Thanks for this overview. The pacing was perfect and it covered everything very clearly. I really like learning things like an "Expression of Concern" is actually a "thing". Next time I see that it will be something I notice rather than just assuming it is common language usage. Good to find that out - all this stuff you take for granted is new to a lot of us taking an interest in these things for the first time. One other really basic idea that I got from your previous video "Misinformation about Ivermectin arm of PRINCIPLE trial for Covid-19" was that the trial just can't go and order some Ivermectin off the Internet or something. I had a mental image of John Campbell toying with his box of Indian Ivermectin while he was saying it's only 4c a tablet. My mistaken background assumption (I didn't even realise it was an assumption at the time - it was more on a subconscious level) was to wonder why the trial could just order some more Ivermectin. Then after your video I realised it has to be guaranteed to be of a certain grade and dosage not just any old stuff off the shelf. It is probably sourced from a particular supplier. That should have been obvious but it wasn't until it was pointed out. Your videos are really helping to get the absolute basics in place as well as helping navigate through things at the higher level regarding the trustworthiness of information.
it's like medical marijuana. big pharma will go bankrupt if the research of the effectiveness of them is correct, big pharma can't make big bucks and money will not got into government, hence stop funding the research.
What I fascinating in his videos is why is he making them. In the end is he just an analyretentive person wanting to dot the i's n t's?? There is offering of other explanations to the inactivity of governments or bigpharma. For example, the withdrawn trials/studies. Why isn't he looking for the list if trials that are good out of the 100s made? But instead wants to pick holes out of a few and therefore concludes that all the rest represent nothing.
Where is the "gold standard" peer reviewed study that looks at the effectiveness of Ivermectin in actual people? Who is running that study and when will the results be announced? The complaint is nobody is running such a study and nobody ever will because there is no money to be made using Ivermectin as a therapeutic. The only thing all these other studies and meta analysis suggest is there may be some benefit to Ivermectin (or not), we don't know for sure, we sure don't know the mechanics, but that this is worth further study. Nobody is doing that study, should we be asking why? There has been some bad science done on Covid and Prof Greg is pointing out some of the worst examples, but unless and until there is a real study in real people, the controversy will continue.
Oh dear 😲 Just can't believe that after more than two years now, when thousands of Covid-19 patients around the world (many even near death 😨) had already been treated with this (believe it or not) GOD revealed wonder drug (which many despise it as nothing but "horse paste" 😖) as a "Miraculous Cure" and since fully recovered to testify as true life witnesses 👏....and yet, here they are, these so called medical professional or pharmaceutical experts including the scientists are still challenging and debating against this controversial issue! 🙄 Anyway, just remember...no matter what you might say or do to convince or disprove...the TRUTH will always triumph folks 😇
@@jennyyip8456 There is a little problem with Ivermectin. It costs 2 cents a piece to make and if allowed in the USA it will decimate the 500B vaccine business overnight not to mention the outcry from the people who have lost their families and loved ones to covid. Another small detail is Prof. Greg will get his ass kicked and career ruined should he say anything positive about the horse medicine. He reminds me of the former intelligence officers who signed that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian misinformation.
I come from agricultural research. One can always make an agricultural input show no benefit. One can show that nitrogen fertilizers do not work ... if I put them at the wrong time and say in a weed infested field. One can show that a certain pesticide has no benefit ... if the pests are not present. One can show that another fertilizer does not work ... because a crop might be deficient in other nutrients. Any agricultural research results ALWAYS have to include phrases that indicate that results are limited to the climate and local crop conditions. Extrapolation is a no no! The fact that we have whole teams spending a lot of time and effort to demonstrate that something does not work, (trying to prove a negative) trying and succeeding in getting publications out of circulation or "debunking" medical publications while keeping thousands of similarly flawed medical publications with similar flaws (Remdesivir) ... and without criticizing the mRNA experimental treatments with similar flaws, is concerning. The big looser here is the lost trust on the Medical Establishment. They seem to be only interested in their pockets, not the general health of the population. Here the author mentioned several times "FRAUD". The definition of "Fraud", I should remind him, is a broad term that refers to acts intended to swindle someone. In essence, it's the use of intentional deception for monetary or personal gain. The author of this video gave ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF FRAUD! on the other hand the author is obtaining a monetary compensation for his claims and the medical alternatives promoted elsewhere are reaping hundreds of billions of dollars in profits.
the whatshisname...what utter nonsense! You have spoken without context and most blatantly ignoring the politicisation of drugs like Ivermectin pushed initially by dishonest Republican factions right after the hydrochloroquine fiasco. So let's get a perspective here before you go shooting your mouth off on other not so good drugs that 'they use' but ignore Ivermectin. You should identify the sub text of any Ivermectin propaganda ie the vehemently anti vaxx charge. Therefore 'they' have ie Dr Rory and his band of snake oil sales people promoted and over sold Ivermectin as a 'miraculous' cure all for Covid. It's a big fat lie. It has its merits, for parasitic causes but it is not a CURE all or prevention from getting Covid. No matter how you dance around this and try to strawman your argument about how drugs work in certain settings I see no validity to your argument, except a hidden agenda. Presenting dressed up garbage for your unthinking anti vaxxers even when you know there is no hard evidence. You spend a lot of time showing off your knowledge to a general audience, most of whom are here to ingest what their little mindsets want.... bad vaccines, evil big pharma, lying politicians..all of which BTW were problems before Covid. Why don't you cast your 'eagle eye' over those flawed studies and analyse them and show us why they are 'proper' and should be considered and used and not side stepped because of some other 'intrests' at play? Do some real work. Instead of taking apart the work done by people who have the sense to put together a rational argument, of how Ivermectin has been usurped by unscrupulous medical professionals with an axe to grind, and millions to be made in a side hustle from foisting this unproven drug on millions of anti vaxxers out there? Telling people it's a cheap drug. It can be repurposed. I know folks who paid up to $200 for online kits. They sell it with some Vit D concoction. Now imagine millions paying that. For a drug that you must have as Covid is endemic. Then multiply that by the millions of health facilities etc and doctors who will need to have a constant supply. Like big pharma isn't there millions in profit here too..especially for an unproven drug?? Take it if you are one of the 30 million on the planet who has some worm issues. Ivermectin will sure help as worms affect your immune system and Covid exploits weakened immune systems. Sure. Ivermectin might have a benefit if you contract Covid. But for sure it is not what the FLCCC and the other lying and unethical medical professionals are saying. So you could spin your crap of mixing-and-matching drugs and concluding there is likely something there. Yet ignore the lies and propoganda made about Ivermectin. Further explain to us, lay people with all your learned polemic why other drugs are failing but still being used because of 'hidden agendas'. Folks like you are like vultures. Hunting for any views that questions and shows up misinformation that anti vaxx rhetoric holds on to like a kid who holds on to her favourite toy. You and many anti vaxxers have built a polemic on critiquing what many learned scientist have presented and which WE KNOW is not perfect, or without its limitations whilst presenting no factual, detailed, rigorously thought out answers or alternatives. What's particularly disingenuous and redundant about your outpouring here is your couched language in virulent anti vaxx and you fake present your rather limited insights here. If you are a qualified scientist or medical person, you are not a smart one, in my opinion. Not everyone is good at their job even though they might have 'qualifications'. Only the rabid, unintelligent, civic ignorant typical anti vaxxer will lap up this stupidity.
There is a study that compared (censored word) to R and of course, that showed a massive benefit in mortality reduction with (censored). And it’s not the only study. The evidence is clear. The problem is some refuse to admit the evidence exists.
What about thousands of people who have taken Ivermectin and reported to have felt better almost immediately, within a few hours? If this were a handful of people, I would write it off as anecdotal, but when it's thousands, it's hard to believe that all of them were random chance.
25 present around the world have used Ivermectin and this really worked. You can't depend on doctors that are against Ivermectin in the first place. Ivermectin has proven itself but the reason for not wanting to use it is because it's cheap and drug companies make money on it.
Myself and 2 close friends treated with Madagascar flccc protocol. I was free of all symptons within 3 hours only fever remaining. 1 friend regained taste within 12 hours and was up and running in 3 days. He had Delta. The other friend already contacted hospital to be sent in , but beginning l2020 no much places. Started in the morning with protocol. Noticed not much. 1 hour after second dose he told me : its like an electronic switch flipped for the better. Next day called of hospital. Its anecdotal. But still results are stunning. Also 2 friends who got rid of long covid, which lasted for 3 months, and they got rid of within 48 hours. I let this man talk and dont care.......
What about the millions who didn't take it and never even noticed they were infected several times? What about the thousands who took IVM and died from covid?
Tell you what - I have covid currently as per the home test. Unvaxxed 55 year old. Let’s see what my doctor approved and prescribed ivermectin does shall we? It’s the 14th of April and my symptoms are mild, than again I am not overweight, not addicted to sugar and grains, dont ingest processed foods or cook with hydrogenated oils. Let’s see how long it takes for ivermectin to work! I also take zinc, organic vitamin c. At 55 I should be dying.
I think you did an excellent job in this video highlighting the problems with the case for ivermectin to treat COVID-19. You asked for suggestions for future episodes. My suggestion for a future subject is the misuse of VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, maintained by the FDA and the CDC. The topic is hard to tackle in your format, because the misuse is manifested in hundreds of short blog posts and comments, but sometimes there is a high-profile instance of misuse, as with a recent podcast by Dr. John Campbell, who claimed, inaccurately, that patients would not be able to use the system because the report form is laden with technical jargon. The examples of technical jargon that he cited are nowhere to be found in the report form.
Thanks for the suggestion. I might do something along those lines. Your suggestion also highlights the kind of content I _want_ to make. My sense at this point is that shorter "debunking" or "take-down" videos tend to give people who agree a sense of vindication (they are essentially preaching to the choir), but don't really reach people who've already made up their minds in disagreement. I'm not going for the TikTok audience, and there are other channels that do that well. So I want to address issues like VAERS, where misinformation has been really harmful and widespread, and where there's also a real benefit from the kind of educational content I make. I might even reach some people who have been victims of misinformation.
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I don’t know if you noted a post by Dr Peter McCullough on Twtr a few days ago. He posted a blatantly obviously falsified table from U.K. Govt yellow card data, where he/they (trial site news) had added over 1 million adverse reactions to the Pfizer/England section of the table! The actual data table on the U.K. Govt website for England was 128,000 as of 2 Feb. It was so obvious, as they forgot to add a comma after the 1 million and faked a couple of other numbers, but the post was shared so many times, and gobbled up by his followers.
@@saimak7079 I know it was quite an embarrassing forgery, from a so called C19 expert! It just further exposes his grift, but his gullible followers refuse to see it and come out with “don’t you know he’s the most published in the world, blah, blah” appeal to authority
Remdesivir hero. Lol. Even the WHO recommends AGAINST. That is just pure anti science second one. The only thing that Remdesivir could possibly do is reduce time of hospitalizations in exchange of many bad things like selection pressure, drip infusion risks and high price. Next if answering no to: - stops virus replication ? - all studies perfect ? was enough to "prove" IVM inefficiency then the same anti science would "prove" Pfizer vaccines inefficient too. There is a Pfizergate too. Does it prove vaccines did not save people at risks ? None on earth dares to say that. Hence I prove these arguments are completely stupid anti science. Vaccines induce immuno modulation. Same thing might be true for IVM or other treatments. This video is just void of any new information and reflexion on the subject. Pure propaganda when it pretends to be able to conclude anything with such simplistic sophisms. You are just a yes yes lazy morron. You do not think by yourself and have no critical thinking ability.
@@charlesb6490 2nd this. lol You are spot on. Anybody that hasn't chosen a camp and didn't come here for confirmation of already held beliefs and pom poms can see what you are seeing.
There are many reasons to disagree with Dr. Greg’s conclusions. Just because you don’t know or understand them is no reason to call anyone a troll for thinking differently. Science is full of people who think differently, and thank God for that. Otherwise we would all still think the world is flat and at the center of the universe. Galileo and Einstein would be considered trolls. Pharmaceutical companies would still be making a fortune on prescription medications like Tagamet instead of many millions of people being able to take a one-time course of cheap antibiotics and have their stomach acid problems cured. What is it to you if someone prefers to take an inexpensive treatment that is known to be safe (or even not so safe!) if they prefer it to a vaccine which still has unknown side effects? Let people decide for themselves. It’s their body, not yours.
Do you feel Pfizer should release all the patient data for their clinical trials on the efficacy of the vaccine? I've got to be honest though, he lost me at "stay safe, get vaccinated". You can highlight the ineffectiveness of IVM without encouraging people (about which you know nothing: age, bmi, existing health conditions, fitness level, serum vit D level etc) to get vaccinated.
I find it a bit weird that people still demand all that volunteer (not patient) data for the clinical trials, when we by now have well over a billion people who have been vaccinated. The analyses of those people has been done by many health authorities all around the world, and they keep on confirming the results of the Pfizer trials...
@@Marco-it2mr Referencing how important he felt it was in this video to demand trial data, don't you feel it's fair that we see Pfizer's trial data? Especially when you consider that they cherry picked the subjects, it didn't reflect the people that are seriously affected by covid, and they claimed vaccine efficacy of up to 100% (yes really) against infection, not just serious illness as the rewriters of history would have you believe. If the vaccine has the capability to cause myocarditis, pericarditis, postural tachycardia syndrome, transverse myelitis, micro coagulations, arthritis like symptoms etc (even though very rare), what else might it be doing as yet undetected.
@@cryptostaccs2377 the difference here is that the regulatory agencies, in particular the FDA, *already have this volunteer-level data.* "Especially when you consider that they cherry picked the subjects" - any evidence of that? " it didn't reflect the people that are seriously affected by covid" - any evidence of that? "and they claimed vaccine efficacy of up to 100% (yes really) against infection" - Except that is NOT what they claimed, unlike what you are trying to sell here now. "If the vaccine has the capability to cause myocarditis, pericarditis, postural tachycardia syndrome, transverse myelitis, micro coagulations, arthritis like symptoms etc (even though very rare), what else might it be doing as yet undetected." - Strangely (ahem), that question is largely ignored for the actual infection itself by people who are vaccine hesitant.
Doctors that used it prior to the illness advancing had high survival rates as it stopped the illness from getting a foothold in the lungs and bronchial tubes. Those who only used it in advanced cases found it was too late for it to be effective. Basically, when they saw people who were not very ill they said "come back when you are very ill" (oxygen levels dropping). That is why "it" failed. They should have treated each person early rather than letting it get a foothold.
"Doctors that used it prior to the illness advancing had high survival rates as it stopped the illness from getting a foothold in the lungs and bronchial tubes. " There is no data that shows this at all.
Excellent video as always Dr Greg. Notably the Together Trial ( organised by McMaster University,Toronto, which demonstrated benefits of Fluvoxamine) also had an Ivermectin arm ( among many others ) which didn’t show any benefit. Very unlikely that Principle trial will show any benefit. IVM is dead duck in the water at this point. Confirmation bias and selection bias has been a major problem during this Pandemic. IVM proponents conveniently ignore studies which don’t suit their narrative. Really glad to have found your channel.
The ivermectin arm of the Together Trial has still not been published though they announced their results way back in August . Anybody know what's going on ?
@@bidentity69 I understand the study was paused before they had sufficient subjects to adequately power the experiment. They apparently ran into supply chain problems for the specific protocol treatment. I believe the supply issues were resolved in Nov 2021, and the study is ongoing. We'll know soon enough if there is a significant effect. But given the results from other adequately powered RCTs it would be surprising.
Ignore the studies? What about the studies showing it works? There are many of them. Dr. Campell has summarized many studies including ones showing 70% reduction in mortality.
I think you have set yourself up for a big let down. I am no but every person i know who has taken it has either not got it or have recovered really fast so ... say what you see. love and light
From UK: I have been taking IVM for my covid infection. Sadly it worked fine, so it must be it's placebo effect. That is ok for me too. Whatever works! My question is why there has still not had a proper study paid for by government, and follow the early treatment protocol developed by many doctors and not the sabotage of applying the IVM late into infection where it will no longer work. Thus proving it to be no good... I DO NOT TRUST THE SCIENCE< ESPECIALLY WHEN COERCED BY BIG PHARMA.
My mother had to have a blood transfusion as she became dangerously anaemic after taking aspirin and it causing her stomach to bleed. It didn't cure her headaches either, She had a brain tumour.
Dr Campbell has never jumped to any conclusion about Ivermectin except that it should undergo trials. These trials are now being undertaken by Ocford University. Haven't you worked out what this abhorrent bioscientist is up to? Ivermectin might or might not be helpful in Covid 19 but the lengths certain people have gone to in order to discredit it and any open minded clinicians should make you wonder what is in it for them!
@@christinearthur5546 Campbell presents studies as if they're peer reviewed when they're not. He doesn't let viewers know when non peer reviewed papers he's covered have been withdrawn or discredited . His guests are cherry picked and pro ivermectin like Dr kory, who, despite what Campbell says, has a financial interest in ivermectin sales. He panders to the anti vax, conspiracy crowd with his videos like covering the dangers of vaccines while playing down the dangers of covid. He's sneaky and careful, making "suggestions" so as to cover his ass, and when he's called out he attacks those that critisise him. He never apologises and never admits to being wrong. His followers are cult like in their devotion and he's become a millionaire from them, so who can blame him really.
@@christinearthur5546 Did you see the one with the Indian Doctor? You may remember how John Campbell did an earlier Ivermectin video on Uttar Pradesh? It was the second one in his library I watched ant the first one that raised my suspicious hackles. Anyhow the later video was with Indian doctor who has done great things in treating Covid at his hospital, was asked it he used Ivermectin and he said that at first they did, because it could do no harm, but later they stopped because it was not doing any good either. They were using some well known antivirals with good effect instead. All John Campbell could say was "Interesting" But later, he was back to his covert support for Ivermectin. No acceptance or discussion with reference to the Indian doctors experience.
In Australia, the concern expressed over Ivermectin was that people may take Ivermectin, and choose not to get vaccinated. I suppose one may argue that the researchers could have been paid by Ivermectin manufacturers to falsely claim positive results, but they are putting their careers on the line. Then again, in similar fashion, one might claim that the “checkers” were on the payroll of vaccine producers, or have shares to protect.
@Oliver Mayo There is still a chance that the anomalies in patient data was inadvertent error and not wilfully corrupt. The plagiarism aspect seems a little dubious as a non-English speaker resorts to expressions and phraseology that he or she reads in other publications of the same ilk.
@@mattc3510 Even without treatment most people would have recovered, that's why it's stupid to attribute it to ivermectin. I know someone who believe in ivermectin and refuse to get vaccinated died of covid. Wonder how many actually died because they believed in ivermectin is the miracle cure.
It's worth pointing out that mining billionaire and political re-aspirant, Clive Palmer, bought 30M doses of ivermectin in 2020 intending to make a windfall ... he has since been funding a astroturf campaign that culminated in the anti-mandate protest in Canberra last week.
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Thanks for the feedback and your work. Would you say there was a study that passed your bar? If so, which one would that be? Thanks a lot again.
@@benmaxinm Sure. First, let me say that it's not really "my" bar; I weight the opinions of expert epidemiologists and good meta-analysis (e.g., Cochrane) in my views. That said, I think Mahmud et al Journal of International Medical Research 49(5) 1-14 is a good clinical study that shows a benefit for Ivermectin+doxycycline (they didn't test ivermectin alone, and there was no survival benefit). The best and largest RCTs (I-TECH, TOGETHER) dont' show a significant benefit on primary or secondary outcomes.
The ivermectin arm of the Together Trial has still not been published though they announced their results way back in August . Anybody know what's going on ?
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Sure, assessing risk of bias is has a methodology ... well? Then present the paper, authors, methodology and funding sources and conflicts of interest. You can not just say ' trust me' !
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Talking about bias ... what are your funding sources, qualifications, conflicts of interest? BTW why Ivermectin works in Japan and Brazil but apparently not in the US or UK?
@@luiswhatshisname7667 All of this is listed in the about section of my video. My conflicts (none) are listed in the description of each video. I receive no funding for these videos or anything related to them, and I have no conflicts of interest.
My brother has heart issues after the vaccine and IVM allowed him to start walking normally again. His friend was in the hospital with a bad prognosis and took some from the same batch of IVM and went home 2 days later. They both claim it saved their lives. The interesting thing is that it takes 5-6 hours, when taken with olive oil, to make people feel much better from COVID-19. I have not seen one person with any different results. My sample size is 22 people.
@@surnbe I had heart issues too from the vac, the pressure in chest finally resolved after IVM too, have heard of more cases too, still recovering months later, not dead just yet
@@surnbe Ah yes, the usual "miracle drug" claims. It doesn't just work as an antiviral, it now also magically resolves supposed heart issues. I have a bridge to sell you. Interested?
Do you not think that, considering there are still trials going on and, at least, some doctors still choose to perscribe it to their patients, saying that case for it has collapsed might be misleading?
I leave open the possibility in the video that upcoming trials may revive the case. But the case was made by evidence from trials that have since been retracted or are likely fraudulent. Proving a case *for* a treatment analogous to a prosecution, but instead of "innocent until proven guilty" it's "not effective until proven effective". Since the "proven effective" argument has evaporated, the case has collapsed.
Have you ever heard of the fallacy proving a negative? Requiring the other person to prove ivermectin is not a feasible covid treatment based on ongoing studies? Ignoring this clear evidence to the contrary after all this time? Who has the burden here? Not professor Greg.
I think it would have been better if you pointed out or explained better in details the flaws noted in these studies to your audience. Because, from what I just listened to and some tones used, as a Professor of your caliber, any stenographer would have done better.
I-Tech has now been published in JAMA: "Efficacy of Ivermectin Treatment on Disease Progression Among Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19 and Comorbidities"
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg looking forward to your "spin" on it also compared to Dr. Been's. 🤣. Hopefully you give some mention to the mortality rate in the study. I think death is kinda important to most people but EVERY article I see about the study does not even mention the mortality part. What are your thoughts on that? I'm trying to figure out why that does not seem important.
@@justsaynjason922 The study was not designed with the power to infer the cause of differences in mortality. In fact, if it had been the would have been extremely *underpowered* for mortality. As a consequence, the observed difference in deaths is indistinguishable from chance. The study was powered for the primary outcome measure, with an estimate that 17.5% of patients in the control group would progress to severe disease (17.3% actually did, so the prediction was spot-on).
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Thanks again for they reply. So does that mean there would have had to have been more people in the study or a bigger gap between the two for the death rate to mean anything. The decoupling of severe cases compared to mortality rate should at least raise some eyebrows shouldn't it. I also need your help figuring out how a patient ends up on a ventilator but not admitted to ICU. Is that common?
@@justsaynjason922 They would need a much larger study or a higher proportion of people dying. I think the ventilator and mortality events are just too small to draw *any* conclusions about. In addition, they are highly correlated. So if we assume that 90% of the deaths were previously on ventilators then treating them as independent p values is incorrect. As for the ICUs, I don't know. It's possible some of the 20 hospitals in the study had ventilation equipment but not fully-certified ICUs.
It's really frustrating how the layman's debate on such issues often have the opposite-extreme conclusions, the medicine either doesn't work at all (and/or is bad) or is pretty much the solution for the "supposed" problem, at very least if coupled with a bunch of other meds. Even some of the expert coverage is frustratingly bad even when it's on the "broadly right" side, that it doesn't seem to help. There's a Brazilian lawmaker or something who's also an MD, and in some legal debate on the matter he posed the question to a proponent of ivermectin, "what's the difference of a virus and a a protozoan," as if the repurposing of the medicine was based on such a basic misunderstanding. This questioning was received with significant applause by pundits and lay people, but I suspect it may have actually strengthened the not-as-ignorant lay people's beliefs or hopes for the medicine, as an example of how ignorant its detractors are. Like vitamin D, to me it seemed a bit like "erring on the safe side" if one doesn't make much of it, if it's not seen as "the solution," replacing strategies to reduce contagion. Co-infections are probably usually worse than single infections (although there was a time where fever-induced by one infection was used as treatment of another, a technique that was awarded a Nobel prize), and then maybe even for that alone it could perhaps be "helping" indirectly to the degree there's a correlation, which would be predominantly in poorer regions. But funnily enough, there's even a study suggesting that some types of co-infections apparently make covid milder, so not even that is something that can be taken for granted.
Little bit confused. Who is the person holding the talks and who is the person who responds to comments. Two different people if you look at the photos.
Aging is a thing, you know...and try growing a beard or remove it, and see how different you look. Add different glasses, and you can apparently easily 'fool' people who maybe need glasses...
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg my goodness you have changed a lot, hope I haven't insulted you too much. Prehaps I am far too cautious with social media. Bit to much, lights! Camera ! Bullshit! Take care Derek
I was wondering if summaries of the points would help in communication. After a detailed explanation of several things to then add "In summary: We know this,and this." Most viewers are not going to remember the detail.
You should, too. Especially "RETRACTED: Clinical and Scientific Rationale for the “MATH+” Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19" Key quote: ‘We have conducted a careful review of our data for patients with COVID-19 from March 22, 2020 to July 20, 2020, which shows that among the 191 patients referenced in Table 2 that the mortality rate was 10.5%, rather than 6.1%. In addition, of those 191 patients, only 73 patients (38.2%) received at least 1 of the 4 MATH+ therapies, and their mortality rate was 24.7%. Only 25 of 191 patients (13.1%) received all 4 MATH+ therapies, and their mortality rate was 28%.’ According to Kory and friends, their MATH+ protocol had a 75% mortality benefit. Reality is essentially the opposite: you were much more likely to die when you received the MATH+ protocol...
@@surnbe Really? So a 10.5% mortality (incorrectly stated to be 6.1% by Kory et al) is worse than a 28% mortality rate? That's what happened to those on the MATH+ protocol: 28% mortality rate.
@@surnbe It's not that hard to do the math: 191 patients - overall mortality 10.5% = 20 deaths Only 73 received (at least some part of) Kory et al's protocol - mortality 24.7% = 18 deaths. 25 got the full protocol - mortality rate 28% = 7 deaths So, in the patients who did NOT receive any of the MATH+ protocol (118 patients), only 2 died. 18 died in the much smaller group who received at least some of the protocol.
About cell line models in general, (not just Vero E6): I think of XKCD comic 1217: When you see a claim that some common drug or vitamin kills cancer in a petri dish, keep in mind: So does a handgun. In vivo veritas.
@@barryhamm3414 As Francis Bacon noted "As if you would call a physician, that is thought good for the cure of the disease you complain of but is unacquainted with your body, and therefore may put you in the way for a present cure but overthroweth your health in some other kind; and so cure the disease and kill the patient."
@@Marco-it2mr You reminded me of a long ago Latin lesson when I found out that Latin text was not all about Wars! Languebam: sed tu comitatus protinus ad me venisti centum, Symmache, discipulis. Centum me tetigere manus aquilone gelatae, non habui febrem, Symmache, nunc habeo. (Ep. v, 9.) I lay ill: but soon Symmachus sought me with a class of a hundred young men, whose hundred cold paws have brought me the fever I lacked till then.
Assuming that Ivermectin does not work, it does not bind spike proteins, reduce inflammation, and is not antiviral... Maybe the people with vaccine adverse events and others who are dismissed by doctors (being told they have anxiety) could find the placebo effect of taking charge of their own health and treatment as a statistically significant medical benefit.
Have you seen Dr. Avi Bitterman's theory on ivermectin? If so I was wondering what your thoughts were. I believe his paper is still undergoing peer review but he has talked about it on twitter.
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg A well run clinical trial that pre-screened subjects for strongyloidiasis might yet be able to tease out this factor. That might suggest that ivermectin should be used in any patient where there was uncertainty. Not because it treated the disease, but because it prevented the treatment for the disease from killing the patient.
@@RichardAMorris That's already the case though. The WHO recommends (since December 2020 at least) that all COVID-19 patients with a history of living or extensively travelling in areas with endemic strongyloidiasis be treated with ivermectin before being prescribed corticosteroids to treat COVID-19 so that the immunosuppression doesn't result in a hyperinfection of strongyloidiasis But the problem was that apparently this was not done in many of the control groups of many of the ivermectin studies.
@@henrimourant9855 eek. Well that's your signal right there. Interesting that one of the proponents of ivermnectin in the USA, Pierre Kory first became famous in the pandemic for being early on the use of corticosteroids. Another cheap, repurposed treatment. What are the odds that in seeking his second act, he is blind to the differential use of corticosteroids in trials of ivermectin.
Greg you must present the other side of the debate too! You must teach the controversy! Be like nurse campbell! Just kidding, my brain is still fully functional thank you.
Hi Greg, fellow scientist here, really appreciate your videos and clear explanations which I can share on social media for the ivermectin fans. There’s one thing I have not looked into but perhaps you have, regarding the anti inflammatory properties of ivermectin. Would be interested to hear your take. Thanks for the good work! PS. Just sent a connection request on LinkedIn.
If virus replication and weaknesses in some studies were enough to conclude, then you also disqualify the Pfizer vaccine at the same time (Omicron+Pfizergate) that would make you an "antivax" morron ! What about immuno modulation ? This video just forgot to enlarge its little boxes of sophisms ? And if virus is less replicated in only some cells, is that bad overall ? I wish the cells of many nations in the World were freed of the idiot groups, this would probably help reduce the infection of stupidity from the countries where full BS sophisms like this video still replicate easilly. When it starts with Remdesivir as "proof" let me LOL. WHO recommends AGAINST its use. Well done the pedantic anti science morrons. Anyone can check in 1 second how dumb and biased it is. So you take a potential reduction of hospitalization time as OK and dismiss an at the very least 100% proven reduction of anosmia, what is the criteria ? Wall Street profits ? Fake science, BS sophisms, and pure MSM propaganda that's what these pseudo "debunk" channels are composed of. After covid let me tell you science always destroys the stupidoes and untrue liars. Such propaganda leads to IQ
Why did JAMA not issue an "expression of concern" for the study they published that did not use ivermectin until patients had symptoms for more than 5 days? All doctors proposing that ivermectin is useful have emphasized how important it is to use at the first sign of symptoms.
"Why did JAMA not issue an "expression of concern" for the study they published that did not use ivermectin until patients had symptoms for more than 5 days? " Well, for starters because there is no such study as you claim. And no, definitely not "all doctors proposing that ivermectin is useful" have claimed it is so important to use at the first sign of symptoms. Just look at what the FLCCC recommends...
@@Marco-it2mr I cited the study on JAMA that defined early days of infection as within 7 days. Many patients don't even have symptoms by day 7. But YT took down my comment because I can't share links or something. And you are completely misinformed or under informed if you think FLCCC doctors aren't telling patients that using ivm at the first signs of symptoms is critical. You are just wrong, but you are very certain. Good for you. Not a good look if you ask me. The arrogance in the medical field has real consequences and we are witnessing them.
@@ericksonjustinAK Sigh. WITHIN 7 days is NOT the same as "did not use ivermectin until patients had symptoms for more than 5 days", which is what you claimed. You literally lied! And why don't you try and cite the FLCCC about that "critical". It's not in their protocols. You sound like you are seriously disinformed.
@@Marco-it2mr Whatever. I pointed out that I was inaccurate in the first comment that YT took down. I'll let you enjoy your moral superiority. Clearly you are bound and determined to believe what you want to believe. Day 7 is not early intervention and calling it early intervention is literally a lie. The study was not designed to see if there is any benefit at all. It was designed to show it isn't a cure, which does nothing for the debate. It does the opposite. It intensifies the polarization. And the FLCCC docs state all of the time that early treatment is important. If the study designers picked up the phone and talked with one of the docs, they would know this. And it is in their protocol and in their literature. The willful negligence to design a study that followed recommendations is very telling to me. Why am I even bothering... I said I would let you be. Arrogance is bliss. Enjoy your echo chamber.
It's a death sentence. Why doesn't this loser look at the clinical trials on remdesivir where it freaking killed 70% of the people in the trial that was scrapped???Crazy but that is about the same % of people with Covid who die in the hospital after getting Remdesivir and a ventilator. HMMMMMMMM????
The thing that drew my attention to Tess Lawie showing a potential bias with Ivermectin some time ago now was the letter she wrote about the yellow card system calling for vaccinations to stop. I mentioned this to a doctor who had Tess on his channel stating that I had concerns that her material would negatively impact his channel. Guess what happened next. I got blocked #gofigure
@@killpop8255 Other than providing the doctors' name I don't see what there is to spill and I don't see what difference that would make. What is it you want to hear?
Maybe her opinion of the vaccine is a result of her extensive research, as opposed to a bias informing her research. I don't blame her... take a look at covid deaths between Israel and Africa. Israel's rates are double than they were 2 years ago. I'm not sure their double boosters are helping the population. Meanwhile, there's relatively low vaccine uptake in South Africa, and they are not faring too badly at all.
Excellent exposition and summaries. Was hoping to hear updates on the TOGETHER, ACTIV-6, PRINCIPAL and possibly the U. of Minn trial. Appreciate the new information: "...of Concern."
Another fantastic and informative video Prof Greg! Thanks for the hard work pulling this together, and for choosing to help others understand how stay informed in our confusing post-truth world!
Wonderful to see this masterful debunk. Hope you elaborate on the studies recently looking at LongC risk reductions attributable to vaccines, too. Thanks for your continuing service to Reality.
@@bigmacfullerton7870 Lol you people are easy pickings for grifters. Probably had your wallet lightened by these crooks selling you IVM which did nothing for you but lined their pockets.
Dr Kory (and others) has claimed remarkable success with IVM. By now the outcomes he’s seeing should be coming in line with results from papers such as the ones you reviewed. Right?
"Not for reproduction." That's weird, almost like trying to have things both ways. Although I understand it may hopefully limit quote-mining spreading like wildfire.
Hi Greg, I would really like to see some guests on your videos. I would like you to invite some people who can explain or defend the reasons why or why not this or that was claimed or exactly the circumstances around the situation. Standing alone giving a monologue on any subject in the world is often convincing, and exactly this is what has been the problem since the beginning of the pandemic. We have been given one-sided information in all sources of information and seldom to never discussion. In fact removals and suppression of very many experts' voices, experience and opinion is all I have noticed. This has been wrong from the beginning and even dangerous. The lack of reports about side effects of all the vaccines is of a huge problem as we see and experience daily. There is practically zero videos or information from the pharmaceutical companies giving this information. We should always see on whose payroll a lot of "experts" are. You mentioned history. Yes, I agree with you that in one year, short history period, we will have much more information on what has been going on over the past few years, and even more important, what went on in the pre-pandemic period. We will see the many things that have caused more harm than good during the two years. We will have much more information when the hype is over. Thank you for the video, but you would make them much more interesting with some guests who can correct or explain where you are perhaps also going in one direction only. I would really like someone to talk about the adverse effects of the vaccines and how they could have failed so much even after a 4th dose, and how the continuous application of vaccines of this type can effect our immune system. There are many experts who could talk and inform viewers about the thing that has been the centre point of the last two years, the vaccines.
Finally a video about IVM delivered almost without vitriol. I had already reached the conclusion that the the most likely beneficial effect, if any, of IVM would be from placebo effect, In countries without vaccines poor medical facilities and large populatuons that probably saved quite a few lives. It is not ckear to me that it is unethical, in the absence of any proven solutions, to send a package of readily available, cheap, proven safe medications to a population, in the hope that something might work. That critisism seems particularly galling coming from the wealthy and vaccinated. The science community as well as the mainstrean media do need to have a hard look at how they communicate science and the role sceintists might have in calling out the overhyped media. Discussions need to use the data, not hype and accusation
Of course, the true scientist would point out to you that being glad for a placebo effect because it will have saved many who don't have access to appropriate medical salvation is - ahem - idiocy that has missed the point...
@@helmutsilver5006 not sure what your point is. Do you think that placebo effects are not real? or do you think that somehow the noise around IVM prevented the development of either vaccines or treatment or access to them?
@@helmutsilver5006 Can I interest you in a magic crystal that is proven 100% as effective as a placebo? It’s used in many non-western countries by practitioners of non-western medicine*. Currently there is an important paper on a preprint server of a disreputable journal that found the magic crystal increases ivermectin’s effect against Covid by 1000%. The numbers don’t lie. *or more accurately, non-medicine
"Discussions need to use the data, not hype and accusation" Not lying and being misleading to the public would be nice too. When I hear a medical doctor or a PhD pharmacist say it is a dangerous horse dewormer, I immediately see somebody trying to manipulate instead of inform and why should anyone listen to someone like that about any topic. Then I hear one reason to not listen to a pro-ivm doctor is because "this person has been proven to have errors in their conclusions". Ya, ok. So I should listen to the doctor that is calling it a "dangerous horse dewormer"?
@@helmutsilver5006 I think the main point is that a placebo effect is better than saying "watch for blue lips", while ivm is safe and unproven at worst. So who has arrogantly missed the point?
@debunker He has wrote many... The shill, like this clown, would cast it out. You all keep taking your little poison jabs. When you you all end up HIV positive and wondering WTF? Here's why... Rhymes with maxine
Thank you for educating me on this science... Dam virology is complicated on so many multifaceted approaches as it involves so many disciplines from math models physiology, to pharmacology and molecular science. And it's so easy to become victims to information bias when desperate.
Hi Federico Zanolin, I read your comment with particular interest in your reference to the issue of desperation, this strikes a chord for me in respect of the ways in which strong feelings impede rational thought, it is always much harder to find good solutions to problems when in a hurry!, I will go so far as to say that the increased risk of error always mitigates against making any decision in a hurry while emotionally disturbed, this is something that is always very difficult to manage at the time while dominated by a sense of urgency. For each of us in our own lives we actually find ourselves very rarely in real danger, there is a very important difference between perceived hazard and real danger, I go so far as to claim from my own experience that fear is never related to actual danger!, I have often been very afraid of all sorts of things but they have never resulted in injury!, on the other hand I have suffered significant injuries without any fear at all!. In the Public domain, which is where we are trying to deal with real natural hazards like infectious diseases it is even more important to find ways of delaying the implementation of any and all measures while the state of fear and panic is so dominant. It is always more important to get the right answers that get them quickly. Cheers, Richard.
@@richardharvey1732 Hi Richard and Federico. This is so true. Add to this the genuine complexities of the world of information (yes, MSM can show bias at times, studies are not always well designed, reliable or properly interpreted even by those who should know better etc.) and it easy to see how people get polarised over issues that affect their health and their freedoms. I am sure the solution is indeed careful appraisal by experts who engage in respectful dialogue and ideally, as with Prof Greg, are able to communicate the state of research to laypeople (quite brilliantly in his case). I fear that social media is not ideally equipped for this in some ways however. For example Dr John Campbell refuses to engage with critics on line and thus mistakes can go uncorrected and go on to have a life of their own. I have no expertise in medicine or epidemiology etc. but I have suggested ways of mitigating this (eg a form of peer review for YT videos; regular debates between experts; a depository of corrections etc. Would there be value in such measures?
@@martifingers you’ve got to be joking! This channel supports the suppression of facts in favour of attempting to discredit the open minded and you’re being taken for a ride!! Fear is a political tool to manipulate people into subservience. Why all the emotion over Ivermectin? Think about it! Take a long look at how drugs are tested and approved! th-cam.com/video/mSgZfMHJUpQ/w-d-xo.html
“Educating??!!” That’s a joke LOL! If you want to be educated why listen to a jumped up little biochemistry teacher with no medical expertise in preference to knowledgeable and well respected clinicians? You can be sure the latter are not getting a bung from big pharma for spreading propaganda to enhance their profits and elevate them to the top 400 most wealthy list in the US! Explain the double standards applied to the approval of drugs if you can! th-cam.com/video/mSgZfMHJUpQ/w-d-xo.html
Instead of trying to debunk a medicine that may or may not work, wasting your time on a substance that’s been taken 100s of millions (if not billions) of time over the past decades with NO side effects when taken as prescribed; you could instead tell people to exercise more, eat healthily and make sure they take their vitamin D2.
Unfortunately, this is a pandemic with people dying now, and your idea would take forever, and most people don’t want to give up junk food, as they will complain about being “controlled”
"with NO side effects when taken as prescribed" Except we have had several volunteers dropping out due to e.g. diarrhea from that "taken as prescribed".
Ivermectin is a big topic in the Covid story as it plays out in the media and on social media. It's a wonder drug to a lot of anti-vaxxers. This video looks at what the research says and doesn't say and what research is sound and what is not. There probably is research out there looking at the role of exercise and nutrition but this video is about Ivermectin studies and claims.
Remdesivir is recommended AGAINST use by WHO. Are we in THE real fake science and sophism collection channel ? Yes. I used to be tolerant and watched the videos in full but this non sense is more than enough ! 100% BS MSM propaganda for low IQs like you. Remdesivir may reduce time of hospitalizations a bit. IVM is proven at the very least to reduce anosmia and has no side effects and risks like Remdesivir. So ? What is the difference ? Price ? Your low IQ swallows any fake science and sophisms. If replication of virus and no fault in studies were enough criteria to conclude anything, the anti science BS sophisms you swallow would also pretend Pfizer vaccines are disqualified. It does not stop Omicron, there was a Pfizergate in Texas ? So ? None on earth pretends they did not save lives (elderlies mainly) through their immuno modulation action. I hope you realise now how plain stupid you and this video are. You do not have a microgram of critical thinking.
Let's not kid ourselves here. The results will only be welcome if they show no conclusive evidence or prove that ivm is completely useless. Yeah! Can't wait to root for more bad news.
sorry forgot to put reference Dr John Campbell, Nurse Practitioner from the UK who gives a very measured case and now believes this could be the biggest scandal of the pandemic.
Excellent information Greg. My only criticism is that the Tuskegee Study for untreated syphilis is not as clear an abuse as the title might suggest. Not to say there wasn’t abuse, but there was an excellent article in JAMA March 13, 2000, “Unravelling the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphiis” by a Robert White. It is probably not a good comparison to the ivermectin studies because the Tuskegee study extended over many years.
I'm kinda waiting for the punchline on the end of a recommendation to read a report sanitising an infamous racially skewed example of medical research infamy written by a Mr White...
@@hughbassoon Well, I was actually being sarcastic for sarcasm's sake... I'm not a full-blood objectivist - not enough to necessarily be able to stomach the desire to read articles to try to reconcile deeply troubling atrocities as being somehow redeemable. It's genuinely a discomfort I have with trying to work around conscience to wring some justification out... I honestly can't bring myself to attempt it. Some things are better left denounced, repented of and left in the dust of their decomposing state.
It doesn’t matter what you think what matters is I have the choice to use it if I wish. I’m old enough, inquisitive enough and willing to do my own research and most importantly it’s my body not anyone else’s.
Yet you could have just checked the stories of those who it didn't work for but instead you decided to block all of that out because you got grifted by crooks telling you what you wanted to hear.
Expression of concern is meaningless, and can be used against ANY studies by an individual or individuals whose agenda is to attack the effectiveness of a drug for financial reasons.
Excellent video, although I have to point out that simply saying the Mexico study was unethical is not a debunking of the methodology. You left that Avenue open for counter arguments. Id like to know if that study was actually flawed or just had ethics issues. Feels like your engaging in an ad hominem of the study rather than assessing it
Thanks again Greg. I have seen very little information about the numbers of people hospitalised who have relied on Ivermectin and it hasn't helped. There must have been quite a few, Loads of anecdotes about how it helped, with no proof that they wouldn't have recovered without it of course.
@@fransimms3803 come on Guys knock it off, these type of comments are not called for. The case with ivermectin is unclear, this means there will be opinions both for and against. I admit Campbell was off the wall with his Japanese ivermectin talk. But on the whole I considered him pretty reliable. Ok he is making a shed load of money but who isn't. We need to hear both sides from commentators outside the main stream. Keep it coming Sir, and thanks for your responses to my questions.
@@derekpresland4029 knock what off? I've barely critised him except to say he's still advocating ivermectin and making a shed load of money, both statements of fact not insults. The case for ivm is more than unclear, its becoming clearer by the day but that hasn't stopped Campbell from pushing it. He also recently called into question the validity of lockdowns based on another non peer, discredited paper. He does these things, not bc he cares but to make more money, that is obvious by how his videos have changed over the months, he now contradicts things he stated early in the pandemic, tbh I'm surprised he's not come out against vaccines..
You go out of your way to make a statement about expression of concern by the publisher, This is just a legal technicality that they would use in all articles slamming other technicians and experts is not cool
nice "hit piece" but fail. prevention of is not clearly shown, but treatment of early covid is fairly represented in many clinical trials as being effective
@@bigmacfullerton7870 Of course I am "wrong" in the eyes of a true believer, who could care less about those large, properly performed RCTs. It just has to work, otherwise you'd be putting your money in the wrong place, eh, BigMac?
@@Marco-it2mr True believer??? Yeah after it worked for me my wife my cousin and her husband wherevwe all got around 50-60% better 24n hours after taking it like everyone else was reporting I then became a believer. Not because of what anyone told me but because it did work. lol And it's not about my money but about Big Pharmas money. If you trust those people who let woman and children use their known cancer causing talc on themselves for years you might be fooling yourself
@@bigmacfullerton7870 I didn't use anything and got better within a day! There we go, proof that doing nothing works better than ivermectin! In the meantime, several pharma companies LOVE gullible fools like you - spending money on a drug that does nothing. Since you are in the US, you, your wife, your cousin, and her husband likely used some 50 dollar EACH on this, when doing nothing would very likely have given you the same results. Ben Goldacre has a column for you to read. It is entitled "When it comes to a cold, you might as well try goat entrails". Written in 2008, and still people fall for the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
I am very disappointed in your review. This constantly projected opinion based reviews. Discrediting based on just opinion and fact and using the language to tout and project wrong doing is not scientific. I would rather you give facts rather than labeling and misdirecting listeners.
![Microplastic Dangers? [How to Avoid Microplastics] - 2024](/img/n.gif)
Thanks for this overview. The pacing was perfect and it covered everything very clearly. I really like learning things like an "Expression of Concern" is actually a "thing". Next time I see that it will be something I notice rather than just assuming it is common language usage. Good to find that out - all this stuff you take for granted is new to a lot of us taking an interest in these things for the first time.
One other really basic idea that I got from your previous video "Misinformation about Ivermectin arm of PRINCIPLE trial for Covid-19" was that the trial just can't go and order some Ivermectin off the Internet or something. I had a mental image of John Campbell toying with his box of Indian Ivermectin while he was saying it's only 4c a tablet. My mistaken background assumption (I didn't even realise it was an assumption at the time - it was more on a subconscious level) was to wonder why the trial could just order some more Ivermectin. Then after your video I realised it has to be guaranteed to be of a certain grade and dosage not just any old stuff off the shelf. It is probably sourced from a particular supplier. That should have been obvious but it wasn't until it was pointed out. Your videos are really helping to get the absolute basics in place as well as helping navigate through things at the higher level regarding the trustworthiness of information.
Just realised also, Presumably the ivermectin pills in trial must also look identical to placebo pills.
@@Michael-London and identical packaging, of course.
@@MarcosElMalo2 yep that too
@@Michael-London Oh yes, identical placebos. That didn't occur to me either.
"regarding the trustworthiness of information" Humm. I just noticed the date on this vid too.
the problem is millions of people now can attest to the efficacy of using ivm ... including myself
Exactly, !
Yeah used it workd well
yep, this professor is a brainwashed id*iot who cant se past his nose.
it's like medical marijuana. big pharma will go bankrupt if the research of the effectiveness of them is correct, big pharma can't make big bucks and money will not got into government, hence stop funding the research.
What I fascinating in his videos is why is he making them. In the end is he just an analyretentive person wanting to dot the i's n t's??
There is offering of other explanations to the inactivity of governments or bigpharma. For example, the withdrawn trials/studies. Why isn't he looking for the list if trials that are good out of the 100s made? But instead wants to pick holes out of a few and therefore concludes that all the rest represent nothing.
Remdesivir, please! Take that shi?te youself and see how you go. Ridiculous. It's a killer.
Yep, that shit destroyed kidney in many patients, they just added their deaths to Covid
Where is the "gold standard" peer reviewed study that looks at the effectiveness of Ivermectin in actual people? Who is running that study and when will the results be announced? The complaint is nobody is running such a study and nobody ever will because there is no money to be made using Ivermectin as a therapeutic. The only thing all these other studies and meta analysis suggest is there may be some benefit to Ivermectin (or not), we don't know for sure, we sure don't know the mechanics, but that this is worth further study. Nobody is doing that study, should we be asking why?
There has been some bad science done on Covid and Prof Greg is pointing out some of the worst examples, but unless and until there is a real study in real people, the controversy will continue.
You hit the nail on the head.
Oh dear 😲 Just can't believe that after more than two years now, when thousands of Covid-19 patients around the world (many even near death 😨) had already been treated with this (believe it or not) GOD revealed wonder drug (which many despise it as nothing but "horse paste" 😖) as a "Miraculous Cure" and since fully recovered to testify as true life witnesses 👏....and yet, here they are, these so called medical professional or pharmaceutical experts including the scientists are still challenging and debating against this controversial issue! 🙄
Anyway, just remember...no matter what you might say or do to convince or disprove...the TRUTH will always triumph folks 😇
@GeoffreyScott the Kowa institute in japan are currently awaiting results from a trial they are conducting, due sometime in march.
Right
@@jennyyip8456 There is a little problem with Ivermectin. It costs 2 cents a piece to make and if allowed in the USA it will decimate the 500B vaccine business overnight not to mention the outcry from the people who have lost their families and loved ones to covid. Another small detail is Prof. Greg will get his ass kicked and career ruined should he say anything positive about the horse medicine. He reminds me of the former intelligence officers who signed that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian misinformation.
I prefer using horse paste from the local feed store it's a lot cheaper you don't have to deal with the doctor and it works great
@JohnJohn-xb1sn - that's because you're an uneducated nutter.
I come from agricultural research. One can always make an agricultural input show no benefit. One can show that nitrogen fertilizers do not work ... if I put them at the wrong time and say in a weed infested field. One can show that a certain pesticide has no benefit ... if the pests are not present. One can show that another fertilizer does not work ... because a crop might be deficient in other nutrients. Any agricultural research results ALWAYS have to include phrases that indicate that results are limited to the climate and local crop conditions. Extrapolation is a no no! The fact that we have whole teams spending a lot of time and effort to demonstrate that something does not work, (trying to prove a negative) trying and succeeding in getting publications out of circulation or "debunking" medical publications while keeping thousands of similarly flawed medical publications with similar flaws (Remdesivir) ... and without criticizing the mRNA experimental treatments with similar flaws, is concerning. The big looser here is the lost trust on the Medical Establishment. They seem to be only interested in their pockets, not the general health of the population. Here the author mentioned several times "FRAUD". The definition of "Fraud", I should remind him, is a broad term that refers to acts intended to swindle someone. In essence, it's the use of intentional deception for monetary or personal gain. The author of this video gave ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF FRAUD! on the other hand the author is obtaining a monetary compensation for his claims and the medical alternatives promoted elsewhere are reaping hundreds of billions of dollars in profits.
Exactly.
Yes. Who is paying him?
the whatshisname...what utter nonsense! You have spoken without context and most blatantly ignoring the politicisation of drugs like Ivermectin pushed initially by dishonest Republican factions right after the hydrochloroquine fiasco. So let's get a perspective here before you go shooting your mouth off on other not so good drugs that 'they use' but ignore Ivermectin. You should identify the sub text of any Ivermectin propaganda ie the vehemently anti vaxx charge. Therefore 'they' have ie Dr Rory and his band of snake oil sales people promoted and over sold Ivermectin as a 'miraculous' cure all for Covid. It's a big fat lie. It has its merits, for parasitic causes but it is not a CURE all or prevention from getting Covid. No matter how you dance around this and try to strawman your argument about how drugs work in certain settings I see no validity to your argument, except a hidden agenda. Presenting dressed up garbage for your unthinking anti vaxxers even when you know there is no hard evidence. You spend a lot of time showing off your knowledge to a general audience, most of whom are here to ingest what their little mindsets want.... bad vaccines, evil big pharma, lying politicians..all of which BTW were problems before Covid.
Why don't you cast your 'eagle eye' over those flawed studies and analyse them and show us why they are 'proper' and should be considered and used and not side stepped because of some other 'intrests' at play? Do some real work. Instead of taking apart the work done by people who have the sense to put together a rational argument, of how Ivermectin has been usurped by unscrupulous medical professionals with an axe to grind, and millions to be made in a side hustle from foisting this unproven drug on millions of anti vaxxers out there?
Telling people it's a cheap drug. It can be repurposed. I know folks who paid up to $200 for online kits. They sell it with some Vit D concoction. Now imagine millions paying that. For a drug that you must have as Covid is endemic. Then multiply that by the millions of health facilities etc and doctors who will need to have a constant supply. Like big pharma isn't there millions in profit here too..especially for an unproven drug??
Take it if you are one of the 30 million on the planet who has some worm issues. Ivermectin will sure help as worms affect your immune system and Covid exploits weakened immune systems. Sure. Ivermectin might have a benefit if you contract Covid. But for sure it is not what the FLCCC and the other lying and unethical medical professionals are saying. So you could spin your crap of mixing-and-matching drugs and concluding there is likely something there. Yet ignore the lies and propoganda made about Ivermectin.
Further explain to us, lay people with all your learned polemic why other drugs are failing but still being used because of 'hidden agendas'. Folks like you are like vultures. Hunting for any views that questions and shows up misinformation that anti vaxx rhetoric holds on to like a kid who holds on to her favourite toy.
You and many anti vaxxers have built a polemic on critiquing what many learned scientist have presented and which WE KNOW is not perfect, or without its limitations whilst presenting no factual, detailed, rigorously thought out answers or alternatives. What's particularly disingenuous and redundant about your outpouring here is your couched language in virulent anti vaxx and you fake present your rather limited insights here.
If you are a qualified scientist or medical person, you are not a smart one, in my opinion. Not everyone is good at their job even though they might have 'qualifications'. Only the rabid, unintelligent, civic ignorant typical anti vaxxer will lap up this stupidity.
@Seymour Butts No one, there's no money in it.
@@ecoelsol5784 noone he just has the same ideas as his ancestors,
"the people are starving sir"
"Give them grain and tell them its healthy"
“Remdisivir works”
No it doesn’t and you destroyed your credibility right there.
There is a study that compared (censored word) to R and of course, that showed a massive benefit in mortality reduction with (censored).
And it’s not the only study.
The evidence is clear. The problem is some refuse to admit the evidence exists.
This is just a fake professor. He is too obsessed with something he cannot explain away.
Exactly!!
Unsafe and barely effective.
What about thousands of people who have taken Ivermectin and reported to have felt better almost immediately, within a few hours? If this were a handful of people, I would write it off as anecdotal, but when it's thousands, it's hard to believe that all of them were random chance.
25 present around the world have used Ivermectin and this really worked. You can't depend on doctors that are against Ivermectin in the first place. Ivermectin has proven itself but the reason for not wanting to use it is because it's cheap and drug companies make money on it.
Myself and 2 close friends treated with Madagascar flccc protocol. I was free of all symptons within 3 hours only fever remaining. 1 friend regained taste within 12 hours and was up and running in 3 days. He had Delta.
The other friend already contacted hospital to be sent in , but beginning l2020 no much places. Started in the morning with protocol. Noticed not much. 1 hour after second dose he told me : its like an electronic switch flipped for the better. Next day called of hospital.
Its anecdotal. But still results are stunning.
Also 2 friends who got rid of long covid, which lasted for 3 months, and they got rid of within 48 hours.
I let this man talk and dont care.......
What about the millions who didn't take it and never even noticed they were infected several times? What about the thousands who took IVM and died from covid?
KOWA are awaiting results of another Ivermectin trial, due around march 2022.
The book of ivermectin and its efficacy doctor Satoshi Omura 2015 Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine
What does any of that have to do with COVID?
So, how much is big pharma paying you? I missed that part in the video.
$0.00. Apparently you missed that part in the written disclaimer in the video details too
Ivermectin is made by……….big pharma
Tell you what - I have covid currently as per the home test. Unvaxxed 55 year old. Let’s see what my doctor approved and prescribed ivermectin does shall we? It’s the 14th of April and my symptoms are mild, than again I am not overweight, not addicted to sugar and grains, dont ingest processed foods or cook with hydrogenated oils. Let’s see how long it takes for ivermectin to work! I also take zinc, organic vitamin c. At 55 I should be dying.
Still here, no fever, o2 stats stayed at 98, maybe it has more to do with the unhealthy individuals who eat garbage and are obese.
I think you did an excellent job in this video highlighting the problems with the case for ivermectin to treat COVID-19. You asked for suggestions for future episodes. My suggestion for a future subject is the misuse of VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, maintained by the FDA and the CDC. The topic is hard to tackle in your format, because the misuse is manifested in hundreds of short blog posts and comments, but sometimes there is a high-profile instance of misuse, as with a recent podcast by Dr. John Campbell, who claimed, inaccurately, that patients would not be able to use the system because the report form is laden with technical jargon. The examples of technical jargon that he cited are nowhere to be found in the report form.
Very good suggestion; raising my hand to indicate interest in VAERS deep dive tool
Thanks for the suggestion. I might do something along those lines.
Your suggestion also highlights the kind of content I _want_ to make. My sense at this point is that shorter "debunking" or "take-down" videos tend to give people who agree a sense of vindication (they are essentially preaching to the choir), but don't really reach people who've already made up their minds in disagreement. I'm not going for the TikTok audience, and there are other channels that do that well. So I want to address issues like VAERS, where misinformation has been really harmful and widespread, and where there's also a real benefit from the kind of educational content I make. I might even reach some people who have been victims of misinformation.
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I don’t know if you noted a post by Dr Peter McCullough on Twtr a few days ago. He posted a blatantly obviously falsified table from U.K. Govt yellow card data, where he/they (trial site news) had added over 1 million adverse reactions to the Pfizer/England section of the table! The actual data table on the U.K. Govt website for England was 128,000 as of 2 Feb. It was so obvious, as they forgot to add a comma after the 1 million and faked a couple of other numbers, but the post was shared so many times, and gobbled up by his followers.
@@damocarew why would a top cardiologist do that? What does he have to gain?
@@saimak7079 I know it was quite an embarrassing forgery, from a so called C19 expert! It just further exposes his grift, but his gullible followers refuse to see it and come out with “don’t you know he’s the most published in the world, blah, blah” appeal to authority
I didn’t realize that Mark Mothersbaugh from Devo did medical videos.
You are an unsung hero. Don’t listen to the legions of trolls. Thanks for speaking the truth.
2nd this x 100
Remdesivir hero. Lol. Even the WHO recommends AGAINST. That is just pure anti science second one. The only thing that Remdesivir could possibly do is reduce time of hospitalizations in exchange of many bad things like selection pressure, drip infusion risks and high price.
Next if answering no to:
- stops virus replication ?
- all studies perfect ?
was enough to "prove" IVM inefficiency then the same anti science would "prove" Pfizer vaccines inefficient too. There is a Pfizergate too. Does it prove vaccines did not save people at risks ? None on earth dares to say that.
Hence I prove these arguments are completely stupid anti science. Vaccines induce immuno modulation. Same thing might be true for IVM or other treatments.
This video is just void of any new information and reflexion on the subject. Pure propaganda when it pretends to be able to conclude anything with such simplistic sophisms.
You are just a yes yes lazy morron. You do not think by yourself and have no critical thinking ability.
@@myhealthobs5290 100 is your IQs added.
@@charlesb6490 2nd this. lol You are spot on. Anybody that hasn't chosen a camp and didn't come here for confirmation of already held beliefs and pom poms can see what you are seeing.
There are many reasons to disagree with Dr. Greg’s conclusions. Just because you don’t know or understand them is no reason to call anyone a troll for thinking differently. Science is full of people who think differently, and thank God for that. Otherwise we would all still think the world is flat and at the center of the universe. Galileo and Einstein would be considered trolls. Pharmaceutical companies would still be making a fortune on prescription medications like Tagamet instead of many millions of people being able to take a one-time course of cheap antibiotics and have their stomach acid problems cured.
What is it to you if someone prefers to take an inexpensive treatment that is known to be safe (or even not so safe!) if they prefer it to a vaccine which still has unknown side effects? Let people decide for themselves. It’s their body, not yours.
Do you have videos talking about good treatments that people can use?
India stopped using IVM and HCQ stating that they found no clinical benefit and no mortality benefit
Do you feel Pfizer should release all the patient data for their clinical trials on the efficacy of the vaccine? I've got to be honest though, he lost me at "stay safe, get vaccinated". You can highlight the ineffectiveness of IVM without encouraging people (about which you know nothing: age, bmi, existing health conditions, fitness level, serum vit D level etc) to get vaccinated.
I find it a bit weird that people still demand all that volunteer (not patient) data for the clinical trials, when we by now have well over a billion people who have been vaccinated. The analyses of those people has been done by many health authorities all around the world, and they keep on confirming the results of the Pfizer trials...
you and I are wasting out time in here, the tone of his voice should have warned me
@@Marco-it2mr Referencing how important he felt it was in this video to demand trial data, don't you feel it's fair that we see Pfizer's trial data? Especially when you consider that they cherry picked the subjects, it didn't reflect the people that are seriously affected by covid, and they claimed vaccine efficacy of up to 100% (yes really) against infection, not just serious illness as the rewriters of history would have you believe. If the vaccine has the capability to cause myocarditis, pericarditis, postural tachycardia syndrome, transverse myelitis, micro coagulations, arthritis like symptoms etc (even though very rare), what else might it be doing as yet undetected.
@@cryptostaccs2377 the difference here is that the regulatory agencies, in particular the FDA, *already have this volunteer-level data.*
"Especially when you consider that they cherry picked the subjects" - any evidence of that?
" it didn't reflect the people that are seriously affected by covid" - any evidence of that?
"and they claimed vaccine efficacy of up to 100% (yes really) against infection" - Except that is NOT what they claimed, unlike what you are trying to sell here now.
"If the vaccine has the capability to cause myocarditis, pericarditis, postural tachycardia syndrome, transverse myelitis, micro coagulations, arthritis like symptoms etc (even though very rare), what else might it be doing as yet undetected." - Strangely (ahem), that question is largely ignored for the actual infection itself by people who are vaccine hesitant.
Thank you for the content. May I request for a similar video using the same standards of scrutiny with vaccines?
You got no chance! They are his pay masters 😊
@@oldgaffer9212 Greg has no connections to the vaccine industry. Don’t make BS assertions.
th-cam.com/users/live6C4s7zheskc?si=bfSIgO6eQLfEpkQ5
No horses were harmed in the making of this video.
Aren’t they still researching this at Oxford?
Doctors that used it prior to the illness advancing had high survival rates as it stopped the illness from getting a foothold in the lungs and bronchial tubes. Those who only used it in advanced cases found it was too late for it to be effective. Basically, when they saw people who were not very ill they said "come back when you are very ill" (oxygen levels dropping). That is why "it" failed. They should have treated each person early rather than letting it get a foothold.
"Doctors that used it prior to the illness advancing had high survival rates as it stopped the illness from getting a foothold in the lungs and bronchial tubes. "
There is no data that shows this at all.
@@Marco-it2mr You can see it with your own eyes. You might be surprised how many drugs have not used RCT.
@@surnbe Ah, "your own eyes". If there is one thing that RCTs have shown is how easily even doctors are fooled by observational bias.
Excellent video as always Dr Greg. Notably the Together Trial ( organised by McMaster University,Toronto, which demonstrated benefits of Fluvoxamine) also had an Ivermectin arm ( among many others ) which didn’t show any benefit. Very unlikely that Principle trial will show any benefit. IVM is dead duck in the water at this point. Confirmation bias and selection bias has been a major problem during this Pandemic. IVM proponents conveniently ignore studies which don’t suit their narrative. Really glad to have found your channel.
The ivermectin arm of the Together Trial has still not been published though they announced their results way back in August . Anybody know what's going on ?
@@bidentity69 I'd like the information too, either way.
there is a site c19ivermectin.
@@bidentity69 I understand the study was paused before they had sufficient subjects to adequately power the experiment. They apparently ran into supply chain problems for the specific protocol treatment. I believe the supply issues were resolved in Nov 2021, and the study is ongoing.
We'll know soon enough if there is a significant effect. But given the results from other adequately powered RCTs it would be surprising.
Ignore the studies? What about the studies showing it works? There are many of them.
Dr. Campell has summarized many studies including ones showing 70% reduction in mortality.
I think you have set yourself up for a big let down. I am no but every person i know who has taken it has either not got it or have recovered really fast so ... say what you see. love and light
From UK: I have been taking IVM for my covid infection. Sadly it worked fine, so it must be it's placebo effect. That is ok for me too. Whatever works! My question is why there has still not had a proper study paid for by government, and follow the early treatment protocol developed by many doctors and not the sabotage of applying the IVM late into infection where it will no longer work. Thus proving it to be no good... I DO NOT TRUST THE SCIENCE< ESPECIALLY WHEN COERCED BY BIG PHARMA.
Hello Fake professor,
Could you disclose if you own any pharma stocks like PFE or MRNA?
Japan, India are using it. Have had wonderful results.. Sister had 3 boosters now has serious heart problems .. Where is Mr. Science ???
Japan isn't using it. India stopped using it because it wasn't working.
When people in despair, they will try anything which fits their wishful thinking
Ivermectin possibly as dangerous as asprin which doesn't appear to help my headache either
My mother had to have a blood transfusion as she became dangerously anaemic after taking aspirin and it causing her stomach to bleed. It didn't cure her headaches either, She had a brain tumour.
@@Lily-Bravo
Nice anecdotes
Sorry but it saved my life. So thanks but I’m good with it.
Same with me my wife my cousin and her husband. Ivermectin from Mexico saved our lives too
I have moved away from listening to John Campbell based on his pushing ivermectin. I wish he was humble enough to discuss it with you.
Campbell does unfortunately tends to jump to conclusions. A discussion between the two channels would indeed be interesting and productive.
Dr Campbell has never jumped to any conclusion about Ivermectin except that it should undergo trials. These trials are now being undertaken by Ocford University. Haven't you worked out what this abhorrent bioscientist is up to? Ivermectin might or might not be helpful in Covid 19 but the lengths certain people have gone to in order to discredit it and any open minded clinicians should make you wonder what is in it for them!
More fool you!!
@@christinearthur5546 Campbell presents studies as if they're peer reviewed when they're not. He doesn't let viewers know when non peer reviewed papers he's covered have been withdrawn or discredited . His guests are cherry picked and pro ivermectin like Dr kory, who, despite what Campbell says, has a financial interest in ivermectin sales. He panders to the anti vax, conspiracy crowd with his videos like covering the dangers of vaccines while playing down the dangers of covid. He's sneaky and careful, making "suggestions" so as to cover his ass, and when he's called out he attacks those that critisise him. He never apologises and never admits to being wrong. His followers are cult like in their devotion and he's become a millionaire from them, so who can blame him really.
@@christinearthur5546 Did you see the one with the Indian Doctor? You may remember how John Campbell did an earlier Ivermectin video on Uttar Pradesh? It was the second one in his library I watched ant the first one that raised my suspicious hackles. Anyhow the later video was with Indian doctor who has done great things in treating Covid at his hospital, was asked it he used Ivermectin and he said that at first they did, because it could do no harm, but later they stopped because it was not doing any good either. They were using some well known antivirals with good effect instead. All John Campbell could say was "Interesting" But later, he was back to his covert support for Ivermectin. No acceptance or discussion with reference to the Indian doctors experience.
In Australia, the concern expressed over Ivermectin was that people may take Ivermectin, and choose not to get vaccinated. I suppose one may argue that the researchers could have been paid by Ivermectin manufacturers to falsely claim positive results, but they are putting their careers on the line. Then again, in similar fashion, one might claim that the “checkers” were on the payroll of vaccine producers, or have shares to protect.
Reading the comments on a popular YT channel confirms that some (possibly many) see Ivermectin as an alternative to vaccination.
@Oliver Mayo There is still a chance that the anomalies in patient data was inadvertent error and not wilfully corrupt. The plagiarism aspect seems a little dubious as a non-English speaker resorts to expressions and phraseology that he or she reads in other publications of the same ilk.
The people claiming ivermectin works often claim it has 100% success rate. So yeah I could see people avoiding vaccines for an unproven treatment
@@mattc3510 Even without treatment most people would have recovered, that's why it's stupid to attribute it to ivermectin. I know someone who believe in ivermectin and refuse to get vaccinated died of covid. Wonder how many actually died because they believed in ivermectin is the miracle cure.
It's worth pointing out that mining billionaire and political re-aspirant, Clive Palmer, bought 30M doses of ivermectin in 2020 intending to make a windfall ... he has since been funding a astroturf campaign that culminated in the anti-mandate protest in Canberra last week.
So do I understand correctly your point, that every study for Ivermectin was flawed, ethically wrong or falsified?
Not every one. But a surprising number.
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Thanks for the feedback and your work. Would you say there was a study that passed your bar? If so, which one would that be? Thanks a lot again.
@@benmaxinm Sure. First, let me say that it's not really "my" bar; I weight the opinions of expert epidemiologists and good meta-analysis (e.g., Cochrane) in my views. That said, I think Mahmud et al Journal of International Medical Research 49(5) 1-14 is a good clinical study that shows a benefit for Ivermectin+doxycycline (they didn't test ivermectin alone, and there was no survival benefit). The best and largest RCTs (I-TECH, TOGETHER) dont' show a significant benefit on primary or secondary outcomes.
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg You are a straight liar and death is on your hands!!!
It did not work for profitable pocket diseases
The ivermectin arm of the Together Trial has still not been published though they announced their results way back in August . Anybody know what's going on ?
Not sure. Sometimes it takes a while to get published.
Money roll out
@15:00 "when they remove the studies" ... that we do not like (talk about risk of bias!)
No, assessing risk of bias is a specific scientific methodology
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Sure, assessing risk of bias is has a methodology ... well? Then present the paper, authors, methodology and funding sources and conflicts of interest. You can not just say ' trust me' !
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Talking about bias ... what are your funding sources, qualifications, conflicts of interest? BTW why Ivermectin works in Japan and Brazil but apparently not in the US or UK?
@@luiswhatshisname7667 All of this is listed in the about section of my video. My conflicts (none) are listed in the description of each video. I receive no funding for these videos or anything related to them, and I have no conflicts of interest.
Thankyou for the sanity
I took Ivermectin when I got covid. I was better in 2 days. I felt tired, but it was a God send.
I know quite a few people who took nothing and got better in one day. Looks like you spend a load of money for nothing - if anecdotes are now "data".
My brother has heart issues after the vaccine and IVM allowed him to start walking normally again. His friend was in the hospital with a bad prognosis and took some from the same batch of IVM and went home 2 days later. They both claim it saved their lives.
The interesting thing is that it takes 5-6 hours, when taken with olive oil, to make people feel much better from COVID-19. I have not seen one person with any different results. My sample size is 22 people.
@@surnbe I had heart issues too from the vac, the pressure in chest finally resolved after IVM too, have heard of more cases too, still recovering months later, not dead just yet
@@surnbe Ah yes, the usual "miracle drug" claims. It doesn't just work as an antiviral, it now also magically resolves supposed heart issues.
I have a bridge to sell you. Interested?
I just got covid yesterday felt like my chest had a knife plunged into it. Today chest pain is gone but still suffer from brain fog
I suspect you feel a bit foolish now as it works and the FDA have finally admitted they were wrong.
Do you not think that, considering there are still trials going on and, at least, some doctors still choose to perscribe it to their patients, saying that case for it has collapsed might be misleading?
I leave open the possibility in the video that upcoming trials may revive the case. But the case was made by evidence from trials that have since been retracted or are likely fraudulent. Proving a case *for* a treatment analogous to a prosecution, but instead of "innocent until proven guilty" it's "not effective until proven effective". Since the "proven effective" argument has evaporated, the case has collapsed.
Have you ever heard of the fallacy proving a negative? Requiring the other person to prove ivermectin is not a feasible covid treatment based on ongoing studies? Ignoring this clear evidence to the contrary after all this time? Who has the burden here? Not professor Greg.
Was just sent here from Dr Susan Oliver's channel. Great content, i look forward to reading more of your analysis' 😉👍
Welcome aboard!👋
I think it would have been better if you pointed out or explained better in details the flaws noted in these studies to your audience. Because, from what I just listened to and some tones used, as a Professor of your caliber, any stenographer would have done better.
I-Tech has now been published in JAMA: "Efficacy of Ivermectin Treatment on Disease Progression Among Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19 and Comorbidities"
Yep, I'm preparing a video about it.
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg looking forward to your "spin" on it also compared to Dr. Been's. 🤣. Hopefully you give some mention to the mortality rate in the study. I think death is kinda important to most people but EVERY article I see about the study does not even mention the mortality part. What are your thoughts on that? I'm trying to figure out why that does not seem important.
@@justsaynjason922 The study was not designed with the power to infer the cause of differences in mortality. In fact, if it had been the would have been extremely *underpowered* for mortality. As a consequence, the observed difference in deaths is indistinguishable from chance. The study was powered for the primary outcome measure, with an estimate that 17.5% of patients in the control group would progress to severe disease (17.3% actually did, so the prediction was spot-on).
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Thanks again for they reply. So does that mean there would have had to have been more people in the study or a bigger gap between the two for the death rate to mean anything. The decoupling of severe cases compared to mortality rate should at least raise some eyebrows shouldn't it. I also need your help figuring out how a patient ends up on a ventilator but not admitted to ICU. Is that common?
@@justsaynjason922 They would need a much larger study or a higher proportion of people dying.
I think the ventilator and mortality events are just too small to draw *any* conclusions about. In addition, they are highly correlated. So if we assume that 90% of the deaths were previously on ventilators then treating them as independent p values is incorrect.
As for the ICUs, I don't know. It's possible some of the 20 hospitals in the study had ventilation equipment but not fully-certified ICUs.
It's really frustrating how the layman's debate on such issues often have the opposite-extreme conclusions, the medicine either doesn't work at all (and/or is bad) or is pretty much the solution for the "supposed" problem, at very least if coupled with a bunch of other meds. Even some of the expert coverage is frustratingly bad even when it's on the "broadly right" side, that it doesn't seem to help. There's a Brazilian lawmaker or something who's also an MD, and in some legal debate on the matter he posed the question to a proponent of ivermectin, "what's the difference of a virus and a a protozoan," as if the repurposing of the medicine was based on such a basic misunderstanding. This questioning was received with significant applause by pundits and lay people, but I suspect it may have actually strengthened the not-as-ignorant lay people's beliefs or hopes for the medicine, as an example of how ignorant its detractors are.
Like vitamin D, to me it seemed a bit like "erring on the safe side" if one doesn't make much of it, if it's not seen as "the solution," replacing strategies to reduce contagion. Co-infections are probably usually worse than single infections (although there was a time where fever-induced by one infection was used as treatment of another, a technique that was awarded a Nobel prize), and then maybe even for that alone it could perhaps be "helping" indirectly to the degree there's a correlation, which would be predominantly in poorer regions. But funnily enough, there's even a study suggesting that some types of co-infections apparently make covid milder, so not even that is something that can be taken for granted.
The lack of ethics? Haven't you noticed the lack you ethics anywhere else? :)))))))))))))))
Great review of questionable papers could you also review recent brazil ivermectin paper by kerr? Thanks
Little bit confused.
Who is the person holding the talks and who is the person who responds to comments.
Two different people if you look at the photos.
Aging is a thing, you know...and try growing a beard or remove it, and see how different you look. Add different glasses, and you can apparently easily 'fool' people who maybe need glasses...
I shaved my beard and put on a bit of weight, but it's both me.
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg my goodness you have changed a lot, hope I haven't insulted you too much.
Prehaps I am far too cautious with social media.
Bit to much, lights! Camera ! Bullshit!
Take care Derek
I was wondering if summaries of the points would help in communication. After a detailed explanation of several things to then add "In summary: We know this,and this." Most viewers are not going to remember the detail.
Fair point. I'll try to move in that direction :-)
MSM PROPAGANDA
Good talk but unfortunately, it won't change the minds of the cult-followers.
yes, but are not both sides cults
Have you had a look at any of Pierre Kory's work?
You should, too. Especially "RETRACTED: Clinical and Scientific Rationale for the “MATH+” Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19"
Key quote:
‘We have conducted a careful review of our data for patients with COVID-19 from March 22, 2020 to July 20, 2020, which shows that among the 191 patients referenced in Table 2 that the mortality rate was 10.5%, rather than 6.1%. In addition, of those 191 patients, only 73 patients (38.2%) received at least 1 of the 4 MATH+ therapies, and their mortality rate was 24.7%. Only 25 of 191 patients (13.1%) received all 4 MATH+ therapies, and their mortality rate was 28%.’
According to Kory and friends, their MATH+ protocol had a 75% mortality benefit. Reality is essentially the opposite: you were much more likely to die when you received the MATH+ protocol...
@@Marco-it2mr It appears that you did not read that quote correctly
@@surnbe Really? So a 10.5% mortality (incorrectly stated to be 6.1% by Kory et al) is worse than a 28% mortality rate? That's what happened to those on the MATH+ protocol: 28% mortality rate.
@@Marco-it2mr those numbers are for subgroups
@@surnbe
It's not that hard to do the math:
191 patients - overall mortality 10.5% = 20 deaths
Only 73 received (at least some part of) Kory et al's protocol - mortality 24.7% = 18 deaths.
25 got the full protocol - mortality rate 28% = 7 deaths
So, in the patients who did NOT receive any of the MATH+ protocol (118 patients), only 2 died. 18 died in the much smaller group who received at least some of the protocol.
About cell line models in general, (not just Vero E6): I think of XKCD comic 1217: When you see a claim that some common drug or vitamin kills cancer in a petri dish, keep in mind: So does a handgun. In vivo veritas.
I guess that killing a virus is easy, doing so while keeping the patient alive and with a high expectation of a return to good health is hard.
Hey minRef, checked out your channel. Are you making PAPR style respirators? I am too.
@@barryhamm3414 As Francis Bacon noted "As if you would call a physician, that is thought good for the cure of the disease you complain of but is unacquainted with your body, and therefore may put you in the way for a present cure but overthroweth your health in some other kind; and so cure the disease and kill the patient."
@@Marco-it2mr You reminded me of a long ago Latin lesson when I found out that Latin text was not all about Wars!
Languebam: sed tu comitatus protinus ad me
venisti centum, Symmache, discipulis.
Centum me tetigere manus aquilone gelatae,
non habui febrem, Symmache, nunc habeo.
(Ep. v, 9.)
I lay ill: but soon Symmachus sought me
with a class of a hundred young men,
whose hundred cold paws have brought me
the fever I lacked till then.
@@Lily-Bravo Semper in excretum sed sole profundum variat ;-)
Assuming that Ivermectin does not work, it does not bind spike proteins, reduce inflammation, and is not antiviral... Maybe the people with vaccine adverse events and others who are dismissed by doctors (being told they have anxiety) could find the placebo effect of taking charge of their own health and treatment as a statistically significant medical benefit.
Have you seen Dr. Avi Bitterman's theory on ivermectin? If so I was wondering what your thoughts were. I believe his paper is still undergoing peer review but he has talked about it on twitter.
Yes, his strongyloides hypothesis. No idea if it will hold up, but it's one of the more sensible explanations I've seen.
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg A well run clinical trial that pre-screened subjects for strongyloidiasis might yet be able to tease out this factor. That might suggest that ivermectin should be used in any patient where there was uncertainty. Not because it treated the disease, but because it prevented the treatment for the disease from killing the patient.
@@RichardAMorris That's already the case though. The WHO recommends (since December 2020 at least) that all COVID-19 patients with a history of living or extensively travelling in areas with endemic strongyloidiasis be treated with ivermectin before being prescribed corticosteroids to treat COVID-19 so that the immunosuppression doesn't result in a hyperinfection of strongyloidiasis But the problem was that apparently this was not done in many of the control groups of many of the ivermectin studies.
@@henrimourant9855 eek. Well that's your signal right there.
Interesting that one of the proponents of ivermnectin in the USA, Pierre Kory first became famous in the pandemic for being early on the use of corticosteroids. Another cheap, repurposed treatment.
What are the odds that in seeking his second act, he is blind to the differential use of corticosteroids in trials of ivermectin.
Thanks a lot doctor for taking the time to vulgarize these research papers for us the non-initiated.
@yasayrad8969 - ignorant comment
Greg you must present the other side of the debate too! You must teach the controversy! Be like nurse campbell!
Just kidding, my brain is still fully functional thank you.
Hi Greg, fellow scientist here, really appreciate your videos and clear explanations which I can share on social media for the ivermectin fans. There’s one thing I have not looked into but perhaps you have, regarding the anti inflammatory properties of ivermectin. Would be interested to hear your take. Thanks for the good work! PS. Just sent a connection request on LinkedIn.
If virus replication and weaknesses in some studies were enough to conclude, then you also disqualify the Pfizer vaccine at the same time (Omicron+Pfizergate) that would make you an "antivax" morron ! What about immuno modulation ?
This video just forgot to enlarge its little boxes of sophisms ? And if virus is less replicated in only some cells, is that bad overall ?
I wish the cells of many nations in the World were freed of the idiot groups, this would probably help reduce the infection of stupidity from the countries where full BS sophisms like this video still replicate easilly.
When it starts with Remdesivir as "proof" let me LOL. WHO recommends AGAINST its use. Well done the pedantic anti science morrons. Anyone can check in 1 second how dumb and biased it is.
So you take a potential reduction of hospitalization time as OK and dismiss an at the very least 100% proven reduction of anosmia, what is the criteria ? Wall Street profits ?
Fake science, BS sophisms, and pure MSM propaganda that's what these pseudo "debunk" channels are composed of.
After covid let me tell you science always destroys the stupidoes and untrue liars.
Such propaganda leads to IQ
@@charlesb6490 "an at the very least 100% proven reduction of anosmia" post a DOI to that paper
Why did JAMA not issue an "expression of concern" for the study they published that did not use ivermectin until patients had symptoms for more than 5 days? All doctors proposing that ivermectin is useful have emphasized how important it is to use at the first sign of symptoms.
"Why did JAMA not issue an "expression of concern" for the study they published that did not use ivermectin until patients had symptoms for more than 5 days? "
Well, for starters because there is no such study as you claim. And no, definitely not "all doctors proposing that ivermectin is useful" have claimed it is so important to use at the first sign of symptoms. Just look at what the FLCCC recommends...
@@Marco-it2mr I cited the study on JAMA that defined early days of infection as within 7 days. Many patients don't even have symptoms by day 7. But YT took down my comment because I can't share links or something. And you are completely misinformed or under informed if you think FLCCC doctors aren't telling patients that using ivm at the first signs of symptoms is critical. You are just wrong, but you are very certain. Good for you. Not a good look if you ask me.
The arrogance in the medical field has real consequences and we are witnessing them.
@@ericksonjustinAK Sigh. WITHIN 7 days is NOT the same as "did not use ivermectin until patients had symptoms for more than 5 days", which is what you claimed. You literally lied!
And why don't you try and cite the FLCCC about that "critical". It's not in their protocols.
You sound like you are seriously disinformed.
@@Marco-it2mr Whatever. I pointed out that I was inaccurate in the first comment that YT took down. I'll let you enjoy your moral superiority. Clearly you are bound and determined to believe what you want to believe. Day 7 is not early intervention and calling it early intervention is literally a lie. The study was not designed to see if there is any benefit at all. It was designed to show it isn't a cure, which does nothing for the debate. It does the opposite. It intensifies the polarization. And the FLCCC docs state all of the time that early treatment is important. If the study designers picked up the phone and talked with one of the docs, they would know this. And it is in their protocol and in their literature. The willful negligence to design a study that followed recommendations is very telling to me. Why am I even bothering... I said I would let you be. Arrogance is bliss. Enjoy your echo chamber.
The garbage Brazil test that dr Kory promoted was such a pathetic joke it’s not funny.
Seriously! That was truly amazing
Remdesivir is not successful
It's a death sentence. Why doesn't this loser look at the clinical trials on remdesivir where it freaking killed 70% of the people in the trial that was scrapped???Crazy but that is about the same % of people with Covid who die in the hospital after getting Remdesivir and a ventilator. HMMMMMMMM????
Used it and never got sick. The problem is there no money in for big pharma when people use ivm.....
The thing that drew my attention to Tess Lawie showing a potential bias with Ivermectin some time ago now was the letter she wrote about the yellow card system calling for vaccinations to stop. I mentioned this to a doctor who had Tess on his channel stating that I had concerns that her material would negatively impact his channel. Guess what happened next. I got blocked #gofigure
Beans to be spilled?
@@killpop8255 YUP
@@garthdryland Sorry I mean are you going to spill the beans - this means give further information. I'd be interested to hear.
@@killpop8255 Other than providing the doctors' name I don't see what there is to spill and I don't see what difference that would make. What is it you want to hear?
Maybe her opinion of the vaccine is a result of her extensive research, as opposed to a bias informing her research.
I don't blame her... take a look at covid deaths between Israel and Africa.
Israel's rates are double than they were 2 years ago. I'm not sure their double boosters are helping the population.
Meanwhile, there's relatively low vaccine uptake in South Africa, and they are not faring too badly at all.
Excellent exposition and summaries. Was hoping to hear updates on the TOGETHER, ACTIV-6, PRINCIPAL and possibly the U. of Minn trial. Appreciate the new information: "...of Concern."
I hope the results of the TOGETHER trial are published soon. I prefer the design of the TOGETHER trial to the open-label PRINCIPLE trial.
Another fantastic and informative video Prof Greg! Thanks for the hard work pulling this together, and for choosing to help others understand how stay informed in our confusing post-truth world!
Well what does work for this bio weapon unleashed on mankind Greg ?
Ive been closely following the ivermectin debacle for 2 years now, and this was the best summation of all the non evidence thus far. Great job.
Always look forward to your videos, thanks for your analysis and honesty
Really???
Wonderful to see this masterful debunk. Hope you elaborate on the studies recently looking at LongC risk reductions attributable to vaccines, too. Thanks for your continuing service to Reality.
That’s funny , I guess I just got lucky that it worked for me !! I’m guessing my Dr just didn’t watch you video to learn it didn’t work !!
How do you know it worked for you?
Me too!
@@bigmacfullerton7870 Lol you people are easy pickings for grifters. Probably had your wallet lightened by these crooks selling you IVM which did nothing for you but lined their pockets.
What a treasure trove of information, thank you, this was excellent. It may be too much for the brains of some retired nurse though.
Dr Kory (and others) has claimed remarkable success with IVM. By now the outcomes he’s seeing should be coming in line with results from papers such as the ones you reviewed. Right?
Please PLEASE go on Joe Rogan podcast and set him straight with real and actual studies...because I doubt Joe has ever read any
Preaching a false science supported by the pharma industry.
"Not for reproduction." That's weird, almost like trying to have things both ways. Although I understand it may hopefully limit quote-mining spreading like wildfire.
Hi Greg, I would really like to see some guests on your videos. I would like you to invite some people who can explain or defend the reasons why or why not this or that was claimed or exactly the circumstances around the situation.
Standing alone giving a monologue on any subject in the world is often convincing, and exactly this is what has been the problem since the beginning of the pandemic. We have been given one-sided information in all sources of information and seldom to never discussion. In fact removals and suppression of very many experts' voices, experience and opinion is all I have noticed.
This has been wrong from the beginning and even dangerous. The lack of reports about side effects of all the vaccines is of a huge problem as we see and experience daily.
There is practically zero videos or information from the pharmaceutical companies giving this information.
We should always see on whose payroll a lot of "experts" are.
You mentioned history. Yes, I agree with you that in one year, short history period, we will have much more information on what has been going on over the past few years, and even more important, what went on in the pre-pandemic period.
We will see the many things that have caused more harm than good during the two years. We will have much more information when the hype is over.
Thank you for the video, but you would make them much more interesting with some guests who can correct or explain where you are perhaps also going in one direction only.
I would really like someone to talk about the adverse effects of the vaccines and how they could have failed so much even after a 4th dose, and how the continuous application of vaccines of this type can effect our immune system. There are many experts who could talk and inform viewers about the thing that has been the centre point of the last two years, the vaccines.
There isn't "another side to to the story" which could be taken up by any serious scientist regarding ivermectin at this stage.
@@fintonmainz7845 🥺. Read my comment again. You may understand it then.
Great points here
Finally a video about IVM delivered almost without vitriol.
I had already reached the conclusion that the the most likely beneficial effect, if any, of IVM would be from placebo effect,
In countries without vaccines poor medical facilities and large populatuons that probably saved quite a few lives.
It is not ckear to me that it is unethical, in the absence of any proven solutions, to send a package of readily available, cheap, proven safe medications to a population, in the hope that something might work. That critisism seems particularly galling coming from the wealthy and vaccinated.
The science community as well as the mainstrean media do need to have a hard look at how they communicate science and the role sceintists might have in calling out the overhyped media.
Discussions need to use the data, not hype and accusation
Of course, the true scientist would point out to you that being glad for a placebo effect because it will have saved many who don't have access to appropriate medical salvation is - ahem - idiocy that has missed the point...
@@helmutsilver5006
not sure what your point is.
Do you think that placebo effects are not real?
or
do you think that somehow the noise around IVM prevented the development of either vaccines or treatment or access to them?
@@helmutsilver5006 Can I interest you in a magic crystal that is proven 100% as effective as a placebo? It’s used in many non-western countries by practitioners of non-western medicine*. Currently there is an important paper on a preprint server of a disreputable journal that found the magic crystal increases ivermectin’s effect against Covid by 1000%. The numbers don’t lie.
*or more accurately, non-medicine
"Discussions need to use the data, not hype and accusation" Not lying and being misleading to the public would be nice too. When I hear a medical doctor or a PhD pharmacist say it is a dangerous horse dewormer, I immediately see somebody trying to manipulate instead of inform and why should anyone listen to someone like that about any topic. Then I hear one reason to not listen to a pro-ivm doctor is because "this person has been proven to have errors in their conclusions". Ya, ok. So I should listen to the doctor that is calling it a "dangerous horse dewormer"?
@@helmutsilver5006 I think the main point is that a placebo effect is better than saying "watch for blue lips", while ivm is safe and unproven at worst. So who has arrogantly missed the point?
Why don't you go up against Dr Peter McCullough on Joe Rogan and prove your point there... Some how I don't think you would
I'd be happy to, but I somehow doubt it would happen. Plus I think McCullough and Rogan (and Malone and Marik and Kory) are just attention-seekers
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg
Please... If you had anywhere near the qualifications you could say this... Non Pfizer paid attentions seekers.... Hmmmm
@debunker He has wrote many... The shill, like this clown, would cast it out. You all keep taking your little poison jabs. When you you all end up HIV positive and wondering WTF? Here's why... Rhymes with maxine
Thank you for educating me on this science... Dam virology is complicated on so many multifaceted approaches as it involves so many disciplines from math models physiology, to pharmacology and molecular science. And it's so easy to become victims to information bias when desperate.
Hi Federico Zanolin, I read your comment with particular interest in your reference to the issue of desperation, this strikes a chord for me in respect of the ways in which strong feelings impede rational thought, it is always much harder to find good solutions to problems when in a hurry!, I will go so far as to say that the increased risk of error always mitigates against making any decision in a hurry while emotionally disturbed, this is something that is always very difficult to manage at the time while dominated by a sense of urgency.
For each of us in our own lives we actually find ourselves very rarely in real danger, there is a very important difference between perceived hazard and real danger, I go so far as to claim from my own experience that fear is never related to actual danger!, I have often been very afraid of all sorts of things but they have never resulted in injury!, on the other hand I have suffered significant injuries without any fear at all!.
In the Public domain, which is where we are trying to deal with real natural hazards like infectious diseases it is even more important to find ways of delaying the implementation of any and all measures while the state of fear and panic is so dominant. It is always more important to get the right answers that get them quickly.
Cheers, Richard.
@@richardharvey1732 Hi Richard and Federico. This is so true. Add to this the genuine complexities of the world of information (yes, MSM can show bias at times, studies are not always well designed, reliable or properly interpreted even by those who should know better etc.) and it easy to see how people get polarised over issues that affect their health and their freedoms.
I am sure the solution is indeed careful appraisal by experts who engage in respectful dialogue and ideally, as with Prof Greg, are able to communicate the state of research to laypeople (quite brilliantly in his case).
I fear that social media is not ideally equipped for this in some ways however. For example Dr John Campbell refuses to engage with critics on line and thus mistakes can go uncorrected and go on to have a life of their own. I have no expertise in medicine or epidemiology etc. but I have suggested ways of mitigating this (eg a form of peer review for YT videos; regular debates between experts; a depository of corrections etc. Would there be value in such measures?
@@martifingers you’ve got to be joking! This channel supports the suppression of facts in favour of attempting to discredit the open minded and you’re being taken for a ride!! Fear is a political tool to manipulate people into subservience. Why all the emotion over Ivermectin? Think about it! Take a long look at how drugs are tested and approved!
th-cam.com/video/mSgZfMHJUpQ/w-d-xo.html
@@martifingers That is untrue. Dr Campbell frequently invites his critics to come and talk to him.
“Educating??!!” That’s a joke LOL! If you want to be educated why listen to a jumped up little biochemistry teacher with no medical expertise in preference to knowledgeable and well respected clinicians? You can be sure the latter are not getting a bung from big pharma for spreading propaganda to enhance their profits and elevate them to the top 400 most wealthy list in the US! Explain the double standards applied to the approval of drugs if you can!
th-cam.com/video/mSgZfMHJUpQ/w-d-xo.html
Instead of trying to debunk a medicine that may or may not work, wasting your time on a substance that’s been taken 100s of millions (if not billions) of time over the past decades with NO side effects when taken as prescribed; you could instead tell people to exercise more, eat healthily and make sure they take their vitamin D2.
Unfortunately, this is a pandemic with people dying now, and your idea would take forever, and most people don’t want to give up junk food, as they will complain about being “controlled”
Except that the evidence is that Ivermectin is ineffective against Covid-19.
"with NO side effects when taken as prescribed"
Except we have had several volunteers dropping out due to e.g. diarrhea from that "taken as prescribed".
Ivermectin is a big topic in the Covid story as it plays out in the media and on social media. It's a wonder drug to a lot of anti-vaxxers. This video looks at what the research says and doesn't say and what research is sound and what is not. There probably is research out there looking at the role of exercise and nutrition but this video is about Ivermectin studies and claims.
This is a strawman argument. Prof Greg is not saying ivermectin is not safe, he's saying it doesn't work.
Thank you for clarifying the information and misinformation around this.
Remdesivir is recommended AGAINST use by WHO. Are we in THE real fake science and sophism collection channel ? Yes. I used to be tolerant and watched the videos in full but this non sense is more than enough ! 100% BS MSM propaganda for low IQs like you.
Remdesivir may reduce time of hospitalizations a bit. IVM is proven at the very least to reduce anosmia and has no side effects and risks like Remdesivir. So ? What is the difference ? Price ?
Your low IQ swallows any fake science and sophisms.
If replication of virus and no fault in studies were enough criteria to conclude anything, the anti science BS sophisms you swallow would also pretend Pfizer vaccines are disqualified. It does not stop Omicron, there was a Pfizergate in Texas ? So ?
None on earth pretends they did not save lives (elderlies mainly) through their immuno modulation action.
I hope you realise now how plain stupid you and this video are. You do not have a microgram of critical thinking.
Thanks. It is interesting to learn about the wider picture. The results of the principle trial will be very welcome too, when they arrive.
Let's not kid ourselves here. The results will only be welcome if they show no conclusive evidence or prove that ivm is completely useless. Yeah! Can't wait to root for more bad news.
sorry forgot to put reference Dr John Campbell, Nurse Practitioner from the UK who gives a very measured case and now believes this could be the biggest scandal of the pandemic.
Maybe, the following day he put out a video and, perhaps sarcastically said it was a waste of time doing that video.
A note to historical checkers; Ask Russia.
Excellent information Greg. My only criticism is that the Tuskegee Study for untreated syphilis is not as clear an abuse as the title might suggest. Not to say there wasn’t abuse, but there was an excellent article in JAMA March 13, 2000, “Unravelling the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphiis” by a Robert White. It is probably not a good comparison to the ivermectin studies because the Tuskegee study extended over many years.
Oh, thanks, I'll read that!
I'm kinda waiting for the punchline on the end of a recommendation to read a report sanitising an infamous racially skewed example of medical research infamy written by a Mr White...
@@helmutsilver5006 I’m not justifying it. I’m saying it is different and went over many years. Have you read the article?
@@hughbassoon Well, I was actually being sarcastic for sarcasm's sake...
I'm not a full-blood objectivist - not enough to necessarily be able to stomach the desire to read articles to try to reconcile deeply troubling atrocities as being somehow redeemable.
It's genuinely a discomfort I have with trying to work around conscience to wring some justification out...
I honestly can't bring myself to attempt it.
Some things are better left denounced, repented of and left in the dust of their decomposing state.
This expression of concern can be used by ANY researcher or reviewer who’s agenda is to attack a particular drug.
Be very interesting to know if there are some other cell lines say within the immune system that are protected by these cheap safe drugs.
Another great analysis Prof Greg. Thank you.
It doesn’t matter what you think what matters is I have the choice to use it if I wish. I’m old enough, inquisitive enough and willing to do my own research and most importantly it’s my body not anyone else’s.
Yet you could have just checked the stories of those who it didn't work for but instead you decided to block all of that out because you got grifted by crooks telling you what you wanted to hear.
A very helpful and informative video. Thank you Greg.
Expression of concern is meaningless, and can be used against ANY studies by an individual or individuals whose agenda is to attack the effectiveness of a drug for financial reasons.
Oklahoma has just approved it!! 😊
No, they didn't.
Excellent video, although I have to point out that simply saying the Mexico study was unethical is not a debunking of the methodology. You left that Avenue open for counter arguments. Id like to know if that study was actually flawed or just had ethics issues. Feels like your engaging in an ad hominem of the study rather than assessing it
Thanks again Greg. I have seen very little information about the numbers of people hospitalised who have relied on Ivermectin and it hasn't helped. There must have been quite a few, Loads of anecdotes about how it helped, with no proof that they wouldn't have recovered without it of course.
Yet Campbells still advocating it.
He knows which side his bread is buttered on
@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg true. He's become a millionaire or well on the way.
@@fransimms3803 come on Guys knock it off, these type of comments are not called for.
The case with ivermectin is unclear, this means there will be opinions both for and against.
I admit Campbell was off the wall with his Japanese ivermectin talk.
But on the whole I considered him pretty reliable.
Ok he is making a shed load of money but who isn't.
We need to hear both sides from commentators outside the main stream.
Keep it coming Sir, and thanks for your responses to my questions.
@@derekpresland4029 knock what off? I've barely critised him except to say he's still advocating ivermectin and making a shed load of money, both statements of fact not insults. The case for ivm is more than unclear, its becoming clearer by the day but that hasn't stopped Campbell from pushing it. He also recently called into question the validity of lockdowns based on another non peer, discredited paper. He does these things, not bc he cares but to make more money, that is obvious by how his videos have changed over the months, he now contradicts things he stated early in the pandemic, tbh I'm surprised he's not come out against vaccines..
Did you see the disappointment in his face when his recent Indian guest more or less dismissed ivermectin?
You go out of your way to make a statement about expression of concern by the publisher, This is just a legal technicality that they would use in all articles slamming other technicians and experts is not cool
nice "hit piece" but fail. prevention of is not clearly shown, but treatment of early covid is fairly represented in many clinical trials as being effective
Nope. We have had two recent large trials...null result. No better than placebo.
@@Marco-it2mr You are soooooooooo wrong yet you sound so sure of yourself
@@bigmacfullerton7870 Of course I am "wrong" in the eyes of a true believer, who could care less about those large, properly performed RCTs. It just has to work, otherwise you'd be putting your money in the wrong place, eh, BigMac?
@@Marco-it2mr True believer??? Yeah after it worked for me my wife my cousin and her husband wherevwe all got around 50-60% better 24n hours after taking it like everyone else was reporting I then became a believer. Not because of what anyone told me but because it did work. lol And it's not about my money but about Big Pharmas money. If you trust those people who let woman and children use their known cancer causing talc on themselves for years you might be fooling yourself
@@bigmacfullerton7870 I didn't use anything and got better within a day! There we go, proof that doing nothing works better than ivermectin!
In the meantime, several pharma companies LOVE gullible fools like you - spending money on a drug that does nothing. Since you are in the US, you, your wife, your cousin, and her husband likely used some 50 dollar EACH on this, when doing nothing would very likely have given you the same results.
Ben Goldacre has a column for you to read. It is entitled "When it comes to a cold, you might as well try goat entrails". Written in 2008, and still people fall for the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Thank you for another great video
This video aged like a dead skunk.
Please go to FLLCC cite for real science that shows the flaws of this propagandist.
Excellent. Clear, and from what I've previously read, very fair.
I am very disappointed in your review. This constantly projected opinion based reviews. Discrediting based on just opinion and fact and using the language to tout and project wrong doing is not scientific. I would rather you give facts rather than labeling and misdirecting listeners.