Skip to content

Of course, this isn’t, in fact, true

while many linked to comments from cardiologist Peter McCullough, who has touted ivermectin as a cure for COVID-19 despite multiple studies showing no evidence that it works.

There’s excellent evidence that ivermectin works, yea even on Covid. It’s just that you need to have worms as well. Ivermectin cures the worms which gives you a better chance against Covid.

Some of the early evidence of a direct effect was just getting the “needs to have worms” bit left out as a result of tests from poor places where worms are common.

There is evidence, very good evidence, that ivermectin works and the claim that there isn’t is a falsehood. A dangerous one too for a lot of people in poor places would benefit greatly from being so dosed.

Having said all of which:

“I watched the play live both as a fan and a cardiologist and I saw blunt neck and chest trauma, a brief recovery after the tackle and then a classic cardiac arrest,” McCullough said. “I have communicated to one of the most experienced trainers in the world and we agree that it was a cardiac arrest in the setting of a big surge of adrenalin. If Damar Hamlin indeed took one of the COVID-19 vaccines, then subclinical vaccine-induced myocarditis must be considered in the differential diagnosis.”

Sounds damn reasonable to me.

24 thoughts on “Of course, this isn’t, in fact, true”

  1. Peter McCullough is a proper doctor. Rather than touting invermectin he espoused a regime of multi-drug treatment for covid sufferers the most important part of which was early treatment on symptoms or positive test. Which is precisely the approach which was discouraged by most of the medical establishment. In the UK at least, on receipt of a positive test you had to go home and wait until the disease got bad enough to cause hospitalisation. There is no sensible reason for that, early intervention is obviously better. That argument does not even require ivermectin itself to be a good treatment.

    AND, ivermection studies in the UK where worm infestation is uncommon showed some sort of improvement but it was NEVEr tested in the recommended early treatment scenarion. They tested on patients who were already in hospital. That thing about there have to be worms is disinformation.

    Oh, and post-vaccine myocarditis is not even disputed in the fact, only the prevalence.

  2. The recent study that mRNA vaccines, especially boosters, produce the wrong sub-type of antibodies seems interesting and has gotten some people excited

  3. If ivermectin works on Covid by getting rid of worms, then it’s not really working on Covid and you’d have benefitted by taking the ivermectin even if you didn’t have Covid.

    But with regard to Damar Hamlin. Without actually seeing the event, I immediately thought of Commotio cordis – which does not require any heart disease and is likely to result in an excellent recovery as he received prompt treatment (CPR etc).

  4. KyleT, thanx.. Got some reading to do.

    Docbud.. With all due respect…. Your first link’s references mostly have economic papers in it, the second…. none.

    There’s a solid reason I appreciate the Kyle’s contribution, and toss yours in the same pile as all them Opinion Blogs the more ….. excitable…. fellows here liek to quote.

  5. There is very good evidence, running to 100+ papers, that ivermectin works as part of a treatment regime, preferably given early and at the optimal dose.

    The worms shit is just that – shit, thrown to muddy the water and explain away a clear benefit – as are numerous trials which purport to show no effect.

    The simple truth – at least, I hope this is all it is! – is that there is no money in ivermectin, as it is out of patent.

    Anyone who believes the negative trials (and the journals and indeed the regulators – all of which are funded to a greater or lesser extent by pharmaceutical companies which have a very long track record of lying for profit, up to and including killing people, and being fined billions for it) needs to at least factor that in.

    The legal basis upon which all of the jabs have been used has been under Emergency Use Authorisation, and EUA requires as a matter of law that there be no alternative treatment. If ivermectin works, bye bye $100 billion for Pfizer.

    The most dramatic exchange I have seen on this is that between Dr Tess Lawrie and Professor Andrew Hill of the University of Liverpool, on camera in a zoom meeting.

    Hill (who had been preparing for the WHO what was going to be a positive analysis of ivermectin, and a recommendation to use it) said he believed in ivermectin so much that if his own brother were to be ill he would recommend it to him.

    In the video, genuinely astonishingly, he backtracks and admits that this backtracking has been forced on his by his funders – Bill Gates and Unitaid, to the tune of $40 million.

    Here’s that video, recorded by Tess Lawrie. Obviously it’s not available on YouTube – you get kicked off for posting it. Ditto Facebook, LinkedIn and, until recently, Twitter.

    Tell me he’s not a wrong un.

    One might think that would be news, but of course Bill Gates is also funding the media, inc the BBC.

    The most notorious fake trial is the Oxford Together Trial, which was set up to fail, essentially.

    It has led to a very interesting and lengthy back and forth between Scott ‘Slate Star Codex’ Alexander and Alexandros Marinos.

    Those who care can find that back and forth – and a very good analysis of the failings in Together and other trials – by Marinos here

    There is a clear benefit to Pfizer and the people they pay in suppressing ivermectin; on the opposite side, there is little clear motive.

    Doctors can’t make money out of selling it, in many countries they have lost their careers (California has just passed a law under which doctors will lose their licences for diverting from the state line), and they suffer nothing but abuse and mockery from the media and their governments and thoroughly corrupted medical establishments.

    Dr Joseph Varon is a senior Texas ICU doctor who has given 1,600+ interviews (inc to our own BBC, which called him ‘The Covidhunter’) about the miraculous success he has had in saving lives with ivermectin – in Varon’s hospitals, you don’t die of Covid, basically.

    Indeed it was that very success which led the media to interview him.

    Strangely, every time they ask him what his secret was, and every time he says ivermectin (and other bits and bobs), and every time that bit of the interview never makes it to film or print.

    Here is one of the few interviews where that element wasn’t censored – the reporter involved was fired by Fox News, of all places, for reporting on ivermectin.

  6. A recent meta study of the various Ivermectin papers concluded that IVM was highly effective, I will try to find a reference. But one point stands out, IVM as a treatment or medicine is extremely safe, it has been administered in the billions of doses and the identified deaths from it in mid double figures; one of THE safest drugs in modern usage. Just as a contrast Paracetomol is sold anywhere by anyone, yet has an identified deaths toll in the hundreds of thousands if not millions – admittedly at leasts one from self administered overdoses as a form of suicide, yet it is still absolutely freely available everywhere without any medical supervision. IVM is also extremely cheap to make and distribute as it has no patent protection

    Therefore administering it on a large scale as a prophylactic is extremely unlikely to have any negative impacts, and even if it helps 5% it would be better than nothing, and it would probably induce a notably positive placebo effect at the very worst.

    And there were a number of other early treatment options that show some improvement symptoms and severity reduction such as Vitamin D, Zinc supplements, and micro-dose aspirin or equivalent anti-clotting medication. Yet each and every one was specifically and deliberately ignored and quite specifically NOT recommended or used. As noted above almost universally there was ZERO treatment offered bar “take a few paracetamols and go to hospital if you have trouble breathing…” You have to ask why, in who’s interest was it to make this “pandemic” as serious as it possibly could be.

    We do need a completely serious and unbiased (as hard as that may be to arrange) investigation into the complete affair. From the origin to the completely fucked up treatment and complete government misinformation campaigns. And I’d be entirely in favour of running it like the Nuremberg Tribunal with similar penalties for this charged and found guilty – “pour encourager les autres” as it were.

  7. The play does, indeed look like commitio cordis could have occurred, but that is extremely rare and usually involves a flying object such as a hockey puck or baseball. And if he had heart problems due to the “vax” that may have made him more susceptible to it.

    The fact that this happened on live TV in front of millions has the usual suspects terrified. If an investigation shows that the “vax” might be a factor a lot more people will start weighing the evidence and listening to sources other than the gov’t and “vax” shills.

  8. Coronavirus 2 is one of a family of coronaviruses, 4 or 5 of which cause about 10% of Common Colds. These and other respiratory viruses work in the same way, cell invasion in the respiratory tract in order to hijack them and reproduce. This and the immune response destroys those cells.

    If the immune system fails to overcome the infection the virus can invade cells in the lungs with the concomitant destruction of lung tissue (which is why ventilators are useless, even hasten death), cause respiratory distress, pneumonia and eventually death.

    So my questions for Ivermectin believers:

    – have we fortuitously discovered the long sought-after cure for the Common Cold and influenza which share the same characteristics and symptoms?

    – if Ivermectin works on Coronavirus 2, then it should be at least equally effective against other family members and similarly functioning virus: if not why not?

    – after decades of research why hasn’t this miracle cure been discovered before now?

    As for ‘those Countries using Ivermectin having lower CoVid death rates’ – the confounder there is age demographics. The average age of CoVid fatalities is 80 plus and with comorbidity (the IFR in healthy over 70, being less than 1%) or in younger sick people.

    Poor Countries have a very young demographic because of lack of extensive healthcare, poor hygiene, lack of sanitation, poor nutrition, few make it into old age and young sick people die young. Therefore CoVid deaths will be lower whether or not Ivermectin is involved.

  9. @John B

    Actually, studies were done which showed ivermectin inhibited SARS 1 replication in vitro – annoyingly I can’t lay my hands on them at the moment, but they should be googleable.

    Indeed it seems to have other anti-viral properties too, see eg:

    2012: ‘Ivermectin is a specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear import able to inhibit replication of HIV-1 and dengue virus’

    2013: ‘Ivermectin blocks the nuclear location signal of parvoviruses in crayfish, Cherax quadricarinatus’

    2015: ‘Evaluation of cytotoxicity and antiviral activity of ivermectin against Newcastle disease virus’

    2020: ‘The broad spectrum antiviral ivermectin targets the host nuclear transport importin α/β1 heterodimer’

    2021: ‘Ivermectin also inhibits the replication of bovine respiratory viruses (BRSV, BPIV-3, BoHV-1, BCoV and BVDV) in vitro’

    (Interestingly, [hydroxy]chloroquine appears to have similar antivital properties, which you can also google, and which is perhaps why they tried so hard to tie it in to Trump – guilt, or idiocy, by association.)

    Obviously in vitro action and action in crayfish and cows is only indicative, and it doesn’t prove that ivermectin is a good prophylaxis and treatment for SARS CoV2 – though, as above, there are lots of trials which say it is, and working doctors, saving lives as we speak, and with nothing whatsoever to gain from it and a great deal to lose, who also say that.

    The issue, I think, is money.

    Merck’s patent on ivermectin effectively lapsed in 1996, so there is no money to be made out of it and indeed it would act as a block to the truly huge reserves of money waiting to be tapped for new therapeutics.

    It may come down to how much you trust the Big Pharma companies, and the national regulators they largely fund, and the universities and trials they also largely fund. I don’t trust them much at all. They are proven, historical liars and fraudsters (and have clearly lied from the start about the safety and efficacy of the SARS CoV2 jabs as well).

    I hope that answers at least some of your questions.

    Would you in return answer two of mine?

    The first is, did you watch the Tess Lawrie/Andrew Hill video, and what did you make of it?

    The second is, did you watch the interview with Dr Joseph Varon and do you think he is lying either

    (i) about the numbers of lives he is saving


    (ii) the means by which he is saving them?

  10. John,

    “after decades of research why hasn’t this miracle cure been discovered before now?”

    Maybe it has!
    But also, furter to Interested, while small scale in vitro studies are cheap, large scale human trials are expensive – was Pharma going to fund the expensive cutting of its own throat? I don’t think so.

  11. Tim I replied in full to John B but it seems to have got trapped in the spam filter, perhaps because of links – could you have a look?

  12. Any thoughts, John B?

    Meanwhile in todays Epoch Times various doctors and pharmacists say the US FDA is lying when it now claims it didn’t ban ivermectin. Something very wrong with all of this.

    Health Care Workers Cry Foul on FDA Claiming It Didn’t Prohibit Ivermectin for COVID-19

    Dr. Yusuf Saleeby has practiced medicine for more than 30 years. He serves patients in South Carolina and until recently had never faced an investigation from his state medical board.
    But after Saleeby started prescribing ivermectin to his patients, he was reported to the board, which opened an investigation, despite the state’s attorney general’s promise that his office wouldn’t prosecute doctors who prescribed off-label medications.
    Jennifer Wright, a nurse practitioner and clinical director who practices in Florida, but can prescribe across state lines, told The Epoch Times she received a letter from the Office of the Attorney General of New York ordering her not to prescribe ivermectin.
    “You know, basically threatened me. If I don’t stop prescribing, then they’re going to fine me,” Wright said about the letter, which threatened legal action with fines of up to $5,000 per violation.
    The letter stated that the Food and Drug Administration only authorized ivermectin for use in humans when treating “parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.”
    The citation in the letter appears to be from an FDA advisory issued in March 2021 titled “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.”
    That advisory and other anti-ivermectin messaging from the FDA are now the subject of a lawsuit brought by three doctors against the agency. The doctors argue that the FDA illegally interfered with their ability to treat patients. The suit was dismissed but an appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs.
    During a hearing in 2022, attorneys defending the government argued that the agency’s missives were just a recommendation.
    “They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin,” Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers for the government, said during a Nov. 1, 2022, hearing in federal court in Texas.
    The government’s arguments differ greatly from the reality many doctors faced for prescribing ivermectin. Some lost their jobs, others were investigated by state medical boards, and many received threats from the New York attorney general because they were prescribing across state lines.
    Matthew Dark, a spokesperson for Roots Medical and Colorado Healthcare Providers for Freedom, which has more than 275 physicians in the group, stated that several doctors in Colorado are facing investigations by the state medical board.
    When asked about the FDA’s new claim, Dark stated: “They knew it was safe for humans, and they made that very accusatory thing if you were a doctor prescribing this, you were an idiot. You were practicing like a hillbilly. So that message was loud and clear.”
    Dark referred to Twitter posts from the FDA, one of which said: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
    “Pharmacies were responding to the practice and providers trying to write [ivermectin] the same way the FDA was behaving,” Dark said.
    Wright concurred, and pointing to her letter from the New York attorney general, said, “It clearly states in this letter that according to the FDA, you must cease and desist in prescribing ivermectin to New York State residents.”
    Dr. Miguel Antonatos, a board-certified internal medicine physician who practices out of Illinois, but can prescribe to other states, told The Epoch Times via email that he, too, received a letter from the New York attorney general.
    Nicole Sirotek is a registered nurse and founder of American Frontline Nurses, a patient advocacy network that boasts 22,000 nurses. She told The Epoch Times that her nurses often work with doctors in hospital settings.
    At the height of the pandemic, Sirotek said patients would reach out to her advocacy network and beg for ivermectin, either for themselves or their loved ones dying in the hospital.
    She stated that in five separate instances, doctors were fired or forced to resign for prescribing ivermectin as a home medication for nurses to administer in hospitals.
    “That happened five times, and each physician was fired. That’s five physicians in five different states and five different hospital systems.”
    Julie McCabe, a registered nurse and director of advocacy services for American Frontline Nurses, told The Epoch Times that the above doctors include Dr. Edith Behr in Pennsylvania, Dr. John Witcher in Mississippi, Dr. Mary Bowden in Texas, Dr. Robert Karas in Arkansas, and Dr. Paul Marik in Virginia. Bowden and Marik are two of the three doctors suing the FDA over its stance on ivermectin.
    Bowden told The Epoch Times that Houston Methodist Hospital suspended her for merely writing on Twitter about ivermectin, and she had to overcome “numerous obstacles” when prescribing it to patients.
    “The FDA was the key creator of these hurdles when it launched a social media campaign stating that ivermectin is dangerous and only for horses. When faced with a lawsuit, the FDA now claims it was merely making suggestions—suggestions that have threatened my ability to practice medicine and more importantly, interfered with life-saving early treatment of COVID patients,” Bowden said.
    Sirotek said members of the group Team Halo targeted her because of her stance on ivermectin. The group describes itself as “volunteer scientists and healthcare professionals from around the world, working to end this pandemic by contributing our time to address concerns and public health misinformation.”
    Members of the group filed several complaints to Nevada’s state medical board, which Sirotek said costs her $5,000 per complaint to fight.
    With tears streaming from her eyes, Sirotek said she’d also received death threats, pictures of her house, and threats to murder her children. Sirotek provided copies of these threats to The Epoch Times. Team Halo didn’t respond to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.
    Pushback Begins

    In the spring of 2020, with COVID-19 spreading like wildfire through the population, finding a viable treatment was paramount in many doctors’ minds. And as no drug was approved to treat the novel virus, they turned to off-label use, a standard medical practice even in non-pandemic times.
    In March 2020, a group of leading critical care specialists joined forces and formed the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). Their mission was to examine different therapies and drugs and recommend possible COVID-19 treatments based on best medical practices and emerging data.
    Almost immediately, ivermectin was put forward as a possible treatment. First approved for human use in 1987 and dispensed billions of times since then, ivermectin is traditionally prescribed to treat parasites. But it’s safe and was already known to have an effect on viruses.
    “This is a medication that is safer than Tylenol, safer than stuff we sell over the counter,” Wright said.
    Saleeby agreed.
    “[Ivermectin is] probably one of the most prescribed drugs. It’s given out like candy in Sub-Saharan Africa and Amazon basin or anywhere around water. … It’s doled out to children and pregnant women. … As far as safety, it’s probably safer than baby aspirin. It’s probably the safest drug on the planet, to be honest.
    “I was using [ivermectin] sporadically in some of my Lyme patients. It’s effective against Lyme. We knew it had effectivity against viruses and other pathogens like Borrelia and Babesia.”
    Sirotek told The Epoch Times that, especially as the Delta strain increased hospitalizations and deaths in the United States, she and several nurses questioned why some countries seemingly remained unaffected. The answer, she believes, was widespread ivermectin use.
    At first, prescribing ivermectin and obtaining it from a regular pharmacy wasn’t an issue, Wright said. More importantly, it worked.
    “We started using it very early on, and I could prescribe it to the pharmacy. I would prescribe it according to the FLCCC recommendations because they were the ones doing the research. I was just validating that, you know, this has some real stuff behind it.”
    When the pandemic began, ivermectin as an effective treatment was primarily a theory. But as health care workers reported that it worked, more and more studies were conducted to back up those early successes.
    There have been 189 ivermectin COVID-19 studies, according to the aggregate site Of those studies, 139 have been peer-reviewed, and 93 compare treatment and control groups.
    In the 93 studies, which had more than 133,838 patients in 27 countries, there were “statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance,” a real-time meta-analysis states.
    Simply put, as health care workers saw firsthand that ivermectin worked in their practices, studies were simultaneously confirming the medicine’s effectiveness.
    Dr. Peter Raisanen, a naturopathic medical doctor in Arizona, said that once he started his patients on ivermectin, they typically started feeling better within a few days.
    “It seemed like it was within three to four days, like they [started feeling] better,” Raisanen told The Epoch Times.
    Raisanen said he treated about 200 patients with ivermectin, and none died. Almost all stayed out of the hospital. That’s an experience several doctors attested to witnessing.
    “We’ve probably collectively [at Roots Medical], treated 1,000 people with early COVID,” Dark said.
    He said that when a patient was treated early on in their illness, there was a clear improvement—often within hours.
    “It’s within two hours of that first dose that people start feeling noticeably better. And within two days, most symptoms are gone. Again, this is with starting early treatment, say days one to three, one to four, of infection or symptoms,” Dark said.
    Sirotek said the nurses in her network partnered with My Free Doctor’s Dr. Ben Marble and his network of physicians. Altogether, the group treated more than 300,000 patients with early ivermectin intervention. She said of those 300,000, only three died.
    Saleeby didn’t specify the exact number of patients treated.
    “I’ve seen some miraculous things in the patients that I prescribed ivermectin to, who follow our instructions, and get on it right away at the appropriate dose and do the nutraceutical bundles,” he noted. “[They] are not going into the hospital and they’re not dying.”
    Saleeby said that he treated himself with ivermectin when he caught COVID-19. He credits its use with keeping him out of the hospital.
    Pharmacies Impede Treatment

    While ivermectin was obtainable from traditional pharmacies at the start of the pandemic, health care providers soon started to get pushback.
    “As I started prescribing [ivermectin] to more and more people, I started getting calls from pharmacists,” Wright said.
    Susan Julian, a nurse practitioner and certified functional medicine practitioner with a practice in Indiana, said the first time she realized something was amiss was when one of her patients contacted her after she prescribed him ivermectin.
    Julian said that when her patient tried to have his prescription filled, the pharmacists asked him if it was for parasites. When the patient said it was for COVID-19, the pharmacists “hassled him right there in the store,” she told The Epoch Times.
    “Pharmacists are not supposed to ask people, ‘Why are you taking this medication?’ It’s not their business unless you make it their business,” Julian said.
    Shortly after, the pharmacies started calling Julian and stating they wouldn’t fill her prescriptions for patients.
    Dark, whose Colorado Healthcare Providers for Freedom network includes 275 doctors in Colorado, added that the pushback from pharmacies on ivermectin fulfillment was without precedent.
    “There has never been a drug, like ivermectin, so singular at being picked out and said that ‘we will not fill under any circumstances.’ That has never happened before,” Dark said.
    The refusals to fulfill prescriptions soon turned to threats.
    “I had pharmacists tell me that they’re recording me for misinformation. For doing harm to my patients,” Wright said.
    Circling back to the FDA and opposing ivermectin, Saleeby said: “[The FDA] really did go way out of the way to make it difficult for doctors to feel comfortable using it. By threatening their licenses, by kind of bullying them, if you will, into not prescribing it. To just go along with the narrative.”
    Answering the ‘Why’

    The FDA’s website states that if a viable treatment exists for an illness during a health emergency, neither medications nor vaccines may be approved using an emergency use authorization.
    While there isn’t concrete proof for their position, some doctors and nurses interviewed by The Epoch Times theorized that the FDA’s pushback against ivermectin was motivated by the need to secure an emergency use authorization for the COVID-19 vaccines.
    “They had an agenda. And the agenda was to push this new form of vaccine, this mRNA vaccine, because it was going to make the industry billions of dollars. And in order for them to promote this because they didn’t have the time to do randomized control trials for efficacy and safety, they had to use Emergency Use Authorization [EAU],” Saleeby said.
    “It completely destroys the vaccine position,” Dark concurred. “One thing that’s written very clearly is that you cannot have a known acceptable form of treatment out there available to the public and still be operating under emergency use.”
    “If there was a possible treatment for COVID-19, the vaccine would not be able to obtain emergency authorization use,” Wright said. “If there’s any possible treatment, then the vaccines would have to go through rigorous testing.”
    The Epoch Times sought comment from the FDA, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the state medical boards in Colorado and South Carolina, CVS, Walgreens, King Soopers, and the New York Attorney General’s office.
    The Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies stated, “Any complaint that may have been received by the Colorado Medical Board as part of an investigation is confidential and unavailable for public inspection pursuant.”
    The other agencies and pharmacies didn’t reply by the time of publication.

  13. The reason why sensible people currently discount ivermectin is that it has been pushed by quacks and idiots to such a huge extent. Effectiveness in vitro or in animals is merely an indication that proper investigation in people is required – not ground for wholesale distribuition to the public. Observational studies or, even worse, doctors telling us of what they did, are useless as methods of determining effective and worthwhile treatments. You can only use results from randomised controlled trials for that.

    And money is not the problem. Have a look at which shows many trials. For example, PRINCIPLE, funded by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), is investigating ivermectin (among many other possible treatments).

  14. Charles

    I doubt you’ll reply – that feels like a drive by. But still.

    It’s not just in vitro, and yes there are many (positive) trials – but none of them are funded by the big pharma companies (and fair enough one might argue).

    The quacks and idiots you mention include some of the most academically cited and respected doctors in America and elsewhere.

    They have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

    I refer you to the questions John B has decided not to answer.

    Did you watch the Tess Lawrie/Andrew Hill video, and what did you make of it?

    (Lawrie is btw two doctors – a consultant in obstetrics and a PhD in the analysis of medicine, in which field she has worked for among others the WHO and the NHS. Who presumably didn’t think she was a quack or an idiot.)

    And did you watch the interview with Dr Joseph Varon and do you think he is lying either

    (i) about the numbers of lives he is saving


    (ii) the means by which he is saving them?

  15. PS the idea that – three fucking years on! – the HIHR are investigating ivermectin will come as a tremendous relief to the many tens of thousands of dying patients who were denied access to it, who would have begged to take part in such a trial, in those three years.

  16. @Interested – “The quacks and idiots you mention include some of the most academically cited and respected doctors in America and elsewhere.”

    I’ll take your word for it, but if that’s the best America has, then they’re in dire trouble.

    “Did you watch the Tess Lawrie/Andrew Hill video…”?

    Of course not. Videos are a huge waste of time. They combine most of the disadvantages of an in-person presentation (difficulty to go back and check stuff, or to search the material) with the disadvantages of written articles (inability to ask questions). They’re fine for entirely uncontroversial demonstrations of things – like how something works or how you take something apart – but useless for assessing evidence which should be done via peer-reviewed articles. In the case of medicine, treatments need to be assessed via double-blind randomised controlled trials. Having someone say stuff on a video is, at best, hearsay.

    “PS the idea that – three fucking years on! – the HIHR are investigating ivermectin will come as a tremendous relief…”

    If you had looked at the links, you migh have noticed that the PRINCIPLE trial started in April 2020. And ivermectin was added to it in June 2021. And note that an ineffective treatment wastes money, may result in an alternative, effective treatment not being given, and may have side-effects, so it is important to verify that a treatment actually works before large scale use.

Leave a Reply

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