The latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine has published a Brazilian “double blind randomised” trial on ivermectin, which is full of flaws.


We must always keep in mind the chief editor of the journal famously or infamously went on record stating that how would we ever know adverse effects in children if we did not mass vaccinate them against Covid. He said this in an official meeting deciding to confirm vaccinating kids against SARS-CoV-2. 


The Brazilian study is remarkably weak on its take on IVM, riddled with methodical holes that cannot be filled.


Astonishingly the researchers of this study actually began with a single dose of ivermectin but decided to increase this to 3 days albeit still highly inadequate for treating Covid patients.


Unsurprisingly no American doctor , journalist, or podcaster has bothered to interview a single Indian doctor throughout the Pandemic. The reason is quite simple, it is unadulterated conceit tinged with a whiff of racism.


When an uneducated “movie star” slaps a comedian before millions of viewers in the biggest ceremonial show in the world for a mildish joke ,and yet elicits applause from the whose who of Hollywood, you know how steep is the decline in American culture. I will not venture at this point into the corruption that is ubiquitous in good old USA, with penetration into that obscene laptop left behind by the presidents son.


Any way I bring to your kind notice my response to an American “science writer” who is clueless of Covid and it’s treatment, especially the efficacy of ivermectin. This is written against the background of millions of Covid patients successfully treated in India with ivermectin.


Ivermectin fails again 

Don’t hate me for saying it 

Alex Berenson 

Apr 1 

Another strong randomized controlled trial has shown early ivermectin use failed to reduce Covid-19 hospitalizations. 

The New England Journal of Medicine published the results of the trial, which covered 1400 patients in Brazil. The trial was double-blinded and randomized, the gold standard. 

The trial also failed to show that ivermectin had any impact on Covid-19 deaths. 

Dr. Deepak Natarajan <>

12:29 PM (23 minutes ago)



to Alex


Thank God I have not subscribed to your childish gibberish.


I had earlier told you to refrain from commenting on real medicine.


You pass muster with your vaccination stuff relying upon various graphs, which may be a revelation for the lay public.


Medicines are a different ball game.


You need some education apart from merely being a former correspondent for the NYT. A little more discipline and rigour are needed.


Millions of people have been cured in India by ivermectin but your American conceit will not allow you to either examine the data or interact with some Indian doctors (who by the way are as competent if not much more than their American brethren).


The study you quote is full of flaws, and that’s why NEJM has published it.


About 1400 hundred “Covid ” patients were randomised to IVM or placebo.


We are not provided any details as to how these patients were identified. Were they diagnosed by a rapid antigen test or PCR ?


Why was IVM administered on an  empty stomach when every physician worth his salt knows the medicine has to be given with a meal.


Why was the modified intention to treat margin kept only at 24 hours ? 


Why was IVM given only for 3 days ? Why was it given only once a day ?


Astonishingly the researchers provide no clinical characteristics of the patients recruited.


What were the reasons for hospital admission ?


What were the causes of deaths?


How does one confirm IVM was given in 7 days ?


How many given IVM beyond 3 days landed in hospital compared to those getting after 3 days .


Remarkably the editors of NEJM did not bother to publish the limitations of this paper, normally every paper published in this journal is compelled to enumerate limitations of the study concerned.


Maybe in their haste to publish this “double blind randomised” trial the editors decided to forgo this essential component of a scientific paper.


Similarly you in your obscene haste paid little attention to these glaring omissions.


The take home message is that science writers need far greater depth and knowledge to comment on scientific papers, merely questioning a few science chums does not make a credible article, as is done by all science writers with NYT.


Please do consult the big boys before attempting to write on treatment for Covid, losing credibility is quicker than Smith’s slap.


Dr Deepak Natarajan

MBBS, MD, DM (cardiology)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *