JAMA, Exactly WHY Did You Publish Such a Flawed & Biased Ivermectin Study?

Many health professionals across the world are wondering the same thing.

When the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study from Malaysia last week on the efficacy of ivermectin, it was shocking to many health care professionals who read it. They wondered how such a historically esteemed publication could have ever given it serious consideration. Comments like “underpowered”, “terribly biased”, “flawed design, endpoints and execution” quickly appeared across social media.

In this graph, you can see that even in this underpowered study, the benefits trended toward Ivermectin.

I imagine that the conversation between JAMA and the study team on the decision to publish might have gone something like this:

I-TECH TEAM: Well, our study is complete and here is the data.

JAMA: Oh, this looks great. Hmmm…nicely underpowered. 

I-TECH TEAM:: Thank you, we think so too.

JAMA: Oh, and instead of starting to treat the ivermectin subjects early as the study was meant to do, within the first 1-2 days after symptoms onset, most were symptomatic for 5 days before you gave them ivermectin.

I-TECH TEAM:: Yes, we’re proud of that too. Thanks.

JAMA: Of course. Oh, and we see here that the data shows that the ivermectin arm of the study resulted in fewer deaths, fewer ICU admissions and less need for mechanical ventilation.

I-TECH TEAM: Yes, that’s totally true. Hey, do you see there that the ivermectin arm showed that more people got diarrhea?

JAMA: Ah, so we see.

I-TECH TEAM: Therefore, we have concluded that the study does not support the use of ivermectin for COVID-19.

JAMA: Oh, most certainly. This is a brilliant, grossly underpowered, highly misleading study on ivermectin. What perfection!

I-TECH TEAM: Aw thanks. You are too kind.

Dr. Pierre Kory, President and Chief Medical Officer of the FLCCC, wrote a powerful essay on Substack that details the move by Big Pharma to influence high-impact journals like JAMA to “selectively publish (purportedly) negative studies while outright rejecting positive studies.”

Said Dr. Kory: “It’s called ‘diversion’, and it is defined by the Union of Concerned Scientists as “injecting doubt or uncertainty where there is none.” JAMA just did it to ivermectin for the 2nd time in the pandemic.”

Dr. Kory says that though he has written many rebuttals—including white papers— to the NIH, EMA, and the WHO each time they come out with “faulty, biased, and oftentimes outright corrupt non-recommendations for ivermectin”, it has been “exhausting.”

Looking at the study in its entirety, Dr. Kory muses, “Find me one patient who wouldn’t take any of the odds [in the study] while ill in a hospital with COVID with a drug as ridiculously safe as ivermectin. My God. Find me one patient who would worry about developing a need for oxygen more than developing a condition called death.”

---

*Cartoon attributions:

<a href='https://www.freepik.com/vectors/student-cartoon'>Student cartoon vector created by brgfx - www.freepik.com</a>

<a href='https://www.freepik.com/vectors/capsule-pills'>Capsule pills vector created by pch.vector - www.freepik.com</a>