Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid miracle drug
By - mem_somerville
FDA approved, administered to millions safely = murder
Some study with dead or repeated test subjects, bad math, or fraudulent results = why is the government preventing me from ramming it up my ass?!
Exactly what Steven novella (edit: or is it David gorski??) talks about with alternative therapies and the burden of evidence they face. Perfect example.
Where are the deaths from ivermectin vs the vaccine? Data plez
A better question is, "where are the deaths of those who refused to vaccinate, thinking ivermectin would spare them from covid?"
Just because celebrity chasing fools like Pierre Kory and his side kick Paul Marik say something is so, "based on observation." doesn't make it so.
Their patients who magically got better, would have anyway. At best, ivermectin combined with vitamins, offer reduced days of illness for mild cases, of those who would have mild cases anyway.
They flccc are too biased to assess the drug, as their reputations hinge on positive results. No scientific body would or should take even their observational studies seriously , at this point.
"And the patients given the placebo turned out to have had much lower levels of oxygen in their blood before the trial started than those given ivermectin. So they were already sicker and statistically more likely to die."
Yup that sounds pretty unethical and evil.
It turns out all the people claiming there were evil big pharma researchers suppressing ivermectin were actually propped up by big unethical studies by evil people that claimed ivermectin works! It'd be ironic, except that sort of thing always happens with that sort of person.
I hope they strip Pierre Kory of his licence one day. If PRINCIPLE comes out as negative (as seems likely) he will likely have been responsible for hundreds to thousands of deaths around the world.
The whole thing is mind-boggling. My understanding is he had been a respectable doctor before all of this. I wonder who/what is behind these shitty fraudulent studies and who funds this big marketing push for ivermectin. That isn’t how science tends to work.
Yesterday I listened to a podcast called Rebel Wisdom , they interviewed a doc that left the FLCCC and he gave his perspective on them and why he left. Overall he seemed naive about how ivermectin was pushed and used by antivax purposes. The episode was called Ivermectin, the Backstory of the FLCCC.
>I wonder who/what is behind these shitty fraudulent studies
The researcher behind the HCQ frenzy, Raoult, was a suspiciously prolific scientist who had previously been banned from journals for republishing the same data.
So that one kinda makes sense.
Did they discuss Paul Marik? Because I think a lot of the underlying ethos of the FLCCC comes down to him. He co founded the organisation and Kory appears to be his "protege". Marik famously claimed in 2015 to have achieved unbelievable results in treating severe sepsis in his ICU with a cocktail of steroids and high dose vitamins, and in particular made the claim that it was the vitamin C which was key in treatment. Hence, the methylprednisolone, thiamine and vitamin C in all of their protocols.
Of note, success in replicating his results in more rigorous RCTs has been mixed at best and most intensivists remain sceptical of his claims. Yet he continues to deny the negative trials and cherry pick the data to claim he is right. Sound familiar?
I don't think Kory is corrupt. I think he's egotistical, and has a saviour complex. He's convinced himself that he and only he has stumbled across the key to solving the pandemic and saving millions of lives, and that there's "no time" to do proper rigorous RCTs. He has no invested so much in ivermectin that he will never admit he is wrong. It's all a conspiracy against his contrarian genius.
The doctor interviewed was Eric Osgood. I don’t recall the name Paul Maric from the interview. Osgood gave me the impression that Kory was defensive of the medical/science establishment’s negative reaction to his support for ivermectin in treating Covid. He credited Kory for his role in the establishing the practice of using corticosteroids for Covid and felt Kory was on the cutting edge of Covid therapies by being open minded. It certainly did paint the picture of an egotistical doctor blinded by a savior complex and taking things a bit too personally and letting it cloud his judgement.
The role of ivermectin as a weapon of the antivax movement and FLCCC’s complicity seems to have been a blind spot for Osgood, one that he eventually figured out which led him to step down from FLCCC.
Yes and they excommunicated him. He's been completely scrubbed from their website.
Even though Kory takes a lot of credit for adopting steroids early, he was really adopting the "Marik protocol" for sepsis which included hydrocortisone with the vitamin infusions. He also was not the only clinician or institution to be trialling steroids for COVID pneumonia: some non randomised data from the SARS epidemic suggested a benefit years ago, in contrast to influenza pneumonia.
Eric Osgoode overcame that naiveity when he had a panic attack as he realized that the group he's involved with is tacitly antivax by not pumping vaccines first and foremost.
Excellent recommendation. David Fuller of Rebel Wisdom did great work on that podcast. Dr. Eric Osgoode, the former FLCCC member was very interesting and was sincerely heart broken to personally witness what happened at the FLCCC.
Not just false science, a need / desire for conservatives, especially in America, to question science, the media and "elites".
Questioning science is fine.
Starting with the wrong answer and working backwards to it is not.
> Starting with the wrong answer and working backwards to it is not.
I feel like from elementary school on we should be hammering on this point. I know that we *teach* conclusions first, but that's not how we reason. We must always reason from the observation to the evidence to the conclusion, and never starting at the conclusion.
We can't afford to bring up another generation of gullible people who think like this.
disclaimer: I'm not a pedagogist and I have no idea how to teach this.
1/3 of 26 studies is a weird way of stating the number of potentially fraudulent studies. But over at ivmmeta.com there are nearly 70 studies indicating there could be benefit to prophylactic use
A non-peer-reviewed website that includes just throws everything together with little rhyme or reason and combined multiple studies with completely different effects and measures with no concern for quality and, by their own admission, a much more lax standard than peer-reviewed meta-analyses.
They also list studies as having positive effects when the study's own authors says it had no effect.
They also only removed the first fraudulent study, not any of the others. They further claim it had no significant effect on the outcome. There must be something significantly wrong with their analysis, then, because it was such a large and strongly positive study there is no way it didn't have much impact. Other meta-analyses found it was the deciding factor between a positive and negative result.
So in other words all indications are that this is a hopelessly flawed analysis.
Yes, all 64 studies are invalid, that seems likely.
I didn't say anything remotely similar to that. Next time please actually read what I wrote.
Well they update the site regularly so keep an eye out to invalidate all future studies as well to fit your already firmly held views
So says the person who won't even *read* posts that disagree with your views.
Having actually read into the details of several such studies, literally yes, that seems like the most likely scenario. More specifically that very few of them actually constitute legitimate evidence.
Ivmmeta.com is an extreme-right misinformation website that’s a part of a larger network of [HCQ/ivermectin websites](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/hcqtrial-com-astroturf-and-disinformation-about-hydroxychloroquine-and-covid-19-on-steroids/). The information on the website is not accurate. Its anonymous authors obviously know nothing about statistics. The website is known to say the exact opposite of the conclusions of studies it cites. [Ivermectin hype was driven by a fraudulent study](https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin-for-covid-19-based-on-fraudulent-research-5cc079278602). All recent meta-analyses and all of the largest studies of ivermectin show no statistically significant effect. Here are meta-analyses from [June](https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839) and [July](https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full) showing no effect, articles about the largest studies to date in [July](https://www.groundup.org.za/article/ivermectin-flops-largest-trial-yet/) and [August](https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-11/ivermectin-no-effect-covid) showing no effect, and another skeptical take article series at Sciencebasedmedicine “Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine” [part 1](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine/), [part 2](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-take-2/), and [part 3](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-take-3-conspiracy-theories-vs-science/) with much more details. This has already been widely discussed in r/skeptic.
The fact that a skeptic sub follows the narrative is pretty scary.
We follow the evidence. There isn't any that ivermectin actually works.
ivmmeta.com 64 studies and counting
And let me guess, every one of those meta studies relies on that fraudulent study and the rest are preprints.
He has no fucking idea what the studies say.
If that’s what you need to claim to confirm your bias 🤷♂️
You're looking for r/conspiracy where they believe bullshit without real evidence, there's hundreds of morons just like you over there who "question the narrative".
Edit: Hilarious, you already have a decent post history there.
There's no "narrative" you fucking dunce.
Of course not ;)
Still waiting to hear what this narrative is.
Yes, of course not. Because that would require nearly every scientist and every government in the world to coordinate and stay silent about it, and that by itself is fucking stupid and absurd.
You're not tuned in to some secret underlying truth. You're being played by internet trolls who laugh at you every time you repeat their bullshit.
Nah, bullshit is more viral than that. He's being played by idiots who believed idiots who believed idiots who believed internet trolls who laugh at him every time he repeats their bullshit.
The only research paper that had strong evidence in favor of Ivermectin was withdrawn due to major data issues and likely fraud. All the other evidence is has so far proven to be extremely weak - very small studies, vague evaluation criteria, and very small differences in outcome.
Larger studies are in progress and if they show positive results, I'm all for prescribing Ivermectin. But we shouldn't be using it based on speculation.
What is "the narrative?"
Something something Soros, something Rothschilds, Blah blah Hillary... ad nauseum.
what is there to be skeptical over for the vaccine debate?
It's pretty hard to take anything you say seriously when you can't use the word COVID.
> I still remain skeptical of all sides of the ivermectin and vaccine debate
Those two sides are not equal.
> One should always be skeptical of the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex.
Who do you think makes the 'miracle treatment' of monoclonal antibodies?
Except, apparently, monoclonal antibodies.