I-TECH Study: Ivermectin Reduced COVID-19 Death By 70%?

Did Ivermectin Reduce 70% Covid-19 Deaths In I-TECH Trial?

Did ivermectin reduce COVID-19 deaths by an incredible 70% in the I-TECH study?

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the FACTS really are!

 

Claim : Ivermectin Reduced 70% Of COVID-19 Deaths!

A Google doctor called Jacinta Lee recently called the Malaysia Director-General a liar, and claimed that ivermectin reduced COVID-19 deaths by 70% in the I-TECH study!

Her post is long, so just skip to the next section for the facts…

Malaysian Ivermectin Trial Shows a 70% of Reduction in Deaths

HISHAM TIPU APA HARI INI (WHAT HISHAM LIED ABOUT TODAY)

MOH’s sham ivermectin trial has concluded and a brilliant mind (Steve Kirsch) has analysed the result. (He has a lottt of interesting stuff on his page, go check it out. You may have seen his presentation in the FDA hearing on C19 vaxs.) See Siong sent the study results to Steve, and Matthew Ooi discovered the analysis and sent it to me.

This is what he found:

Ivermectin group: 3 deaths out of 241 patients (1.2%)
Standard treatment group: 10 deaths out of 249 patients (4%)

Risk reduction for deaths: 69%, p=0.09

That’s 3.3 times more patients in the control group who died, compared to those in the ivermectin group.

 

Truth : Ivermectin Did NOT Reduce 70% Od COVID-19 Deaths

As expected, ivermectin proponents refuse to accept yet another study that disproves their belief, and unsurprisingly, they cherry-picked the data to push their belief.

We cannot jump to the conclusion that ivermectin prevents deaths, merely because fewer people died in IVM group, compared to the SOC group, because…

  • The mortality data was reverse-engineered, so it could possibly be different from the actual I-TECH data.
  • Ivermectin was only given for 5 days, so 28-day mortality data is misleading and irrelevant
  • It does not make sense that MORE people on ivermectin develop severe COVID-19, but fewer die.
  • All other clinical findings were similar, with no significant differences.
  • People will die, with or without COVID-19.

For a more in-depth explanation, here are the reasons why Google doctor Jacinta Lee is wrong in her opinions and conclusion…

Fact #1 : KKM Did Not Release Full I-TECH Data

The Malaysia Ministry of Health (KKM) which conducted the I-TECH study did not release the study data.

They only released some results from the study, which I compiled them in this table.

You will notice that they didn’t release the data for a slew of results that were deemed “not significant”, not just the 28-day mortality data.

I-TECH Study Findings Results Significance
Symptom Recovery by Day 5 Very similar Not significant (p=0.77)
Progress to Severe COVID-19 IVM : 21.2%
SOC : 17.3%
SOC : -3.9 points
Not significant (p=0.30)
Time to Severe COVID-19 IVM : 3 days (±2.3)
SOC : 2.9 days
(±1.8)
IVM : +0.1 day
Not significant (p=0.68)
ICU Admission NA Not significant
Mechanical Ventilation NA Not significant
Symptom Recovery NA Not significant
Blood Parameters NA Not significant
Chest X-Ray Resolution NA Not significant
Adverse Events 3X more in IVM group Significant
28-Day Mortality NA Not significant (p=0.09)

Fact #2 : Steve Kirsch’s Data Was Not From KKM

When asked how Steve Kirsch obtained the I-TECH study’s mortality results, Jacinta claimed that he sourced it from the official KKM press release. That’s not true.

Steve Kirsch also quoted that official KKM press release as his source in his C19Ivermectin article on the I-TECH study.

That’s not possible, because KKM never released the full 28-day mortality data. The data was also not released in the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Fact #3 : You Don’t Need A Team To Reverse-Engineer The Data…

Even though KKM did not release the full mortality data, they gave us enough clues to reverse-engineer the “missing data”.

Jacinta claimed that “Steve’s people managed to reverse-engineer it from the statistics numbers. Damn great minds. I really take my hat off to them.

The truth is – it doesn’t require a team of great minds. Heck, I did it myself in less than 10 minutes, and so can you too. Just follow my guide!

Read more : How To Reverse-Engineer “Missing” I-TECH Ivermectin Data?

Fact #4 : Reverse-Engineering No Guarantee Of Accuracy

I replicated Steve Kirsch’s reverse-engineering “magic” and can confirm that based on KKM’s publicly released data, it is “high likely” that :

  • 3 out of 241 people in the IVM group died during 28 days of the trial
  • 10 out of 249 people in the SOC group died during 28 days of the trial

However, the P-ratio is quite different from what KKM reported. So it is POSSIBLE that there are fewer people in the IVM group, and more people in the SOC group.

You can read more about this “problem” in the Adjust The Group Sizes section of my I-TECH data reverse-engineering guide.

We will not know for sure until KKM releases the full set of data, which they promised to submit for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Fact #5 : 28-Day Mortality Results Are Misleading

If you look at the I-TECH study parameters, you will realise that it was NOT designed to test ivermectin’s effect on mortality.

The IVM group patients were given ivermectin for only 5 days, and not throughout the 28-day study.

Ivermectin has a plasma half-life of only 18 hours, which means the patients would have little to no ivermectin in their body by the 8th day of the study!

Therefore, the 28-day lower mortality trend that KKM announced is actually misleading and irrelevant, because ivermectin would have little to no effect beyond the first 5-8 days.

When the I-TECH study data is finally published, it would be interesting to see the Day 7 mortality numbers. The 28-day mortality is IRRELEVANT since they only gave ivermectin for 5 days.

Read more : I-TECH Study : Does Ivermectin Work Against COVID-19?

Fact #6 : MORE People On Ivermectin Developed Severe COVID-19

It should be pointed out that ivermectin did not help prevent people from developing severe COVID-19.

In the I-TECH study, 21.2% of the ivermectin group (~52 people) developed severe COVID-19, while only 17.3% of people on standard care (~42 people) developed severe COVID-19.

That’s a 3.9 point (10 person) difference, which may seem like quite a big deal, but was still judged as “not significant”.

But how likely is it that MORE people on ivermectin developed severe COVID-19, but fewer of them died?

Fact #7 : There Were No Difference In Other Clinical Criteria

Ivermectin proponents have been loudly claiming that ivermectin works best as an early COVID-19 treatment, but have been very quiet about the fact that the I-TECH trial showed NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE in other clinical criteria :

  • Complete symptom recovery
  • Symptom recovery by Day 5
  • Progress to severe COVID-19
  • Time to severe COVID-19
  • ICU admission
  • Mechanical ventilation
  • Blood parameters
  • Chest x-ray resolution

Does it make sense that ivermectin FAILED to work while the patients were still Category 2 or 3, but somehow reduces their mortality without any change in their risk for ICU admission, mechanical ventilation or even blood test results?

That brings us to the next point – human beings can die at any time, with or without COVID-19…

Read more : Why Dr. Pierre Kory Got COVID-19 Despite Taking Ivermectin!

 

Fact #8 : People WILL Die, With Or Without COVID-19

The I-TECH study appears to be focused on looking at whether ivermectin can prevent people from developing severe COVID-19.

Hence, they specifically targeted patients who were 50 years or older with co-morbidities and Category 2 or 3 COVID-19, who are most likely to develop severe COVID-19.

However, these are also people who are most likely to die of natural causes, or COVID-19.

Malaysia has a crude death rate of 5.1 per thousand population, and approximately 1.2% of COVID-19 patients die in Malaysia.

So in a normal population, at least 8 out of 490 people would have been expected to die during that 28-day trial period – 2 from natural causes, 6 from COVID-19.

In the I-TECH study population of 50+ year-old patients with co-morbidities, it is not surprising to see 13 deaths. In fact, we should expect 4-5 deaths just from natural causes.

If someone in the control group dies from a heart attack or a stroke – two common causes of death for that age group – does that mean ivermectin protects against heart attack / stroke? Of course, not.

Participants in the ivermectin (IVM) and control (SOC) groups have also been randomly selected, so it is possible that the control group has older patients, or patients with more debilitating co-morbidities.

That’s why it is important to determine if a clinical finding is statistically significant, if their deaths cannot be directly ruled out as due to natural causes.

As the KKM press release stated, while there was a trend of reduced 28-day mortality, but it was NOT statistically significant (p=0.09).

They had the results independently analysed, but even those two scientists were not able to determine if mortality was indeed reduced.

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply