FLCCC Doctor On Why He Quit
Before vaccines became widely available in the US, the FLCCC often called ivermectin a bridge to the day when vaccines would change the way we addressed COVID-19.
But that pro-vaccine language is now buried and watered down on the FLCCC’s website in an FAQ pull-down that says “our protocols are a bridge to vaccines and a safety net for those who cannot or have not been vaccinated” and ends with “the decision to get a vaccine should be made in consultation with your healthcare provider.”
Dr. Eric Osgood, a former FLCCC member, left the physicians’ group earlier this summer in a “panic,” he told Insider, after coming to the conclusion that “I’m part of a group whose influence may be contributing to people making the choice not to get vaccinated.”
Osgood has worked with the drug at the bedside over the past year and a half, and he does argue it could have some benefit for certain COVID-19 patients.
It might help prevent blood clots and improve oxygen levels in the body, acting as an anti-inflammatory, he said. If that is true, then ivermectin could be used in early treatment of COVID-19 but probably wouldn’t help with severe cases or in disease prevention.
Osgood said he felt like a frog in boiling water as the vaccines began coming out and the FLCCC failed to incorporate them into its recommendations. At first, he wasn’t terribly alarmed. But suddenly, he said, he had an “oh shit” moment, registering the effect the group was having on social media and the way its message was being received.
“If you’re going to have a page that’s dedicated to ‘How do you prevent yourself from getting COVID?’ that page can’t not have vaccines at the top of it,” he said, after leaving the group in August. “The main messaging that’s being put out by that organization is really coming mainly from a couple of doctors in leadership positions in that group, and the group’s media team.”
Osgood mentioned Kory and Marik, as well as Dr. Fred Wagshul, Kamen’s husband who’s been hauled to court after using ivermectin on a patient in Ohio without requesting his medical history.
There’s a lot more in this article that provides counterpoints to the pro-ivermectin narrative:
In fact, millions of Brazilians already know ivermectin is not a miracle cure. Whole cities there, including Itajaí and Natal, were encouraged to take ivermectin to prevent COVID-19 earlier this year.
It was all part of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s unproven drug-kit strategy for COVID-19 treatment, which included hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin, as well as steroids and anticoagulants. The hype over these drugs was fanned by Dr. Flavio Cadegiani, who is a new member of the FLCCC (though he is better known for promoting another risky, unapproved and unproven drug).
“We Brazilians had to learn in the hardest way that ivermectin didn’t work,” Dr. Ana Carolina Antonio, who works at a government hospital in Porto Alegre, told Insider.
Antonio said that during the country’s second wave, about 70% of her patients were coming in having tried ivermectin already to prevent or treat COVID-19.
“I have already cared for many patients who took ivermectin and were still in the ICU for COVID-19,” she said. “I regret to say, most of those patients have died.”
The full article is well worth a read by anyone currently pinning their hopes & their family’s health on IVM. Any truly open mind considers all cogent sides to the story — especially when lives are at stake.
I used to read Business Insider every day. I had them bookmarked.
But I found that they were not credible.
During the 2016 election they were positively shilling for Clinton over Sanders (for the nomination) and Trump. I remember on one occasion I saw a news feed of nine straight articles denouncing Sanders before a primary. They did the same to Trump. It got so bad, that people started posting links the comments section in order to correct obvious factual errors. Eventually Business Insider deleted the entire comment section so that they could maintain the narrative.
News organizations are not supposed to push agendas, they are supposed to report facts and let people decide.
In any event, I stopped reading their articles since I felt that I could not trust them anymore. I feel the same way about CNN. CNN is simply not credible. I have caught them in too many lies or distortions. I simply will not read their articles.
I’ve analyzed ivermectin to death and have read dozens of studies. My conclusions: it’s very safe and very likely is at least moderately and probably highly effective for covid. This article supports a very different viewpoint.
I’ve also analyzed the vaccines to death, assembling data from where ever I can find it. My conclusions: They work for a while, but evolutionary immune escape from the vaccine is already well underway if not nearly complete – AND – vaccine injuries and especially serious vaccine injuries happen in 1.5-2% of vaccinees, with a skewing towards younger people. There is a huge effort to conceal this. Because of this, the vaccine is a net negative for healthy people under about 65 years of age and nearly everybody under about 40. This article supports a very different viewpoint.
I didn’t read it closely, but what I see appears to be manipulative of the emotions, use appeals to authority and little hints at it’s true intent (Good youtube censors “medical misinformation” while it’s “anything goes” on Odysee)>
The article hit on Marik in part by claiming to debunk his vitamin C for sepsis protocol. I did find the journal article with the results of the larger trial of the Marik vitamin C for sepsis protocol. It showed a slightly worse outcome for patients treated with vitamin C. To my surprise, the intervention in this study was nearly identical to the actual Marik protocol with the following exceptions:
- Thiamin was allowed in the control group if the doctor chose to..
- Criteria for inclusion was < 24 hours from diagnosis of sepsis (patients had suspected or documented infection with an acute increase of at least 2 points in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score,17 had a lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L, and were vasopressor dependent for at least 2 hours at the time of enrollment) vs. 24 hours from ICU admission for Marik’s study. This almost certainly delayed treatment by at least a few hours.
- Furthermore, the average time to treatment was 13.7 hours for the treatment group and 11.3 hours for the control group. So now we’re up to a treatment delay of perhaps 5-10 hours or more?
- The treatment group had significantly higher lactate, moderately higher white blood cell count and 6.5% more of them had a blood infection as the primary infection site.
The results are strikingly different from Marik’s original published study in spite of similar design and execution. It had significantly lower death rates in the control group and higher death rates in the treatment group. Perhaps the above not so significant differences were enough to make the difference. Perhaps Marik’s study had problems and vitamin C doesn’t work. Perhaps again, something more nefarious happened.
Since vaccines don’t prevent Covid either, just “severe Covid and death,” I think it is wise for everyone to discuss it with their doctor. Especially since large swaths of the population aren’t going to get severe Covid and death, just based on age and health.
The big vaccine WTF moment for me was when the trial data came out and they didn’t give the trial participants weekly PCR tests.
All of this is a risk benefit analysis and that varies with age, gender, race and comorbidites. Believing there is a one size fits all answers to this is like saying females should be screened for prostrate cancer.
I thought Brazil did much better after ivermectin. Am I wrong?
Osgood’s comments are in line with what I’ve seen him say in a number of interviews. In one of them he basically said that Kory “went off the rails” (I don’t remember the exact wording but similar idea) when he was snubbed at the senate testimony where he spoke about ivermectin, and that he hasn’t been the same since. And he (Osgood) has mentioned several times that he feels Kory and others are ignoring studies that show poor results and hyping up the ones that show benefit. Essentially he feels Kory has lost objectivity on the matter and become too emotional.
I guess an unanswered (and perhaps unanswerable) question is, did Osgood honestly have a change of heart/mind or have there been external forces at work – perhaps threats from his employer, for example, that have reshaped his views.
I thought long and hard about the whole vaccine/ivermectin issue and ultimately decided for myself, to get the vaccine (pfizer) and also have a stash of ivermectin on hand in case I wind up with covid. Was that a good choice…time will tell. I’m also working on keeping the vitamin D level up and have various additional supplements like quercetin, zinc, melatonin on hand as well.
Bolsonaro has had modestly better success promoting Ivermectin in Brazil, compared to Trump’s experience promoting HCQ in the USA. But apparently it’s a mixed bag.
c19ivermectin.com quotes a research preprint showing:
Comparison between the two largest neighboring states in Brazil, Amazonas and Pará, showing more than 5 times lower mortality in Pará during the second wave when the Pará government supported early treatment and Amazonas did not, compared to similar results in the first wave when treatment protocols were similar.
However, they don’t claim that mortality for patients using Ivermectin was zero! They say that mortality with Ivermectin was about five times less. For Dr. Antonio to have a complete picture of Ivermectin’s effectiveness, she would also have to know how many people in her city never made it to the hospital, because they benefited from Ivermectin.
Business Week is thus relying entirely on anecdotal data, rather than actual statistical evidence.
Cases and especially deaths are down dramatically in Brazil since their mid-April peak. https://covid19.healthdata.org/brazil?view=daily-deaths&tab=trend Something’s working there, though from just these numbers alone it’s impossible to say what it is.
I agree that it’s wise to consider all sides, however, to me it all comes down to the chart Dr. Martenson uses to make a decision on whether to use it or not: if used and doesn’t work, it doesn’t do any harm, and if used and it does work then there’s your benefit. The point is that it’s safe. Now regarding vaccination, I like his chart that might help some people to make a decision on whether they will benefit from Covid 19 vaccine or not. But mainly, people should be able to make their own choice and not forced, coerced, blackmailed into doing it.
Here is a candid interview with Dr Osgood: