Is Ivermectin for Covid-19 Based on Fraudulent Research? Part 2

Another tale of potential fraud in the ivermectin literature

Gideon M-K; Health Nerd

--

This is part 2 in what appears to be a deep well of fraud underpinning the entire evidence-base for ivermectin and Covid-19. Part 1 is here.

Also, much of this is based on work by Dr. Kyle Sheldrick, whose blog on the matter you can read here.

Pictured: More stock photo results for ‘ivermectin’ that probably aren’t ivermectin. Source: Pexels

Most research is OK — it has some virtues, some oversights, some charms, some flaws. Some is excellent and transformative, some is terrible and harmful. When I first became interested in ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medication being tested for Covid-19, I expected a combo plate of the above — just like everything else.

Maybe, and this is a worst-case scenario, a few cheeky papers that had been doctored or altered noticeably, something bad enough to leave a clue.

I did not expect what has happened, what is happening.

I hesitate to put this into words, because it scares me, and because I know the consequences of such statements. But there is no sugar thick enough to coat this:

Ivermectin literature contains a staggering volume of scientific fraud. Not mistakes, or oversights, or gilded lilies. Fraud.

My sincere opinion is that at least a third of the evidence supporting the use of ivermectin as a Covid-19 therapeutic is not just ‘ based on shaky data’, but consists of studies that may never have happened at all.

Stock photo results for ‘empty’ are a bit depressing these days. Source: Pexels

If you haven’t read part one, I strongly recommend having a skim. This second instalment is in most ways much less important than the first, but it does have a key difference — the researchers here went on to study things that were not ivermectin for Covid-19. Now, those studies may be entirely legitimate, but it’s not a great sign when one of your datasets appears to have signs consistent with being entirely fabricated.

Let’s dive in.

Scientific Silliness

--

--