A paper on the potential use of ivermectin to treat Covid-19 has been retracted for a litany of flaws, joining at least 10 other articles on the therapy some liked to promote without evidence to fall.
The article was part of a special issue of Toxicology Reports on Covid-19 that has received an expression of concern; six of the eight articles still have EoCs. Two, including one “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?,” have now been retracted.
The newly retracted article, “Use of ivermectin in the treatment of Covid-19: A pilot trial,” was written by a group from Brazil and the United States and appeared in March 2021.
According to the retraction notice:
This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal).
The article has been retracted at the request of the Founding Editor, Prof. Lawrence H. Lash, on the basis that there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable: https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction-guidelines-cope.pdf.
Additional external review of this published paper raised several concerns. While a properly conducted clinical trial is certainly welcome, the experimental design of this study lacks sufficient details for some of the methods and approaches, uses inappropriate or inadequate statistical analysis, and presents unclear data interpretation.
The conclusions and statements of the authors cannot be readily supported by the information presented in the paper.
Additionally, no reference is made to the well-known controversies that surrounded the recommended use of ivermectin to treat infections with COVID-19. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01695-w; https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/surgisphere-sows-confusion-about-another-unproven-covid19-drug-67635 The omission of any discussion of these controversies in the present paper makes the paper misleading and unacceptable.
The article has yet to be indexed in Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science, but it did find its way into an official document from the South African government on Covid-19.
Lash, who led the inquiry into the special issue, told us that:
All papers in the Special Issue underwent an additional, post-publication peer review that I oversaw at the request of the Publisher for Toxicology Content at Elsevier. While I know that there were a significant number of complaints and adverse comments received about one of the other papers in the Special Issue (the one involving vaccination of children), I am not aware of specific complaints about this paper. My task was to organize an independent, post-publication review of all papers in the issue.
The retraction notice posted for this paper, which was a small clinical trial involving the use of the antifungal drug ivermectin as a potential therapeutic agent for Covid-19 infection, basically highlights all the conclusions of the post-publication peer review. As noted, there were concerns with the design of the pilot clinical trial that raised questions about the reliability of the conclusions. Moreover, the authors made no acknowledgement of any of the well-publicized controversies regarding potential use of this drug. Hence, the portrayal of the work was viewed as unbalanced.
We also asked Lash if he believed a more thorough peer review might have flagged the flaws prior to publication:
I cannot really speak to that as I had not been involved with the journal in any capacity since 2018 (I stepped down as the Founding Editor in February 2017 and served as a peer reviewer of a few manuscripts during the subsequent year). However, both my review of the paper and that of the individual I recruited as an additional reviewer readily noted concerns; had I been the initial handling Editor, I would have not considered the manuscript for publication in its current form.
By our count, 224 papers on Covid-19 have now been retracted.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution by PayPal or by Square, or a monthly tax-deductible donation by Paypal to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
“the therapy some liked to promote without evidence”
What a braindead comment. The very sentence preceding this one mentions the numerous studies which constitute (some of) the “evidence”.
This website is a purveyor of misinformation for the state cult, better known as Progressivism. This ideology is the cultural disease that is politicising and corrupting science, as this despicable article demonstrates.
Bob, you should reread that preceding sentence AND, especially, click on the link so that … Oh, why bother?!
Guititio,
Per your statement on the editor’s rationale for retracting our recent paper. After the retraction, I wrote an OpEd describing the retraction process in detail (https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/anatomy-of-a-retraction-ea3c16b1). In the Appendix, I included the re-reviewers’ official comments and my official response verbatim. I suggest you read the full OpEd, and then tell me how much credibility you would assign to any of the Editor’s comments.
The very sentence preceding this one mentions the numerous studies which constitute (some of) the “evidence”.
Narrator: There were no sentences preceding the quoted one.
Yes. I am unsubscribing. Articles seem to be cherry picked to show a certain ‘state approved’ narrative. To refer to Dr Pierre Kory and Ivermectin in this way is unconscionable. One only has to read Dr Tess Lawrie’s unsurpassed meta analysis of Ivermectin to realise its unsurpassed benefits.
It is a disgrace to pretend otherwise. Let’s be aware that America has performed worse than any other country in the world in this pandemic. The restrictions placed on physicians, forbidding them to prescribe life saving therapies makes nothing they say, credible. It must make their citizens very afraid and hopefully, very angry.
“One only has to read Dr Tess Lawrie’s unsurpassed meta analysis of Ivermectin to realise its unsurpassed benefits.”
Goodness, this is quite the gushing praise. In the real world, the meta-analysis facade crumbles.
I would like to cancel my subscription and I DEMAND MY MONEY BACK.
Well, India appears to have handled the pandemic even worse than the USA based on excess mortality measurements but they tried to hide deaths from Covid. There are no benefits to Ivermectin other than what it was designed and approved to treat, namely parasitic infections. Given that the US was privileged to have abundant accessibility to effective vaccines, perhaps, just perhaps, its appalling death toll was due to people believing in nonsense such as Ivermectin rather than scientifically proven prophylactics?
Moreover, RetractionWatch reports on papers that are scientifically flawed. Rather than shooting the messenger, the fact that 11 papers on Ivermectin efficacy have been retracted hints at something smelly about the effectiveness of the drug.
Valuable in vivo evidence would be a longitudinal covid study that tracks those who used the IMath+ protocol against the those who took the mRNA inoculation. All vaccines trigger an antigen response and are then purged from the body (immediately) through enzyme digestion, yet persistent presentation of the synthetic nRNA lipid nanoparticles (Pfizer/Moderna) and spike protein remain months after inoculation which is surprising researchers. .
Under investigation here:
Stanford Study; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8786601/
Harvard Study: https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/74/4/715/6279075?login=false
On a personal note, I know of many who suffer moderate (about 10 colleagues and friends but no family) to serious side effects (one 16yr old requiring two liver transplants —and she survived—a week after the 1st Pfizer, and another a heart attack within 24hrs of the 1st Pfizer) from the covid shots. In my circle, no one is suffering side-effects from Ivermectin (about 20 friends and family – all recovered rapidly) using the IMath+ early treatment protocol. I guess time will tell how we will fare.
I’m 53, in good health (not obese), and treated daily with 18mg of Ivermectin for symptomatic omicron (Dec 21) over the course of five days. I improved rapidly. Thus far, no side effects noted from either Covid or Ivermectin. I made my decision after investigating numerous treatments and the national data from Israel, UK, Germany, Sweden and from research globally (hundreds of studies) for over one year prior to my diagnosis.
After Covid and Ivermectin, my health is fine but the socioeconomic impact resulting from the collective policies (restrictions, mandates and the such) is another matter entirely. I have no problem with experimental treatments but no one should be coerced into taking them, and it is the absolutely duty of the State to provide all information on the risk and benefits in accordance with basic human rights laws and medical ethics. I have no doubt that Ivermectin, an essential global parasitic drug according to the WHO, will be recognized as effective anti-viral in the near future. This re-tracked study and many like it will be legitimized.
That first study is “surprising” in the sense that it is known that this is how the immune system works and develops memory. That is, if this is a surprise to any researchers, they don’t know how immune memory develops.
The second paper is just as non-surprising to scientists in the field, since the whole design of the vaccines is such that the spike protein is produced over some days, and it is thus no surprise that very small amounts (the assay used is very, very sensitive) can be detected for about a week.
That is, if you have “researchers” tell you all of this is surprising, you may want to stop listening to them, because they clearly are not experts in the field.
We did a beautiful meta-analysis, people said it was the best meta-analysis they’d ever seen, just beautiful
It has been suggested that ivermectin is effective against Covid in areas with parasite infections, since the immune system is stronger once the parasites are treated. No replacement for vaccines though.
Is there any data supporting that?
By that logic, there is no reason to use ivermectin in most part of the developed word, is there.
There are at least five major stakeholders promoting the use of the COVID-19 “vaccines”. These include: vaccine manufacturers; government (all branches (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) and all levels (Federal, State, Local)); media (print, TV, social); medical; Academia (especially the University and K-12 administrations that are strong supporters of restrictions and “vaccine” mandates for attendance). While these five stakeholders have overall different agendas, they seem to overlap when it comes to administering/mandating mass “vaccinations”.
I have discussed some of the existing and projected effects from the “vaccines” in two OpEds: (https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/covid-19-vaccines-the-wrong-bomb-over-the-wrong-target-at-the-wrong-time)(https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/have-we-entered-a-self-sustaining-modus-operandi-for-covid-19). The first addresses mainly the mechanisms of action, and the second shows what could potentially be expected for those who have been “vaccinated” already (hint – the latter is not pleasant reading).
What the various mandate and restriction supporters don’t seem to realize is the more their recommendations are accepted and put into practice, the more likely that their children, spouses, siblings, parents, friends, etc. will be subject to these mandates, and to the damaging effects of these COVID-19 “vaccines”. In effect, they have created a Jonestown 1979 suicide-homicide situation for themselves and their acquaintances. Their lifespan will be reduced by the “vaccines” (as we are already seeing) as well as the lifespans of their loved ones. All their successful mandates, restrictions, retractions, etc. will be a pyrrhic victory, and will boomerang on them and their acquaintances!
You acknowledge that your views about COVID vaccines are far outside the understanding of almost all other scientists. Can you acknowledge generally that extreme views require extraordinary evidence in order to overcome the mass of published research that others have produced? Do you believe your paper provided this evidence?
In any case, once a researcher starts making grand pronouncements or predictions (Their lifespan will be reduced by the “vaccines” (as we are already seeing) as well as the lifespans of their loved ones), you should anticipate that others might discount your “scientific” views and categorize *you* as the cult leader, rather than everyone else. After all, it’s not a conspiracy if everyone is in on it.
“you should anticipate that others might discount your “scientific” views and categorize *you* as the cult leader,”
That’s irrelevant; what’s important is not my views or the views of these “others”, but rather the facts on the ground. You and the “others” may choose not to believe them, but they are immutable.
We don’t know what will happen to the inoculees in the future. They were inoculated initially based on a few months worth of questionable clinical trial data, with no idea what would happen beyond those few months. After a year, we are starting to see the post-trial duration consequences of those experimental inoculations unfold before our eyes. Any future predictions by any of the players in this game are pure speculation.
I have looked at the mechanisms of action involved, the autopsy slides, and the trends in vaccine-effectiveness status, and am extremely concerned by what I see. On average, in countries like the UK, New Zealand, Canada, et al, people who have been fully vaccinated are entering negative vaccine effectiveness, and those who have received at least one booster are, after a very few months, entering even further into negative vaccine effectiveness. My extrapolations into the future are based strictly on the credible science and the trends. If you want to interpret the data differently, feel free. In a couple of years, we’ll find out who was right!
“We don’t know what will happen to the inoculees in the future.”
This directly contradicts your quote from my previous comment (“Their lifespan will be reduced by the “vaccines” (as we are already seeing) as well as the lifespans of their loved ones”).
If you cannot keep your own views straight from paragraph to paragraph, how can anyone take you seriously?
But, Dr. Kostoff, yours and others’ views ARE the issue. Sure, the ‘facts on the ground’, i.e., data, may be immutable, but the problem is how these facts/data are interpreted. Consider the editorial note made in the retraction notice of one of your recent articles, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214750022001160:
“Publicly available data from the United States Center for Disease Control (U.S. CDC) were concluded by the external reviewers to be misinterpreted to make the erroneous conclusion that the vast majority of reported deaths due to COVID-19 are actually due to other comorbidities. Such an egregious misinterpretation and misrepresentation are unacceptable”.
I hope you can understand why there is such a high level of skepticism toward your work. When yours and your colleagues’ interpretation of some of those immutable ‘facts on the ground’ is diametrically opposed to the collective judgement of the scientific community, it stands to reason to be highly skeptical of such minority views and to favor scientific consensus.
Sad comment. It is so daft to believe anyone who criticises you is parroting a “state narrative”. The IVM story is one of populism in medicine – the small cheap David versus the big Pharma Goliath. It’s a myth. Good trials now seem to pretty much show that IVM does not work for C19, how much more money and time will be wasted on it?
We in DE did not “perform” well in this pandemic, too.
It is a structural corruption test. Nothing more, nothing less.
See the “A tale of ..” series at roundingtheearth at substack dot com portraying many countries “performance” by his usual radar viewing field 😉
I also like to point to “Death of a whistle blower” in context of the meta studies eg. done to “proof” IVM does not work, by very cleverly, but still biased selection of papers to start with.
Here is the critique : https://osf.io/peqcj/
(referencing especially to this paper paid by DE tax money…:
https://c19early.com/popp.html
Then one can find ca. 60 massive critique points for the TOGETHER study, which is -guess why- the most cited one by politics and “experts”.
E.g.:
https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/fraudulent-trial-on-ivermectin-published
https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/p/the-problem-with-the-together-trial
Regret—We don’t know specifically what will happen. We do know that lifespans have been reduced already; the VAERS and other database death results have shown that directly. The cancers in remissions that have emerged will have severe lifespan consequences. The young males who have suffered severe myocarditis will have lifespan consequences. Based on the autopsy slides, every inoculee is suffering tissue and organ damage in different amounts, and the spike protein factory that the inoculations have created in the host guarantee that this damage will continue, especially with the use of boosters. Now, we’ll have a better picture of the specifics in a few years. You can play all the word games you want, but what’s happened already has been a disaster, and the present trends indicate far worse. How much; we’ll find out, probably sooner than later!
Sure, we know what specifically will happen: COVID transmission and virulence are radically reduced by vaccination. And VAERS accepts random reports from everyone, it’s not a valid source of information – they accepted a report that vaccination turned someone into the Incredible Hulk, which is just about as believable as the nonsense you spew.
“Based on the autopsy slides, every inoculee is suffering tissue and organ damage in different amounts”
This statement reflects antivax fantasy over fact, as does the suggestion that VAERS reports are a reliable way to establish effects of vaccines.
But that’s what we can expect from someone who puts Covid-19 “vaccines” in scare quotes. The vaccines have done a fine job preventing serious illness and death.
I worry about your competence as you don’t seem to understand the difference between inoculation and vaccination.
I don’t know about VAERS, but in Australia anyone can report a vaccine side-effect through the TGA website. The TGA is currently investigating hundreds of side-effects reports that seem to have magically come from the same URLs. Is VAERS the same?
Do you have any evidence that “every inoculee [sic] is suffering tissue and organ damage in different amounts” was caused by a vaccine?
Who needs ‘evidence’?
From the VAERS own website (URL below): “VAERS reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Reports to VAERS can also be biased. As a result, there are limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.” and “Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public.”
URL: https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
The big story that retractionwatch seems to have missed is the Surgisphere part, even though a link is provided in their cut and pasted piece.
Consider the title of the linked article, “Surgisphere Sows Confusion About Another Unproven COVID-19 Drug” … which leads to a number of questions: why is a company doing fake clinical trials that sows confusion about a covid-19 drug? Greed? What does this say about the governance structures of clinical trials? If fake trials can be done for covid-19 drugs, how about other drugs?
“What does this say about the governance structures of clinical trials?”
Not a lot. The Surgisphere guy made up stories about conducting clinical trials. Governance structures can affect the running of actual clinical trials, but there’s little they can do for entirely imaginary ones.
Did you mean this: ‘http://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/02/nejm-places-expression-of-concern-on-controversial-study-of-drugs-for-covid-19/’ or this ‘http://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/04/lancet-retracts-controversial-hydroxychloroquine-study/’?