BBC hit piece on IVM

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   29 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 29 total)
  • Thu, Oct 07, 2021 - 12:10pm

    #11
    jerryr

    jerryr

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2008

    Posts: 194

    count placeholder3

    BBC hit piece on IVM

Once again, Chris’s saying about “three times enemy action” comes to mind. Health Nerd  and his group say they’ve conclusively identified FIVE fake studies.

Five different random investigators decide to gain personal attention, or encourage IVM use, by concocting transparently fraudulent data?

WTF is going on here? I’m not buying that this is a coincidence.

  • Thu, Oct 07, 2021 - 12:21pm

    #12
    Yggdrasil

    Yggdrasil

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 25 2014

    Posts: 515

    count placeholder5

    BBC hit piece on IVM

Having read through the BBC article I think the below is the most salient point:

Out of a total of 26 studies examined, there was evidence in five that the data may have been faked – for example they contained virtually impossible numbers or rows of identical patients copied and pasted.
In a further five there were major red flags – for example, numbers didn’t add up, percentages were calculated incorrectly or local health bodies weren’t aware they had taken place.
On top of these flawed trials, there were 14 authors of studies who failed to send data back. The independent scientists have flagged this as a possible indicator of fraud.

Questions I would ask were I a journalist:

  • Of these 26 studies, which ones align with those used by doctors prescribing ivermectin? i.e. the FLCCC
  • There are claims that Utter Pradesh managed to eliminate covid using Ivermectin. Have you reviewed the data that might suggest a causal relationship?
  • Did your study review the evidence supporting the FLCCC’s emerging evidence study – FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf (covid19criticalcare.com)?
  • What points do you strongly agree with?
  • What points do you strongly disagree with?

Call me cynical but I read the BBC article as follows:

  • let’s attack ivermectin
  • let’s do it in a way without hinting at it’s legitimate use (e.g. state which doctor’s use it – holy ****, there’s an entire alliance, with protocols!)
  • let’s smear a Dr in the UK who has spoken about ivermectin.

I would have also given Dr Tess Lawrie the right to reply. But that is just me.

From NordicJack:

Unlike HCQ ivermectin is much more dangerous drug to the establishment.  It not only can “kill” coronavirus- it can potentially kill flu, and anything else they would release.  It has use for HIV ( maybe as cure or at least a functional cure ) it has use for many other viral based diseases as well.

They have so much too lose ( trillions in vaccines ) ( trillions in other anti-virals)  basically its a big pharma wipe out if they come out and admit the effectiveness of this drug.   Its a game ender.

There is also evidence to suggest Ivermectin might help with cancer too: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7505114/

  • Thu, Oct 07, 2021 - 12:59pm

    #14
    The Finn

    The Finn

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 14 2020

    Posts: 70

    count placeholder3

    BBC hit piece on IVM

This .. is .. so .. stupid! The Big-pharma has totally lost it. Nobody seems to be in control over there!

What is taking place is like a loose cannon ball. They had built an impressive empire of regulation and cozy money transfers. Everything was working smoothly for them. Now they are ripping it all apart. Don’t they understand that they are bribing people all over the globe. How much attention do you want to draw? The system will be left in smoldering ruins. They will not win this fight – on the contrary they will lose the war and everything they have built over decades with it. There is a reason why countries have not launched their nuclear weapons over a poor trade statement. Think about that Mr. Pharma. These are not the last weeks of humanity – or are they?

In the future nobody will trust their trials, papers or publications anymore. People will not trust future vaccines or pills nor go to their big hospitals for treatment. They will be prosecuted for corruption. The system will be revamped. Few will trust or pay for the mainstream media on any news or reporting after this.

Bad business. At P/E 85… sell short.

 

 

  • Thu, Oct 07, 2021 - 01:04pm

    #15
    Mike from Jersey

    Mike from Jersey

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 22 2018

    Posts: 1627

    count placeholder9

    Reply To: BBC hit piece on IVM

Yggdrasil,

You wrote:

Having read through the BBC article I think the below is the most salient point …

It is important to note that just because this BBC article says these things, that does not mean those statements are true. Media and government lie.

For instance, when the FDA denied approval of Ivermectin for treatment of Covid 19, the FDA made patently false statements in the denial. In its denial of approval, the FDA claimed that studies 1) showed the Ivermectin was not effective and that 2) found that Ivermectin harmed patients.

The FDA offered links to those studies.

I looked up those studies and they did not support the statements of the FDA in its denial of approval. They supported the opposite conclusion. I actually posted the quotes from those studies on this site to show that the FDA’s statements were not supported by the facts.

That instance was not an outlier.

Last week Anthony Fauci stated that an Israeli study proved that vaccine induced immunity is superior to natural immunity. Of course, the study said just the opposite. It said that natural immunity is far superior to vaccine induced immunity.

We know that the government engages in bald faced lies. We know that.

We know that the media lies as well. Many of the people who are on this site are here because we got sick and tired of being lied to.  The fact that the BBC says these things means only one thing. It means that the BBC is saying these things. It does not mean those things are true.

Having said that I am not going to retrace the studies and find out if the BBC article was true or false. I have spent too much time tracking down such information in the past. It is not my job to see if they are being honest, it was their job to be honest in the first place. They have categorically failed at that job. There are now some sources of information that I no longer feel are credible. The BBC is one of them. CNN is another. The New York Times is a third. It is now up to the BBC and CNN and the New York Times to restore their credibility. That won’t happen overnight. I doubt if – had they turned over a new leaf today and committed themselves to “truth” over “narrative” – that they could restore their credibility in my lifetime.

And I know enough at this point – both from reviewing evidence and from the experience of people I know – to be convinced that Ivermectin is a helpful drug.

  • Thu, Oct 07, 2021 - 01:05pm   (Reply to #14)

    #16
    Gregory

    Gregory

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 02 2020

    Posts: 204

    count placeholder2

    BBC hit piece on IVM

In the future nobody will trust their trials, papers or publications anymore. People will not trust future vaccines or pills nor go to their big hospitals for treatment. They will be prosecuted for corruption. The system will be revamped. Few will trust or pay for the mainstream media on any news or reporting after this.

yep! natural medicine will make a comeback.

  • Thu, Oct 07, 2021 - 01:13pm   (Reply to #14)

    #17
    Kat43

    Kat43

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 10 2020

    Posts: 841

    count placeholder1

    BBC hit piece on IVM

Natural medicine (homeopathy, etc.) did make a comeback.  Largely as a result of the internet.  Those same sources can now be closed down.

nordicjack, you said:

They have also corrupted the ” ivermectin supply” that is quite easy to do with all the generics and even easier to do with the brand name. So they are all in. I would not recommend ivermectin at this time. It is likely you get something that is not ivermectin and possible something that will actually make you worse than nothing.

I have been wondering this myself.  Is this just speculation on your part or do you have data to back it up?

What about veterinary sources?  Are these as likely to be corrupted?

What about supplies secured 4-6 months ago?

  • Thu, Oct 07, 2021 - 03:34pm

    #19
    nordicjack

    nordicjack

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2020

    Posts: 773

    count placeholder0

    BBC hit piece on IVM

I have no evidence to the fact that the ivm supply has been corrupted. But when I heard reports from Dr Kory , that IVM was not working on delta, I started to suspect it.  But with all the additional I have seen, I am almost positive.  I go by reason first, but at some point my gut tells me more.   I truly believe there sufficient reason for them to do this, and from what i have seen, it would not put it past them.

 

If the data for those two faked studies are thrown out, the preponderance of evidence that actually uses IVM correctly shows a clear benefit. Unless what we are seeing is only the tip of the iceberg, and basically all of the data from controlled trials is fraud, then nothing is changed really.

You make a good point about confirmation bias and the confounding variables seen in doctors actually dispersing ivermectin, but that’s why the trials and retrospective analyses exist to see if it’s Ivermectin that’s causing that effect or not…

Assuming the data isn’t rife with fraud, it shows it works. https://Ivmmeta.com is a good resource to check…

It would be of no surprise if the establishment pushed for a few fraudulent studies to discredit the entire thing, especially when you consider that IVM may turn out to be effective against vast swaths of illnesses.

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 29 total)

Login or Register to post comments