Can anyone debunk this ivermectin debunking?
I’ve been fully convinced of the benefits of ivermectin by Dr. Kory and the FLCCC. But this article seems to make some strong arguments against it, and they appear to be based in pretty solid science as opposed to simply bashing it: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-take-2/
Like everyone, I’m trying to figure out which side is “right”. Anyone care to debunk this debunking?
So does Ivermectin.
Your article is written – I’m guessing – by someone employed by You Know Who in order to make EUA-space for Merck’s fantastic, new, billion-dollar drug Molnupiravir.
It is just the usual “free market” takedown of the competition prior to getting their EUA, and then rolling this drug out worldwide as “the treatment for COVID.”
Literally tens of billions of dollars depend on Merck being able to effectively crush alternative, low-cost competition prior to drug approval. Their targets: off-patent drugs hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. This article hits both. Isn’t that interesting?
So with that massive incentive in place, there are Lot$ of Rea$on$ for Article$ like Thi$ one to be written.
Even if they’re utter bullshit.
This could be pivotal.
I got through the first several paragraphs of the sciencebasedmedicine.org article before I stopped reading it. The author makes it obvious that he lacks objectivity right from the start. I.e., he made his judgement before he even read the studies.
Personally, I would not form my opinion on the basis of what this author says.
Like everyone, I’m trying to figure out which side is “right”.
Wrong Fettucini… wrong from the first words in this sentence, which presume that most of us here are confused. Most of us are not confused – that’s why we are here. We are not here to become unconfused about Ivermectin.. we are here to move on from that bit of settled science to the leading edge unknowns that still face us.
The recent Tess Lawrie paper is the icing on the IVM settled science cake;
The argument that ivermectin won’t be successful in treating COVID-19 because the concentrations of ivermectin which were used in the in vitro study cannot be achieved in vivo is fallacious. This argument assumes that lower dosages of ivermectin than achieved in the in vitro study are ineffective, but no proof of that is given.
Here’s an analogy that shows the fallacy. A controlled experiment is conducted which shows if you shoot a man in the heart with 100 bullets, he will die. Since you cannot reasonably expect to be able to shoot a man in the heart with 100 bullets outside of that controlled experiment, one must conclude that shooting him in the heart with one bullet will not kill him.
[Edit: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011?via%3Dihub is that in vitro study. I could find no mention of a claim that the strength of ivermectin used in that study is the minimum strength needed to inhibit replication of SARS-CoV-2. ]
The author of the article shows a knowledge of the material and references various scientific papers. I fail to grasp how someone who is able to navigate through those sources is able to blind themselves to the easy to see truth that there are numerous studies which shows ivermectin is effective in treating COVID-19. https://ivmmeta.com/ now shows 60 studies with 56 studies showing positive results.
That article is not science, it is a polemic.
A polemic is contentious rhetoric that is intended to support a specific position by forthright claims and undermining of the opposing position. Polemics are mostly seen in arguments about controversial topics. The practice of such argumentation is called polemics.
Unlike science, the point of a polemic is not to get to the truth but to advocate a position. Here, every conceivable argument imaginable is used to attack the obvious conclusion that Ivermectin appears to work. For instance, when faced with a meta-analysis showing that Ivermectin works against Covid 19, he states:
In fairness, what I can say from this meta-analysis is that, just like the case with hydroxychloroquine a year ago, it is possible that ivermectin has some clinically meaningful effect on COVID-19 disease progression and survival.
That statement makes it appear as if the arguments in favor of Ivermectin are the same as those that had been made for hydroxychoroquine. That would mean that there had been a meta-analysis of hydroxychoroquine but that later hydroxychoroquine was found to be ineffective despite the meta-analysis.
When was there ever a meta-analysis of hydroxychoroquine?
There never was such an analysis. And thus the implied comparison of Ivermectin with hydroxychoroquine is inaccurate.
Comparing apples and oranges is not science, it is polemics.
And his final conclusion of the meta-analysis is that it is:
“… possible that Ivermectin has some clinically meaningful effect…”?
Sixty studies confirming effectiveness and he says it is “possible” that there is “some” effect.
This is a polemic. Every argument imaginable – no matter how strained – is used to advance a particular point of view.
The author of the article is David Gorski. He strongly advocates the use of vaccines for Covid 19.
My guess is that he fears a belief in Ivermectin might adversely impact the current mass vaccination campaign.
And, you know what?
The author of the article debunking ivermectin is David Gorski of “Science Based Medicine”.
He seems to specialize in condemning findings that are not endorsed by Big Pharm. Here is an article debunking the theory that COVID-19 leaked from the lab.
It does increase frustration levels right, mrfettucini ?
I did not read the complete article as it makes my blood boil, the disdain it’s presented with and the complicity it seeks to connect IVM to HCQ (which seems to work with Zinc after all in recent “rightly done” studies).
Anyway, most debunkers utilize the following standard tricks beside targeting other authors personally:
- Almost all will claim there are not peer reviewed reports on the efficacy and/or no “golden standard” double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial done. Which is a fair statement if this was about a potentially dangerous drug against a trivial decease without urgency. In case of Ivermectin this is foolish, focussing on the process instead of the outcome, a proven tactic of failing micro-managers.
- Adding some experts with fancy titles to underscore weak statements, often individuals with nice grants or other ties with a pharmaceutical (the author of this “fact check” masterpiece is an oncologist, probably well informed on expensive drugs with debatable longterm efficacy, so a perfect judge / endorser for experimental vaccines).
- Cherry picking on reports that show a (biased) negative outcome, some are just rubbish not yet retracted but that does not bother the “fact checkers”. In this case they found some “evidence” in the needle, 4 negative reports, dismissing the haystack completely, 56 positive reports. Makes perfect sense right ?
- The vendor that previously held the patent on Ivermectin stated in an official report that efficacy against COVID was not proven nor supported, also they stated, partially based on an irrelevant in vitro study with an overdose of ivermectin, that the safety profile in such use was uncertain. Very weasely indeed. As the safety profile for Ivermectin has been proven in billions of doses taken already, not for COVID, but a multitude of other pathogens. Also, the vendor (Merck) got just recent a very convenient 1.3 Billion dollar pre-order from the US Gov to develop/deliver a therapeutic for COVID (something like Ivermectin in a new package probably), that’s 1.3 Billion reasons not to promote repurposing a dirt cheap drug that might not even cost 1.3 B$ to put the whole world on prophylactic Ivermectin (thanks evil Merck)
- The WHO adopted the view on Ivermectin from Merck and also used the negative studies to promote a dismissive stance on the drug. They are clueless and biased as always, we might see the WHO bus turning on the highway again 😉 -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSzYjmGvVKs
As an aside, if Ivermectin proofs to be effective, the argument for the emergency use authorization (EUA) of the vaccins, with unlike Ivermectin 100% unproven safety profiles (the long term trials still run), were not allowed.
With respect to this, the remark dr. vanden Bossche made is priceless:
Where are the peer reviewed journals or publications that support mass vaccination with these type of vaccines in the midst of a pandemic of a highly mutable virus.
I agree that David Gorski appears to be a specialist in supporting the Big Pharma narrative. But I would still like to understand why some of the statements/claims made are inaccurate. For example, these tweets that he pointed to:
I haven't had a chance to look through this paean to IVM in detail but this part is ridiculous. The virus replicates in the cytoplasm. Inhibition of importins cannot plausibly have an antiviral effect on SARS-CoV-2. pic.twitter.com/WhHzASrW3a
— Edward Nirenberg (@ENirenberg) June 17, 2021
On the contrary, SARS-CoV-2 itself has several viral proteins that prevent import of host factors needed to turn on genes critical for antiviral defense. This description of IVM's MoA in fact outlines a clear mechanism for toxicity to the host.
— Edward Nirenberg (@ENirenberg) June 17, 2021
Wow, okay this is really a mess.
The paper they cite for the ionophore properties of IVM is completely speculative and presents no data to support an actual ionophore function of the IVM, let alone how that produces an antiviral effect.
— Edward Nirenberg (@ENirenberg) June 17, 2021
where he says: “Basically, the authors cite a paper that found that ivermectin inhibits the activity of a protein, importin, that, according to them, ‘blocking the nuclear transport of viral proteins.’ Given that the viruses replicate in the cytoplasm (the rest of the cell other than the nucleus), you can see why Ed was unimpressed.”
And this other article he points to: “Indeed, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz did a reanalysis (https://gidmk.medium.com/does-ivermectin-work-for-covid-19-1166126c364a) of the studies analyzed by the BIRD Group that shows that if you leave out the two studies that are as yet only preprints, are very small, and actually appear to have been miscategorized as higher quality than they are, the results are very different…”