02-22-2022, 11:03 PM
The c19early.com site includes the withdrawn Elgazzar study that allegedly considered 200 patients, but it does note that it has been withdrawn. Does that mean it's conclusions are no longer part of the mashup offered by the site regarding Ivermectin? Who can say?
However, the site also lists a meta-analysis by Bryant et al. which did include the Elgazzar study. There's no mention made in the details offered for that analysis that this is at this is now a highly controversial analysis given that the Elgazzar study's alleged 200 patients and amazingly supportive conclusions would have had a large impact on the meta-analysis. Bryant is fighting a rearguard action to defend his paper by saying Elgazzar still stands behind the validity of his study and excluding it from the meta-analysis wouldn't make much of a difference. But many call BS on that.
In any event, a site that doesn't note that controversy and exclude the results of the meta-analysis pending a final determination of the claims of Bryant and Elgazzar isn't worth the paper it's not written on.
However, the site also lists a meta-analysis by Bryant et al. which did include the Elgazzar study. There's no mention made in the details offered for that analysis that this is at this is now a highly controversial analysis given that the Elgazzar study's alleged 200 patients and amazingly supportive conclusions would have had a large impact on the meta-analysis. Bryant is fighting a rearguard action to defend his paper by saying Elgazzar still stands behind the validity of his study and excluding it from the meta-analysis wouldn't make much of a difference. But many call BS on that.
In any event, a site that doesn't note that controversy and exclude the results of the meta-analysis pending a final determination of the claims of Bryant and Elgazzar isn't worth the paper it's not written on.