Posted on by Californiacontrarian

Why ?

From The Epoch Times:

“In the open-label randomized clinical trial, also referred to as the “The I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial,” published in the JAMA Internal Medicine journal on Feb. 18, researchers said their findings “do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.”

Researchers, from Malaysia, said they found that 21.6 percent of patients in the ivermectin group and 17.3 percent in the standard care group progressed to “severe disease.”

However:

“Ivermectin has been praised by some doctors as a life-saving early treatment for COVID-19. At least two groups, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group (BIRD), have been advocating for the off-label use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 in its early stages.

On Feb. 19, the FLCCC rejected the conclusions of the I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial and called it “misleading” and “underpowered.” The group also said that the study authors reached “a conclusion that inexplicably departs from the study’s own data.”

“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,” Kory, a pulmonologist, said in a statement. “This shows that ivermectin causes a 75 [percent] risk reduction in death and further strengthens metadata of ivermectin’s large mortality benefits in severe COVID.”

Kory was referring to the results of the study, which found that four people in the ivermectin group needed mechanical ventilation compared to 10 people in the control group; six people in the ivermectin group needed admission to ICU compared to eight in the control group; and three people in the ivermectin group died, compared to 10 people in the control group.

The FLCCC also criticized the fact that all the study participants had been experiencing symptoms for five days when they were enrolled in the study, and said that ivermectin treatment started too late in the disease.

“As those of you who have been following the FLCCC know, early treatment (within the first ONE OR TWO DAYS of symptom onset) is critical to slow virus replication and impeded progression to severe disease,” the FLCCC said. “So the authors of the study reported that ivermectin was not helpful in preventing progression to severe disease—among study patients who had been started too late in their disease at the start. Nevertheless, the authors concluded that [ivermectin] was not helpful in the treatment of COVID.”

Dr. Paul Marik, a neurocritical care doctor who is the chairman and chief scientific officer of the FLCCC, said the study was “clearly designed to fail.”

“This study is in line with the major medical journals which will only publish negative studies on ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine,” Marik said. “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.”

The AMA is clearly a very liberal organization, and so, not surprisingly,  it’s Journal, JAMA, is also very liberal. Why would JAMA publish this marginal, possibly flawed study, from Malaysia, no less? Why publish this study, but not also publish any pro-Ivermectin studies? 

In my opinion the answer is the same reason that the liberal newspapers in the U.S. have given their articles on the Canadian Freedom Movement a distinctly anti-truckers slant. (Washington Post painted Freedom Convoy as ‘explicitly racist,’ arguing ‘freedom is a key component of white supremacy’) Huh??

The other day a friend of mine noticed that our local “newspaper” seems to only print articles that are pro-Democrat….Why?

Liberal News outlets apparently think that if you control what people read, you can often control what they think … Hmmm! I wonder why!

2/24/22

127 Replies to “Why ?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.