The study that criticizes Ivermectin? Funded by Big Pharma. How strange …
What a beautiful "Independent" science, but you don't know money. Although the vast majority of Ivermectin studies have shown real promise, one particular study conducted on a small sample in Colombia received unprecedented media attention when the study results indicated negligible impact of the drug. What hasn't been leaked in the media is the fact that the study had funding from almost all of Big Pharma. During the study, some of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world donated money for this trial, and this fact should be analyzed very carefully. We present the case well.
On March 4, 2021, an article appeared in JAMA titled "Effect of ivermectin on time to symptom resolution among adults with mild COVID." He concluded: "The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for the treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger studies may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes."
Dr. Eduardo Lopez-Medina et al. of Cali, Colombia, randomized 400 mildly ill patients, with a mean age of 37 years, to ivermectin 0.3 mg / kg or placebo. Time to resolution for ivermectin treated patients was 10 days and 12 days for placebo patients, which was not statistically significant.
However, few have read the study to the end, that is, up to the "Conflicts of interest" section. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Dr. López-Medina reported receiving grants from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline and Janssen, as well as personal compensation from Sanofi Pasteur while conducting the study. Dr. Oñate reported receiving grants from Janssen and personal compensation from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Gilead outside of the submitted work. Dr. Torres reported receiving non-financial support from Tecnoquímicas unrelated to this project while conducting the study. No other reports were reported.
Basically, Big Pharma's Gotha financed a small study, which then had global relevance and which dismantled the effectiveness of Invermectin. How nice to be independent of money in research, isn't it?
Was such a large gathering of pharmaceutical sponsors necessary for a single secondary study, coincidentally one of the few who denied the drug's efficacy? And didn't JAMA, which published the study, have some "slight suspicion" of influence from the pharmaceutical industries? Then, based on this study, Merck felt compelled to issue a specific press release against the use of Ivermectin, which sounds curious at least. Why does a pharmaceutical industry feel the need to criticize a product that is not its own?
Out of curiosity you can read this Indonesian meta study , based on the scientific method and on a much broader basis, which goes in the opposite direction to the Colombian one. however Merck forgot to mention it….
Thanks to our Telegram channel you can stay updated on the publication of new articles of Economic Scenarios.
The article The study criticizing Ivermectin? Funded by Big Pharma. How strange… it comes from ScenariEconomici.it .
This is a machine translation of a post published on Scenari Economici at the URL https://scenarieconomici.it/lo-studio-che-critica-livermectin-finanziato-da-big-pharma-che-strano/ on Mon, 14 Jun 2021 10:30:59 +0000.