Recently, I’ve been trying to summarize my thoughts on ivermectin. As part of that, I thought it would be of value to address the most common counter-arguments. The first—and the one most often repeated—is that any positive outcomes are simply the result of fraud.
Fraud is almost always preceded by a motive which, if successful, gives the fraudulent party a benefit; and generally weighed against the risk of being caught.
A positive Ivermectin study provides the fraudulent researcher with:
1. $0 as the drug is generic
2. Character assassination, slander, defunding of research, firing from position.
I am waiting to hear someone provide even the slightest motivation for submitting a fraudulent positive Ivermectin paper - you still get 1 and 2, plus your a fraud.
On the other hand, the vaccine cartel would pay handsomely for both negative and “obviously fraudulent” studies as both are used to discredit the single most efficacious drug for treatment of any ailment, in the history of evidence based medicine.
Centuries of precedent proves motive is fundamental to any accusation of fraud or crime.
And I don’t think “a completely unrelated evil band of 1000’s of Doctors and Researches with impeccable records, hell bent on preventing the benevolent vaccine-cartels from cashing in on society” cuts it.
Almost all of the large-scale ivermectin RCTs were obviously DESIGNED TO FAIL by doing most or all of the following:
1. enrolling low-risk patients who didn’t need ivermectin to begin with
2. delaying the ivermectin until almost a week after symptoms started
3. not giving the ivermectin with food to optimize absorption
4. not combining the ivermectin with other agents that are usually used in conjunction with it (even Paxlovid, which reduced COVID deaths from 13 to 0 in its RCT, is a COMBINATION drug)
5. stopping the ivermectin after just 3 days or so of treatment
After all this, of course those large-scale ($$$) RCTs conveniently found "no significant effect” of ivermectin. But even though many RCTs were designed to fail, the average effect in all published RCTs was that ivermectin prevented about 1 in 3 COVID deaths: https://c19ivm.org/meta.html#fig_fprd.
So actually, yes, the ivermectin literature IS particularly fraudulent: it is full of RCTs that were deliberately set up to generate negative results.
Thanks for following up on this. My rule of thumb is that you should be surprised if a good 50% of peer reviewed studies in any field are horse excrement. Usually not outright fraud, but the most common failure mode is just failing to ask relevant questions in the first place.
These low double digit figures indeed are nothing shocking; and good to see that contrasted against established metrics in the field. That is probably the reason our twitter fraud vigilantes never went ahead and published their much hyped findings.
Is there a case to be made that BigPharma or similar vested interests may actually have COMMISSIONED fake/zombie/fraudulent trials in order to false flag or discredit repurposed drugs and medicines?
Ah "science". You exaggerating mistress of misdirection.
Maybe I am too simple to partake in this discussion, but wouldn't the obvious solution be to attempt a replication of these studies - any of them - given IVM itself is mostly benign? I can only imagine there is a host of willing volunteers, and double blinding should remove the placebo contrarian variable, I would have thought?
Ironically, many of the SAME people who countered any positive mention of Ivermectin w/character assassination swallowed pandemic policy uncritically. Just saw the usual suspects supporting Sam Harris' contention about Brett Weinstein: To whit, even IF he ends up being right about Ivermectin he was wrong.
Despite my embrace of data, I think it's interesting to look at other reasons why people might support Ivermectin. Here's my tentative list on why they should NOT be dismissed as eejits:
-Ivermectin has proven remarkably safe relative to countless other drugs
-Placebo effect has a valid role in treatment [see below]
-There were no other options for most people who showed up in emergency rooms &
were told to come back AFTER they were really sick.
-Even after alternative treatments were available, many had no access
-Countries w/no access to the vaccine/expensive treatments were desperate
-Really smart & ethical scientists supported Ivermectin despite only HUGE downsides for
them
-These same individuals generally displayed greater epistemic humility than their
detractors & have been more correct than their detractors on multiple pandemic fronts
-They begged for data that was often withheld
-They seldom engaged in hyperbole or character attacks [unless responding to an attack]
-Doctors who obviously care for their patients [no reason to think otherwise] reported
Ivermectin’s success in hundreds of patients. Could they be wrong? Of course. But they would
hardly be in a class by themselves.
-People like Fauci have been caught in lies
-The CDC/FDA have been caught in bad science [ex: failures to stratify risk & fear porn]
-Studies showing a lack of efficacy in Ivermectin often used a different protocol than recommended by pro-Ivermectin docs.
-The CDC was clearly dishonest in implying that Ivermectin was solely a horse/cow med despite
knowing that human applications began in 1987
-HUGE downsides to those promoting it; HUGE upsides to Big Pharma & pharma-controlled
media in dismissing it. Motives matter.
-A # of data-approved treatments failed [ex: ventilators/remdesivr]
-Prediction is THE test of insight but most pandemic protocols ignored tradeoffs & dismissed
concerns; the negative tradeoffs WERE knowable by anyone w/a clue about human nature &
the ability to predict [see Phil Tetlock’s 10 commandments of forecasters].
-Ivermectin supporters were ridiculed/condemned BEFORE RCTs were done [possibly as a
reaction to Trump]; indicates bias & bad faith.
-Ivermectin studies were treated w/far greater demands for rigor than OTHER studies. This was obvious to ALL. Consider the Replication Crisis.
I first heard of ivermectin and HCQ in early summer 2020, and I have personal experience of both working for 6 people I have recommended them to. Even the IVM horse paste worked with no side effects for 2 people back in 2020 with the one tube notch per 50 lbs of bodyweight dosage. The other 4 were able to procure IVM and HCQ in pill form either on their own or through my advice. Obviously, the sooner you take them, the better, but the shit works.
Everyone has heard of Paxlovid by now, but most don't know it is a PROTEASE inhibitor with an HIV suppressor medication called ritonavir. The "REBOUNDS" are happening on Paxlovid because it is weighted toward the ritonavir component which merely suppresses the virus rather than stopping its replication with the protease inhibitor component which is synthesized and doesn't seem to work nearly as well as IVM and HCQ.
Guess what substances also act as PROTEASE inhibitors? IVM, HCQ, and Quercetin
Hell, even ACE-2 uptake disruptors such as nicotine and famotidine (heartburn meds) were found to have benefit. IVM is great because it's a protease inhibitor + ACE-2 uptake disruptor.
Yes, ivermectin is the one drug where the evidence needs to be bomb-proof. Never mind that the pandemic was constantly used to justify decisions without strong evidence. Huh.
Even mainstream-adjacent-types like Vinay Prasad point out that it makes no sense to embrace masks but reject ivermectin. There are probably hundreds of approved drugs with flimsier evidence...
I find this so frustrating. Why are so many "studies" published with such questions of validity? I'm sure if we follow the money that question will be answered.
Any RCT paper cannot ignore the thousands of patients who have been treated successfully with an IVM regimen. Treatment is not just one medication - it is a plan combining many different treatments in a protocol. A RCT does not mirror what happens in real medicine , when real doctors are on the line with the lives of their patients. As Dr John Littel said , thousands and thousands odf patients is not anecdotal evidence. I remember a doctor having success with a high fat - low card diets in his practice said about the science still pushed by varioue Heart associations - I am successfully treating patients , the science needs to catch up with me. When doctors having success with IVM are stopped from being doctors, told to give Remdesivir instead of IVM, IVM being banned, RCTs coming out that IVM does not work - we have the biggest proof that it does work in an early treatment program - If it does not work why bother , why make war on good old ivermectin. Doctors who treat patients , know how important is to listen to patients - for us - what works , is not a RCT but knowing that in the real world of medicine patients have made a successful revovery . It sickens me that lay people have to remind doctors , professors what medicine should really be. All I hear from some it how the vax are problematic, masks don't work , Pax does not work - so for sure that don't know what works because they are not being challenged , they are not in the trenches - Your work is appreciated , a work of courage, caring and taking a moral stance against evil
Fraud is almost always preceded by a motive which, if successful, gives the fraudulent party a benefit; and generally weighed against the risk of being caught.
A positive Ivermectin study provides the fraudulent researcher with:
1. $0 as the drug is generic
2. Character assassination, slander, defunding of research, firing from position.
I am waiting to hear someone provide even the slightest motivation for submitting a fraudulent positive Ivermectin paper - you still get 1 and 2, plus your a fraud.
On the other hand, the vaccine cartel would pay handsomely for both negative and “obviously fraudulent” studies as both are used to discredit the single most efficacious drug for treatment of any ailment, in the history of evidence based medicine.
Centuries of precedent proves motive is fundamental to any accusation of fraud or crime.
And I don’t think “a completely unrelated evil band of 1000’s of Doctors and Researches with impeccable records, hell bent on preventing the benevolent vaccine-cartels from cashing in on society” cuts it.
Almost all of the large-scale ivermectin RCTs were obviously DESIGNED TO FAIL by doing most or all of the following:
1. enrolling low-risk patients who didn’t need ivermectin to begin with
2. delaying the ivermectin until almost a week after symptoms started
3. not giving the ivermectin with food to optimize absorption
4. not combining the ivermectin with other agents that are usually used in conjunction with it (even Paxlovid, which reduced COVID deaths from 13 to 0 in its RCT, is a COMBINATION drug)
5. stopping the ivermectin after just 3 days or so of treatment
After all this, of course those large-scale ($$$) RCTs conveniently found "no significant effect” of ivermectin. But even though many RCTs were designed to fail, the average effect in all published RCTs was that ivermectin prevented about 1 in 3 COVID deaths: https://c19ivm.org/meta.html#fig_fprd.
So actually, yes, the ivermectin literature IS particularly fraudulent: it is full of RCTs that were deliberately set up to generate negative results.
Where can I buy ivermectin without script. in past I bought from buyivermectin.us but now They are not available.
Thanks for following up on this. My rule of thumb is that you should be surprised if a good 50% of peer reviewed studies in any field are horse excrement. Usually not outright fraud, but the most common failure mode is just failing to ask relevant questions in the first place.
These low double digit figures indeed are nothing shocking; and good to see that contrasted against established metrics in the field. That is probably the reason our twitter fraud vigilantes never went ahead and published their much hyped findings.
I love that these guys are getting hoisted on the petard of the base rate fallacy for assuming 5 out of 30 papers is alarming.
Ivermectin is cheap, safe and effective.
Covid mRNA vaccines are unsafe, expensive and ineffective.
The motivation to discredit IVM is clear.
Is there a case to be made that BigPharma or similar vested interests may actually have COMMISSIONED fake/zombie/fraudulent trials in order to false flag or discredit repurposed drugs and medicines?
Now THAT would really be telling.
"The ivermectin literature is full of fraud"
where full = 17% of studies.
Ah "science". You exaggerating mistress of misdirection.
Maybe I am too simple to partake in this discussion, but wouldn't the obvious solution be to attempt a replication of these studies - any of them - given IVM itself is mostly benign? I can only imagine there is a host of willing volunteers, and double blinding should remove the placebo contrarian variable, I would have thought?
Ironically, many of the SAME people who countered any positive mention of Ivermectin w/character assassination swallowed pandemic policy uncritically. Just saw the usual suspects supporting Sam Harris' contention about Brett Weinstein: To whit, even IF he ends up being right about Ivermectin he was wrong.
Despite my embrace of data, I think it's interesting to look at other reasons why people might support Ivermectin. Here's my tentative list on why they should NOT be dismissed as eejits:
-Ivermectin has proven remarkably safe relative to countless other drugs
-Placebo effect has a valid role in treatment [see below]
-There were no other options for most people who showed up in emergency rooms &
were told to come back AFTER they were really sick.
-Even after alternative treatments were available, many had no access
-Countries w/no access to the vaccine/expensive treatments were desperate
-Really smart & ethical scientists supported Ivermectin despite only HUGE downsides for
them
-These same individuals generally displayed greater epistemic humility than their
detractors & have been more correct than their detractors on multiple pandemic fronts
-They begged for data that was often withheld
-They seldom engaged in hyperbole or character attacks [unless responding to an attack]
-Doctors who obviously care for their patients [no reason to think otherwise] reported
Ivermectin’s success in hundreds of patients. Could they be wrong? Of course. But they would
hardly be in a class by themselves.
-People like Fauci have been caught in lies
-The CDC/FDA have been caught in bad science [ex: failures to stratify risk & fear porn]
-Studies showing a lack of efficacy in Ivermectin often used a different protocol than recommended by pro-Ivermectin docs.
-The CDC was clearly dishonest in implying that Ivermectin was solely a horse/cow med despite
knowing that human applications began in 1987
-HUGE downsides to those promoting it; HUGE upsides to Big Pharma & pharma-controlled
media in dismissing it. Motives matter.
-A # of data-approved treatments failed [ex: ventilators/remdesivr]
-Prediction is THE test of insight but most pandemic protocols ignored tradeoffs & dismissed
concerns; the negative tradeoffs WERE knowable by anyone w/a clue about human nature &
the ability to predict [see Phil Tetlock’s 10 commandments of forecasters].
-Ivermectin supporters were ridiculed/condemned BEFORE RCTs were done [possibly as a
reaction to Trump]; indicates bias & bad faith.
-Ivermectin studies were treated w/far greater demands for rigor than OTHER studies. This was obvious to ALL. Consider the Replication Crisis.
The Power of the Placebo Effect
https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect
Ten Commandments for Aspiring Superforecasters
https://fs.blog/2015/12/ten-commandments-for-superforecasters/
I first heard of ivermectin and HCQ in early summer 2020, and I have personal experience of both working for 6 people I have recommended them to. Even the IVM horse paste worked with no side effects for 2 people back in 2020 with the one tube notch per 50 lbs of bodyweight dosage. The other 4 were able to procure IVM and HCQ in pill form either on their own or through my advice. Obviously, the sooner you take them, the better, but the shit works.
Everyone has heard of Paxlovid by now, but most don't know it is a PROTEASE inhibitor with an HIV suppressor medication called ritonavir. The "REBOUNDS" are happening on Paxlovid because it is weighted toward the ritonavir component which merely suppresses the virus rather than stopping its replication with the protease inhibitor component which is synthesized and doesn't seem to work nearly as well as IVM and HCQ.
Guess what substances also act as PROTEASE inhibitors? IVM, HCQ, and Quercetin
Hell, even ACE-2 uptake disruptors such as nicotine and famotidine (heartburn meds) were found to have benefit. IVM is great because it's a protease inhibitor + ACE-2 uptake disruptor.
Yes, ivermectin is the one drug where the evidence needs to be bomb-proof. Never mind that the pandemic was constantly used to justify decisions without strong evidence. Huh.
Even mainstream-adjacent-types like Vinay Prasad point out that it makes no sense to embrace masks but reject ivermectin. There are probably hundreds of approved drugs with flimsier evidence...
BTW, does anyone know how ivermectin tastes?
Ivermectin is effective so I recommend this site buy ivermectin www.buy-ivermectin-suppliers.com
I find this so frustrating. Why are so many "studies" published with such questions of validity? I'm sure if we follow the money that question will be answered.
Any RCT paper cannot ignore the thousands of patients who have been treated successfully with an IVM regimen. Treatment is not just one medication - it is a plan combining many different treatments in a protocol. A RCT does not mirror what happens in real medicine , when real doctors are on the line with the lives of their patients. As Dr John Littel said , thousands and thousands odf patients is not anecdotal evidence. I remember a doctor having success with a high fat - low card diets in his practice said about the science still pushed by varioue Heart associations - I am successfully treating patients , the science needs to catch up with me. When doctors having success with IVM are stopped from being doctors, told to give Remdesivir instead of IVM, IVM being banned, RCTs coming out that IVM does not work - we have the biggest proof that it does work in an early treatment program - If it does not work why bother , why make war on good old ivermectin. Doctors who treat patients , know how important is to listen to patients - for us - what works , is not a RCT but knowing that in the real world of medicine patients have made a successful revovery . It sickens me that lay people have to remind doctors , professors what medicine should really be. All I hear from some it how the vax are problematic, masks don't work , Pax does not work - so for sure that don't know what works because they are not being challenged , they are not in the trenches - Your work is appreciated , a work of courage, caring and taking a moral stance against evil
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827 - Has this paper been checked by you or others who have no interest in one day getting a job with Big Pharma
Fraud by big business becomes ever more common under unfettered Crapitalism