This is a public peer review of Scott Alexander’s essay on ivermectin, of which this is the second part. You can find an index containing all the articles in this series here. For those of you following this series, you may have noted that I jumped over the introductory content of Scott’s article. For those of you reading this series for the first time, this is a good place to start reading this public, in-depth peer review.
Debating whether or not IVM works seems a like debating whether or not if you if you sail the ocean far enough you are going to fall off the edge of the world. Enough people have sailed the world now and haven't fallen off. Millins of people have successfully used IVM early on and seen symptoms quickly resolve. It works regardless of who is being paid off by Unitaid.
"Promoting unorthodox treatments" pretty much announces Scott as a shill.
If a list of experiments on antivirals, protease inhibitors, immunomodulators, corticosteroids, vitamins, anti-inflammatory agents, interferon modulators...if that's unorthodox, then he must be declaring fealty to the vaccine lords. Because that's pretty much all that's left in the orthodoxy.
Does he ever examine for a moment the absurdity of the WHO trials? Or point out that hospitals are the unorthodox place to test antivirals when people are told not to go there until the disease progresses?
His leaping past the thousand simple signals of corruption suggests that has is either compromised or not nearly as bright as his ability to organize an essay around topics that Bay Area techies talk about in lieu of doing something productive for the world.
I love these articles. I find it interesting how hard people work to discredit ivermectin. I'd try 20 medications in combination with vitamins, with a long history of safely and effectiveness as well as at least anecdotal success by FLCCC, etc. I'd risk not recovering before EVER going to the hospital for Remdesivir, paxlovid or any other poison pill being peddled by our corrupt medical system.
This suggestion may be repellant to you, but here it is. For his entire essay, would you categorize each of S.A.'s misinterpretations as "innocent" or "biased?" Are there "follow-on" misinterpretations that necessarily follow from an earlier misinterpretation? If you don't wish to categorize, then when your series is finished, a simple list of the misinterpretations would be helpful.
In internet conversations with a stranger, any rational person intuitively seeks evidence of fair-mindedness or the lack thereof. One clue is whether the interlocutor's language is dismissive or on-target. With S.A., one needs an intuitive meta-analysis in search of fair-mindedness.
First you need data from two groups that have similar properties. Similar severity and exposure, similar ages and weaknesses. This is where the big pharma is already manipulating the data.
Then you need to track the medication protocol (sometimes in combination with other medicine) and check the health state of each individual. This is also what Big Pharma is often hiding and manipulating.
We are not even talking about randomization and double blind studies. The bias from unblinded studies does not even matter much, if you are directly tracking the health state of the people, because the state is reasonably neutral. Like: Did the patient die Yes or No? Did the viral load change? Did the spike-protein load change? Even if the doctors and patient know what is in the tablets, it would be hard for the doctors or patient to manipulate this neutral data. It may give the patient hope, but it would not be as extreme as the religion that is around the mRNA injections.
Also important is the vitamin-D level, what the patient is eating (eggs, meat, soy, turmeric, organic or mac donalds), if the patient was exposed before, etc. Because the disease is so weak, all variables that directly influence the health of the patient can cause a huge difference.
So did the Turmeric in India help with the Ivermectin? Or Eggs in Japan? Trained immune systems? Low maximum ages? Shortage of certain food? Hydroxychloroquine or other drugs? Even meditation may work. All very influential.
I don't believe in statistics. Big Pharma is specialized in manipulating the numbers. But if you can reduce the viral load within a few hours with a simple medicine, it is clear that something is working well. Or patients leaving the hospital after a day, because they feel much better and stayed better. Not because the doctor told the patient to leave (as with Remdesivir), or because of death (as with the mRNA). Did Jesus enter the hospital? Did the doctor kick him out? Or was it the medicine that did it? With unbiased tests we can tell better what happens, than with numbers of patients.
Thank you for the analysis. Now I have to go read the whole series 🤦♀️ because I’m curious. Are you friends with Mathew Crawford? You all approach and explain things somewhat similarly. And of course the book-length analysis in the series parts (for future reference purposes it is very helpful).
Our integrative practice has been using their own protocol including ivermectin. What’s interesting is that colchicine with folic acid (apparently you have to take them both) and prednisone was part of their treatment for some patients, particularly men, not feeling 100% after 5 days during the delta surge. I’m not sure if they used it with other strains or not. I had only read about it being used somewhere in South America, and our integrative practice, before tonight.
Debating whether or not IVM works seems a like debating whether or not if you if you sail the ocean far enough you are going to fall off the edge of the world. Enough people have sailed the world now and haven't fallen off. Millins of people have successfully used IVM early on and seen symptoms quickly resolve. It works regardless of who is being paid off by Unitaid.
"Promoting unorthodox treatments" pretty much announces Scott as a shill.
If a list of experiments on antivirals, protease inhibitors, immunomodulators, corticosteroids, vitamins, anti-inflammatory agents, interferon modulators...if that's unorthodox, then he must be declaring fealty to the vaccine lords. Because that's pretty much all that's left in the orthodoxy.
Does he ever examine for a moment the absurdity of the WHO trials? Or point out that hospitals are the unorthodox place to test antivirals when people are told not to go there until the disease progresses?
His leaping past the thousand simple signals of corruption suggests that has is either compromised or not nearly as bright as his ability to organize an essay around topics that Bay Area techies talk about in lieu of doing something productive for the world.
I love these articles. I find it interesting how hard people work to discredit ivermectin. I'd try 20 medications in combination with vitamins, with a long history of safely and effectiveness as well as at least anecdotal success by FLCCC, etc. I'd risk not recovering before EVER going to the hospital for Remdesivir, paxlovid or any other poison pill being peddled by our corrupt medical system.
This suggestion may be repellant to you, but here it is. For his entire essay, would you categorize each of S.A.'s misinterpretations as "innocent" or "biased?" Are there "follow-on" misinterpretations that necessarily follow from an earlier misinterpretation? If you don't wish to categorize, then when your series is finished, a simple list of the misinterpretations would be helpful.
In internet conversations with a stranger, any rational person intuitively seeks evidence of fair-mindedness or the lack thereof. One clue is whether the interlocutor's language is dismissive or on-target. With S.A., one needs an intuitive meta-analysis in search of fair-mindedness.
First you need data from two groups that have similar properties. Similar severity and exposure, similar ages and weaknesses. This is where the big pharma is already manipulating the data.
Then you need to track the medication protocol (sometimes in combination with other medicine) and check the health state of each individual. This is also what Big Pharma is often hiding and manipulating.
We are not even talking about randomization and double blind studies. The bias from unblinded studies does not even matter much, if you are directly tracking the health state of the people, because the state is reasonably neutral. Like: Did the patient die Yes or No? Did the viral load change? Did the spike-protein load change? Even if the doctors and patient know what is in the tablets, it would be hard for the doctors or patient to manipulate this neutral data. It may give the patient hope, but it would not be as extreme as the religion that is around the mRNA injections.
Also important is the vitamin-D level, what the patient is eating (eggs, meat, soy, turmeric, organic or mac donalds), if the patient was exposed before, etc. Because the disease is so weak, all variables that directly influence the health of the patient can cause a huge difference.
So did the Turmeric in India help with the Ivermectin? Or Eggs in Japan? Trained immune systems? Low maximum ages? Shortage of certain food? Hydroxychloroquine or other drugs? Even meditation may work. All very influential.
I don't believe in statistics. Big Pharma is specialized in manipulating the numbers. But if you can reduce the viral load within a few hours with a simple medicine, it is clear that something is working well. Or patients leaving the hospital after a day, because they feel much better and stayed better. Not because the doctor told the patient to leave (as with Remdesivir), or because of death (as with the mRNA). Did Jesus enter the hospital? Did the doctor kick him out? Or was it the medicine that did it? With unbiased tests we can tell better what happens, than with numbers of patients.
Thank you for the analysis. Now I have to go read the whole series 🤦♀️ because I’m curious. Are you friends with Mathew Crawford? You all approach and explain things somewhat similarly. And of course the book-length analysis in the series parts (for future reference purposes it is very helpful).
Our integrative practice has been using their own protocol including ivermectin. What’s interesting is that colchicine with folic acid (apparently you have to take them both) and prednisone was part of their treatment for some patients, particularly men, not feeling 100% after 5 days during the delta surge. I’m not sure if they used it with other strains or not. I had only read about it being used somewhere in South America, and our integrative practice, before tonight.
LMAO. If Scott has any bias, it's fear of scolding by the cathedral/mob.
That's probably a wise bias to have in this day and age but it's still a bias.
I would like to send you some interesting data on ACM during the pandemic in the US from society of actuaries research but do not have your email
merylnass@gmail.com
I enjoy these articles. I feel like shari g them with MOH, in Mew Zealand, who are in lockstep with the FDA.
Shadow government. Thank you.