When virtually nothing was known in the beginning of all this, the panicked ignorance of certain academics and most politicians became the foundation for public health measures that destroyed lives and livelihoods. Reasonable, logical people with sensible solutions were told by the "elites" WE were the problem. Nay nay...I would say the true problem has always been with the aforementioned hypocrites.
As an educated, non-medical professional, I pride myself in being able to discern a good argument... Covid has given me plenty of opportunities to practice. Regarding the question of Ivermectin, the arguments I hear from opponents are usually not based on personal experience, and often refer to non-specific large randomized controlled trials that are peremptorily described as negative. I also find the reticence to engage in a public debate with representatives of "the other side" problematic.
"The other side" is also comprised of highly credentialed professionals that are often shunned from mainstream media... all this is absolutely not helpful to win over critical thinking people who don't feel at ease with the way this one-size-fit-all solution is being pushed on us.
Here is a convivial discussion between two intelligent people on the topic of Ivermectin. You decide. Is this an elegant way to prove its efficacy or are those two dangerous radicals we need to be protected from??
Sorry, but the academics don't know what a woman is; for them, boys or girls can switch overnight, and not only that, they are ok with the mutilation of their bodies. So, what you try to explain here is far beyond their comprehension.
"One [Ivermectin] is a the panacea of right wing zealots and the other [masks] of left wing zealots.”
…
Dr. Pierre Kory is among the so-called “right wing zealots” who champion Ivermectin. However, just like Vinay Prasad, he is actually a Democrat. I wish Prasad wouldn't throw out ad hominum attacks upon those whom he disagrees:
“I’m a lifelong Democrat. I voted for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. I used to have an inherent aversion to Republicans … . But as the pandemic unfolded ... I met many new conservative colleagues and friends who put politics aside to focus on doing our best at the bedside. It made me more tolerant and understanding of their worldviews.
I used to view Democrats … as the champions of free speech … But now, ... medical boards are adopting policies that censor opinions ... Medical professionals who refuse to toe the party line risk censorship, cancellation, and even the loss of license … The trend is forcing doctors who exhibit critical thinking to face an existential choice: join the mob and support what many of us believe are dangerous policies without a sound scientific basis, or stand up and risk losing your livelihood.
Tribalism and polarization have made our political and medical discourse nasty and divisive. Doctors must be kept above the partisan fray, not forced to take sides and pick a jersey. ... we need to be apolitical to maintain credibility with everyone who comes to us seeking treatment. Progress and innovative medical breakthroughs in the future depend on freedom and medical choice now.”
I wish you would study the evidence in favor of ivermectin as thorougly as you did it with masking. Some of the so-called "negative" trials on ivermectin are a joke, as is rightly pointed out by ivermectin-enthusiasts. Inclusion up to 14 days after symptoms for the PRINCIPLE trial, when Molnupiravir or Paxlovid stick to about 3 days, for instance? It's completely ridiculous.
"The SAIVE Trial (NCT 05305560) is a Phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical study, evaluating the safety and efficacy of ivermectin tablets taken orally for 28 days, under the oversight of a U.S. based independent Data Monitoring Committee. The study was conducted in Bulgaria between March and November 2022.
All participants were unvaccinated adults and had been exposed to the virus within 5 days of screening after documented close contact with a person who had a PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants randomized to ivermectin group showed a highly statistically significant reduction (72%) of laboratory-confirmed infections between baseline and Day 28 (30/200) versus placebo (105/199), the study's primary endpoint, with p<0,0001. No safety signals related to daily intake of ivermectin, 200 microgram/kg on Day 1 then 100 microgram/kg daily from Day 2 to Day 28 were identified during the study."
"Both masking and ivermectin failed to show how they might help people in a timely fashion. Both are failed interventions. One is a the panacea of right wing zealots and the other of left wing zealots.”
…
One problem with a meta-analysis (such as the BMC referenced by VP) is that authors might manipulate their study with their choice of inclusion criteria, primary endpoints, etc. (especially if not pre-specified). For example, back in August '21, Popp's Cochrane review excluded nearly all studies so that the remaining “n” was too small to have "power" (except for Shoumann RR 0.13 [0.08 , 0.21]. So, Cochrane dismissed it and hid it's Forest plot at the end (p.252) of their review.
Here's an excerpt from a post from Dr. Pierre Kory (a so-called “right-wing zealot”, although, like Vinay Prasad, he is also a Democrat) where he described how the July '21 Cochrane review gave the “right answer” about Ivermectin vs. Tess Lawrie's review (and also discusses Shoumann's trial).
“Tess [Lawrie] proposed to Cochrane for her team to do a “Rapid Review of Ivermectin.” They initially accepted her proposed study protocol! She had a green light. But not for long. They changed tune fast, likely due to pressure from Gates or one of their Big Pharma funders. … all of a sudden, the Cochrane editors informed Tess that a “Rapid Review” was inappropriate and that a “Full Review” protocol should be followed. She quickly agreed to do so and submitted a Full Review ...
Pressure was on. The corrupted Cochrane Library was in a bind. Unsurprisingly, they then started accusing her of “conflicts of interest” because of her video plea to [British PM] Boris Johnson … They simply told her to go publish in another journal and instead assigned the Full Review work to a German team led by Popp et al.
I don’t know Popp but don’t have to. Popp proceeded to employ the identical tactics that the WHO research team did, a brazenly manipulated review which came to a very different conclusion than Tess’s team, i.e. instead, after dismissing most of the evidence base, they concluded that the evidence for ivermectin was of “very low certainty” and thus insufficient to support a recommendation. … Tess’s team masterfully tore apart the fraudulent Cochrane review here. It’s a must read for science and stat geeks. Note it remains on a pre-print server. … “Gold standard” eh? Whatever. Clown world."
October 2021, just as dropped my 11 yo daughter off at dance, she mentioned she wasn’t feeling well, but convinced me it was just because she was tired.
When I picked her up 4 hours later, she had a moderate fever, headache, and pain in her eyes.
A rapid test confirmed she had Covid, and out of caution, we alerted the dance studio.
My daughter danced in 4 different classes, with roughly 20 other dancers per class, in a confined small studio with poor circulation. None of the students had been masking since 2020.
Not one of the roughly 70 people present at the studio caught Covid from my daughter.
I propose that the black leotards protected everyone as it’s mechanistically plausible that the black fabric obtained an electrostatic charge that pulled the Covid virions to the leotard.
When virtually nothing was known in the beginning of all this, the panicked ignorance of certain academics and most politicians became the foundation for public health measures that destroyed lives and livelihoods. Reasonable, logical people with sensible solutions were told by the "elites" WE were the problem. Nay nay...I would say the true problem has always been with the aforementioned hypocrites.
As an educated, non-medical professional, I pride myself in being able to discern a good argument... Covid has given me plenty of opportunities to practice. Regarding the question of Ivermectin, the arguments I hear from opponents are usually not based on personal experience, and often refer to non-specific large randomized controlled trials that are peremptorily described as negative. I also find the reticence to engage in a public debate with representatives of "the other side" problematic.
"The other side" is also comprised of highly credentialed professionals that are often shunned from mainstream media... all this is absolutely not helpful to win over critical thinking people who don't feel at ease with the way this one-size-fit-all solution is being pushed on us.
Here is a convivial discussion between two intelligent people on the topic of Ivermectin. You decide. Is this an elegant way to prove its efficacy or are those two dangerous radicals we need to be protected from??
https://rumble.com/v2835qb-ivermectin-saving-lives-in-africa.html
Sorry, but the academics don't know what a woman is; for them, boys or girls can switch overnight, and not only that, they are ok with the mutilation of their bodies. So, what you try to explain here is far beyond their comprehension.
When did politics and medicine become one?
Why have Democrats demonised Republicans?
I just don't understand! Am I being illiterate?
"One [Ivermectin] is a the panacea of right wing zealots and the other [masks] of left wing zealots.”
…
Dr. Pierre Kory is among the so-called “right wing zealots” who champion Ivermectin. However, just like Vinay Prasad, he is actually a Democrat. I wish Prasad wouldn't throw out ad hominum attacks upon those whom he disagrees:
From Pierre Kory's 5/20/22 opinion piece: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/doctor-democrat-covid-censorship-pierre-kory
“I’m a lifelong Democrat. I voted for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. I used to have an inherent aversion to Republicans … . But as the pandemic unfolded ... I met many new conservative colleagues and friends who put politics aside to focus on doing our best at the bedside. It made me more tolerant and understanding of their worldviews.
I used to view Democrats … as the champions of free speech … But now, ... medical boards are adopting policies that censor opinions ... Medical professionals who refuse to toe the party line risk censorship, cancellation, and even the loss of license … The trend is forcing doctors who exhibit critical thinking to face an existential choice: join the mob and support what many of us believe are dangerous policies without a sound scientific basis, or stand up and risk losing your livelihood.
Tribalism and polarization have made our political and medical discourse nasty and divisive. Doctors must be kept above the partisan fray, not forced to take sides and pick a jersey. ... we need to be apolitical to maintain credibility with everyone who comes to us seeking treatment. Progress and innovative medical breakthroughs in the future depend on freedom and medical choice now.”
I wish you would study the evidence in favor of ivermectin as thorougly as you did it with masking. Some of the so-called "negative" trials on ivermectin are a joke, as is rightly pointed out by ivermectin-enthusiasts. Inclusion up to 14 days after symptoms for the PRINCIPLE trial, when Molnupiravir or Paxlovid stick to about 3 days, for instance? It's completely ridiculous.
TOGETHER isn't great, either: https://c19ivm.org/togetherivm.html
It's hard not to be skeptical of such poorly executed RCTs.
And when it comes to prophylaxis, I'm not sure that masks ever had anything as promising going for them as those (admittedly unpublished) results:
https://www.medincell.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/PR-results-TTG-VF-EN.pdf
"The SAIVE Trial (NCT 05305560) is a Phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical study, evaluating the safety and efficacy of ivermectin tablets taken orally for 28 days, under the oversight of a U.S. based independent Data Monitoring Committee. The study was conducted in Bulgaria between March and November 2022.
All participants were unvaccinated adults and had been exposed to the virus within 5 days of screening after documented close contact with a person who had a PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants randomized to ivermectin group showed a highly statistically significant reduction (72%) of laboratory-confirmed infections between baseline and Day 28 (30/200) versus placebo (105/199), the study's primary endpoint, with p<0,0001. No safety signals related to daily intake of ivermectin, 200 microgram/kg on Day 1 then 100 microgram/kg daily from Day 2 to Day 28 were identified during the study."
"Both masking and ivermectin failed to show how they might help people in a timely fashion. Both are failed interventions. One is a the panacea of right wing zealots and the other of left wing zealots.”
…
One problem with a meta-analysis (such as the BMC referenced by VP) is that authors might manipulate their study with their choice of inclusion criteria, primary endpoints, etc. (especially if not pre-specified). For example, back in August '21, Popp's Cochrane review excluded nearly all studies so that the remaining “n” was too small to have "power" (except for Shoumann RR 0.13 [0.08 , 0.21]. So, Cochrane dismissed it and hid it's Forest plot at the end (p.252) of their review.
Here's an excerpt from a post from Dr. Pierre Kory (a so-called “right-wing zealot”, although, like Vinay Prasad, he is also a Democrat) where he described how the July '21 Cochrane review gave the “right answer” about Ivermectin vs. Tess Lawrie's review (and also discusses Shoumann's trial).
https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/the-criminal-censorship-of-ivermectins
“Tess [Lawrie] proposed to Cochrane for her team to do a “Rapid Review of Ivermectin.” They initially accepted her proposed study protocol! She had a green light. But not for long. They changed tune fast, likely due to pressure from Gates or one of their Big Pharma funders. … all of a sudden, the Cochrane editors informed Tess that a “Rapid Review” was inappropriate and that a “Full Review” protocol should be followed. She quickly agreed to do so and submitted a Full Review ...
Pressure was on. The corrupted Cochrane Library was in a bind. Unsurprisingly, they then started accusing her of “conflicts of interest” because of her video plea to [British PM] Boris Johnson … They simply told her to go publish in another journal and instead assigned the Full Review work to a German team led by Popp et al.
I don’t know Popp but don’t have to. Popp proceeded to employ the identical tactics that the WHO research team did, a brazenly manipulated review which came to a very different conclusion than Tess’s team, i.e. instead, after dismissing most of the evidence base, they concluded that the evidence for ivermectin was of “very low certainty” and thus insufficient to support a recommendation. … Tess’s team masterfully tore apart the fraudulent Cochrane review here. It’s a must read for science and stat geeks. Note it remains on a pre-print server. … “Gold standard” eh? Whatever. Clown world."
October 2021, just as dropped my 11 yo daughter off at dance, she mentioned she wasn’t feeling well, but convinced me it was just because she was tired.
When I picked her up 4 hours later, she had a moderate fever, headache, and pain in her eyes.
A rapid test confirmed she had Covid, and out of caution, we alerted the dance studio.
My daughter danced in 4 different classes, with roughly 20 other dancers per class, in a confined small studio with poor circulation. None of the students had been masking since 2020.
Not one of the roughly 70 people present at the studio caught Covid from my daughter.
I propose that the black leotards protected everyone as it’s mechanistically plausible that the black fabric obtained an electrostatic charge that pulled the Covid virions to the leotard.
Can the CDC publish my MMWR?
Thank you for this analysis. Has there been a "Cochrane Review" of ivermectin, or any of the other alternative therapies for Covid?