I think he has done more than n=1 since. Do you dispute that penicillin works (or at at least workED before resistant strains of bacteria emerged)? Well, it never had a spanktabulous double blind trial when first adopted because it was so obvious that it works that one wasn’t needed. Those fancy studies are only needed if 1) you are trying to tease out very minor effects (not an issue with IVM – we have hundreds of millions of people proving how effective it is), 2) you need to look at broad adverse effects (not an issue with IVM – already done over previous decades with 5 billion doses), or 3) Big Pharma needs to conduct a fake trial to officially discredit an off-patent treatment that works.
13 Likes
I saw homeopathy allow my son’s body to cure itself of seizures. It was dramatic and unequivocal. It caused me to look further and the desire to know more. Maybe that is what Dr. Kory is saying. The Ivermectin story and the evolution of the components of I-MASK + and I-MATH+ was based on initial observations.
7 Likes
gbell12 said:
“As a trained doctor, I just don’t understand how he can think unscientifically like this.”
You see, that’s the thing here gbell. The “pandemic” has allowed the hero Dr. Pierre Kory to become “untrained”, to all the world’s benefit. Indeed, it’s allowed all of us the opportunity to become “untrained”, if we have an open mind and think critically…Aloha, Steve.
22 Likes
Didn’t think I would see this…
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2e/
5 Likes
More conspiracy/capture, or they don’t think it contributed to Uttar Pradesh’s success.
https://science.thewire.in/health/icmr-revises-covid-treatment-guidelines-removes-ivermectin-hydroxychloroquine/
1 Like
So tell me; How many volcanoes must a scientist see in order to verify the existence of volcanoes?
One.
n=1.
EDIT: Zero. He can go read about volcanoes in a book. N=0 is good enough.
4 Likes
John Campbell has a list of references on this topic under the video and discusses them in the video for those interested
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO9cjy3Rydc
2 Likes
You are talking about Real Magic.
Choose your mountain with care. You don’t want to meet a pissed-off old man with a beard when you get to the top.
"God means Good, therefore I cannot ask Him to be better." Ny-Helenia (Minerva) from Our Oera Linda.
1 Like
I watch Dr. Campbell with some trepidation. The good Nurse has spent his whole life believing in the system; and I fear an exquisite tragedy when he discovers that his Trust has been betrayed and that he has contributed to the genocide.
Somebody drum into his head now that our institutions have been overrun by Bugs. How was he to know? He doesn’t read the same books as I.
10 Likes
From my experience you don’t want your doctor to be a scientist. We had one of those once, their science experiment came before my husband’s health. The science doc needed volunteers for his clinical trial that were strong enough to live through the treatment. With my son in earshot the sci/doc told my husband he was basically deadman walking and he should join his clinical trial to advance science. We fired that sci/doc and got a doctor/doc. That was six years ago, hubby is still with us.
Kathy
15 Likes
The scientific method has served us well, but like all tools it must be used appropriately.
(You wouldn’t use a wood plane to stir porridge.)
The scientific method:
It is totally unsuitable for the investigation of UFOs, for example. How are you going to test a UFO? First catch your UFO, I guess. (Done, perhaps surprisingly.) Oh, and Medicine isn't science. It uses scientific results; not the same thing. Science should take a back-seat to Lawyers in digging for the Truth about UFOs. Lawyers can be wickedly good at that sort of thing.Khan Academy. (I managed to avoid wikiP)
- Make an observation.
- Ask a question.
- Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
- Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
- Test the prediction.
- Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
5 Likes
I follow your reasoning gbell 12. With all the data coming out it is becoming very difficult to see the true picture on Ivermectin.
However a few things I can’t ignore. How can it possible that something doesn’t work and yet gives rise to 60+ studies, some of which were high quality, that all point in the direction that it does help.
In my mind the question isn’t if it works but rather how well it works. It may not be that silver bullet that everyone was hoping for that would end the pandemic but that still doesn’t explain the discourse around it.
If something can help and is completely safe to administer than at the very least allow it to be used when a patient asks for it and where are those large trials that would be able to figure out how well it works and how it should be used (dosages and onset of treatment).
And what is said in the video about Remdesivir also seems reasonable, that drug has such weak data supporting it, with potentially bad and fatal side effects and yet it is allowed and even recommended in most countries.
I hate these discussions turning into black/white, where is the nuance. Something that safe with a history of 4 billion dosages administered with so many studies supporting it should not be so controversial. Especially not when we’re talking about a brand new virus that we didn’t know how to treat yet. Normal reasoning would dictate that we see this as a possible solution and investigate it further, not demonise it and forbid dokters from using it.
So even though you may be right that Dr Kory has his own tunnel vision going on the health authorities did investigate it very well and decided it probably doesn’t work, I can never approve the controversy that followed that decision. In a world where you want to save lives, this response makes absolute no sense. It has put a big dent in my belief that I will be well cared for.
What is your opinion on this, not wether or not it works but about all the controversy?
13 Likes
- The clot-shot works. That much must be clear. It is a brilliant weapon.
- Propaganda works.
- Obfuscation works.
- Neoteny serves the Darwinian process well.
7 Likes
It's possible our regulatory bodies here in Australia have been "captured" and are completely corrupt and are lying. Or, it's possible that when they say they've read all the IVM studies and have decided that it doesn't work, that they mean it.Poor gbell. He is so out of touch, he doesn't know about regulatory capture. I'm certain he has never heard of Aduhelm. And the failed clinical trials. After which it was immediately approved by the FDA - which overrode its own advisory panel which advised against it. "Maybe" this was due to the price of the new drug: $56,000/year! How could a regulator say no to that much profit-opportunity? Clearly, they couldn't. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01677572 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/aging/fda-approves-controversial-alzheimer-s-drug-biogen-n1269645 So either gbell is living in a cave, or - just perhaps - he is getting a paycheck from the same group who brought us Aduhelm. And his job here at the site is to persuade us all to stop taking this cheap actually-safe-and-effective medicine (y'all!) and instead prepare our bodies to receive the (designed-to-be-biannual) blessings of the Holy Shot - and when that fails, which is both inevitable and expected - to receive the second phase of Pharma assistance known as Molnupiravir, for which no long term human testing has been done. But it will cost $700/dose! Woohoo! Pharma comes with a highly-profitable multi-phased rescue plan - rescuing us from the NIH-funded disease - at a very, very modest expense. With virtually no adverse events, and when I say virtually none, what I really mean is, more AEs than any other "vaccine" in history. For which they face no manufacturers liability! Does it get any better than this? I don't think so! Safe and Effective! No Regulatory Capture! It's Science!! Thanks gbell!! May the Blessings of Pharma Be Upon You!
21 Likes
Kind words are always welcome. I’m glad to meet people who respect the truth and wisdom and who know they need the spiritual sustenance in the Bible.
it continues to sustain and amaze.
3 Likes
Yeah, there are a few interpretations that I’ve heard and read concerning the first horseman. But the thing about prophetic Scripture is that it’s almost impossible to figure it out until after the fact. Or perhaps in the midst of the fulfillment of it? With the world-changing events going on around us, it stands to reason that the the Big Change, the end of the Pre-Millennial Ages of Man could be bearing down on us. I’m thinking we’re there and are in front-row seats for the event. But, we’ll see, I guess. Only hoping to acquit myself honorably in all this.
3 Likes
Could someone with medical research experience please, clarify some details on what such study would require?
Setting aside for the moment that at this point this wouldn’t be ethical,
- what are the costs involved?
- how important is double-blinded-ness? I mean, if it is not, does it get automatically rejected as useless?
- how many people are required so that it is not labeled ‘too small’ sample?
- how long should it go on?
Thank you
2 Likes
The article is crap. It repeatedly references the various health authority pronouncements, as if they are gospel. It cites safety issues for IVM and HCQ even though both are on the WHO’s list of essential medicines, have been prescribed billions of times and have stellar safety records. Anyone making an assertion of safety issues for either drug immediately identifies themselves as biased. We can argue about how effective IVM and HCQ are in treating COVID but there’s no place for argument about their safety. 40 years of field data are incontrovertible. The article also attributes the interest in HCQ to hamster studies and Elon Musk tweets rather than the French investigative work that showed solid benefit in humans.
I downloaded the study referenced in the article. It’s a review, they didn’t do any new research. They limited their review to randomized controlled trials only. Recall that aren’t many for IVM and most of the ones out there are funded by big pharma. On top of that, they weighted their analysis of the RCTs in highly prejudicial ways.
Several studies which showed significant reductions in mortality were given small weightings. One study which was given 43% weighting administered only one dose of IVM. Four of the 10 studies in the review only administered one dose of IVM and a 5th study administered 2 12mg doses but gave them 12 hours apart with no later dosing.
They used different subsets of the 10 studies for each of their analyses. This allowed them to pick and choose to get the results they wanted. Despite this the all cause mortality assessment came out in favor of IVM. Had they They had 5 studies in the all cause mortality assessment and only 3 in the severe adverse events assessment. Mortality should be considered a severe adverse event and yet they didn’t include it.
They hide their biased selection process in the claim that two of the researchers reviewed the studies and selected candidates and a third refereed disagreements. There’s much made about the statistical software applied to their analysis. I performed experiments on human perception for my PhD and am well aware of how results can be biased by the choice of what goes in. It’s a problem even when you aren’t trying to bias results. If you are trying the software packages become a playground.
To do a definitive analysis of the paper would probably take a full day and I can’t justify that kind of time. When I review papers for the technical Journal I’m a reviewer for it takes me 4 hours to do a good job and that’s when the papers are in my specialty.
26 Likes
Thank you for the time you did take to tear apart this IVM article. Your contributions to our big picture view of early treatment, and the war against it, here on PP.com are really invaluable.
13 Likes
I am going to add to what Jim H., said.
Thanks, Rich.
About once a week some baloney article (such as the BBC article) or some biased study comes out (such as the one Rich just debunked) claiming that Ivermectin has no efficacy. And then someone posts it here.
Time and time again these screeds are not just unsupported by the facts, they are laughably unsupported by the facts.
It is a waste of our time at this point.
The issue of Ivermectin’s proven efficacy is just about as closed as an issue can be.
When the BBC article came out, I was just so tired of dealing with this nonsense that I didn’t even read it. Fortunately, Dr. Campbell destroyed that article in a podcast.
Now this.
It is wearying.
But thankfully Rich demolished it which gives the rest of us time to research issues that are still open.
Thanks, Rich. Job well done.
15 Likes