First, the authors use the trope that "ivermectin won a Nobel Prize" [for parasites], so I guess that means it's good? Several drugs have won Nobels: Artemisinin; propranolol. Should they be used for COVID? (They should not.) https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2015/press-release/ …https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1988/press-release/ …
-
-
Show this thread
-
Next, they quote the pro-IVM group FLCCC saying ivermectin is very safe. And in the doses used for parasites, I agree. But the doses the FLCCC recommends are about 12
higher than what is given for parasitic infections. There's no safety data known yet.https://twitter.com/grahamwalker/status/1419723800069828608 …
Show this thread -
(Now we're getting to the good stuff.) They tell us that IVM kills COVID. Wow! They link to research (
). But for some reason, they leave out that this was
a) in a petri dish, not in an animal
b) lots of things kill COVID in a petri dish (bleach, soap, a microwave) and...Show this thread -
c) The concentrations required to kill COVID aren't easily or safely possible in humans even taking very high dosages, as reported by many, MANY scientists: https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(21)00535-X/fulltext … https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cpt.1889 … https://d197for5662m48.cloudfront.net/documents/publicationstatus/34100/preprint_pdf/ccd805fd2383b5a138b3724ed98a8c5d.pdf … https://d197for5662m48.cloudfront.net/documents/publicationstatus/34103/preprint_pdf/b47c0e4b659e60e08dda603b06ba11b3.pdf …
Show this thread -
(They then refer to 70 trials for ivermectin, but don't link to a reference; they ignore that one of the larger trials just got retracted for possible fraud; they do not report that the trials are generally very low quality.)
@JackMLawrence@gidmkhttps://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns …Show this thread -
Now it gets WEIRD: They cite a study (but don't link to it; I will) that is one of the worst IVM studies to cite. It says it is a "retrospective study" that enrolled patients and gave them IVM. (You cannot do that unless you have a time machine.)
https://www.archbronconeumol.org/en-ivermectin-treatment-may-improve-prognosis-articulo-S030028962030288X?newsletter=true&coronavirus#:~:text=This%20study%20shows%20that%20ivermectin,7%E2%80%9312%20days13 …Show this thread -
2nd, The study was not randomized at all, which means there's lots of possible bias. 3rd, The study only gave 1, relatively low-dose of IVM (12mg once), IVM proponents talk a lot about higher doses being "better." We don't really even know what a "right" dose even is.
Show this thread -
4th, OF COURSE the IVM patients did better, they weren't as sick! 10% vs 46% needed oxygen even before they got ivermectin. So OF COURSE fewer of them needed the ICU and fewer died. And so OF COURSE you're gonna stay in the hospital longer if you're in the ICU.pic.twitter.com/KuJf3zf6Qp
Show this thread -
Then they cite but again don't link to a paper by Shouman in Egypt suggesting IVM prevented family transmission of COVID but with many issues, including the fact that they didn't actually confirm people had COVID, just had COVID symptoms instead. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ProvidedDocs/61/NCT04422561/Prot_SAP_000.pdf …
Show this thread -
Now it just gets awkward. They discuss a trial that reported in 200 healthcare workers, "only 2% of those given ivermectin developed Covid-19." This study, crazy enough, was retracted last week (see Guardian link, above). How can these authors not have known this?!?
Show this thread -
I'm surprised that they then promote the idea that ivermectin is safe in pregnant women
, when the only data I've seen essentially concludes "we don't know," and *especially* we don't know in the dosages recommended by the FLCCC. Very irresponsible.https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(19)30453-X/fulltext …Show this thread -
This whole thing is seriously weird. The authors conclude by questioning the FDA mentioning masking, distancing, hand washing, and avoiding crowds, and then imply that these things shouldn't be done unless "double-blind studie[d]." Or at least that there's a double standard.
Show this thread -
And very extremely ironically, despite mentioning multiple studies in their poorly-researched Op-Ed for the WSJ, not a single one of them in double-blinded. (+100 irony points, the best double-blind RCT of IVM showed no benefit.)https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389 …
Show this thread -
Finally: The Cochrane Group, a highly respective research collaborative came out with its ivermectin meta-analysis today, without suggestion of benefit at this time. Pretty damning.https://twitter.com/JeremyFarrar/status/1420333684192907277 …
Show this thread -
Ivermectin/anti-vaxx trolls starting to show up. I'm happy to engage anyone in a critique of my interpretation of the evidence/research/papers that the authors cite, or other IVM evidence. But so far your arguments of "Ivermectin works! You're a bad doctor!" don't do much for me.
Show this thread -
Correction issued by
@WSJopinion as Elgazzar study was retracted. They admit they relied on "a summary of studies" — it's the FLCCC meta-analysis — and did not read individual studies themselves.

Why no correction from you, @AmJThera? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/ …pic.twitter.com/i4xmT7g1xd
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

: