Dr. Nass' Medical Hearing, Day 4
Immaterial effect of one of Dr. Jeremy Faust's criticisms (Minute 58:00)
The 4th day of Dr. Meryl Nass’ medical hearing took place on 2 Mar 2023, and is viewable here.
An expert testimony by Dr. Jeremy Faust included a part during Minute 58:00 where he testifies how he followed up with primary researchers and found that there were actually two extra (but originally unreported) deaths in the ivermectin group in one of the studies (Lopez Medina, 2021).
But rough analysis of the weight of evidence in one published review reveals that, even if you include the two extra deaths in the final analysis, it is not expected to change the outcome.
Here is a recreated table of data from the review, along with an ad hoc analysis of proportions dying in each group, showing that adding the two deaths doesn’t change things:
[click image to enlarge]
The original data is at left and the deaths are in orange. At bottom-left in light blue are the overall deaths and overall sample sizes of the listed studies above. The top two bold boxes show 95% and 99% confidence intervals around the proportions dying in each arm, ivermectin or control.
The bottom two bold boxes show 95% and 99% confidence intervals around the proportions dying in each arm, ivermectin or control, for just those studies where deaths were recorded (in some studies, no deaths in either group were recorded).
Even the 99% confidence intervals around proportions dying in each group never crossed each other, even after the two deaths were added to the single study mentioned by Dr. Faust.
While this analysis above is rough and ad hoc, because it uses a very powerful tool (the 99% confidence interval) it shows that this particular testimony against the choice of Dr. Meryl Nass to prescribe ivermectin was a distinction which does not make a difference.
It’s like a team captain called in for a meeting with the team owner after losing the last game horribly — by 99-to-2 — and, in an attempt to defend himself, he’s says to the owner: “Well, we were able to score two points on them.”
It doesn’t change the fact that the game was a blow-out.
Dr. Faust found two deaths which had went unreported, but ivermectin was so strong at keeping people alive during COVID that it was still far better than control groups even after the deaths were added.
Reference
[summary estimates for invermectin indicate at least 27% reduction in death] — Bryant A, Lawrie TA, Dowswell T, Fordham EJ, Mitchell S, Hill SR, Tham TC. Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines. Am J Ther. 2021 Jun 21;28(4):e434-e460. doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001402. PMID: 34145166; PMCID: PMC8248252. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/
[study which had two extra eventual deaths in the ivermectin group after publishing] — López-Medina E, López P, Hurtado IC, Dávalos DM, Ramirez O, Martínez E, Díazgranados JA, Oñate JM, Chavarriaga H, Herrera S, Parra B, Libreros G, Jaramillo R, Avendaño AC, Toro DF, Torres M, Lesmes MC, Rios CA, Caicedo I. Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2021 Apr 13;325(14):1426-1435. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.3071. PMID: 33662102; PMCID: PMC7934083. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7934083/