Two times mentioning fraud in this Ivermectin article - it is very unusual to use this term in relation to the study. Fraud is usually related to some money gain - what money could be gained by using old not expensive medications? How many times we give medications unnecessary and for the use not FDA approved? We give tons on antibiotics without justified cause; we prescribe Gabapentin right and left for non-FDA approved diagnoses. Bactrim was one time withheld from HIV people because there was not enough studies that it could prevent PCP, and many HIV people needlessly died. Why not to give ivermectin if it can help? There is no harm. We give it for scabies and lice. It is known for treating multiple diseases. Again, I payed $500+ dollars for politically biased and misleading information.
I agree it is very unusual to use the term "fraud" in relation to a study. It was because the authors of the article use the term fraud multiple times in their SRMA including in their exclusion criteria and the limitation section.
The authors did not define how they were using the term fraud in the manuscript. One dictionary defines fraud using the synonyms of deceit and trickery. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud
I agree medications are used often without FDA approval. A classic example is alteplase for acute ischemic stroke >3hrs last seen normal. This is not approved by the FDA yet is recommended by the AHA and is the standard of care in the US.
Just because medications are used without good evidence does not support giving another medication without good evidence. In science, each claim needs to stand on its own. Those making the claim that ivermectin provides a patient oriented benefit have the burden of proof. After reviewing the ivermectin literature my conclusion is the burden has not been met. Therefore I accept the null hypothesis of no superiority. More can be found about this from Retraction watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2022/05/10/another-ivermectin-covid-19-paper-is-retracted/
I disagree there is no harm. If a substance is biological active it has potential harm. Without good evidence of efficacy even a small amount of harm could be considered unacceptable.
I agree we should mitigate against having politics bias our critical appraisals. It is something I have spoken about during covid. https://thesgem.com/2020/07/sgem-xtra-ebm-and-the-changingman/
My position aligns with Prof Carley that " The principles of EBM are more important now than at any other time in our careers. We must collectively do all that we can to ensure that our response to the pandemic is based on the science and not on the emotional, political or economic issues that challenge it. We echo the call of others for critical reasoning, critical appraisal and critical thinking during these challenging times." https://emj.bmj.com/content/37/9/572
To join the conversation, you need to subscribe.
Sign up today for full access to all episodes and to join the conversation.
To earn CME for this chapter, you need to subscribe.
Sign up today for full access to all episodes and earn CME.
Inna T., N.P. - October 5, 2022 7:12 AM
Two times mentioning fraud in this Ivermectin article - it is very unusual to use this term in relation to the study.
Fraud is usually related to some money gain - what money could be gained by using old not expensive medications?
How many times we give medications unnecessary and for the use not FDA approved? We give tons on antibiotics without justified cause; we prescribe Gabapentin right and left for non-FDA approved diagnoses. Bactrim was one time withheld from HIV people because there was not enough studies that it could prevent PCP, and many HIV people needlessly died.
Why not to give ivermectin if it can help? There is no harm. We give it for scabies and lice.
It is known for treating multiple diseases.
Again, I payed $500+ dollars for politically biased and misleading information.
Ken M. - October 6, 2022 8:13 AM
I agree it is very unusual to use the term "fraud" in relation to a study. It was because the authors of the article use the term fraud multiple times in their SRMA including in their exclusion criteria and the limitation section.
The authors did not define how they were using the term fraud in the manuscript. One dictionary defines fraud using the synonyms of deceit and trickery. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud
I agree medications are used often without FDA approval. A classic example is alteplase for acute ischemic stroke >3hrs last seen normal. This is not approved by the FDA yet is recommended by the AHA and is the standard of care in the US.
Just because medications are used without good evidence does not support giving another medication without good evidence. In science, each claim needs to stand on its own. Those making the claim that ivermectin provides a patient oriented benefit have the burden of proof. After reviewing the ivermectin literature my conclusion is the burden has not been met. Therefore I accept the null hypothesis of no superiority. More can be found about this from Retraction watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2022/05/10/another-ivermectin-covid-19-paper-is-retracted/
I disagree there is no harm. If a substance is biological active it has potential harm. Without good evidence of efficacy even a small amount of harm could be considered unacceptable.
I agree we should mitigate against having politics bias our critical appraisals. It is something I have spoken about during covid. https://thesgem.com/2020/07/sgem-xtra-ebm-and-the-changingman/
My position aligns with Prof Carley that " The principles of EBM are more important now than at any other time in our careers. We must collectively do all that we can to ensure that our response to the pandemic is based on the science and not on the emotional, political or economic issues that challenge it. We echo the call of others for critical reasoning, critical appraisal and critical thinking during these challenging times." https://emj.bmj.com/content/37/9/572