RARE FOOTAGE of actual expert explaining conditions under which ivermectin works for Covid kzread.info/dash/bejne/kXiZq6exfMa7grQ.html

@enkido5838

2 жыл бұрын

This (and horse pictures) is what I mean about the un- professionalism of IVM debunking. Not only does it fuel suspicion (since one would expect a scientific rebuttal if there was evidence) but it undermines science in general for this and other topics.

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

@@enkido5838 In this case I'm responding to something very specific, which is the inevitable (and entirely predictable) goal shifting in response to scientific results. I'm not referring to you -- you've been quite reasonable regarding this video -- but to people who gin up any objection, no matter how absurd, that threatens their established viewpoint. I know you get that it's a joke, but it was April 1, and I'm allowed a joke. Relax.

@enkido5838

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg haha I will give you April 1st. Thank you for your content.

@clairelariviere3122

2 жыл бұрын

@@enkido5838 would any amount of evidence that IVermectin doesn’t work satisfy the « believers » though? I believe Prof Greg has provided ample evidence of this quite professionally.

@enkido5838

2 жыл бұрын

@@clairelariviere3122 I don't quite know what you mean by beleivers. I have followed this story from the Meta analysis which looked convincing, then some of those studies being found to be flawed and/or fraudulent. I saw the shameful press coverage which invariably presented IVM as horse medicine. Claims from Merch that it had no safety record and reporting that made no attempt to describe any science. The insulting un-professionalism of government agencies with horse pictures added to my mistrust. So it became two camps shouting at each other. I decided to wait for some well conducted and reported trials which I expected to be the Oxford ongoing trial. Recently the itech trial and now this one are clarifying the picture and I anticipate similar outcomes from Oxford. I and others have been villified for wanting properly conducted and reported trials rather than accept nonsensical reporting and hype, based on the stupidity of Maga nuts using horse medicine and frankly misleading outputs from Merch and government agencies. I imagine I am not alone in seeing this whole issue as a blot on the credibility of science from the actions on both "sides" in what should not be an issue having sides. Earnest doctors and health officials across the world, without access to vaccinations or treatments, were trying anything that might work. They were treated as charlatans for being open-minded and hopeful. The placebo effect alone from their efforts will probably have saved many lives. I view both or prof Greg and Dr C regularly (and a few other less regularly). They come from different backgrounds but both provide excellent insight from which I form MY opinions. The distasteful part is the vitriol I see in the comments such as labelling people as believers.

unfortunately Peter McCullough still dismisses it. This is what he just tweeted. "TOGETHER Trial, 400 mcg/kg/d x short 3 d still favored early RX. Too small, underpowered, not event-driven led to NS results. Standard of care now at 600 mcg/kg/day for longer duration with 4-6 additional drugs. This is one of 33 RCTs in aggregate showing signal of benefit" So many people are taken in by him because of his credentials but here he shows his lack of professional integrity and lack of ethics even when the evidence doesn't fit his narrative. Admitting one is wrong when the evidence proves it is the mark of a professional but he's shown that he is more interested in politics these days. I'm afraid for people who are taken in by him they will never be willing to see the evidence and it breaks my heart

@trevordorian7920

2 жыл бұрын

This study was funded by gates foundation. He has invested hundreds of million of dollars in the jabs. Are you serious that there is no conflict? Laughable. I would have known there was conflict in sophmore of college.

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

No, @Trevor Dorian it was not funded by the Gates Foundation.

@finkelsteinshitkid1299

2 жыл бұрын

First & foremost, there’s quite literally billions of dollars & counting in conflicts of interest between it’s funders (Gates) & truthful results, which by itself should be enough to be skeptical of it’s results, but especially so since it runs contrary to 80+ other peer reviewed trials/studies which prove it’s efficacy, and it’s trial clinicians have direct ties to Pfizer. Beyond that obvious as hell reality, there’s truly a world of issues/flaws with the trials results, not to mention the fact that trialing data wasn’t published until 7 months after the results were published, and written about by every layer of the Machine’s PR & News outlets, which is wrong on its face value, never mind that there’s countless flaws, all which, each and every one, skews against ivm’s efficacy. - areas of trialing was in high use ivm region so there’s a lack of control group in the placebo group from usage, especially given that we’re taking about a virus that’s been as potentially deadly with a fear campaign behind that may scare those who get infected from actually buying it via the easy & cheap channels of distribution with the region. -the dosage & length of dosages were not only too small, they were 3 days only when all other know anti virals are 5 day min cycles. -there was a low weight limit & dosage limit, and it was directed to use on an empty stomach, and not the recommended full stomach/high fat meal to help with absorption levels -the placebo group was recruited after the ivm patients, so as the variant became more transmittable, the variant pools had changed in between recruitments. ****big hello!**** - in the data collection there’s literally over 200 patients’ data that missing in the results, and the statical analysis proves all those missing patients had positive results. Yup! Ask the hack quack to explain that one alone. - they’re not even sharing the data sets, which they said would be sharing, and absolutely should be sharing. ***there’s more too, but this is enough for you to discuss. Please share your thoughts doc.

@ArmageddonAfterparty

2 жыл бұрын

​@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Ah. The system of intricate shadow-banning and division by the American tech giant in bed with the National Security State makes it so that I am unable to see the comment you are responding to. But from your response I gather that I was right in assuming the anti-vaxx masses would pounce upon and gobble up the words " Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation" and run with it. Anything to discredit science...I've never seen anything like it; a partly underground anti-science movement radicalizing its members towards mythical fascist extremism mixing with other far right ideologies, wherein the stream of occult and cultist misinformation and indoctrination is functioning as a recruiting portal which is fueled even more by what would otherwise be a healthy distrust towards the authorities.

Here is what study senior author Ed Mills said. - Ed Mills wrote in a private email to Marc Rendell. Ed Mills says this about ivermectin. . . "I advocate that actually there is a clear signal ivermectin works in Covid patients." Dr. Ed Mills

Again, thank you, prof greg. The way you present makes everything crystal clear even for someone like me with no scientific background. And, I too hope this study puts the use of this drug to rest, so we can treat this virus with things that really do work. You put so much effort in these videos. Thanks again.

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

@karidobie

2 жыл бұрын

I would say that instead, it was a failed trial due to the 391 placebo recipients who admitted they did not follow protocol versus the 55 in the ivermectin arm. More questions than answers Rather than pounding the final nail in the coffin around ivermectin’s utility in treating COVID, the NEJM study raises more questions. What would the effect have been if a higher dose shown to be effective were administered? What would be the benefit of this medicine in patients with no risk factors? How statistically significant would the results have been if more participants were enrolled? Why weren’t more participants enrolled as the study progressed given the emerging benefit of the drug and the absence of adverse events? Why did the investigators define a primary outcome with such different real-world implications (ER visits vs hospitalizations)? With less than 50% of the placebo arm adhering to the study protocol, why were their outcomes included in the analysis? What effect did vaccination status have on outcome? If this is the primary means endorsed to prevent hospitalization, why wasn’t vaccination status mentioned as a confounder? Did the investigators choose to limit the study as it became clear that an Ivermectin benefit would be too big to ignore?

@karidobie

2 жыл бұрын

Here’s a bigger question: Who is just incompetent, or complicit, too?

@MarcosElMalo2

2 жыл бұрын

@@karidobie Do you know what wouldn’t be statistically significant? If you used ivermectin to treat Covid and it didn’t work, resulting in death.

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

@@karidobie That is absolutely *not* the case, and the truth leads to the opposite of your insinuation. The people who took placebo were in two groups: one group were required to take placebo for 3 days, the other were required to take placebo for 14 days. This is part of the platform trial design, so that people taking placebo can be compared to treatments of different lengths. The "per protocol" analysis only included those assigned to a 3 day protocol. In other words, the 391 placebo recipients did not failt to follow protocol: they were taking placebo for even longer! The per-protocol analysis is a reflection of the rigour of the trial, not its weakness.

Nice summary! Appreciate your in-depth analysis and the silence from some of the other formerly reliable youtube folks is notable.

@finkelsteinshitkid1299

2 жыл бұрын

First & foremost, there’s quite literally billions of dollars & counting in conflicts of interest between it’s funders (Gates) & truthful results, which by itself should be enough to be skeptical of it’s results, but especially so since it runs contrary to 80+ other peer reviewed trials/studies which prove it’s efficacy, and it’s trial clinicians have direct ties to Pfizer. Beyond that obvious as hell reality, there’s truly a world of issues/flaws with the trials results, not to mention the fact that trialing data wasn’t published until 7 months after the results were published, and written about by every layer of the Machine’s PR & News outlets, which is wrong on its face value, never mind that there’s countless flaws, all which, each and every one, skews against ivm’s efficacy. - areas of trialing was in high use ivm region so there’s a lack of control group in the placebo group from usage, especially given that we’re taking about a virus that’s been as potentially deadly with a fear campaign behind that may scare those who get infected from actually buying it via the easy & cheap channels of distribution with the region. -the dosage & length of dosages were not only too small, they were 3 days only when all other know anti virals are 5 day min cycles. -there was a low weight limit & dosage limit, and it was directed to use on an empty stomach, and not the recommended full stomach/high fat meal to help with absorption levels -the placebo group was recruited after the ivm patients, so as the variant became more transmittable, the variant pools had changed in between recruitments. ****big hello!**** - in the data collection there’s literally over 200 patients’ data that missing in the results, and the statical analysis proves all those missing patients had positive results. Yup! Ask the hack quack to explain that one alone. - they’re not even sharing the data sets, which they said would be sharing, and absolutely should be sharing. ***there’s more too, but this is enough for you to discuss. Please share your thoughts doc.

Great video Dr Greg! Thanks also for the explanatory segment on adaptive platform trial, as it is something relatively new. 👍

@finkelsteinshitkid1299

2 жыл бұрын

First & foremost, there’s quite literally billions of dollars & counting in conflicts of interest between it’s funders (Gates) & truthful results, which by itself should be enough to be skeptical of it’s results, but especially so since it runs contrary to 80+ other peer reviewed trials/studies which prove it’s efficacy, and it’s trial clinicians have direct ties to Pfizer. Beyond that obvious as hell reality, there’s truly a world of issues/flaws with the trials results, not to mention the fact that trialing data wasn’t published until 7 months after the results were published, and written about by every layer of the Machine’s PR & News outlets, which is wrong on its face value, never mind that there’s countless flaws, all which, each and every one, skews against ivm’s efficacy. - areas of trialing was in high use ivm region so there’s a lack of control group in the placebo group from usage, especially given that we’re taking about a virus that’s been as potentially deadly with a fear campaign behind that may scare those who get infected from actually buying it via the easy & cheap channels of distribution with the region. -the dosage & length of dosages were not only too small, they were 3 days only when all other know anti virals are 5 day min cycles. -there was a low weight limit & dosage limit, and it was directed to use on an empty stomach, and not the recommended full stomach/high fat meal to help with absorption levels -the placebo group was recruited after the ivm patients, so as the variant became more transmittable, the variant pools had changed in between recruitments. ****big hello!**** - in the data collection there’s literally over 200 patients’ data that missing in the results, and the statical analysis proves all those missing patients had positive results. Yup! Ask the hack quack to explain that one alone. - they’re not even sharing the data sets, which they said would be sharing, and absolutely should be sharing. ***there’s more too, but this is enough for you to discuss. Please share your thoughts doc.

Oh dear, this is going to challenge a lot of people’s entrenched beliefs, maybe some counselling will be in order.

@CB-kd8lj

2 жыл бұрын

Not really. They will just convince themselves the Rothschild's paid the researchers off or something like that.

@finkelsteinshitkid1299

2 жыл бұрын

First & foremost, there’s quite literally billions of dollars & counting in conflicts of interest between it’s funders (Gates) & truthful results, which by itself should be enough to be skeptical of it’s results, but especially so since it runs contrary to 80+ other peer reviewed trials/studies which prove it’s efficacy, and it’s trial clinicians have direct ties to Pfizer. Beyond that obvious as hell reality, there’s truly a world of issues/flaws with the trials results, not to mention the fact that trialing data wasn’t published until 7 months after the results were published, and written about by every layer of the Machine’s PR & News outlets, which is wrong on its face value, never mind that there’s countless flaws, all which, each and every one, skews against ivm’s efficacy. - areas of trialing was in high use ivm region so there’s a lack of control group in the placebo group from usage, especially given that we’re taking about a virus that’s been as potentially deadly with a fear campaign behind that may scare those who get infected from actually buying it via the easy & cheap channels of distribution with the region. -the dosage & length of dosages were not only too small, they were 3 days only when all other know anti virals are 5 day min cycles. -there was a low weight limit & dosage limit, and it was directed to use on an empty stomach, and not the recommended full stomach/high fat meal to help with absorption levels -the placebo group was recruited after the ivm patients, so as the variant became more transmittable, the variant pools had changed in between recruitments. ****big hello!**** - in the data collection there’s literally over 200 patients’ data that missing in the results, and the statical analysis proves all those missing patients had positive results. Yup! Ask the hack quack to explain that one alone. - they’re not even sharing the data sets, which they said would be sharing, and absolutely should be sharing. ***there’s more too, but this is enough for you to discuss. Please share your thoughts doc.

Please do a video with MedCram or similar. Your qualifications and understanding of this topic would be of great interest to their subscribers which I think include many medical school students and pre med undergraduates.

@finkelsteinshitkid1299

2 жыл бұрын

First & foremost, there’s quite literally billions of dollars & counting in conflicts of interest between it’s funders (Gates) & truthful results, which by itself should be enough to be skeptical of it’s results, but especially so since it runs contrary to 80+ other peer reviewed trials/studies which prove it’s efficacy, and it’s trial clinicians have direct ties to Pfizer. Beyond that obvious as hell reality, there’s truly a world of issues/flaws with the trials results, not to mention the fact that trialing data wasn’t published until 7 months after the results were published, and written about by every layer of the Machine’s PR & News outlets, which is wrong on its face value, never mind that there’s countless flaws, all which, each and every one, skews against ivm’s efficacy. - areas of trialing was in high use ivm region so there’s a lack of control group in the placebo group from usage, especially given that we’re taking about a virus that’s been as potentially deadly with a fear campaign behind that may scare those who get infected from actually buying it via the easy & cheap channels of distribution with the region. -the dosage & length of dosages were not only too small, they were 3 days only when all other know anti virals are 5 day min cycles. -there was a low weight limit & dosage limit, and it was directed to use on an empty stomach, and not the recommended full stomach/high fat meal to help with absorption levels -the placebo group was recruited after the ivm patients, so as the variant became more transmittable, the variant pools had changed in between recruitments. ****big hello!**** - in the data collection there’s literally over 200 patients’ data that missing in the results, and the statical analysis proves all those missing patients had positive results. Yup! Ask the hack quack to explain that one alone. - they’re not even sharing the data sets, which they said would be sharing, and absolutely should be sharing. ***there’s more too, but this is enough for you to discuss. Please share your thoughts doc.

Well, that’s too bad. Pretty much how medical science had already thought, but it would have been nice if there was a super cheap drug to use prophylactically or therapeutically. I tried using to use ivermectin as a prophylactic, but it kept falling off of my dingus.

@jasoncolliver3648

2 жыл бұрын

There is. Fluvoxamine.

@MarcosElMalo2

2 жыл бұрын

@@jasoncolliver3648 Does it stay put?

@finkelsteinshitkid1299

2 жыл бұрын

First & foremost, there’s quite literally billions of dollars & counting in conflicts of interest between it’s funders (Gates) & truthful results, which by itself should be enough to be skeptical of it’s results, but especially so since it runs contrary to 80+ other peer reviewed trials/studies which prove it’s efficacy, and it’s trial clinicians have direct ties to Pfizer. Beyond that obvious as hell reality, there’s truly a world of issues/flaws with the trials results, not to mention the fact that trialing data wasn’t published until 7 months after the results were published, and written about by every layer of the Machine’s PR & News outlets, which is wrong on its face value, never mind that there’s countless flaws, all which, each and every one, skews against ivm’s efficacy. - areas of trialing was in high use ivm region so there’s a lack of control group in the placebo group from usage, especially given that we’re taking about a virus that’s been as potentially deadly with a fear campaign behind that may scare those who get infected from actually buying it via the easy & cheap channels of distribution with the region. -the dosage & length of dosages were not only too small, they were 3 days only when all other know anti virals are 5 day min cycles. -there was a low weight limit & dosage limit, and it was directed to use on an empty stomach, and not the recommended full stomach/high fat meal to help with absorption levels -the placebo group was recruited after the ivm patients, so as the variant became more transmittable, the variant pools had changed in between recruitments. ****big hello!**** - in the data collection there’s literally over 200 patients’ data that missing in the results, and the statical analysis proves all those missing patients had positive results. Yup! Ask the hack quack to explain that one alone. - they’re not even sharing the data sets, which they said would be sharing, and absolutely should be sharing. ***there’s more too, but this is enough for you to discuss. Please share your thoughts doc.

I have a little bit of sympathy for some of the people who will question this evidence. Many of them, like me, are suffering from Long Covid and are absolutely desperate for some kind of treatment. It's not just about treatment of initial/acute infections, for them. It's about finding hope that their ongoing suffering won't be lifelong, as they feel their life expectancy diminish.

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

I completely agree, and I hope your own suffering abates soon. There's nothing good about Long Covid. The challenge for me, and the urgency, is that desparation is often an opening for exploitation, where some quack can sell snake oil and an empty promise. To the extent that Ivermectin advocates have contributed to vaccine hesitancy, they've *increased* the suffering from Long Covid. The people who have taken ivermectin instead of getting vaccinated under the false promises of charlatans like Kory are victims. They have my sympathy, and I don't blame them for clinging to false belief in the face of contradictory evidence.

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

@Ramsay Meldrum if you are interested in the latest research on Long Covid, I recommend this talk by Professor Akiko Iwasaki of Yale, a leader in this area kzread.info/dash/bejne/dXpozI9-hrPSgLg.html

@finkelsteinshitkid1299

2 жыл бұрын

First & foremost, there’s quite literally billions of dollars & counting in conflicts of interest between it’s funders (Gates) & truthful results, which by itself should be enough to be skeptical of it’s results, but especially so since it runs contrary to 80+ other peer reviewed trials/studies which prove it’s efficacy, and it’s trial clinicians have direct ties to Pfizer. Beyond that obvious as hell reality, there’s truly a world of issues/flaws with the trials results, not to mention the fact that trialing data wasn’t published until 7 months after the results were published, and written about by every layer of the Machine’s PR & News outlets, which is wrong on its face value, never mind that there’s countless flaws, all which, each and every one, skews against ivm’s efficacy. - areas of trialing was in high use ivm region so there’s a lack of control group in the placebo group from usage, especially given that we’re taking about a virus that’s been as potentially deadly with a fear campaign behind that may scare those who get infected from actually buying it via the easy & cheap channels of distribution with the region. -the dosage & length of dosages were not only too small, they were 3 days only when all other know anti virals are 5 day min cycles. -there was a low weight limit & dosage limit, and it was directed to use on an empty stomach, and not the recommended full stomach/high fat meal to help with absorption levels -the placebo group was recruited after the ivm patients, so as the variant became more transmittable, the variant pools had changed in between recruitments. ****big hello!**** - in the data collection there’s literally over 200 patients’ data that missing in the results, and the statical analysis proves all those missing patients had positive results. Yup! Ask the hack quack to explain that one alone. - they’re not even sharing the data sets, which they said would be sharing, and absolutely should be sharing. ***there’s more too, but this is enough for you to discuss. Please share your thoughts doc.

The usual suspects will ignore this and keep citing their "peer reviewed research".

@finkelsteinshitkid1299

2 жыл бұрын

First & foremost, there’s quite literally billions of dollars & counting in conflicts of interest between it’s funders (Gates) & truthful results, which by itself should be enough to be skeptical of it’s results, but especially so since it runs contrary to 80+ other peer reviewed trials/studies which prove it’s efficacy, and it’s trial clinicians have direct ties to Pfizer. Beyond that obvious as hell reality, there’s truly a world of issues/flaws with the trials results, not to mention the fact that trialing data wasn’t published until 7 months after the results were published, and written about by every layer of the Machine’s PR & News outlets, which is wrong on its face value, never mind that there’s countless flaws, all which, each and every one, skews against ivm’s efficacy. - areas of trialing was in high use ivm region so there’s a lack of control group in the placebo group from usage, especially given that we’re taking about a virus that’s been as potentially deadly with a fear campaign behind that may scare those who get infected from actually buying it via the easy & cheap channels of distribution with the region. -the dosage & length of dosages were not only too small, they were 3 days only when all other know anti virals are 5 day min cycles. -there was a low weight limit & dosage limit, and it was directed to use on an empty stomach, and not the recommended full stomach/high fat meal to help with absorption levels -the placebo group was recruited after the ivm patients, so as the variant became more transmittable, the variant pools had changed in between recruitments. ****big hello!**** - in the data collection there’s literally over 200 patients’ data that missing in the results, and the statical analysis proves all those missing patients had positive results. Yup! Ask the hack quack to explain that one alone. - they’re not even sharing the data sets, which they said would be sharing, and absolutely should be sharing. ***there’s more too, but this is enough for you to discuss. Please share your thoughts doc.

Only 6.484 views. It says it all. No impact. If you need an additional video to discuss the shortcomings of the TOGETHER TRIAL then my advice would be "Prof" Greg: spend your time on something more meaningful. Who on earth came up with dosing, length of treatment in this trial. Poor people. The same poor people that could not find other sponsors then the pharma industry. No conflicts of interests of course. The same poor people from sites 1.231 and 4.444 of the Pfizer trials......

Let's see if Campbell presents this study on his channel. Bets?

@steinarnielsen8954

2 жыл бұрын

He presented the BMJ paper though.

@finkelsteinshitkid1299

2 жыл бұрын

First & foremost, there’s quite literally billions of dollars & counting in conflicts of interest between it’s funders (Gates) & truthful results, which by itself should be enough to be skeptical of it’s results, but especially so since it runs contrary to 80+ other peer reviewed trials/studies which prove it’s efficacy, and it’s trial clinicians have direct ties to Pfizer. Beyond that obvious as hell reality, there’s truly a world of issues/flaws with the trials results, not to mention the fact that trialing data wasn’t published until 7 months after the results were published, and written about by every layer of the Machine’s PR & News outlets, which is wrong on its face value, never mind that there’s countless flaws, all which, each and every one, skews against ivm’s efficacy. - areas of trialing was in high use ivm region so there’s a lack of control group in the placebo group from usage, especially given that we’re taking about a virus that’s been as potentially deadly with a fear campaign behind that may scare those who get infected from actually buying it via the easy & cheap channels of distribution with the region. -the dosage & length of dosages were not only too small, they were 3 days only when all other know anti virals are 5 day min cycles. -there was a low weight limit & dosage limit, and it was directed to use on an empty stomach, and not the recommended full stomach/high fat meal to help with absorption levels -the placebo group was recruited after the ivm patients, so as the variant became more transmittable, the variant pools had changed in between recruitments. ****big hello!**** - in the data collection there’s literally over 200 patients’ data that missing in the results, and the statical analysis proves all those missing patients had positive results. Yup! Ask the hack quack to explain that one alone. - they’re not even sharing the data sets, which they said would be sharing, and absolutely should be sharing. ***there’s more too, but this is enough for you to discuss. Please share your thoughts doc.

As others have noted, Greg has out done himself with this hyper detailed presentation. There was one nuance that was not fully covered Greg mention the adaptive nature of the trial…. And how they started with a single day of ivermectin But the shifted to a three day course of ivermectin What was not covered is what this change was made The New England Journal mentions that Ivermectin treatment proponents gave them feedback on the inadequacy of their initial single day protocol. So, the study shifted to a three day regime p. This small detail is important because it shows that they were not intentionally subverting ivermectin…. But instead, we actively involved in trying to tweak the trial protocols by incorporating feedback in order to give us the maximum chance for achieving positive results

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

An excellent point!

@MrArdytube

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Btw, another nuance that occurred to me Many ivermectin proponents reject first world studies on the bests they are part of the medical industrial complex and therefore in the pocket of drug companies and main stream tropes , instead, studies from India, Egypt, Africa, Brazil are frequently referenced It is worthwhile emphasizing that this study significantly relied on partners in Brazil…. People who would have every reason to desire a low cost and effective means to combat COVID….

@MrArdytube

2 жыл бұрын

@Tom Tom…. A synergistic effect is certainly possible. However, we should acknowledge that this was not the in forefront of the controversy about ivermectin. Advocates for ivermectin proposed it as a near miracle substance… ivermectin was aggressively promoted as a highly effective treatment without reference to any synergistic effect. The impact of ivermectin was obvious to a stunning degree. It was said that a single dose per month was an effective prophylactic that could provide a safe and effective alternative to vaccines, Tom… I take you at your word that you are not among those promoting such hyperbolic ideas. Never the less…. We have to acknowledge that such ideas were extensively promoted… and that in the context of this study…. The promotion of ivermectin as a miracle cure can be seen as largely incorrect, and in many cases recklessly dangerous…. ESPECIALLY when these irresponsible claims were continuously and unreservedly made be medical professionals Moreover, without trying to overstate the case…. I am reasonably sure what will be the cult response to this study. Some cultists will find reasons to refuse to admit their error…. And others will explain how they did not actually advocate for ivermectin as a miracle cure. … but the were only insuring that “all” the information was presented

@terjeoseberg990

2 жыл бұрын

They were genuinely attempting to find a cheap, existing, and effective treatment. Ivermectin just didn’t work out, and Fluvoxamine is slightly effective. Ivermectin vs Fluvoxamine for Covid: we have a winner! kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZYChw9Kvf8-8g9I.html

@terjeoseberg990

2 жыл бұрын

@Tom, If you have parasites that are not killing you because your immune system has them under, then if you get Covid and become severely ill, those parasites might just kill you. There might be many people in this situation in Brazil, Africa, and India. Therefore, in those countries, Ivermectin might be of significant benefit. However, they used Ivermectin extensively in Brazil during 2020, and it didn’t prevent the per capa death rate from exceeding that of the United States, so of it was helpful to eliminate parasites, it was not helpful against Covid itself. I know for a fact that Ivermectin was used in Brazil during 2020 because I have many friends all over Brazil and among 4 of them that got Covid, 3 received Ivermectin, and the 4th was given a different anti parasites medication. If Ivermectin was as or more effective than the vaccines, then there should have been fewer deaths, and why would they bother with vaccines?

Excellent video explaining clinical trial types and designs Prof Greg. Well done for carefully describing the 'Together Trial' and its results. This is just another nail in the coffin of ivermectin for treating covid 19. It is such a shame that other poster's on KZread with clinical backgrounds don't follow your level of critical review and impartiality. One question I have is on how the other medications performed in this study?

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

Fluvoxamine had really encouraging results and other arms are continuing it. There are some very recent resuits with peginterferon lambda that look excellent. Other arms that failed include hydroxycholoroquine and metformin.

@alistaircorbishley5881

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg thank you for your feedback on the arms of the trial 😀

Love what you're doing. I always look forward to new videos from you.

You missed the missing data for the 0-3 days and 4-7 days subgroups. We know from the totals that the missing data was very favorable towards the ivermectin arm. We just don't know whether this favorable data would fall mostly in the 0-3 days subgroup or the other subgroup, or be evenly divided. But we know that it would dramatically change at least one of those subgroup results. Knowing this, the plotted results for these subgroups is misleading. Overall, this study suggests ivermectin, even given a presumably non-optimal protocol, might be of sufficient benefit to be worth using. It is just that the study was not large enough to show that the modest benefit (about 10% RR) was real. They stopped adding people to the study because the effect size was not large enough. I disagree with this video commentary and the authors of the study that a 10% RR reduction is not clinically meaningful.

@jimjamson9534

2 жыл бұрын

So according to you the study 'suggests' that it 'might' be of sufficient benefit to be 'worth' using. Is this the same 'miraculous' drug which was presented to the US congress by Pierre Kory?

@letsgetphilosophical6191

2 жыл бұрын

@@jimjamson9534 Some studies suggest that it works great. This study (I suggest) actually suggests that (as you put it) "might be of sufficient benefit to be worth using." But it is framed in the media as a nail in the coffin of ivermectin. Do you see the problem?

@jimjamson9534

2 жыл бұрын

@@letsgetphilosophical6191 The problem is I never said that. I was quoting,and critiquing the statement at the top of the feed. Not my quote. I would strongly question the statement "Some studies show that it works just great". Let us take, just for fun, the Argentinian study that Pierre Kory quoted in his now famous 'courageous' speech to congress in which he claimed that no health workers taking IVM contracted covid, in comparison to the other group, IVM free who were massively infected. (more infected than any previously recorded healthcare workers in the world. The claim and the data is off the scale rediculous) Did you actually believe him? Since then the study has been exposed as complete fraud. Please show me your favourite study that shows IVM "works just great" as you claim. I haven't found any yet, and, trust me I have been looking really hard for 2 years.

@teeminator30

2 жыл бұрын

This is exactly what I picked up on when I read the results of the trial. Then I saw this video and I would have typed the same thing. It’s always the unanswered questions that matter greatly to some people, but to some other people, like this video’s commentator, not so much. The word misinformed comes to mind.

The placebo is the unsung hero being just as good as Ivermectin

@terjeoseberg990

2 жыл бұрын

Aren’t placebos cheaper than Ivermectin?

@goldenboy8167

2 жыл бұрын

I'm going to start hoarding placebo? Where can I get it?

@RichRich1955

2 жыл бұрын

@@terjeoseberg990 yes when we make our own

@Doeyhead

2 жыл бұрын

OMG, I was saying that placebo was cheaper for months now. People like Dr. Campbell just want you spending money on Big pharma like Ivermectin, when placebo is better and natural! It requires no work!

@catnaplappdx5001

2 жыл бұрын

With all these trials, I'm concerned about placebo shortages. Watch out for black market knockoffs. Could have no effect at all.

"Comfortably null"--I love that. (Pink Floyd reference, for you youngsters)

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

Glad someone got the reference!

@hawaiianrobot

2 жыл бұрын

"Okay, just a little pinprick"

@trevordorian7920

2 жыл бұрын

Thats right, the jab is the holy grail. Keep getting the jab, it will reduce your anxiety when you leave your house.

@MarcosElMalo2

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg You might be onto a promising idea to ease the anxiety of the vaccine hesitant.

@finkelsteinshitkid1299

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg you’re comfortably dim.

Bravo 👏🏼 brilliantly done yet again. Thank you Greg :)

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks, Beckie!

Given that the proponents of IVM say that zinc should be taken concurrent, how would the placebo be administered? In other words were two tablets used in both placebo and IVM groups?

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

The placebo and IVM were indistinshishable pills and packaging.

@jeffcoyle3177

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg . So the IVM was administered with Zinc?

@hawaiianrobot

2 жыл бұрын

a lot of the positive result papers on ivmmeta don't mention zinc at all

@jeffcoyle3177

2 жыл бұрын

@@hawaiianrobot These trials were deemed to be IVM negative. I’d like to see trials where IVM protocols were followed. For instance I’m taking current medical advice re vaccines. I’ve had 2 AstraZenica and am due for some sort of booster in three weeks based on up to date protocols. So, I wish there were trials with IVM protocols are implemented so that a more trustworthy outcome (one way or the other) could result.

@hawaiianrobot

2 жыл бұрын

@@jeffcoyle3177 okay, i think you're missing my point - many of the reported trials with positive results have a wide variation in treatment time, treatment dose, what standard of care is, etc etc. those results should be open for repeatability, yes? an adjunct should ideally serve to increase the effect of a primary agent, but the primary agent should have some effect on its own, right?

"Comfortably null" is a fantastic summary. I am channelling Pink Floyd

Newspapers have a format in which the first paragraph is supposed to summarise the article, then as you read further you get increasing details. This allows the reader to get a rough idea of the article and then go deeper if interested. I was wondering if that structure may be useful for your videos because it would mean that if showing the video to someone they can see the summary within the first minute or two rather than having to watch until the end.

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

Good idea. I'll try a "Chapter 0: TL;DR" on my next video.

Why do you say "negative for ivermectin" when nearly every metric is positive for ivermectin? (22:10)

@gdhomy2009

2 жыл бұрын

Didm he answer question

@gdhomy2009

2 жыл бұрын

@@mrcaryatis Why doesn't he to a analysis on the vaccines because they have issue and major side effects - Kind of suspect - and one sided - at least Dr Campbell does both.

The trial lead (Ed Mills) thinks differently: "there is a clear signal that IVM works in COVID patients, just that our study didn’t achieve significance. In particular, there was a 17% reduction in hospitalizations that would be significant if more patients were added."

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

In his presentation to the NIH Collaboratory (which I saw), Mills was much, much more circumspect, which I tried to reflect in this video. He said "we did not find a significant effect of ivermectin for the early treatmen of Covid, but I will also say that we cannot rule out that there is a small treatment effect". He went on to point out that some other well-run trials (he mentioned a trial in Bangladesh) had similar results. He could have said the same about I-TECH in Malaysia. He also added that a positive effect *hadn't* been seen in North America, and suggested that a small treatment effect in their trial might be due to Ivermectin acting as an anti-parasitic. He said "what I am led to wonder about is, perhaps there is a subgroup in our trial that ivermectin worked for because ivermectin works well as an antiparasitic, and my interpretation is ivermectin worked like ivermectin should for a small number of people in our trial" This is all consistent with Avi Bitterman's recent paper in JAMA

@hugofortierdambreville6107

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Wouldn't it be more fair to change "no benefit" to "no significant benefit"?

@finkelsteinshitkid1299

2 жыл бұрын

First & foremost, there’s quite literally billions of dollars & counting in conflicts of interest between it’s funders (Gates) & truthful results, which by itself should be enough to be skeptical of it’s results, but especially so since it runs contrary to 80+ other peer reviewed trials/studies which prove it’s efficacy, and it’s trial clinicians have direct ties to Pfizer. Beyond that obvious as hell reality, there’s truly a world of issues/flaws with the trials results, not to mention the fact that trialing data wasn’t published until 7 months after the results were published, and written about by every layer of the Machine’s PR & News outlets, which is wrong on its face value, never mind that there’s countless flaws, all which, each and every one, skews against ivm’s efficacy. - areas of trialing was in high use ivm region so there’s a lack of control group in the placebo group from usage, especially given that we’re taking about a virus that’s been as potentially deadly with a fear campaign behind that may scare those who get infected from actually buying it via the easy & cheap channels of distribution with the region. -the dosage & length of dosages were not only too small, they were 3 days only when all other know anti virals are 5 day min cycles. -there was a low weight limit & dosage limit, and it was directed to use on an empty stomach, and not the recommended full stomach/high fat meal to help with absorption levels -the placebo group was recruited after the ivm patients, so as the variant became more transmittable, the variant pools had changed in between recruitments. ****big hello!**** - in the data collection there’s literally over 200 patients’ data that missing in the results, and the statical analysis proves all those missing patients had positive results. Yup! Ask the hack quack to explain that one alone. - they’re not even sharing the data sets, which they said would be sharing, and absolutely should be sharing. ***there’s more too, but this is enough for you to discuss. Please share your thoughts doc.

Thank you.

It feels so good, in a world of such grifting and academic abuses, to be on the right side of science! Especially when those who parrot junk science constantly claim they "do their own research". I laugh at the phrase now. Good job Professor Greg and thanks!

@finkelsteinshitkid1299

2 жыл бұрын

First & foremost, there’s quite literally billions of dollars & counting in conflicts of interest between it’s funders (Gates) & truthful results, which by itself should be enough to be skeptical of it’s results, but especially so since it runs contrary to 80+ other peer reviewed trials/studies which prove it’s efficacy, and it’s trial clinicians have direct ties to Pfizer. Beyond that obvious as hell reality, there’s truly a world of issues/flaws with the trials results, not to mention the fact that trialing data wasn’t published until 7 months after the results were published, and written about by every layer of the Machine’s PR & News outlets, which is wrong on its face value, never mind that there’s countless flaws, all which, each and every one, skews against ivm’s efficacy. - areas of trialing was in high use ivm region so there’s a lack of control group in the placebo group from usage, especially given that we’re taking about a virus that’s been as potentially deadly with a fear campaign behind that may scare those who get infected from actually buying it via the easy & cheap channels of distribution with the region. -the dosage & length of dosages were not only too small, they were 3 days only when all other know anti virals are 5 day min cycles. -there was a low weight limit & dosage limit, and it was directed to use on an empty stomach, and not the recommended full stomach/high fat meal to help with absorption levels -the placebo group was recruited after the ivm patients, so as the variant became more transmittable, the variant pools had changed in between recruitments. ****big hello!**** - in the data collection there’s literally over 200 patients’ data that missing in the results, and the statical analysis proves all those missing patients had positive results. Yup! Ask the hack quack to explain that one alone. - they’re not even sharing the data sets, which they said would be sharing, and absolutely should be sharing. ***there’s more too, but this is enough for you to discuss. Please share your thoughts doc.

Prof Greg, one last question if you don't mind. I'm hearing from the ivermectin folks that table 2 does show statistical significance if the confidence interval is set at .9 instead of .95 and that .95 is somewhat of an arbitrary decision. What's your thoughts on this. Just as many studies use .9, and if that was the case this would be a definitive win for ivermectin, wouldn't it?

@Marco-it2mr

2 жыл бұрын

There are not "just as many studies" that use 0.9. But more importantly, "statistical significance" is not the same as "significant" in everyday parlor, and there is an increasing danger of a form of p-hacking when you start to do things like these (finding stuff that is "statistically significant" for the sole reason to sell your findings as important). To explain a bit more: a 5% benefit can be measured as statistically significant if you have enough individuals in a trial. But is it worth it to give millions and millions of people a drug, long-term, of which the long-term effects are not even known, and where we know many of them will have side-effects from that drug? Second, sometimes "benefits" are really not much "benefit" at all. Take the hypothetical example where a mRNA test shows you become negative faster if you take a certain drug - statistically significantly. But if your hospital stay is as long as it is on a placebo, is there really a benefit?

@ukulayme2

2 жыл бұрын

@@Marco-it2mr do you have proof that just as many studies don’t use .90? I’m being told .95 is picked arbitrarily. Is there a relationship between the sample size and the confidence interval that I can point to? Doesnt it mean something that ivermectin really does show benefit in almost every study JUST shy of statistical significance? Hard to believe that’s just a coincidence every time. I’d like to know the counter argument to that

@Marco-it2mr

2 жыл бұрын

@@ukulayme2 "do you have proof that just as many studies don’t use .90?" Yes. It is simple: randomly select 10 clinical trial papers that report statistical significance and look at what they use. I would be surprised if you find even one example among those 10 that do. Even though 0.95 is *somewhat* arbitrary, note that in physics 0.95 would often be considered *not significant* as even 0.95 merely indicates a direction of the evidence, not evidence in itself. With regard to sample size and confidence interval - libretext has an introductory chapter titled "Confidence Intervals and Sample Size", where you will find n (population) size pop up with regard to the standard error. This is different from the standard deviation, notably. It's a big can of statistical worms that you have to deal with in these studies, ranging from population variability to measurement variability (e.g., is someone who is in hospital from 9 am on day 1 to 5 pm on day 2 in hospital for 2 days? Or one day? That is, if you do not allow 1.5 days as a measure, but only whole days). Notably, ivermectin sometimes does worse in several measures, and better in other measures. It depends on the study which is the one that looks best, meaning some people just cherry pick the best ones and then do a "meta-analysis" on those...

@ukulayme2

2 жыл бұрын

@@Marco-it2mr that’s fair. Personally I can’t seem to find any of the studies where ivermectin does worse, do you know of any off the top of your head? Thanks!

@Marco-it2mr

2 жыл бұрын

@@ukulayme2 No, not off the top of my head. But there are some examples in this video on outcomes where ivermectin was worse. It's an example of cherry picking outcomes to suit your desired outcome, which I won't do, unless someone refers me to the ivmmeta stuff...

Excellent! Thank you Greg! One question is are there side effects to taking Invermectin where a person could tell if they were on the Invermectin or not. I would assume since the side effects from the placebo and Invermectin were the same that probably people couldn’t tell. If they were able to guess reasonably accurately that they were on the real medication then that could influence the results

@Marco-it2mr

2 жыл бұрын

Ivermectin does indeed have side-effects, so some people who got it could indeed have known they got the active compound.

@hughbassoon

2 жыл бұрын

@@Marco-it2mr it would be hard to know how that would affect the results or whether might even be a significant confounder. If they were believed they were on it and believed it’s helped I guess there could be a placebo effect but then the effects shouldn’t be any greater than placebo so maybe it doesn’t matter

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

The side effects were less here than in I-TECH, possibly because it was only for three days, and possibly because I-TECH was done in an inpatient setting.

@arielsanpedro1484

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg no side effects of IVM are minimal when used by 3B people specially in africa to treat river blindness and that was real and given facts

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

@@arielsanpedro1484 The IVM exposure for an individual using it for river blindness is much lower than the exposure using it as recommended by FLCCC for Covid-19

Now we wait to see how John Campbell explains the flaws he perceives in this trial.

@finkelsteinshitkid1299

2 жыл бұрын

First & foremost, there’s quite literally billions of dollars & counting in conflicts of interest between it’s funders (Gates) & truthful results, which by itself should be enough to be skeptical of it’s results, but especially so since it runs contrary to 80+ other peer reviewed trials/studies which prove it’s efficacy, and it’s trial clinicians have direct ties to Pfizer. Beyond that obvious as hell reality, there’s truly a world of issues/flaws with the trials results, not to mention the fact that trialing data wasn’t published until 7 months after the results were published, and written about by every layer of the Machine’s PR & News outlets, which is wrong on its face value, never mind that there’s countless flaws, all which, each and every one, skews against ivm’s efficacy. - areas of trialing was in high use ivm region so there’s a lack of control group in the placebo group from usage, especially given that we’re taking about a virus that’s been as potentially deadly with a fear campaign behind that may scare those who get infected from actually buying it via the easy & cheap channels of distribution with the region. -the dosage & length of dosages were not only too small, they were 3 days only when all other know anti virals are 5 day min cycles. -there was a low weight limit & dosage limit, and it was directed to use on an empty stomach, and not the recommended full stomach/high fat meal to help with absorption levels -the placebo group was recruited after the ivm patients, so as the variant became more transmittable, the variant pools had changed in between recruitments. ****big hello!**** - in the data collection there’s literally over 200 patients’ data that missing in the results, and the statical analysis proves all those missing patients had positive results. Yup! Ask the hack quack to explain that one alone. - they’re not even sharing the data sets, which they said would be sharing, and absolutely should be sharing. ***there’s more too, but this is enough for you to discuss. Please share your thoughts doc.

One thing I wish you explained a bit more clearly(if you did mention it than I missed it) is why around 22:00 even though almost everything is on the Ivermectin Better side of the chart, why that doesn't make it a viable treatment. Do those numbers(which I don't understand what they mean) need to be much farther to the left, and how far left until most researchers would agree a drug is a viable treatment? I really like your content, especially the stuff you've made clearing up how ineffective Ivermectin is vs Covid, but without that little bit of into I have a feeling if I showed this to a pro Ivermectin person they would just say "But almost everything on the graph is to the left, so Ivermectin works".

@nonflyingdutchman9573

2 жыл бұрын

It's a valid question; the general/vague answer is we use statistics to answer that and to determine whether the outcome is within what would be expected by chance or is a significant difference. The conclusion from the authors (which unless you have a background in statistics it's reasonable to accept since the paper is peer-reviewed) is that Ivermectin shows no benefit and the difference is within what would be expected by chance

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

Fair enough. In fact, the authors of the study discussed this a bit at the end of the Grand Rounds presentation I saw a week ago. They mention that it is possible that ivermectin has a small benefit, and that with sufficient numbers that benefit would be more evident. On the other hand, it might not, especially because a bit of chance in favour of ivermecitn for one outcome would favor more outcomes if the outcomes were correlated (which they surely are!) At some point it becomes just not a good use of research resources to hunt down a potential small benefit.

@Sabith01

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg That makes sense. Thanks for the content and the reply :D

Thanks Dr Greg for this presentation. Your interpretation of the study is correct from the traditional 95% cutoff. But given that many researchers (including Dr Gellman) are pushing back on this "dichotomania" of the 95% interpretation, there may be a more fair interpretation to IVM. It seems, from the studies I've read (and is true of the TOGETHER, and ITECH trials) that the point estimates of these trials (and others) almost always favor the IVM arm. This is 'suggestive of POSSIBLE IVM benefit' (trying to use my words carefully here). If this keeps up (and as Kory keeps saying) this means the meta-analyses published 1 year from now (increasing the statistical power) may show IVM efficacy. However, if the next 4+ RCTs are consistent with this one, then I don't see how IVM is anything but a small effect in that MA, vastly different than the claims of the IVM pumpers. If those MA do show some small effect at the 95% level. I would be worried that none of them controlled for strongyloides, but more than that we may be missing something very important from the public health perspective: individuals in these regions could benefit from some wide scale intervention that we only see when you start giving lots of people an antiparasitic (even if IVM doesn't do anything to covid). Also, if the MA end up showing a 1-5% effect for IVM (even in rich countries), at what point do we say it's just not worth adding this to the standard of care and the money would be better spent elsewhere stopping covid? I might have to find some health economists for that one. Also not sure if you saw this paper. It does show LOTS of proposed biological mechanisms for IVM. I shared your incredulity regarding IVM efficacy due to lack of biological mechanism prior to running into this. The demand for biological mechanism has always been a question I've had for those 0-level-deep thinkers that believe things without good reasons, but ever since my mom clued me into the 'people with feet in cold water get more colds' studies (proposed mechanism: capillary bed constriction in nose restricting migration of innate immune response) when she criticized me for not putting socks on my young daughter around the house, I've become much more cautious of my favored 'what's the biological mechanism??' challenge--it seems it's easy to propose a biological mechanism for almost anything sadly. www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00491-6.pdf

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

This study uses a comprehnsive Bayesian framework for analysis, so does not use the "95% confidence interval" arbitrage. Coincidentally, this is possible to do in part because of Andrew's many contributions to Bayesian analaysis! At any rate, I think it is possible that there is a small benefit, and that the ambiuity of that would have benefitted from continuing the study. The authors said as much in the Grand Rounds I watched last week. But it's also possible that there is no benefit at all, or a small harm. That Journal of Antibiotics review you link is a strange one. The journal retracted an earlier version because it falsely claimed clinical evience for ivermectin in Covid. They tidied it up a little, but it is still a very bad and biased article, and I'm disappointed the journal allowed its publicatio.

@jm-lc3jp

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Sorry if I was confusing with my '95%' talk, it has more to do with what language we use. I guess it depends which phraseology we're talking about. you say "no real difference", "no difference" "no significant difference" "certainly no major difference". We (collectively or individually) have to decide how much evidence studies and groups of studies have. I don't think credible intervals makes a difference here; we still have to make the decision of the language we use to describe the results. My reading of the TOGETHER study is that it is: "slightly suggestive of a POSSIBLE small effect of IVM on covid but more studies are needed, and certainly no reason to add IVM to SOC or change our practices at this time based on this study." Taking in other studies I-TECH and maybe the best observational ones--where the PE are usually in favor of IVM efficacy--makes this statement even more likely to be true. It doesn't matter that there is 'no significant difference' or 'no real difference' in this study, there is still SOME evidence. In a world where we had some eccentric Elon Musk-like figure that was willing to put billions into getting to the bottom of this, enrolling hundreds-of-thousands around the world, but requiring every expert had to bet what the final result will be, it would only be rational to bet NOT on 'harm', NOT on 'no effect' but on 'positive effect' (though certainly against 'huge positive effect')--the PE, BCI, CI all TEND to point in that direction even though are not 'significant' in any individual study. If the next 4RCTs produce the same results, it's more likely than not that the meta-analyses in 1-2 years of these RCTs will show a 'real difference' or a 'significant difference' (though almost certainly a small one). Regarding the Journal of Antibiotics article. I didn't know it was retracted, but it is now republished. So if publication is your benchmark, it is up. But I care less about that article but the articles they cite (the editor-in-chief says as much: "appropriately describes the MOA"). That article can be complete garbage and never published, but they do cite about 38 possible mechanisms proposed by other non-related authors. Is it your contention that NONE of these are biologically plausible? Not even IVM blocking activation of NF-kappa B on TLR4 inhibiting inflammatory cytokines?

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

​@@jm-lc3jp Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you that effect size matters, and I don't want "statistical signficance" to be a hill I die on. The authors themselves say that it's possible the RR~0.8 might wind up being meaningful with a large enough study. On the other hand, it might not, and one has to spend research dollars effectively. As for the JoA article: I think it is quite poor, despite having been published (again). Lots of bad studies get published, and that's a bad review article. I take that position because many of the proposed mechanisms that they cite are based on almost no evidence. It looks like they've done a PubMed search of every possible evidence *for* ivermectin, no matter how trivial, and included it in their roundup. I'll come back to the NFkB part, which is I think interesting, but I want to make a broader point. IVM is safe in large measure because it is really specific and works against parasites at very low concentrations (sub-nanomolar). The mechanisms proposed in the JoA article include both host-directed mechanisms (like the NFkB activation blocking, targeting alpha/beta 1 importin, and I believe they suggest blocking Ace2) virus-directed mechanisms (blocking spike, inhibiting 3CL protease). Some of it is based on nothing more than in silico docking. Where there is experimental data, it's in vitro and the lowest concentration measured is (this is from memory, so caveat emptor) 2-5uM for targeting the importin system. 3CL protease in vitro is somewhere on the order of 20-80uM. The one with the most evidence is the antiviral effect from Caly et al, presumably via the importin targeting, but that hasn't held up in other cell lines apart from Vero, so it's pretty weak tea. So what's the point of my rambling? Many drugs have specific effects and off-target effects, the off-target effects increasing as the drug concentration is raised. There's no pharmacokinetic evidence that ivermectin in patients can even reach anywhere close to the concentrations required for any of the proposed mechanisms in vitro. But suppose it did. Great, then IVM would be working at something like 1000-100,000x the concentration it works on glutamate-gated ion channels as an anti-parasitic. The problem is: why should we expect it to act on ONLY those targets that have beneficial effects? Why should it ONLY block Ace2, gum up the viral spike protein, inhibit 3CL protease, block NFkB activation, and target the nuclear importin system, as a precise anti-SARS-Cov-2 miracle drug? Why shouldn't this drug -- which we would be relying on via off-target effect to work at 1,000-100,000 times its usual physiological concentration -- not affect dozens, or even hundreds, of _other_ targets that nobody has bothered to look at? The argument for ivermectin seems to be that it should be both multi-targeted AND highly specific when 4 orders of magnitude higher concentrations than it usually reaches! This would be unheard of. I think the proposed NFkB-related mechanism is interesting when combined with the Strongyloidiasis hypothesis from Avi Bitterman.

@jm-lc3jp

2 жыл бұрын

​@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Well then I guess the requirement for an MOA should be a loose one. If, as you say, there may indeed be an effect from IVM at the end of this, AND we believe it doesn't have to do with strongyloides etc, then we have the MANIFEST efficacy of IVM (yes a lot has to go right for that to happen, but after the MAs in 1-2 years, is indeed possible). If this were to pass, it could very well be that one of the 38 MOAs proposed (maybe the in silico ones) was the MOA for IVM vs covid and it was wrong to dismiss them so soon (or maybe it's not even on that list). And (if this were to pass) it would just be the case that there were not 'off-target effects' at this larger (but no where near 100,000x dosage) more like 100x. (It would just turn out that IVM is so specific against helminths that you don't need much, but that doesn't mean that "100x" necessarily dangerous.) Indeed we regularly give all sorts of meds at ug/kg with no significant deleterious off-target effects and the FLACC people's protocol is 0.6mg/kg for 5 days and at least there's no obvious side effects (that I know). Yes this is far lower than Caley, but it still may be efficacious at lower levels. What would this mean for IVM? Assuming we are at a place that we can eliminate strongyloides, It would mean the IVM pumpers probably got lucky. If Caley wasn't any real evidence, and you can't extrapolate anecdotal evidence of these 'frontline doctors' or even from most of the poorly-designed observational study, then the IVM pumpers really had no reason to support IVM but stumbled on a drug that had 1-5% effect at the 400um-1mg/kg level that where Caley-level dosages just weren't the evidence they were looking for. What does all this mean for the requirement of biological plausibility? I think this requirement is too strict. We have hundreds of drugs that work but we don't have any MOA or a incomplete MOA. Experiment proceeds theory in all sorts of fields, and is no different in biomedicine. Maybe it's wrong to REQUIRE an MOA from anyone proposing a possible treatment. Though it may be part of the evidence that can help adjust our priors. So I don't think the IVM pumpers were wrong to at least speculate that IVM might be a therapy without a MOA, where they went wrong is relying on in vitro evidence when that has NEVER been any sort of significant evidence of promising therapies (indeed IVM has demonstrated anti-viral properties against 4 other viruses without clinical application). Then they further went wrong by misreading all the observational studies and taking their contempt for the establishment as motivated reasoning. Hopefully science education will learn from these one day.

Why is their no mention made of whether trial participants had been vaccinated against Covid19? That would seem to be an important factor.

@hawaiianrobot

2 жыл бұрын

"Patients who had been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 were eligible for participation in the trial"

@carlward

2 жыл бұрын

@@hawaiianrobot Yes. I finally saw that when I read the original paper. Presumably they were randomly distributed between treatment groups.

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, they were randomly distributed. FWIW, vaccination rates in Brazil were pretty low during the time of the study. By the time the study *ended* vaccination rates had reached 20% of the population, but when it started, it was less than 10%

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

@@mrcaryatis Because the trial was conducted IN BRAZIL

As always an excellent post.

@finkelsteinshitkid1299

2 жыл бұрын

First & foremost, there’s quite literally billions of dollars & counting in conflicts of interest between it’s funders (Gates) & truthful results, which by itself should be enough to be skeptical of it’s results, but especially so since it runs contrary to 80+ other peer reviewed trials/studies which prove it’s efficacy, and it’s trial clinicians have direct ties to Pfizer. Beyond that obvious as hell reality, there’s truly a world of issues/flaws with the trials results, not to mention the fact that trialing data wasn’t published until 7 months after the results were published, and written about by every layer of the Machine’s PR & News outlets, which is wrong on its face value, never mind that there’s countless flaws, all which, each and every one, skews against ivm’s efficacy. - areas of trialing was in high use ivm region so there’s a lack of control group in the placebo group from usage, especially given that we’re taking about a virus that’s been as potentially deadly with a fear campaign behind that may scare those who get infected from actually buying it via the easy & cheap channels of distribution with the region. -the dosage & length of dosages were not only too small, they were 3 days only when all other know anti virals are 5 day min cycles. -there was a low weight limit & dosage limit, and it was directed to use on an empty stomach, and not the recommended full stomach/high fat meal to help with absorption levels -the placebo group was recruited after the ivm patients, so as the variant became more transmittable, the variant pools had changed in between recruitments. ****big hello!**** - in the data collection there’s literally over 200 patients’ data that missing in the results, and the statical analysis proves all those missing patients had positive results. Yup! Ask the hack quack to explain that one alone. - they’re not even sharing the data sets, which they said would be sharing, and absolutely should be sharing. ***there’s more too, but this is enough for you to discuss. Please share your thoughts doc.

I just came back here after watching a clip (Dark Horse podcast) of Bret Weinstein and guest discussing this Together trial, basically highlighting some anomalies which indicate the trial was fudged, therefore should probably be investigated further for validation. However, one of the comments on the clip was, if true, very startling from a medical professional. I would like to share that with you, which side are you on ? Do our immune systems need Vaccines....Don’t be me. I am an M.D. but let me tell you what you do not know about vaccines and what I didn’t know and what 90% of all M.D.'s do not know and what No politician knows... I did not know that Vaccines had not been tested against any placebo (ever). I did not know that animal testing would be skipped for the future COVID vaccines..I did not know the 30+ ingredients used in vaccines. I did not know that there are neurotoxic aluminum and mercury molecules in vaccines. I did not know enough to research vaccines before vaccinating my own children. I did not know that my own precocious, active, talking son would be vaccine-injured. I did not know that my own baby brother (also an M.D.) would become paralyzed (Guillain-Barre) and then die after his swine flu vaccine in the same hospital (Shands) where he had received his medical training. I did not know that my mother(an R.N.) would get 8 vaccines in 1 day to "catch-up" with newly added CDC vaccines to keep her job as Head Nurse in the Largest Hospital in the county and then get such severe, aggressive, progressive brain fog in days and become unable to dial a phone or push an elevator button or remember any of her 5 children in a few weeks and then have this "dementia" progress and then die in diapers I did not know that vaccines were given a blanket indemnity from liability in 1986 and now total immunity for all COVID vaccines for the future. I did not know that we gave more vaccines than any other country starting on day #1...I did not know that we have the highest rate of SIDS of the top 35 industrialized countries... I did not know that we had more autism than any other country... I did not know that Vaccines could injure an infant's brain. I did not know that vaccines can result in autoimmunity and neurological damage. I did not know that herd immunity does not apply to vaccines and is a myth created by the CDC. I did not know that Vaccines have almost no effect after about four years. I did not know how emotional the topic would be and how angry people would be at me for just asking questions about Vaccine Safety. I did not know that pediatricians were paid to give vaccines. I did not know that the CDC owned the Patents on so many vaccines. I did not know that the NIH stands to make Billions of dollars on a COVID vaccine. I did not know how angry at myself I would be for not knowing. I did not know that the CDC committed fraud and destroyed their evidence in their vaccine safety studies when it showed vaccines can cause autistic neurological changes..I did not know that a whistleblower came forward with all the evidence but he was silenced. I did not know that Merck committed fraud in their vaccine research repeatedly. I did not know that aluminum molecules in the vaccine ingredients is connected to brain inflammation and brain inflammation has been proven to be connected to autism. I did not know that vaccines contained human cells from aborted fetuses.. I did not know how much mainstream media would censor the independent research that showed these facts...I did not know that 90% of all vaccine research that the CDC and FDA use to "approve" vaccines are done by the scientists hired by vaccine makers..I did not know if we were alone... I did not know how many other millions of parents and families in the world have been affected by vaccine reactions..I did not know how many would find, join, and share the Facebook help group= Vaccine Support Group on Facebook..I did not know that FB would delete the scientific medical research that had been suppressed, deleted, or censored until it happened to us..

Why did the study only look at 3 days of low-dose ivermectin? Why would we expect to see anything? This is what most ivermectin folks will point out. What's your response?

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

It wasn't low dose. It was exactly the dose recommended by the FLCCC. While it was 3 days, while the FLCCC recommends up to 5 days, ivermectin advocates have repeatedly, consistently touted results from *actual* low dose studies. For example, the Itajai study was *half* of the TOGETHER trial daily dose, and only two days, But the FLCCC authors say it reduces mortality by a huge amount. In other words, why should any ivermectin advocate think it wouldn't work at three days when so many of the studies they claim as support use a lower dose?

@jonk8600

2 жыл бұрын

Did you bother even Googling a normal ivermectin dose? Hint it is half what was given here- 200 micrograms. Meds can have side effects in higher doses and you can overdose on even safe meds. He also addressed that part about dose around 23-24 minutes in. Did you listen to him? He mentioned 7 days as well, not just 3. The study did 3 and 7 days. No effect, no change, no benefits found. But tell us you didn't listen without telling us you didn't listen... And those "folks" are going to believe whatever crazy crap they want regardless of studies or actual science. They are irrelevant at this point in the discussion.

@victorlin4645

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Frontline doesn't recommend up to 5 days. They say to take it for at least 5 days and to keep on taking it for as long as it takes to recover.

@Marco-it2mr

2 жыл бұрын

@@victorlin4645 ...based on studies that often use much shorter treatments, meaning they have zero clinical evidence for their protocol.

@victorlin4645

2 жыл бұрын

@@Marco-it2mr doesn't matter. People following their protocol won't read their "studies" that purport to show efficacy at lower dosages. All they see is that TOGETHER is way less than the current official protocol.

Enlightening stuff. :)

There is a discrepancy in the per protocol numbers, please talk about that.

Thank you. Excellent explanation. Very clear and very detailed.

Ivm use wasn't in the exlusions criteria and trial was conducted in high ivm use area. Could you explain why you don't think this is a flaw in the study?

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

It would be a potential concern if there were reason to believe previous use would somehow escape the randomisation and confound the two groups. How would that happen? It's _much more_ of a concern in studies like the Itajai observational study, but somehow this never bothers ivermectin advocates.

@hugofortierdambreville6107

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Studies, including Ivm were discarted for similar reasons as having a fundamental error. This wouldn't be a case of rules for thee but not for me, would it?

@Marco-it2mr

2 жыл бұрын

@@hugofortierdambreville6107 "Studies, including Ivm were discarted for similar reasons as having a fundamental error. " Those were almost universally studies rejected by the ivm grifters because they showed no benefit.

@hugofortierdambreville6107

2 жыл бұрын

@@Marco-it2mr many that showed benefit were discared for far less and Anti-ivermectin grifter do the same and that's my point. Even biostatisticians that are suppose to be objective are just trying to win an argument.

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

From the paper: “We ensured that trial participants did not have a history of ivermectin use for the treatment of Covid-19 by means of extensive screening of potential participants about this issue.”

I was talking about this last year. That a few of these trials were going to come out on Ivermectin showing that it doesn't work. I'm waiting on Dr John to say anything about this study. Since he is claiming it does work.

@Dragonslairminis

2 жыл бұрын

He's never mentioned any study that shows it doesn't work. He'll find all the fraudulant obscure miniature studies that say it does work though.

@williamverhoef4349

2 жыл бұрын

Well, he just did a video about the illusion of evidence based medicine so he already has his excuse handy. The grifter.

@Dragonslairminis

2 жыл бұрын

@@williamverhoef4349 that wouldn't have been an accident. At least his wiki is accurate.

@steinarnielsen8954

2 жыл бұрын

@@williamverhoef4349 That was an article by the BMJ, not made up by Campbell. Would like to see Greg try to discredit that. I also haven't seen anyone respond to his iodine video yet.

@williamverhoef4349

2 жыл бұрын

@@steinarnielsen8954 "That was an article by the BMJ, not made up by Campbell. " I'm not talking about the article in the BMJ. I'm talking about John Campbell's misinterpretation of the article. Like everything else that grifter touches.

Well, I guess we can expect Dr John Campbell to ignore this study.

@fintonmainz7845

2 жыл бұрын

Retired Nurse Campbell.

@jamesnite2157

2 жыл бұрын

Someone in his comment section asked him if he'll cover the latest study showing that IVM doesn't work. He responded 'Which one?' You know, Nurse Campbell, the largest RCT on IVM that started over a year ago, which was released 2 days ago and reported in the NY Times. Funny how he's immediately on top of poster submissions by undergrads where no study actually exists, but somehow is clueless about this one. He's obviously stalling. I anticipate he will eventually cover it and he'll do his best to undermine it borrowing talking points from Kory, PM and the other dishonest loons to equip their credulous audience with more regurgitative jargon they don't understand. Got to squeeze every last penny out of them. The window for $1000 consultations and 30M+ monthly KZread views is narrowing, people are losing interest. I expect them to go out disgracefully.

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

That's kind of amazing, because I've never seen him reply to a comment!

@jamesnite2157

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I screenshotted it to look back on it with fond memories. It was in response to someone called 'bwa292', who posted yesterday in the 'US follows the UK' video.

@Lily-Bravo

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg He replied to mine, when I 'asked if he would tackle report on the possible effects of Covid on er, men's tackle. Wanted links pretty quickly.

Nice video. It'll be discredited simply because it is hard for people to accept that the holy grail they've been clinging on to, isn't that holy or graily after all.

@jamesnite2157

2 жыл бұрын

Considering they've ceded ground from 'miracle drug' to 'there may be a marginal effect if taken under hyper-specific conditions that we just made up and keep changing'. They'll just keep narrowing the parameters under which it works until people no longer care about IVM, then they'll slink off.

@finkelsteinshitkid1299

2 жыл бұрын

No, it’s being discredited because there’s more holes in it than a wedge of Swiss cheese, not to mention it was paid for by Gates, who un ironically enough has already invested billions into Pfizer’s heart attack in the making, short lived, and variant specific Bs, but hey, enjoy it if you must.

@jamesnite2157

2 жыл бұрын

@@finkelsteinshitkid1299 Which are the holes?

@finkelsteinshitkid1299

2 жыл бұрын

@@jamesnite2157 it’s actually sad that you have to even ask that question, as it should have been mentioned to you by this quack hack. First & foremost, there’s quite literally billions of dollars & counting in conflicts of interest between it’s funders & truthful results, which by itself should be enough to be skeptical of it’s results, but especially so since it runs contrary to 80+ other peer reviewed trials/studies which prove it’s efficacy, and it’s trial clinicians have direct ties to Pfizer. Beyond that obvious as hell reality, there’s truly a world of issues/flaws with the trials results, not to mention the fact that trialing data wasn’t published until 7 months after the results were published, and written about by every layer of the Machine’s PR & News outlets, which is wrong on its face value, never mind that there’s countless flaws, all which, each and every one, skews against ivm’s efficacy. - areas of trialing was in high use ivm region so there’s a lack of control group in the placebo group from usage, especially given that we’re taking about a virus that’s been as potentially deadly with a fear campaign behind that may scare those who get infected from actually buying it via the easy & cheap channels of distribution with the region. -the dosage & length of dosages were not only too small, they were 3 days only when all other know anti virals are 5 day min cycles. -there was a low weight limit & dosage limit, and it was directed to use on an empty stomach, and not the recommended full stomach/high fat meal to help with absorption levels -the placebo group was recruited after the ivm patients, so as the variant became more transmittable, the variant pools had changed in between recruitments. ****big hello!**** - in the data collection there’s literally over 200 patients’ data that missing in the results, and the statical analysis proves all those missing patients had positive results. Yup! Ask the hack quack to explain that one alone. - they’re not even sharing the data sets, which they said would be sharing, and absolutely should be sharing. Shall I continue?

@jamesnite2157

2 жыл бұрын

@@finkelsteinshitkid1299 Regarding billions in COI, I assume you mean through Unitaid and not from FastGrants or the Rainwater Charitable Foundation. I know Unitaid receive non-plurality funding from the B&MG foundation but could you point me to a good source that outlines how much this is? The B&MG foundation fund thousands of organizations, I don’t know the extent to which they can be held directly responsible for the outcome of each one but I may be naive on this. It seems impossible for any well powered RCT not to be traced back to some large manufacturer or funding body in some capacity. If you could direct me to a good source that outlines how these COIs work I’d genuinely be interested in reading it. Regarding the direct ties to Pfizer, I’m aware of two authors who work for Certara (clinical trial simulation and research services), Cytel (statistical analysis) and Platform Life Sciences (clinical trial design), companies that do stats analysis for many pharmaceutical companies. It seems pretty standard for large scientific analytical companies to provide statistical analysis for large pharmaceutical manufacturers (someone has to), but I may be wrong. Is there reason to think that 2 out of 27 authors who work for these companies are somehow compromised, that they overcompensated for the work of the other 25, and is there evidence of it in their presentation of the data? Could you direct me towards where I can find these 80+ studies that prove its efficacy? I’m aware IVMmeta shows this, but they take individual studies, cherry pick the positive criteria (which are often not statsig and will be things like anosmia) and ignore criteria like hospitalization/death if there’s no difference between IVM and control. They also include things like the Efimenko poster abstract which isn’t even a published study (specifically because of the cohorts are apples and oranges). They give significant weight to the Kerr et al. (2022) study for which most of the authors work for the FLCCC, eliminated those who died of IVM from the analysis, claimed it was prospective when they designed the trial after data collection, hid their COIs and published the paper in under 2 weeks following ‘peer review’ in a journal that allows for bypassing of peer review. They also include Borody et al. (2021), without mentioning that he patented his combinatory IVM treatment for $25M - a massively glaring direct COI that is left out, yet they shred TOGETHER for 2/27 authors working for drug stat analysis companies that have analysed stats for pharmaceutical manufacturers. It seems pretty evident the website is run by the FLCCC too. Ultimately, many of these studies are rehashes of low quality trials from the Bryant et al. meta, which include studies with undersized samples, without blinding, RGS, controls (or with nonplacebo controls) or with using combination treatments. There is no attempt to separate or categorise these at all in the meta. They reference the twitter threads/substacks of biased non-scientists like Marinos and Kirsch (with personal investment in IVM), who showed their bias in making errors with hastyy cherry picking of data that showed they didn’t read the study (e.g. misinterpreting the change in ITT to PP placebo groups as a ‘drop-out’ when it was a combination of groups for different study arms). Most of these studies are extremely poor quality evidence, with MAs adjusting for this showing no effect from IVM. Their criticisms of the TOGETHER trial seem incredibly pedantic (like their description of potential blinding issues) for a site that includes many more poorly designed trials with far more glaring examples of the same criticisms. The fact that the only critical analysis of the studies on their website (under Study Notes) is solely for well-powered studies that showed little to no effect is a huge blaring alarm at the bias of this site. Why does this not apply to the weak positive studies for which all these criticisms are even more valid? Also a large proportion of their references for these criticisms are tweets, substacks, or their own work - not very scientific. Regarding late publishing of the data, I have no idea why that is I’m afraid. Unfortunately I don’t have experience in publishing clinical trial data so I don’t know whether this is particularly unusual or what the reasons could be. Perhaps it’s related to the political firestorm surrounding the drug which required more careful consideration of data as it’s more likely to be misrepresented by one group or another. Would like to hear from the authors on that though. Regarding areas of trialing being in high use IVM regions, the paper did say “We ensured that trial participants did not have a history of ivermectin use for the treatment of Covid-19 by means of extensive screening of potential participants about this issue.” It seems strange for those in the control group to lie, but if they did would that not also apply to the IVM trials that showed efficacy in Brazil and other regions of high IVM use? Regarding the dosage, it would have been good to see it for 5 days as is used for rem (although mild treatment is 3 days), pax, dex etc. I think ACTIV-6 and COVOUT are using 5 days so hopefully that sheds some light on a 5 day course. That said, many IVM proponents claimed IVM as very effective for early treatment after just a single dose, which was the rationale for the TOGETHER trial “We responded to feedback from advocacy groups regarding this administration schedule and adapted the duration of ivermectin administration to 3 days at a relatively high dose as compared with most other trials of this drug”. In terms of dosage, 400 ug/kg was the maximal amount recommended by even the pro-IVM FLCCC at the time of this trial (v. 10 of their protocol states 200-400 ug/kg for early treatment - they changed this to 400-600 ug/kg after this trial, so even then it’s still within their bounds). IVM positive trials used lower dosages for less time, e.g. Niaee: 0.2-0.4 mg/kg x1-3 days; Chaccour: 0.4 mg/kg x1 day; Chowdhury: 0.2 mg/kg x1 day; Hashim: 0.2 mg/kg x2 days; Ravakirti: 12 mg x2 days (~0.2 mg/kg in a 70 kg person). I don’t know why their dosage weight limit was 90kg (~200 lbs), would be interesting to hear the authors on this. That said the BMI

Finally after many many months we are seeing evidence based rebuttals rather than over hyped pictures of horses. The government bodies who treat the population like idiots should learn from that and report science not hype. Unfortunatey it does take time for scientific findings to be secured. Impatience is something that the public can be blamed for and leaves them vulnerable to false claims.

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

Speaking just for myself, I have _always_ hated the "horse paste" arguments against ivermectin for Covid. The problem is not that we are not horses; the problem is that SARS-Cov-2 is not a parasite.

@enkido5838

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Since there are multitudes of repurposed drugs, some with surprising or poorly understood mechanisms, the problem for me has been the hype and lack of presentation of actual studies. For that matter, even a rebuttal based on discussing mechanisms was missing from the popular press. Expecting or hoping for. unforeseen outcomes is not illogical. The story of how aspirin became a sort of universal medicine is so familiar, that the idea that an existing cheap drug could have amazing properties is not far fetched. Students of science are taught the opportunistic nature of discoveries such as penicillin. Scoffing by physicians of germ theory is part of science education encouraging open mindedness. The IVM story shows a distain for the intellectual capability of people. Perhaps that is why pseudo science spreads. The purveyors can manipulate their audience by showing them (false) respect. The counter to that is better science comunication. Both the press and governing bodies fell down on that with IVM and several other parts of the covid response. I regularly view this channel and (ahem...) Dr C. I think the commonality is clarity of communication at a good level of detail with respect for the audience and lack of hype. I form my opinions myself.

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

@@enkido5838 I'm a huge advocate for repurposing. It's just that there needs to be evidence (and ideally a plausible mechanism). For ivermectin, this has been lacking.

@Poppityy

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg why does the NIH have multiple studies showing efficacy of early ivermectin treatment tho?

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

@@Poppityy do they really, though?

You haven't mentioned any flaw in this study. Were you able to spot any? Were they so unsignificant that you didn't thought it was worth talking about?

@hugofortierdambreville6107

2 жыл бұрын

@@redbuoy9496 ?

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

As clinical trials go, it was really a top-shelf study. It would have been good to see the baseline characteristics of vaccination, although that's still unlikely to be a differnce between groups. Some of the arguments I've been reading from Ivermectin advocates (zinc, only three days) are just silly. This was a very large, well-controlled study. If Ivermectin treatment had -- as claimed by its advocates -- a *massive* benefit from five days use, it should have had an observable benefit at three days use. There is some possibility that the slight risk reduction seen in the primary outcome could have held up had the study been continued, so there is an argument that the study should have continued.

@hugofortierdambreville6107

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg ''these advocates'' may be bias but you do proper science, right? What if there is a benefit(not massive), is it possible we wouldn't see it at a three day use?

@williamverhoef4349

2 жыл бұрын

@@hugofortierdambreville6107 "@red Buoy ?" I think he meant "back at you".

So that means they gave 679 subjects IVM for 3 days? Is that it? So if I take a pain killer for three days and then a week later I get a headache that proves painkillers don't work? Am I missing something?

@Marco-it2mr

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, you are missing a lot.

FLCCC 👍👍👍

@williamverhoef4349

2 жыл бұрын

I live on the other side of the world so, from here, your thumbs are all pointing the right way...DOWN ;)

Toe Rogan was wrong? No way!

@Documentts

2 жыл бұрын

Joe Rogan was not wrong

@jf5990

2 жыл бұрын

@@Documentts yes, he was.

@MarcosElMalo2

2 жыл бұрын

Toe Rogan got himself in a jam. Something is afoot-a lot of people want to sock him.

@DirtyDawg

2 жыл бұрын

@@Documentts he was, sorry man

@Documentts

2 жыл бұрын

@@jf5990 Joe Rogan got better and very quickly after catching the delta variant so it’s hard to say that he was wrong. Whatever he did it worked for him

In 1970, when I was contemplating studying medicine, my father said to me that becoming a doctor wouldn't be too difficult, because some of the doctors he had to deal with in his capacity as Chief Haematologist at the local hospital, "wouldn't know the difference between shit and clay, but managed to pass their medical examinations." I guess he was talking about the sort of doctors behind the FLCCC.

@edwardcase1460

2 жыл бұрын

​@@mdmurray17 Even more shameful than being incompetent and not knowing the difference between shit and clay, since they claimed that they had no conflicts of interest and were motivated supposedly by the Hippocratic Oath. Such an emotive bunch who lack the cautious, cool, calm and collected approach of Prof Greg.

@hawaiianrobot

2 жыл бұрын

was it the FLCCC who was behind using corticosteroids for the inflammation? that at least would be a positive from them, but the rest of their suggested treatments are just bonkers

@edwardcase1460

2 жыл бұрын

@@hawaiianrobot If one doesn't know the difference between shit and clay then by the law of averages they will get it right 50% of the time, unless they are confused about the differences between the two and will be wrong all the time. Still pigheadedly sticking with Ivermectin tends to to take the gilding off the gingerbread of anything positive the FLCCC has had to offer. As for that bungling old duffer Dr John Campbell, one is left wondering how much illness and deaths he might be possibly responsible for with his misinformation appealing to anti-vaxxers and Ivermectin believers.

@finkelsteinshitkid1299

2 жыл бұрын

First & foremost, there’s quite literally billions of dollars & counting in conflicts of interest between it’s funders (Gates) & truthful results, which by itself should be enough to be skeptical of it’s results, but especially so since it runs contrary to 80+ other peer reviewed trials/studies which prove it’s efficacy, and it’s trial clinicians have direct ties to Pfizer. Beyond that obvious as hell reality, there’s truly a world of issues/flaws with the trials results, not to mention the fact that trialing data wasn’t published until 7 months after the results were published, and written about by every layer of the Machine’s PR & News outlets, which is wrong on its face value, never mind that there’s countless flaws, all which, each and every one, skews against ivm’s efficacy. - areas of trialing was in high use ivm region so there’s a lack of control group in the placebo group from usage, especially given that we’re taking about a virus that’s been as potentially deadly with a fear campaign behind that may scare those who get infected from actually buying it via the easy & cheap channels of distribution with the region. -the dosage & length of dosages were not only too small, they were 3 days only when all other know anti virals are 5 day min cycles. -there was a low weight limit & dosage limit, and it was directed to use on an empty stomach, and not the recommended full stomach/high fat meal to help with absorption levels -the placebo group was recruited after the ivm patients, so as the variant became more transmittable, the variant pools had changed in between recruitments. ****big hello!**** - in the data collection there’s literally over 200 patients’ data that missing in the results, and the statical analysis proves all those missing patients had positive results. Yup! Ask the hack quack to explain that one alone. - they’re not even sharing the data sets, which they said would be sharing, and absolutely should be sharing. ***there’s more too, but this is enough for you to discuss. Please share your thoughts doc.

@davidjuliesmiththomas7983

2 жыл бұрын

Kory is a genuine ICU respiratory expert and you should show some respect. What a cheap insult from a spectator in the cheap seats.

So you have no criticism on the trial? Everything was perfect? No errors in the calculations? The randomised controlled trial was performed correctly? Just want make sure you are a happy with your statement.

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

Actually I have a number of criticisms of the trial! I'm preparing a video to go over them, as well as the crticisims of others.

at 14:25 you said milligrams/kg instead of micrograms/kg

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

It is 0.4 mg/kg/day, which is 400 ug/kg/day. At least at 14:25, I said 0.4 mg/kg, which is correct.

@tharic4981

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg oh nevermind I didnt do the conversion right haha

Excellent. Nailed it.

I understand the flexible platform of the trial. However the number of participants were too small for a conclusive outcome.

@lari5891

2 жыл бұрын

Researchers looked for a clinically meaningful effect, which was determined in advance. Probably a larger sample would have given them the statistical significance, but such a small effect would be meaningless for real world treatment.

@richvid9814

2 жыл бұрын

@@lari5891 ^Yep

I saw this and am happy to to be wrong if the facts say that. Would still like you to do the vaccine trial study though Prof. 🙂

@nonflyingdutchman9573

2 жыл бұрын

But you never seem to clarify what you actually mean. What does 'do the vaccine trial study' mean? Pfizer published on their study in the same journal some time ago and it's there to read, there's nothing surprising, it is was it is.

@oldgaffer9212

2 жыл бұрын

@@nonflyingdutchman9573 Hi mate it's just iv seen other Drs do it and they were alarmed at the amount of deaths and side effects so I read it and it does seem a bit alarming. Just worries me as most of my family has had it and my mom had palpitations for weeks after her booster and the family Dr advised her not to have any more. Then you see comments on Twitter from Drs who are not sure of it. Hope your day is good mate

@nonflyingdutchman9573

2 жыл бұрын

@@oldgaffer9212 which doctors and what was the source of their data?

@jf5990

2 жыл бұрын

@@nonflyingdutchman9573 2nd this comment haven’t seen any.

@francessimmonds5784

2 жыл бұрын

@@nonflyingdutchman9573 most likely Campbell or kory.

Someone called A Marinos now says the Togrther Trial doesnt really add up. I think further cross examination may be relevant

@Marco-it2mr

2 жыл бұрын

Someone called "Iam à Moron" burped. I think this means Alex Marinos is wrong. Seriously, though, why should further cross examination be relevant just because a serial disinformer says it doesn't add up? He's just a software guy.

24:14 "...they're just not... hopefully this allows people to move forward... with... effective for patients, treatments and prevention for covid-19 that will help all of us get back to normal. " Haaa haa HA! Good One Prof ! Oh... you're being serious ? . . . Ummm, but have you met the internet? B-)

@finkelsteinshitkid1299

2 жыл бұрын

First & foremost, there’s quite literally billions of dollars & counting in conflicts of interest between it’s funders (Gates) & truthful results, which by itself should be enough to be skeptical of it’s results, but especially so since it runs contrary to 80+ other peer reviewed trials/studies which prove it’s efficacy, and it’s trial clinicians have direct ties to Pfizer. Beyond that obvious as hell reality, there’s truly a world of issues/flaws with the trials results, not to mention the fact that trialing data wasn’t published until 7 months after the results were published, and written about by every layer of the Machine’s PR & News outlets, which is wrong on its face value, never mind that there’s countless flaws, all which, each and every one, skews against ivm’s efficacy. - areas of trialing was in high use ivm region so there’s a lack of control group in the placebo group from usage, especially given that we’re taking about a virus that’s been as potentially deadly with a fear campaign behind that may scare those who get infected from actually buying it via the easy & cheap channels of distribution with the region. -the dosage & length of dosages were not only too small, they were 3 days only when all other know anti virals are 5 day min cycles. -there was a low weight limit & dosage limit, and it was directed to use on an empty stomach, and not the recommended full stomach/high fat meal to help with absorption levels -the placebo group was recruited after the ivm patients, so as the variant became more transmittable, the variant pools had changed in between recruitments. ****big hello!**** - in the data collection there’s literally over 200 patients’ data that missing in the results, and the statical analysis proves all those missing patients had positive results. Yup! Ask the hack quack to explain that one alone. - they’re not even sharing the data sets, which they said would be sharing, and absolutely should be sharing. ***there’s more too, but this is enough for you to discuss. Please share your thoughts doc.

Well folks, we finally conned everyone with a fixed trial.

Anyone know who financed this trial?

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

I discuss it in the video

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

@@mrcaryatis your mendacity is tiresome. Nobody pays me for anything related to my video content. I'm a professor by profession. I supervise PhD students, perform research, sit on promotion and tenure committees, etc.

@Marco-it2mr

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Greg, what else does he have other than being mendacious? If reality does not fit your desired narrative, and that desired narrative is all you got, you have no choice but to become a serial liar like mrcaryatis.

Why was the ivermectin only given for 3 days? FLCCC recommends minimum 5 days or longer if still symptomatic. Seems like this was designed to fail.

@Marco-it2mr

2 жыл бұрын

The FLCCC recommends that *now*. Their recommendations are a moving target - they keep on changing it (supposedly based on new evidence).

@quetailion6762

2 жыл бұрын

FLCCC lol

@denisepappas4644

2 жыл бұрын

@@Marco-it2mr they always recommended 5 days but as the virus mutated the dose changed. This trial reminds me of the Hcq one in Europe, which used toxic doses, Set up to fail.

@richvid9814

2 жыл бұрын

@@denisepappas4644 5 days sounds right, that is about the same time a healthy person would get over a mild covid infection on their own ( If they had a bowl of chicken soup during that time period the outcome would be the same)

@lari5891

2 жыл бұрын

Presumably prominent IVT proponents found enormous effects with lower doses; their recommendations are not evidence based. The authors of this manuscript consulted with IVP proponents themselves and followed the protocol accepted in Brazil. There is a justification for this in the supplementary materials. And I see no reason for them to want IVM to fail when they did find effects of other equality cheap repurposed medicines.

Where did this comment disappear? I would say that instead, it was a failed trial due to the 391 placebo recipients who admitted they did not follow protocol versus the 55 in the ivermectin arm.” More questions than answers Rather than pounding the final nail in the coffin around ivermectin’s utility in treating COVID, the NEJM study raises more questions. What would the effect have been if a higher dose shown to be effective were administered? What would be the benefit of this medicine in patients with no risk factors? How statistically significant would the results have been if more participants were enrolled? Why weren’t more participants enrolled as the study progressed given the emerging benefit of the drug and the absence of adverse events? Why did the investigators define a primary outcome with such different real-world implications (ER visits vs hospitalizations)? With less than 50% of the placebo arm adhering to the study protocol, why were their outcomes included in the analysis? What effect did vaccination status have on outcome? If this is the primary means endorsed to prevent hospitalization, why wasn’t vaccination status mentioned as a confounder? Did the investigators choose to limit the study as it became clear that an Ivermectin benefit would be too big to ignore?

@Doeyhead

2 жыл бұрын

It's probably more the opposite case. They saw nothing was happening no matter what they did and changed the trial to force a Beneficial result and still didn't get one.

@skepticalbadger

2 жыл бұрын

You can try to massage and second-guess it all you like. Fact is that if any of these were flaws, they'd have been picked up in peer-review. If anything they responded to more pro-IVM criticism and adapted the trial than you'd expect due to the model Greg outlines. Did you watch his video?

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

I should have been more clear on this, because that is *not at all* what it means. From the paper: "Although all the participants who had been assigned to the 3-day and 14-day placebo regimens were included in the intention-to-treat population, only those who had been assigned to the 3-day placebo regimen were included in the per-protocol population." Do you see the difference? The placebo arm of a platform study includes people whose protocol is designed for *other* treatments. In this case, the other treatments had *even longer* requirements. It's not that they stopped taking placebo in less than three days. It's that they continued taking placebo for two weeks.

@williamverhoef4349

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg "I should have been more clear" Well, it was as clear as a bell. Some just don't want to pay attention. Some just copy and paste stuff they found on pro-ivermectin sites which, in turn, are often helped along by antivaxxers who promote ivermectin to replace of the vaccines.

@williamverhoef4349

2 жыл бұрын

"Where did this comment disappear?" It's still there and it was clearly a copy/paste from a pro-ivermectin of antivax website. And definitely not worth repeating. I won't repeat my take-down here. If you are interested you can go back and read it there.

Lol, I shouldn't be laughing, but it seems you have no idea just how much just a few words of this video will resonate most with the antivaxx masses, and not in a good way: The words " the Melissa and Bill Gates Foundation ".

Isn't the whole point of ivermectin to give it in combination with zinc?

@stephenguy3901

2 жыл бұрын

Who told you that ?

@wbaumschlager

2 жыл бұрын

@@stephenguy3901 It's all over the place. Ivermectin + zinc + even some third thing which escapes me at the moment.

@Marco-it2mr

2 жыл бұрын

@@wbaumschlager If it is, why does the FLCCC keep on touting (and writing) papers in which zinc is not part of the treatment protocol?

@jamesnite2157

2 жыл бұрын

@@wbaumschlager Doxycycline? Yeah, that '3 prong treatment' is being pushed by Thomas Borody, a gastroenterologist who raised $25m of investment to patent that treatment in 2020. He then started publishing papers saying how amazing it was while failing to tell the public and government he stands to make a fortune from it. Look up his papers on it, and look closely at his co-authors (initials are P.M.). IVM can supposedly function as an ionophore, allowing Zn to enter the cell and inhibit viral replication. Except they already studied that with ascorbic acid (vitamin C), a good Zn ionophore and it had no effect. They also found Zn isn't particularly effective at inhibiting Covid and can even be damaging if given at the wrong time point. Don't know why IVM would be more effective. Most people pushing it alongside other treatments have zero data that it's effective, probably don't even have clinical experience with it. The FLCCC just carried across Marik's nonsense sepsis protocol that has recently been found to be fraudulent (he very likely fabricated numbers). They're dumping IVM into it because, 'why not' I guess.

@lari5891

2 жыл бұрын

so how do you know that the presumed effect is related to IVM and not zinc or the third thing?

Ivermectin is completely stupid but the dosages tested here aren't even remotely similar to Frontline. They say 0.4 - 0.6 mg/kg daily for 5 days, not 3, and to *keep on taking it until recovered,* which could be longer than 5 days. TOGETHER Trial just ends it at 3 days. Most people will read the "take 5 days or until recovered" part as telling them to keep on taking it until they feel better / test negative. I'm far from a proponent of this drug as it doesn't work, but the trial is low dose and so the "debate" will continue - and perhaps this is what they want... to keep on moving the goalposts.

@ChadLieberman1

2 жыл бұрын

😂

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

Do you also discount studies that Frontline says prove efficacy of ivermectin that use even lower doses?

@victorlin4645

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg at the end of the day, the study dosage doesn't match the "officially recommended" dosage - at best, the dosage is less by two days. At worst, the dosage is WAY less as the "official" one is to just keep on taking it until recovery. *I* don't discount these studies as I know from reading them that ivermectin is completely bunk, BUT others will see in no time that the dosages are way smaller than the official dosages by Frontline. So this study isn't going to change anyone's minds. It's hardly a home run, as much as we want it to be.

@no1nhere61

2 жыл бұрын

@@victorlin4645 Frontline "Doctors" are a munch of quacks that get money from people that are too stupid to realize they are being duped. Even their own website has a disclaimer to not use their medical advise.

@adrianstevenson1205

2 жыл бұрын

Your comments section to me always seems telling. Im no expert on this debate in the slightest. I'm not qualified to take these documents and make an informed decision without the input of professionals such as yourself... and dr kory..and cambel. So... im one of the ones these videos are made for. But im also one of the ones dr cambels videos are for. I have become more skeptical of the other side as time goes on and i recognise this as healthy. I try and avoid ending up in an echo chamber so i always jump to the comments section a discern what i can from the audience of videos. But 4 shots brace for a 5th? Really? However, Imo your going to keep talking about ivermectin. I get you dont want to...To me, the sheeple seem to be trouncing you and you seem to have distain for them. Your responses often seem angry and that saddens me. Your not doing add hominium attacks and ty for that, but ive only seen a couple of your videos and in the comments section is always a war... and you jumping to "so you support this document then" when the other side has made no comment of such. Well i cant defend myself if you do that to me. Idk enough, nor do i feel like ever my arrival of a conclusion with ever be one that i can expertly back. I am one of the ones these such videos are for. Ty for making them. All i can say is your combative and maybe rightfully so but not convincing. But you are better then other pro vaccine supporters on yourube and there echo chambers. Im going to get this out the way. I am not anti vax and only a little anti this vax to anyone reading this. I think it has saved many lives but im not convinced that there isnt something nefarious about or that we could have had somthing better if ivermectin wasnt squashed like a bug for the past 2 yrs. im not medically minded. You dont seem open minded. And maybe rightfully so, you are a dr but Your support thus far after 1 hr release of this vid seem like clapping seals "oh toe rogan was wrong"! I want to see comments poiting out your on points and not just praise of you...or dospearagment of the other side. For anyone reading this please point out the smoking gun to me here. I want to know and would like the ivermectin debate put to rest. This Seems like a typical echo chamber. The perponents of ivermectin here are already in minutes pointing out flaws to this study. This is not a good look. I agree the ivermectin debate continues. Despite my appearnt dislike for you i will remain subscribed and listen. You seem to give better explanation imo then others like "i forget her name unfortnatly... but her dog just passed if that helps identify her. Just fir anyone reading this. I appriciate that. Keep pumping them out i suppose. But this does not convince me.

1st of April, yeah we're gonna believe you!

So these new ivermectin trials occurred during low infection rate and having a less varulant variant that is more transmissabile with less sickness.

@salsa564

2 жыл бұрын

Irrelevant

@ronyan1

2 жыл бұрын

This is incorrect, the Ivermectin arm of the trial was concluded by July 2021 (no omicron). You can see this on the together trial website. Scientific -> Trial Specifications. The pre-print results were out in summer 2021.

@skepticalbadger

2 жыл бұрын

Wow, you guys are really coping hard with this one. It's sad.

@williamverhoef4349

2 жыл бұрын

"varulant variant' Did you mean 'varulent viriant' or 'virulent variant' ? Seriously, though, would you please check you facts before commenting next time. Otherwise you're just spreading misinformation. Wait....

@fintonmainz7845

2 жыл бұрын

False.

Trials and trials - but what of doctors around the world using IVM and seeing real recoveries from very ill patients ? I usually ask - Follow the money as in who finances/benefits disparaging IVM - maybe Merck ? Molnupiravir ? And was IVM taken with fats as prescribed ? Did the trial only use .4/kg - i thought .6-.8 was recommended with symptoms ?

@nonflyingdutchman9573

2 жыл бұрын

just to clarify, your argument is that unverified anecdotes carry more weight than randomised clinical trials that are peer-reviewed and published in credible journals?

@matthewa6052

2 жыл бұрын

Do you understand how idiotic that claim is about big pharma hindering IVM? It’s owned by Merck & Co., it’s one of the largest pharmaceuticals. They’ve made billions from IVM alone.

@Reelfurniture

2 жыл бұрын

@@matthewa6052 it's off patent hence horse dewormer tag so their Molnupiravir could sell. do the research before accusing please

@Doeyhead

2 жыл бұрын

@@Reelfurniture again, just to clarify.......your argument is that unverified anecdotes carry more weight than randomized clinical trials that are peer-reviewed and published in credible journals?

@matthewa6052

2 жыл бұрын

@@Reelfurniture it is off patent, but that doesn’t change the fact it’s origins and major financial benefits are to big pharma. Merck is also still the largest producer next to other third parties, so if your encouraging people to purchase they’ll more than likely purchased Merck direct production. 😂

Here’s a bigger question: Who is just incompetent, or complicit, too?

@Dragonslairminis

2 жыл бұрын

I think we'll find out in the next few days. Who is stupid and who is a scammer. Let's see who mentions this trial and changed their mind. In fairness to Joe I think he's stupid, Nurse Campbell on the other hand comes across more as a scammer.

@MarcosElMalo2

2 жыл бұрын

Look in the mirror, and tell me which one you see.

Unfortunately, they gave ivermectin on an empty stomach, which is what is done when the target (parasite) is in the intestine and the drug is needed there. When the target (SARS CoV-2) is in the lungs, the drug must be absorbed; in this trial, ivermectin should have been taken with fatty food to ensure its bioavailability. Without drug absorption, this trial is meaningless.

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for your comment. There is a very detailed analysis of drug absorption in the protocol development of this trial. There is a strong age-dependence, and the effect is quite limited in all but younger people. In addition, what are your thoughts on other studies that don't do anything about ivermectin+food, but because they report a positive effect of ivermectin are praised by ivermectin advocates?

@Marco-it2mr

2 жыл бұрын

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Kanji has been captured by the ivm grifters (see his channel), so don't expect any reasonable response.

From the NEJM: "(The trial also involved other interventions that are not reported here.)" Why not report every detail? There are myriad ways to twist the truth.

@Marco-it2mr

2 жыл бұрын

See the video: the TOGETHER trial looked at several other treatments. Also, those other treatments are mentioned in the METHODS section.

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

This is an adaptive platform trial. It's perpetual and allows looking at multiple interventions, but analysis is reported on a per-intervention basis. I cover this extensively in the video

@williamverhoef4349

2 жыл бұрын

"From the NEJM: "(The trial also involved other interventions that are not reported here.)" Why not report every detail? There are myriad ways to twist the truth." OMG! Another commenter who hasn't bothered to either watch the video or read the paper but wants to ask a question that was clearly answered and explained in detail in the video he didn't watch and the paper he didn't read. This is an ongoing Adaptive Platform Trial. Got it? No? Then, please, for the love of Thor, go back and watch the detailed explanation in the first half of the video. Good heavens!

@jamesnite2157

2 жыл бұрын

Why not watch every detail before commenting?

@stephenarling1667

2 жыл бұрын

@@jamesnite2157 I did. Same question.

22:10 Why do you say "no differences" when nearly every ivermectin subgroup is doing better, esp. "age >50 yr" and "bmi < 30" which are huge groups in the population?

We have here a city of 6k treated with IVM like in Utar Pradesh when medical kits were given per household with IVM.cases go down.I think this must be considered real world datas.

@lari5891

2 жыл бұрын

Uttar Pradesh abandoned IVT in 2021 because they found it ineffective.

@arielsanpedro1484

2 жыл бұрын

@@lari5891 It was effective in utar predesh but their medical institute abondoned IVM for unknown reaso ns.But ut did helped during delta surge.that real world data cant be denied

@Marco-it2mr

2 жыл бұрын

Really? So, how do you know it was the ivm, and not the other drugs that were in the medical kit? How many kits were distributed and how many people actually *took* the drugs (including the ivm) in those kits? Why did other Indian states that did NOT hand out such kits (or at least not kits containing ivm) have similar case growth and decline as UP? Why did some other states that used ivm NOT see such a growth and decline as in UP? Why is it so obvious that UP has been really bad in keeping track of the COVID pandemic in their state? With regard to the last point, a seroprevalence study done across all of India showed UP to the second-to-last in terms of detecting COVID cases - about 99 out of 100 cases were not found...

@arielsanpedro1484

2 жыл бұрын

@@Marco-it2mr Medical kits are composed of IVM and Vitamins.

@Marco-it2mr

2 жыл бұрын

@@arielsanpedro1484 The medical kits in UP also contained azithromycin and zinc. Still, even if they didn't, please show a) that it worked, and b) if it did that it was the ivm, and not the vitamins.

The Together trial was set up to fail. Come on you know that fine well!!

Looking further into other videos and online websites, one of the authors distinctly said the gates Foundation did have a direct connection to the funding of this trial. Clearly, your statement that you didn't find that is quite possibly true, however, that doesn't mean Mr Gates and co had no influence or provided help to fund it. No direct connection ? Yeah right. In fact, if you read up on other videos of this trial, and read the comments, you might get a totally different viewpoint than that of yours, one of which is that the trial was set up to fail from the start.

@jamesnite2157

2 жыл бұрын

Which author? Which other videos say this? Why are you relying on the comment section of random youtubers for scientific information? How was the trial set up to fail from the start? What is your scientific background? Do you believe you are equipped to verify what random KZreadrs/commenters say about a trial?

@jamesnite2157

2 жыл бұрын

@@mrcaryatis Wasn't that the Oxford PRINCIPLE trial late last year? This one, the TOGETHER trial, they just upped the dosage of IVM from 1x to 3x based on advocacy feedback.

@tonymak9213

2 жыл бұрын

One of the authors on the list...C Raynor (from memory), other videos? Yep there's more than one, one even lists 5 reasons the trial is bogus, start with giving trial recipients just one dose of IVM, (since when did one magic pill ever cure anything?). Then they upped the dose to three times, when even the clinicians give it until symptoms subside. As for comments, why should yours trump anyone elses ? Read them all, because just one might give a valid enough reason to discount the whole video. But clearly, you believe professors can't miss out any relevant points, by mistake or purposely. Enough now, I've read as much as I need to see the fans of pharma to believe their narrative and nothing else, paid or not. One final comment, if you were at home with covid, home isolating just as told, paracetamol at the ready, feeling like crap and wondering at what point you're going to call for help, you wouldn't even take IVM just to try and cure yourself ? Yep, just put your faith in the medical fraternity then, and pray. More fool you.

@jamesnite2157

2 жыл бұрын

@@tonymak9213 ​ @Tony Mak Link me to the source where Rayner said the the B&MG Foundation directly contributed to the funding, and then describe how that invalidates the data. Tell me the name of the best video that invalidates the study. So if 3 doses isn’t enough, do you concede that all the studies that demonstrated a major positive effect from IVM (Niaee, Chaccour, Chowhury, Hashim, Ravakirti) are now void as they used only 1-2 days at a lower dosage? And no, the FLCCC (not ‘clinicians’), this one specific group, based on zero safety data whatsoever, with ties to people with multi-million dollar patents for IVM combination therapies, say to give it for 5 days or until symptoms subside (v. Where do they get this data from? And why is this miracle drug, that apparently everyone who takes it shares identical anecdotes where symptoms subside within hours, suddenly demonstrates none of this miraculous power even halfway through their arbitrary protocol, 3x more than positive studies used, and 6x higher than what actual safety data demonstrates? No study is perfect, but this was a perfectly adequately well done trial. Things could be improved upon, sure, but people who are treating IVM as some flagship hill to die scrabbling around to discredit the minutiae of the study when they were literally holding aloft undergrad poster submissions a month ago are pathetic. There are still ongoing trials that may show IVM to have some benefit (ACTIV-6, COVID-OUT, PRINCIPLE) - I hope they do. A cheap and effective treatment that will help save more lives is great. At this point it's pretty obvious it isn't some 'miracle' or substitute for the vaccine like grifters were claiming, but it may show some modest benefit like it did for dengue virus. That would be great. But people politicising it and pretending to be scientific experts because they watched a few KZread videos and never set foot in a lab are tedious, and complete hypocrites talking about lives lost when they've been downplaying deaths for 2 years. I never said my comments trump anyone’s. I said ‘why are you relying on the comment section of random youtubers for scientific information’. I am a random youtuber. Do not rely on me for scientific information. If you want me to substantiate any claim, I will provide a source. I expect that courtesy returned. Yes I do believe professors can miss out relevant points. If they have missed them out, point me to an actual source that covers that point. I want to know what is true, I’m not interested in team sports or tribalism. Accusing people who disagree with you of being shills is a cop-out. Stop doing it. If there was robust data that showed it was effective, sure. But I don’t just take drugs on a whim that it might work based on in vitro studies. If you were at home feeling rough from Covid, would you take salbutamol? Varenicline? Levamisole? Mebendazole? Triclabendazole? They'll probably do you no harm. So why only IVM? Is it because a group of people staked their reputation and financial investment into it based on an in vitro study and fraudulent clinical trials, have dug their heels in and duped millions into thinking it’s a miracle drug by telling you they’re anti-establishment and that ‘the powers that be’ are out to get you, so therefore you'll revere them, buy their product and donate to their sites? And you put your ‘faith’ in the medical and scientific establishment every time you eat processed food or go to hospital. You're not above it.

Adaptive protocol is a nice way to mix and match variables to make the results fit your thesis. Terrible design. Try starting and finishing a study without changing variables and then get back to me with real results.

@Marco-it2mr

2 жыл бұрын

Also already done: I-TECH. Ivermectin failed.

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

Oh, no, not at all. Adaptive protocols are a great way to get more hypotheses tested more quickly and more rigorously. It's not just "mix and match variables to make the results fit your thesis".

Adaptive platform trial.....tinker with the trial during its course to get the result you desire. Seems fair enough, just like what the pharma ordered.

@williamverhoef4349

2 жыл бұрын

That was a pretty ignorant comment. Let me guess. You didn't watch the video. And you didn't read the paper. And you have no idea what you are talking about anyway.

By the way, Greg, I am not against vaccinations and never was. I have travelled a lot so had to get vaccinated and also had the normal ones, my children too. But I have my worries about these vaccines for many reasons. I will not go into it here but it is enough to say that I have been aware of Anthony Fauci for decades.

@nonflyingdutchman9573

2 жыл бұрын

well if you don't go into your reasons it's a pretty meaningless post

@angelinebriscoe-sperling8177

2 жыл бұрын

@@nonflyingdutchman9573 I simply replies to Greg saying I was against vaccines. Regarding Anthony Fauci, I said I will not go into him here but people can read.

@nonflyingdutchman9573

2 жыл бұрын

@@angelinebriscoe-sperling8177 but why don't you tell us what your worries about these vaccines that you alluded to in your original post are?

@drdave34

2 жыл бұрын

Since Anthony Fauci didn’t make any of the COVID vaccines, your paranoia is both weird in itself and irrelevant here.

@angelinebriscoe-sperling8177

2 жыл бұрын

@@drdave34 of course he didn't. Did I say he did. No need for a reply. I repeat: I am only here to watch Greg's videos. We may have different opinions but he is mannerly and respectful so I can correspond with him. I find some people here passive aggressive but never saying much. So we leave it like that.

Thanks Pity most of the ivermectin trolls have moved on to troll in support of Putin’s war.

@Documentts

2 жыл бұрын

Joe Rogan said ivermectin helped him

@jonk8600

2 жыл бұрын

@@Documentts Must be true. A guy who got hit in the head for a living with no education or medical background says so.

@dellhell8842

2 жыл бұрын

@@Documentts LOL. The same Joe Rogan who said in February "I talk shit for a living" and "If you want my advice, don't take my advice".

@MarcosElMalo2

2 жыл бұрын

Funny how that worked. It’s almost as if a lot of them were Russian trolls trying to meddle in the public health of the world.

@MarcosElMalo2

2 жыл бұрын

@@Documentts Joe Rogan combined it with ayahuasca. Ayahuasca seems to be the magic key to boosting a lot of drugs effectiveness, including placebos.

IVERMECTIN , YES. Thank you .

13:00 "Unrelated to Ivermectin" is not the point. "Unrelated to Pfizer, Moderna, J&J..." (you know what I mean) is what we need to know here.

Everybody has their biases. People who are convinced that IVM is useless (and they may very well be correct) also walk around touting masks, which have been shown to be useless.

@Doeyhead

2 жыл бұрын

Masks work period. Not as effective as we would like, but effective none the less.

@darylfoster6133

2 жыл бұрын

@@Doeyhead no they don't. Read the studies. Compare the states that had heavy handed mask policies with those that didn't. They're 0-10% effective on a good day, but you're welcome to keep wearing it for the rest of your life if you're frightened. I'll rely on diet, exercise, and vitamin D.

@Doeyhead

2 жыл бұрын

@@darylfoster6133 comparing states with heavy handed masks policies is an observational claim. It has no bearing on the actual clinical research. When done as a REAL clinical trial, masks make a difference. The research is pretty much settled there.

@darylfoster6133

2 жыл бұрын

@@Doeyhead The research is settled that they don't work, going back to pre-Covid studies, but you believe what you want. As I said, most people are biased, and only accept studies that conform to their preexisting notions. Comparing states is not an observational claim. You can directly compare infection/death rates. It's all documented in black and white.

@Doeyhead

2 жыл бұрын

@@darylfoster6133 it is all documented. Masks work. There really is no reason to debate it. If you want to ask whether it's worth it to require them in schools however, that's a discussion to be had. But I don't debate fundamentals with people who clearly have not read the full body of research on mask wearing.

Excellent study? Lol, is this a joke? There are endless problems which shows a gross misunderstanding of the functionality of the drug. It's like the people who designed it insisted on finding new ways to fail.

@ronyan1

2 жыл бұрын

What problems are you referring to?

@nonflyingdutchman9573

2 жыл бұрын

@Tom But the FLCCC like the study in Brazil published in Cureus which didn't use Ivermectin in combination with other substances....

@nonflyingdutchman9573

2 жыл бұрын

@Tom to exclude that possibility there would need to be studies done with every possible substance and combination of substances which is plainly absurd. You're just trying to create a smoke screen with an unanswerable question.

@Doeyhead

2 жыл бұрын

@Tom Where is the clinical trial data that controls for this?

@treetoon_

2 жыл бұрын

@@ronyan1 Initially 1 day regime then set to 3 days, which is too short, it should be way longer to see an effect. Dosage administered way too late, it should preferably be prescribed ahead of covid infection as prophylaxis or onset of symptoms since the claims are that it functions as a protective layer, 55% were prescribed by 4-7days which means the virus has already had enough time to manifest, it takes around 3 days for the effect of the drug to work appropriately. That means day 10 in the worst scenario. The pills were taken on an empty stomach which basically flushes most of the medicine out. The 4-7 day group and the 1-3 day group are not comparable because we don't know what the balance of distribution is between the two. The study was stopped when the planned sample size was reach. They did not account for who was vaccinated or not in the study which clearly plays a huge role. And what was the background use of the drug? etc etc If they used this experiment for the vaccines it would've concluded the exact same thing, i.e. no difference. The drug is NOT an antidote, it's functionality is claimed to be essentially equivalent to the vaccines, as a protective layer.

Your paid off to lie

👎👎👎👎

Hi Greg, you know I respect your work. I just don't understand why the Ivermectin story is so much your topic, but that is probably personal, at least I hope it is only that. When you started off listing the financing of the trial, I thought that there is a Bill Gates in there somewhere, but then you actually named him I. How could a man who actually says that it is sad that Omicron has taken over as a vaccine be trusted to want any other solution to the pandemic than a practically unknown and dubious vaccine. Dubious I say because it has protected nobody, not even after 4 doses. How can we trust a man who has financed nearly every important media outlet, but not only that, but many universities and laboratories are partly supported by his fundings. How can anyone believe that an objectivity could be achieved in a trial a man who has, with others, discredited Ivermectin and many other medications that doctors have used to treat Covit. If the results of a trial were that Ivermectin was a successful medication for Covit, can you imagine what the consequences would be for Anthony Fauci, The World Health Organisation, Bill Gates and hundreds, at least, of doctors and scientist round the world who repeated the negative narrative day in, day out in the media. Either Bill Gates knew the outcome in advance or he would never have paid one cent to such a trial. Just the other day you were doubtful about Dr. Korey and other doctors being part of some paper. Sorry, I don't remember exactly what it was, but your scepticism was obvious. You have analysed all this so well, I ask you again for the third time to now, can you analyse the trials conducted by Pfizer and can you examine the reports of side effects and connected deaths of the vaccines for Covit? Can you analyse how necessary and effective the vaccines are for children. How many children's lives can the vaccine save, how are the side effects in relationship to the estimated deaths. A vaccine is a supposition that we won't get sick from any given disease. Has this vaccine any better results than Ivermectin shows with Covit? If you objectively saw the situation in the part of the world that is vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated part, has the vaccine earned this name, vaccine? These are all things that are going through my head after one hearing of your video. Is it too much to ask for a reply?

@ProfGregTuckerKellogg

2 жыл бұрын

Hi Angeline, I don't have any interest in ivermectin except as a continuing source of scientific misinformation. I'd very much like to move onto other topics, but I promised I would do a video on the TOGETHER trial when it came out, just as I promised a second video on the itajai study. Regarding funding: Gates did *not* fund this study. The authors noted that the BMGF had funded _other_ work, and they declared that funding, which is the proper thing to do. But that's quite ordinary, and does not in any way undermine the validity of the trial. Again, Gates did *not* fund this trial. He didn't pay a penny for it. He had nothing to do with it. I will make a video on the so-called Pfizer documents and the Pfizer trials. The vaccines have been remarkably effective, and remain highly effective in protecting against severe disease and death. Immunology is complicated, but medical communicators are exploiting that fact by focusing on B cell immmunity and ignoring T cells, among other things. I think their behaviour is reprehensible.

@adrianstevenson1205

2 жыл бұрын

Why are you saying "so called" pizer documents. Were they not court ordered to release these documents? Whats with the quotes "so called" ? Some might interpret that as gaslighting.

@skepticalbadger

2 жыл бұрын

Weird bit of gaslighting there. He's "so interested" in it because misunderstanding and misinformation regarding it is rife. It's by no means his sole topic.

@MarcosElMalo2

2 жыл бұрын

@@skepticalbadger But 95% of his work doesn’t concern me, so why is the other 5% focused on discrediting something I’ve invested a lot of my identity in believing? Five percent out to get me is still out to get me. 😉

@clairelariviere3122

2 жыл бұрын

@@MarcosElMalo2 if you’ve invested yourself in believing a lie that’s on you. It is possible to reconsider and change one’s mind.

I left a comment on Dr. John Campbell's Saturday KZread video criticizing his continued support for ivermectin for COVID and his tepid response to this new paper right at the very end of that video. At the end of my critical paragraph, I included a link to THIS video, with the comment that people who wanted to see an objective analysis of the paper on ivermectin in the New England Journal of Medicine should click on the link. When I rechecked Dr. Campbell's video a few minutes ago, my comment was no longer there, presumably deleted by Dr. Campbell. Looks like the "follow the science" guy really is not interested in following the science! He certainly does not want people viewing your video!

@nonflyingdutchman9573

2 жыл бұрын

I've had a similar experience; many others have said the same

@Marco-it2mr

2 жыл бұрын

Getting comments removed is not necessarily done by Campbell. I have plenty of comments removed, including on this channel (at least once).

@lari5891

2 жыл бұрын

youtube removes comments with links

@blvany

2 жыл бұрын

@@lari5891 To my knowledge, I have never had any previous comments removed and I have occasionally included links to other KZread videos (but no outside links).

@killpop8255

2 жыл бұрын

@@nonflyingdutchman9573 I've had the same on this Channel.