This is a public peer review of Scott Alexander’s essay on ivermectin, of which this is the eighth part. You can find an index containing all the articles in this series here. In many cases, Scott downgrades papers because he objects to the methodology used—not to the implementation of the methodology, but to the entire class of papers. I find such blanket rules for throwing away evidence quite disconcerting for a blog with a Bayes-endorsing tagline like “P(A|B) = [P(A)*P(B|A)]/P(B), all the rest is commentary,” but here we are.
I sense it does not really give you any pleasure to review ("debunk"?) Alexander's essay, but your yearning for fairness and rationalist truth is crystal clear.
"I’m for truth, no matter who tells it.
I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against.
I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such
I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."
Wow. Eye opening assessment. Thank you for this brilliant analysis of these two doctors and your time spent to share the important history of their prior work and live saving discoveries. You are right! Scott Alexander and his left wing cronies resort to pure character assassination. They have no REAL science to stand on. They have ruined “science” and have made “science” synonymous with greed, fake evidence and corruption! I appreciate your analysis. Thank you!
Aug 4, 2022·edited Aug 4, 2022Liked by Alexandros Marinos
Thank you for analysing this paper.
It has flaws no doubt but it is probably the pivotal piece of research in the whole pandemic regarding ivermectin.
A big statement yes, but remember mid way through this trial (Sept 2021) the TGA issued a ban on GP’s prescribing IVM to treat Covid, effectively stopping the trial. At the time Australia was dealing with a Delta outbreak and patients were accumulating in hospitals.
Without the intervention by the TGA it is likely the trial would have had 2000 or so patients by the end of the year and if on the same trajectory would have had results way, way better than the otherwise standard of care (essentially do nothing +/- budesonide and paracetamol and maybe monoclonals).
Whatever you think about the control group, this number of patients with this success coming from two respected doctors out of a developed country would have been impossible for the world ignore. They actually kept pretty good records on outcomes and complications and as far as cohort series go was perfectly acceptable in my opinion.
As it is, 600 patients is still very significant.
2000 or more would have been virtually irrefutable.
But alas, the good old TGA put a ban on it.
Uncanny timing, can’t help but wonder if it was expressly done just to stop the trial?
Aug 4, 2022·edited Aug 4, 2022Liked by Alexandros Marinos
Thank you. It was the paper by Borody that inspired me to buy Ivermectin and Doxicycline to treat Covid. The paper was presented on Trial site news. I have a copy. It wasnt included in Meta analysis apaarently because of a lack of baseline data, but it looked good enough to me.
These are all excellent points. Thank you for the backstory on Dr. Lykoudis. And yes, that quote from 1960 is hauntingly prophetic. I wish he could be awarded a Nobel prize posthumously.
Funny you said something about culture divide. Ever since this thread started with Mr. Alexander I felt in the back of my mind that he has a jealousy towards you.
“In ‘Before jealousy’ David Konstan suggests that there may not have been any ancient Greek jealousy to discuss. He reasonably claims that we should not assume that emotions are the same in all cultures or times. K’s thesis has two parts: first, no ancient Greek word quite covers the same range as modern words for jealousy (in English and other modern languages); second, ancient Greeks may not have felt jealousy as we understand it.” (2003)
Obviously the Greeks were and are far more evolved in terms of respect and social courtesy, as you alluded.
This all being said, in the Bible it says who can stand before jealousy? Proverbs 27:4. I do believe that is the root cause of all of this vitriol he is spewing. Truly is the only thing that explains the lengths he is going through to smear ivermectin and the doctors who support it.
This is basically a life or death situation in a lot of cases, the fight for ivermectin has to be continued and I appreciate your continued efforts in spite of the lies and resistance.
I also like the idea of public peer review. At least it gets the paper out in the open. The Borody paper has been kept in the dark for too long. It shows real world evidence for Ivermectin, combination therapy. You can argue about some things, but the results were impressive. And tne good thing was that it was ethical. The researchers did not allow their control group to die, as in many RCT experiments. I also saw Borodys name as a contributing author on an early paper by Peter McCullough et al, regarding early ambulatory treatment of SARS Cov2, so obviously he was in the early treatment camp from the outset. What is wrong with that. We would not be in the mess we are now in, if early treatments had been prioritized.
Thank you for bringing Dr Borody and Dr Clancy’s work to a general audience. I’d previously heard of Dr Borody’s enthusiasm for Ivermectin but wasn’t aware Dr Clancy was involved. These guys are absolute legends in Australian medicine and the total lack of respect shown by the press and even worse the TGA towards Dr Barody is totally inexcusable. I remember when this was “news”, the mainstream including the TGA circled all their wagons and attacked. Very strange behavior towards one of Australia’s leading clinicians. I think Dr Clancy escaped any criticism, I don’t remember him being mentioned at all, best not to mention him as it may have given more credibility to Dr Barody’s study in the eyes of the general public. Dr Clancy was/is one of Australia’s leading immunologists (I think he may be retired now). I guess they won’t be getting any funding from the Australian Government unlike the awesomely accurate Doherty Institute modelers who get there “papers” waved around by the Prime Minister in support of the narrative. How did their predictions work out?
Massive, really profound and deep, respect for your writings on the details here. Most people (apparently) don't understand the costs levied on those of us who are inherently empirical or rules-based or compelled to recognize irregularities, or whatever we are that is different. I am quite sorry that these things are true, and grateful for your (painful) work to add clarity to the record and your readers' understanding of it.
Borody is the fucking GOAT. As soon as I saw the article about his triple therapy suggestion, I ordered ZiVerDo kits from India. I was way ahead of the game because I followed him.
> What I am pretty sure of, however, is that the appropriate response to reading a study by two researchers with a history of bucking convention, being right, and saving a multitude of lives, cannot possibly be “@#!% you”.
I guess the counter-argument would be that they should have justified the things they did: justified why it wasn't in a peer-reviewed journal (and there might be legitimate reasons like politicized journal rejections, etc.), and justified why they used a synthetic control arm.
> Afterall, this is being pursued in public. If scientific debates are being settled with reputational assassination, carreer-ending accusations, and just garden variety disrespect, can we truly trust that there haven’t been chilling effects that would bias the seeming consensus?
My pet theory is that the death of journalism and the rise of keyboard warriorism has degenerated discourse on all sides and Scott is just a high-IQ microcosm. The former has subconsciously taught people that asking questions of people before publishing stuff about them "isn't needed". The latter seems to just be societal childishness; people simply wouldn't act like this in person to each other. It also probably speaks to the lack of people of wisdom that society looks up to. Humanity is in a transition into the digital world and most people are being immature about it.
Is there any critical mass level of credentials that can protect a scientist once they cross the line and dare take on 'The Vaccine INQUISITION' -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj8n4MfhjUc
I have avoided stating my opinion about Dr. Scott Suskind's attacks on physicians, scientists and by extension regular folk for their thinking outside of the ridiculous orthodoxy of no early treatment for Covid. His @#!% you is the last straw. So Alexandros, ban me if you see fit. But I will not retract the following opinion.
You wonder whether there is a cultural difference at play in Dr. Suskind's disrespect and flippant dismissal of the duty to try to understand one's opponent. Yes, there is, and it derives from the ethnic difference between being The Chosen versus being from a culture that historically accepted Original Sin, i.e., human fallibility. Those whose culture assures them that they are always right are prone to the scorched earth approach.
I've owned large rural properties in both Mississippi and north Florida. Problems with trespassing and adjoining property owners were always tense, but my opponents, though rough-tough rednecks, were cautious about escalating a disagreement. During 40 years of causing me problems, disputes always stayed at the level of words and were eventually resolved. The only times in my life when an antagonist put a clenched fist in front of my face were 1) because of a lost drag race and 2) over a girl. Both of those fists belonged to Ashkenazim. On a larger scale, let's ask the Palestinians what they think about the question of scorched earth.
Expecting Dr. Suskind to conduct himself differently is a waste of effort. Rationality is an attitude, not a set of epistemological principles.
I sense it does not really give you any pleasure to review ("debunk"?) Alexander's essay, but your yearning for fairness and rationalist truth is crystal clear.
"I’m for truth, no matter who tells it.
I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against.
I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such
I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."
- Malcom X
So grateful to you Alexandros. This is important work.
Wow. Eye opening assessment. Thank you for this brilliant analysis of these two doctors and your time spent to share the important history of their prior work and live saving discoveries. You are right! Scott Alexander and his left wing cronies resort to pure character assassination. They have no REAL science to stand on. They have ruined “science” and have made “science” synonymous with greed, fake evidence and corruption! I appreciate your analysis. Thank you!
Thank you for analysing this paper.
It has flaws no doubt but it is probably the pivotal piece of research in the whole pandemic regarding ivermectin.
A big statement yes, but remember mid way through this trial (Sept 2021) the TGA issued a ban on GP’s prescribing IVM to treat Covid, effectively stopping the trial. At the time Australia was dealing with a Delta outbreak and patients were accumulating in hospitals.
Without the intervention by the TGA it is likely the trial would have had 2000 or so patients by the end of the year and if on the same trajectory would have had results way, way better than the otherwise standard of care (essentially do nothing +/- budesonide and paracetamol and maybe monoclonals).
Whatever you think about the control group, this number of patients with this success coming from two respected doctors out of a developed country would have been impossible for the world ignore. They actually kept pretty good records on outcomes and complications and as far as cohort series go was perfectly acceptable in my opinion.
As it is, 600 patients is still very significant.
2000 or more would have been virtually irrefutable.
But alas, the good old TGA put a ban on it.
Uncanny timing, can’t help but wonder if it was expressly done just to stop the trial?
Thank you. It was the paper by Borody that inspired me to buy Ivermectin and Doxicycline to treat Covid. The paper was presented on Trial site news. I have a copy. It wasnt included in Meta analysis apaarently because of a lack of baseline data, but it looked good enough to me.
These are all excellent points. Thank you for the backstory on Dr. Lykoudis. And yes, that quote from 1960 is hauntingly prophetic. I wish he could be awarded a Nobel prize posthumously.
Funny you said something about culture divide. Ever since this thread started with Mr. Alexander I felt in the back of my mind that he has a jealousy towards you.
“In ‘Before jealousy’ David Konstan suggests that there may not have been any ancient Greek jealousy to discuss. He reasonably claims that we should not assume that emotions are the same in all cultures or times. K’s thesis has two parts: first, no ancient Greek word quite covers the same range as modern words for jealousy (in English and other modern languages); second, ancient Greeks may not have felt jealousy as we understand it.” (2003)
Obviously the Greeks were and are far more evolved in terms of respect and social courtesy, as you alluded.
This all being said, in the Bible it says who can stand before jealousy? Proverbs 27:4. I do believe that is the root cause of all of this vitriol he is spewing. Truly is the only thing that explains the lengths he is going through to smear ivermectin and the doctors who support it.
This is basically a life or death situation in a lot of cases, the fight for ivermectin has to be continued and I appreciate your continued efforts in spite of the lies and resistance.
I also like the idea of public peer review. At least it gets the paper out in the open. The Borody paper has been kept in the dark for too long. It shows real world evidence for Ivermectin, combination therapy. You can argue about some things, but the results were impressive. And tne good thing was that it was ethical. The researchers did not allow their control group to die, as in many RCT experiments. I also saw Borodys name as a contributing author on an early paper by Peter McCullough et al, regarding early ambulatory treatment of SARS Cov2, so obviously he was in the early treatment camp from the outset. What is wrong with that. We would not be in the mess we are now in, if early treatments had been prioritized.
Thank you for bringing Dr Borody and Dr Clancy’s work to a general audience. I’d previously heard of Dr Borody’s enthusiasm for Ivermectin but wasn’t aware Dr Clancy was involved. These guys are absolute legends in Australian medicine and the total lack of respect shown by the press and even worse the TGA towards Dr Barody is totally inexcusable. I remember when this was “news”, the mainstream including the TGA circled all their wagons and attacked. Very strange behavior towards one of Australia’s leading clinicians. I think Dr Clancy escaped any criticism, I don’t remember him being mentioned at all, best not to mention him as it may have given more credibility to Dr Barody’s study in the eyes of the general public. Dr Clancy was/is one of Australia’s leading immunologists (I think he may be retired now). I guess they won’t be getting any funding from the Australian Government unlike the awesomely accurate Doherty Institute modelers who get there “papers” waved around by the Prime Minister in support of the narrative. How did their predictions work out?
Massive, really profound and deep, respect for your writings on the details here. Most people (apparently) don't understand the costs levied on those of us who are inherently empirical or rules-based or compelled to recognize irregularities, or whatever we are that is different. I am quite sorry that these things are true, and grateful for your (painful) work to add clarity to the record and your readers' understanding of it.
Borody is the fucking GOAT. As soon as I saw the article about his triple therapy suggestion, I ordered ZiVerDo kits from India. I was way ahead of the game because I followed him.
I just ordered the Let’s Talk Sh!T book. Couldn’t resist for both the title and subject matter. 😂 (better gut microbes)
> What I am pretty sure of, however, is that the appropriate response to reading a study by two researchers with a history of bucking convention, being right, and saving a multitude of lives, cannot possibly be “@#!% you”.
I guess the counter-argument would be that they should have justified the things they did: justified why it wasn't in a peer-reviewed journal (and there might be legitimate reasons like politicized journal rejections, etc.), and justified why they used a synthetic control arm.
> Afterall, this is being pursued in public. If scientific debates are being settled with reputational assassination, carreer-ending accusations, and just garden variety disrespect, can we truly trust that there haven’t been chilling effects that would bias the seeming consensus?
My pet theory is that the death of journalism and the rise of keyboard warriorism has degenerated discourse on all sides and Scott is just a high-IQ microcosm. The former has subconsciously taught people that asking questions of people before publishing stuff about them "isn't needed". The latter seems to just be societal childishness; people simply wouldn't act like this in person to each other. It also probably speaks to the lack of people of wisdom that society looks up to. Humanity is in a transition into the digital world and most people are being immature about it.
Is there any critical mass level of credentials that can protect a scientist once they cross the line and dare take on 'The Vaccine INQUISITION' -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj8n4MfhjUc
Ultra-Orthodox Science is as dangerous as religion it seems.
I have avoided stating my opinion about Dr. Scott Suskind's attacks on physicians, scientists and by extension regular folk for their thinking outside of the ridiculous orthodoxy of no early treatment for Covid. His @#!% you is the last straw. So Alexandros, ban me if you see fit. But I will not retract the following opinion.
You wonder whether there is a cultural difference at play in Dr. Suskind's disrespect and flippant dismissal of the duty to try to understand one's opponent. Yes, there is, and it derives from the ethnic difference between being The Chosen versus being from a culture that historically accepted Original Sin, i.e., human fallibility. Those whose culture assures them that they are always right are prone to the scorched earth approach.
I've owned large rural properties in both Mississippi and north Florida. Problems with trespassing and adjoining property owners were always tense, but my opponents, though rough-tough rednecks, were cautious about escalating a disagreement. During 40 years of causing me problems, disputes always stayed at the level of words and were eventually resolved. The only times in my life when an antagonist put a clenched fist in front of my face were 1) because of a lost drag race and 2) over a girl. Both of those fists belonged to Ashkenazim. On a larger scale, let's ask the Palestinians what they think about the question of scorched earth.
Expecting Dr. Suskind to conduct himself differently is a waste of effort. Rationality is an attitude, not a set of epistemological principles.