What worries me the most is that both Lowe's and the WHO's judgement were highly influenced by the Lopez study, which has a striking list of protocol violations.
Lowe mentions: "Objections have been raised to that trial’s use of an oral suspension formulation, I should note.".
But by reading the linked article we can see that there is much more to note:
"In the statistical analysis subsection of the article, the authors acknowledged 2 RCT issues: i) they modified the primary end point to time from randomization to complete resolution of symptoms within the 21-day follow-up period and ii) a labeling error occurred between September 29 and October 15, 2020, resulting in an unblinded protocol during this time frame."
Seems weird that while everyone is pushing hard on the limitations of the studies that favor IVM, we get a pass for this study by making it so influential.
Anyone can check the comments in the article, or here https://osf.io/u7ewz/
Lowe mentions: "Objections have been raised to that trial’s use of an oral suspension formulation, I should note.". But by reading the linked article we can see that there is much more to note:
"In the statistical analysis subsection of the article, the authors acknowledged 2 RCT issues: i) they modified the primary end point to time from randomization to complete resolution of symptoms within the 21-day follow-up period and ii) a labeling error occurred between September 29 and October 15, 2020, resulting in an unblinded protocol during this time frame."
Seems weird that while everyone is pushing hard on the limitations of the studies that favor IVM, we get a pass for this study by making it so influential.