Professor Colleen Aldous of the medical school at the University of KwaZulu-Natal writes that there were inaccuracies in a MedicalBrief article on Ivermectin.
Aldous writes:
I regard your publication as an ethical and balanced one. Something I am aware of, given the bias of so many other media houses. I realise you print what you have faith in as accurate. However, I would like to point out some inaccuracies in a recent article: “Another key pro-Ivermectin meta-analysis is retracted.”
1. The title of your article is misleading. As far as I can see it refers only to the Hill et al meta-analysis that has been retracted after the Elgazzar study, which was included in the meta-analysis proved fraudulent. Is there another meta-analysis that has been withdrawn? Hill has opted to withdraw the first version of their paper and then resubmit a corrected version. There are several other meta-analysis authors who have withdrawn the Elgazzar data from their work, but have opted to deal with the matter differently, by addressing corrections in their data as letters to the editor or errata.
2. The argument of "insufficient data” is not unique to the US NIH. However, they provide an amber light for the use of Ivermectin in COVID-19 by neither recommending for nor against its use. In my opinion this is the most principled approach as there is a lack of pharmokinetic and pharmacodynamic information on the drug action in this disease. This approach is worlds apart from other regulatory bodies that, for the same reason, give Ivermectin the red light.
3. Your article goes on to imply that in SA, Ivermectin is available only on the Controlled Compassionate Use Program. You have omitted to include that its use off-label is also permitted by SAHPRA.
4. Quoting an outdated statement from Ian Sanne from February and an undated quote from The Conversation, in a fast-moving area of research, is not balanced. The in-vitro study that led to many academics misunderstanding the aim of the Caly et al paper of May 2020, has been explained several times as never being intended to inform dosage. Please see, at 2 hr 21 mins in the following link, the explanation of the Caly et al work by the senior author, Dr Kylie Wagstaff: https://www.ivermectin.africa/2021/05/24/video-the-1st-ivermectin-for-covid-19-summit/
There are currently several published articles on the mechanisms of action of Ivermectin in COVID-19 treatment, which explain the cascade of treatment.
Many thanks for attempting to continue informing our colleagues with balanced medical journalism.
Professor Colleen Aldous
Professor and Health Care Researcher in the School of Clinical Medicine, College of Health Sciences, at the University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Editor’s comment:
MedicalBrief’s headline was correct. Two major studies on Ivermectin have been withdrawn. In July, the Egyptian (Elgazzar) clinical trial was withdrawn over ethical concerns regarding plagiarism and the raw data. In August, the meta-analysis, which included the Egyptian trial, was also withdrawn.
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
Another key pro-Ivermectin meta-analysis is retracted
Study supporting Ivermectin for COVID withdrawn over ethical concerns
Ivermectin stops SARS-CoV-2 virus growing in cell culture within 48 hours
UKZN professor challenges Ivermectin expose