Robert Malone on covid: what the evidence says · JRE #2454
SUBJECT: COVID
The short answer
Malone claims researchers deliberately manipulated dosing in an ivermectin clinical trial to engineer a false-negative result showing the drug doesn't work. Large randomized controlled trials of ivermectin for COVID-19, including ACTIV-6 and TOGETHER, tested doses within and above standard antiparasitic ranges rather than an artificially low one.
Not a true/false call. Every claim is logged with its sources; read the exhibits below.
they were running these clinical trials, including the clinical trial that essentially by tweaking the dosing, etc, made it so that they came up with a result suggesting that Ivermectin is not effective.
What the evidence says 01 / RECORD
Large randomized controlled trials of ivermectin for COVID-19, including ACTIV-6 and TOGETHER, tested doses within and above standard antiparasitic ranges rather than an artificially low one. The original ACTIV-6 arm used 400 mcg/kg daily for 3 days (1,591 participants) and found no significant improvement in time to recovery, hospitalization, or death. A follow-up ACTIV-6 arm raised the dose to a targeted maximum of 600 mcg/kg daily for 6 days (1,432 participants) and again found no benefit, with a posterior probability of less than 0.1% that ivermectin shortened symptoms by even 24 hours. The TOGETHER trial and the COVID-OUT trial, using comparable moderate dosing, likewise found no reduction in hospitalization, mortality, or symptom duration. Because raising the dose did not change the outcome, the pattern in the data runs contrary to the claim that a low, tweaked dose was responsible for the negative results. No credible, sourced evidence has surfaced of researchers deliberately manipulating dosing to manufacture a false negative finding; the consistent null results across multiple independently run, differently dosed trials are better explained by a genuine lack of clinical effect than by a coordinated dosing scheme.