The current value of Ivermectin as an anti-COVID treatment is in dispute. But is it a dispute, or a conspiracy to suppress the truth?
Kicking us in the shins while we die from COVID is the intellectual authoritarianism of social media and offiicial narratives, the polar opposite of scientifc inquiry.
No progress in human history has ever come from intellectual authoritarianism.
We have geriatric parasitical desk-jockey “experts” and “doctors” with zero clinical experience with COVID dictacting treatment protocols to doctors actually working with patients, forbidding them to try what works.
So we let patients continue to die with ineffective and hyper-expensive treatments. Entering the hospital with COVID today is a sentence of sufering and a good chance of death—18 months after this all started. Isn’t it about time to use evidence-based medicine based on evidence?
Starts at about the 5-minute mark (skip first ~5 minutes):
The core claims of Dr Pierre Kory is that (1) Ivermectin works as a prophylactic against COVID and (2) Ivermectin quickly eliminates COVID issues, preventing hospitalizations, (3) may well be preferred to vaccination as a public health solution (the video is NOT anti-vax) (4) can be effective in curing Long-Haul COVID for those suffering brain fog, extreme fatigue, etc because it can kill off lingering viral issues.
Also covered is that some large “gravitational force” is exerting immense force to suppress any and all discussion and use of Ivermectin as a treatment, in spite of numerous groups of highly-respected physicians in many countries arguing for its use. Cited are the various countries that are using Ivermectin and their massive reduction in COVID hospitalizations, e.g. Mexico.
The video is highly persuasive, and raises issues that you cannot hear on social media or the news, because of the intellectual authoritarianism we see today, which of course is the polar opposite of scientifc inquiry. Thus we have the the Gods That Decide What Science Is telling us to shut up, ignore evidence, get vaxxed, and be treated ineffectively and die. Which is what we have been doing since COVID debuted.
Studies on Ivermection
A new meta analysis on Ivermectin has popped up in late June, below. When people are dying and numerous studies show benefits and there are no other good therapies, resistance to using a well-known and widely available drug means only one thing: follow the money, because Big Pharma can’t make money on this one.
Does that prove-out the efficacy and safety profile of Ivermectin to full satisfaction? Of course not. But stiff resistance to inquiry and science from our medical overlords along with rampant censoring of dissenting viewpoints can lead a rational person only to one conclusion: it probably works and there are powerful interests keen on suppressing it.
Every time I go to my internest, he is f*cking guessing at what to do. Why is it so different with COVID and Ivermectin? Politics and censorship pressuring doctors to not step out of line with guidelines—or get fired or harrassed.
...Given the evidence of efficacy, safety, low cost, and current death rates, ivermectin is likely to have an impact on health and economic outcomes of the pandemic across many countries. Ivermectin is not a new and experimental drug with an unknown safety profile. It is a WHO “Essential Medicine” already used in several different indications, in colossal cumulative volumes. Corticosteroids have become an accepted standard of care in COVID-19, based on a single RCT of dexamethasone.1 If a single RCT is sufficient for the adoption of dexamethasone, then a fortiori the evidence of 2 dozen RCTs supports the adoption of ivermectin.
Ivermectin is likely to be an equitable, acceptable, and feasible global intervention against COVID-19. Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and prophylaxis.
WIND: it’s clear that resistance to Ivermectin has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics—follow the money to Big Pharma and their FDA/CDC lackees.
If it had to do with science, then we would see scientific rebuttals, but instead we get boilerplate platitudes.
The Do-Nothing Parasites at the FDA and CDC
Where do the FDA and CDC stand on Ivermectin? Let’s see if they are at least credible, which is not the same as being right or wrong.
...There seems to be a growing interest in a drug called ivermectin to treat humans with COVID-19. Ivermectin is often used in the U.S. to treat or prevent parasites in animals.
FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans. Ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses)....
The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19; however, some initial research is underway. Taking a drug for an unapproved use can be very dangerous. This is true of ivermectin, too.
WIND: a year later, the FDA has “not reviewed data”? “Growing interest...” but not interest by the FDA. “Taking a drug for an unapproved...”. People dying, and this is all the FDA can come up with? Ivermectin is recognized as safe, having been use worldwide extensively and it is a critical drug to worldwide health. There is no science in their official position—transparent propaganda. The FDA is not a credible source.
Ivermectin is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved antiparasitic drug that is used to treat several neglected tropical diseases, including onchocerciasis, helminthiases, and scabies.1 It is also being evaluated for its potential to reduce the rate of malaria transmission by killing mosquitoes that feed on treated humans and livestock.2 For these indications, ivermectin has been widely used and is generally well tolerated.1,3 Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection.
There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.
...This work was inspired by the prior literature review of Dr Pierre Kory...
WIND:seriously—people dying in droves, but not updated for 5+ months in spite of numerous studies? What exactly will be “sufficient data” to get the parasites at the CDC to study it? Who the f*ck cares if the FDA has “approved” it when it seems to work better than anything else? The CDC is not a credible source.
Solid reasoning on another bullshit claim about COVID studies.
The latest in the long succession of attempts at maximizing people’s fear of covid is the claim that it causes brain damage. And not just in those who have spent time in the ICU, in everyone, even if all they had was a mild cold. The claim is currently doing the rounds on social media (apparently alarmist propaganda only counts as misinformation if it’s going against the dominant narrative). The assertion comes from a paper that’s recently been published in EClinicalMedicine (a daughter journal of The Lancet). The paper is actually quite illuminating about the current state of medical research, so I thought it would be interesting to go through it in some detail.
...The reason the study is causing such a stir is because of the results. All five of the “I think I’ve had covid” categories performed worse on the cognitive function test than the “I don’t think I’ve had covid” category did. The reduction in performance was correlated with the severity of disease, with the people who had been on a ventilator performing worst – according to the researchers their results were equivalent to a seven point reduction on an IQ test. If we assume that the non-covid group have an IQ of 100, this would mean that the group that had been on a ventilator have an IQ of 93.
Ok, open and shut, right? Having covid makes you more stupid, and the more severe disease you have, the more stupid you become. Well, not quite.
...The fact that the study was observational and cross-sectional, and that there were big underlying differences between the groups, is on its own enough to disqualify any claims about this study being able to show that covid causes brain damage. But it gets worse. A lot worse.
A major problem with the study is that 97%(!) of the people who thought they’d had covid lacked testing to confirm the diagnosis... If you can’t even be sure that 97% of participants actually had the disease you’re trying to draw conclusions about, then you really don’t have a leg to stand on.
...To me, the main lesson here is that we currently live in a world where junk science goes unquestioned and gets published in peer-reviewed journals as long as it feeds in to the dominant narrative. If this study had been claiming, say, that face masks didn’t work, then it would remain stuck at the pre-print stage forever, or, if it ever did get published, it would immediately have been retracted. It has become blatantly obvious over the past year and a half that it is not primarily the quality of studies that determines where and whether they get published, but rather their acceptability to the powers that be.
WIND: all that said, I cannot prove that I had COVID back in April 2020, but nothing I’ve ever had was like it, and the onset, duration, symptoms were unlike anything else I’ve ever had and matche COVID symptoms. And the ensuing effects definitely caused cognitive impairment for 6 months, and I still am weak 13 months later.
So... it might be a bullshit study, but in my view the risks are very real for Long Haul COVID.