various documents and findings, and answer the many questions that the trial’s outputs have created. Since there is no single authoritative source of truth on the sequence of events that took place, we are forced to reassemble Humpty Dumpty from fragments, including the following documents:
As tends to happen when an online community descends upon a particular artifact, many concerns have been raised, some more valid than others. When it comes to the TOGETHER trial however, there has been a distinct signal of concern. According to one site cataloguing the online effort to understand the trial, there are currently 43 distinct concerns that have been raised about the trial, most of them with real validity:…….
There is an unfortunate set of unexplained events around this trial, and the authors and investigators do need to engage the issues raised by many since the original infographic was released in August 2021. In brief, here’s a distillation of a subset of what has people concerned:
The seeming reallocation of placebo patients recruited earlier and under the original protocol to be compared with patients recruited later and under a revised protocol creates issues for the claim that the trial was randomized, blind, and placebo-controlled. Compromising one is concerning, compromising all three should be disqualifying.
The lack of independence of the DSMC, being staffed with people who had a stake in the success of the trial and deep prior history with Dr. Mills.
The original decision to revise the ivermectin dose has not been adequately explained or documented, including the decision to continue recruiting patients despite the pending application to the Brazilian ethics board to alter the trial. The lack of release of the findings from that study, even if brief, also complicates matters further.
The discontinuity between the reported approval date by the Brazilian ethics board of March 15th, and the one claimed by the authors as March 21st.
The decision to change SARS-CoV-2 vaccination from an inclusion criterion to an exclusion criterion in the March 21st protocol.
The two alterations in the randomization algorithm, and the lack of clarity about when exactly the changes took effect.
The extension of the fluvoxamine arm beyond its planned size.
The lack of acknowledgement that the absence of ivermectin on the exclusion criteria is problematic, and the sharing of details about what exactly was done to remedy this issue.
The lack of acknowledgement of the effect of the Gamma variant on the trial in general and on the over-allocation to the ivermectin treatment arm in particular.
My question is why can’t the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times find these anomalies. Clearly it didn’t the company line. Disgusting really from these two papers.
You have heard me beating the drum for Ivermectin for well over a year. I knew it was a matter of time before the forces in opposition backed by big Pharm would run out of road. For background review this short video by Tess Lawies who describes quite well the beginning of the fraud which very few medical experts would accept.. Listen to it.. it is very compelling.
In October 2020 Dr Andrew Hill was tasked to report to the World Health Organisation on the dozens of new studies from around the world suggesting that Ivermectin could be a remarkably safe and effective treatment for COVID-19.
But on January 18th 2021, Dr Hill published his findings on a pre-print server. His methods lacked rigour, the review was low quality and the extremely
positive findings on ivermectin were contradicted by the conclusion. In the end, Dr Hill advised that “Ivermectin should be validated in larger appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities.”
The researcher seeking a global recommendation on Ivermectin had instead recommended against it. What were his reasons for doing so? Were his conclusions justified? Or were external forces influencing his about-face?
One year on, this film recalls exactly what happened from the perspective of somebody that experienced it first hand; Dr Tess Lawrie; also featuring contributions from Dr Pierre Kory and Dr Paul Marik who worked closely with Dr Hill during the same time frame.
