|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 24, 2021 19:18:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 24, 2021 19:31:20 GMT -6
matt@IAA I saw a few (potential) errors in your numbers for myocarditis. I hope you don’t mind me pointing them out. The article references “non-infectious” myocarditis. That needs to be differentiated, I don’t know this for a fact, but anecdotally the vast majority of myocarditis that I see clinically, in young adults and kids, is related to certain infections. I’m not claiming it’s a fact but it is a very important variable. Second, random distribution doesn’t equate to equal distribution. Especially in nature. There are tons of diseases and disease processes that follow seasonal patterns for example. Influenza, RSV, Croup etc, not to mention behavioral patterns like suicide, substance abuse, drunk driving etc. We see spikes of those things at different times in different regions, countries, cultures, environments etc. So that 5 day rolling average isn’t really accurate. I don't mind at all! How do you distinguish infectious from non-infectious myocarditis? Or rather, how would a VAERS report distinguish the two? Myocarditis can be caused from lots of things, right? Interesting point on the 5 day rolling average - if, for example, most cases were caused by viral infections, there could be some seasonal background. Do you know if there's a seasonality to it? (I couldn't find anything on the subject). Edit - found this. Looks like <<in Denmark>> there's not much evidence for seasonality. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31431396/At any rate, I actually shot an email to Dr Risch and he was kind enough to reply. His suggestion is that if it were a reporting artifact, you'd expect the reports to come on day one or two, but the reports in VAERS peak on day three and subside. He also suggested that's how long it takes for the "snake neuromuscular toxin segments on the virus spike protein" to get to the heart. I don't think I agree with him there, as there have been papers published that directly refute this. In short, you see S1 at day three, and full spike at day 15 (as the vaccine-spike-producing cells are killed). academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075Regarding the "snake toxin" comment - which I find more than a little bit interesting - he clarified: "Both the currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the vaccines spike proteins have segments that seem to be very similar if not identical to venom neurotoxins in two particular types of snakes. It is an obvious hypothesis that these segments could cause symptoms similar to what are seen in snake bite victims. This part at least was not man-made." I think this clarification raises a lot more questions than it answers. I still have lots of questions about this. I know that the flu shot can cause myocarditis as well, so one thing I'm wondering is whether this is a "normal" level of myocarditis for vaccinations, or higher? I mean, there's tons of things that can cause it. I haven't found anything reasonable about it to compare. It's hard to know anything without the actual data the CDC has. Part of the reason I think an Op-Ed like that is kinda sketchy. Yeah lots of things can cause myocarditis and I’m not sure how you would differentiate between infectious and non in infectious from VAERs, I haven’t looked into the reporting at all so no idea the level of detail. I’m also not aware of any specific seasonality connected to myocarditis but I can elaborate on some things you’d want to check if you were researching it. Sometimes “seasonality” has to do with weather and how different pathogens survive/don’t survive in different conditions. But sometimes seasonality is just a reflection of human behavior. For example, kids get RSV when they mingle with other kids in school. No school, no RSV. Or, for another example, no one would be surprised to see a herpes outbreak around spring break in Daytona beach lol. With myocarditis, I tend to see it from a few specific viruses in young kids. But in young adults it’s almost always related to IV drug use. Dirty needles cause vascular disease that can easily travel to the heart. The author of that article implies that things of that nature have been accounted for. That doesn’t sound sketchy to me. It was an op-ed piece not a research paper. But yes, I’ll wait for more evidence till I make up my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 24, 2021 19:39:05 GMT -6
One thing that I think bears considering....many of the doctors treating with HCQ or Ivermectin are not ONLY treating with HCQ or Ivermectin. They are using other drugs and vitamins, treatments, etc. as well. I don't think the peer reviewed studies have been mimicing what the doctors who have been successful are doing. I could be wrong though. I definitely get the feel that they are testing ONLY HCQ or Ivermectin by themselves. Which is quite possibly why the studies show low success. ?? That's a double edged sword, though: if my wife gets a headache, and I treat her by giving her some ibuprofen and also by kissing her aching forehead, her recovery would provide anecdotal evidence that my kiss can cure headaches. Without isolating my kiss to test its efficacy, we end up with incomplete or misleading data. The other edge of that sword is that we routinely give medications in combination. That why it’s important to study both isolated and combined therapies, when there’s an indication for it. |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 24, 2021 20:25:47 GMT -6
Tbone81 makes sense - thank you. I really don’t know what to make of the snake venom concept. :/
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 24, 2021 20:54:32 GMT -6
Tbone81 makes sense - thank you. I really don’t know what to make of the snake venom concept. :/ yeah, idk about that lol. And when it comes to biochemistry, molecules, proteins or otherwise, can be totally similar except for one atom and boom, totally different reactions in the body. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 25, 2021 9:29:04 GMT -6
I understand that some of the the early critics of vaccines were questionable characters but once people like Dr. Kory and Dr. Malone started speaking up you still attempted to shoot them down quickly. I'm sure these docs will be silenced / debunked / discredited by the political left soon enough.  I'm struggling to understand this. If these doctors are misunderstanding or misusing science, why shouldn't they be called out? |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 25, 2021 9:32:53 GMT -6
I'm sure these docs will be silenced / debunked / discredited by the political left soon enough. I'm struggling to understand this. If these doctors are misunderstanding or misusing science, why shouldn't they be called out? Called out? Great! They should have to back up whatever they say. Silenced, censored, etc.. Not great. Science needs both sides to progress. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Jun 25, 2021 9:50:52 GMT -6
I'm struggling to understand this. If these doctors are misunderstanding or misusing science, why shouldn't they be called out? Called out? Great! They should have to back up whatever they say. Silenced, censored, etc.. Not great. Science needs both sides to progress. Hm...I don't know that I agree that science needs both sides. I think that when hucksters and snake-oil salesfolk (or worse, good ol' fashioned conspiracy theorists) start engaging in these sorts of discussions in the still-newly democratized discussion landscape we call the internet, it actually GREATLY diminishes scientific understanding and slows advancement (see: flat earth society). I think the notion that everyone has a valid opinion is completely wrong. 30 years ago, this debate would be hashed out in medical and science journals, with some occasional reporting and a fraction of political interjection. These days, a bunch of rank amateurs are arguing about it on a recording message board. Note that this is not an endorsement for censorship, but I think we maybe define that term differently. I think gatekeepers are important (if imperfect), and that expertise is generally best left to the experts. When the signal to noise ratio is all askew, it's virtually impossible to have a meaningful discussion...i mean...have you been to GS lately? 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 25, 2021 10:30:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 25, 2021 10:51:50 GMT -6
I'm struggling to understand this. If these doctors are misunderstanding or misusing science, why shouldn't they be called out? Called out? Great! They should have to back up whatever they say. Silenced, censored, etc.. Not great. Science needs both sides to progress. If they are proven wrong, should they still be given equal time on the public stage? Are private platforms obligated to broadcast their faulty assertions? Both sides of what? A Republican administration directed public funds towards vaccine development. Hopefully you remember when Republicans were touting the vaccines as a major Trump victory. Trump has made a number of recent statements indicating that he feels that he doesn't get enough credit for the speed with which they were developed. In 2020 Tucker Carlson accused Pfizer of moving too SLOWLY to release vaccine developments in an effort to hurt Trump. Now all of a sudden the left is responsible for pushing vaccines? I feel like I'm missing something here. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 25, 2021 11:55:38 GMT -6
I'm sure some of you have heard this before, but I'll put it out there again anyway. Free reach ain't the same thing as free speech.
Also, at what point do some of these conspiracy theories become the medical equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre?
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 25, 2021 12:01:00 GMT -6
Called out? Great! They should have to back up whatever they say. Silenced, censored, etc.. Not great. Science needs both sides to progress. If they are proven wrong, should they still be given equal time on the public stage? Are private platforms obligated to broadcast their faulty assertions? Both sides of what? A Republican administration directed public funds towards vaccine development. Hopefully you remember when Republicans were touting the vaccines as a major Trump victory. Trump has made a number of recent statements indicating that he feels that he doesn't get enough credit for the speed with which they were developed. In 2020 Tucker Carlson accused Pfizer of moving too SLOWLY to release vaccine developments in an effort to hurt Trump. Now all of a sudden the left is responsible for pushing vaccines? I feel like I'm missing something here. And after all of the anti-science rhetoric from the right over the years, how is someone not supposed to cast a suspicious eye towards some of this stuff? Not to mention that, even if some of these claims had no obvious political slant, they still seem to be shaky claims, at best, and faulty at worst. Now you want a seat at the table to take part in the same process you've done nothing but denigrate for all of these years? Hmmm.... |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 25, 2021 12:10:28 GMT -6
I don’t think the right vs left thing makes sense here. Most of the recent content taken down involved people that are on the left. It’s more CDC / official narrative vs doctors and scientists with an alternative view.
|
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 25, 2021 12:55:02 GMT -6
I don’t think the right vs left thing makes sense here. Most of the recent content taken down involved people that are on the left. It’s more CDC / official narrative vs doctors and scientists with an alternative view. Agreed, which makes me wonder why the right media keeps framing it that way. I keep wondering what the issue is here. Should we do away with institutions like the CDC and the FDA? Should regulatory bodies approve treatments based on flawed or as yet unproven theories? If a physician prescribes drugs off label and it leads to bad outcomes, who bears responsibility and who holds them responsible? In a time when many around the world don't have access to a personal physician and as a result look online for medical advice, isn't there good reason for platforms to restrict the flow of unproven theories? Given that modern healthcare is a capitalist venture, is it wrong for a company to prioritize developing the most profitable product? |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 25, 2021 13:57:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 25, 2021 20:18:14 GMT -6
WOW. This is actually way more in depth than anything YouTube took down. I think these guys felt able to speak more freely under the JRE umbrella and what influence/protection that brings. Please take as long as you need...break it up...whatever...but please watch this. It covers so much of what we're discussing here, it's like they read the forum 😁. They provide documentation, graphs, etc.. so the video version can be helpful if you want to be able to see those things. LINK: open.spotify.com/episode/7uVXKgE6eLJKMXkETwcw0D?si=6eb7896389f7402dThe biggest shocker so far... Per Dr. Kory: For the 2 conditions that ivermectin is approved as the standard of care for world wide they had 10 RCTs / 852 patients. The case for ivermectin to treat covid currently stands at 24 RCTs / 3000 patients. 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 26, 2021 9:24:06 GMT -6
Listening now, and this is a convincing conversation. Their narrative is very compelling; a small group of well-intentioned scientists are trying to share the irrefutable evidence that a totally safe, affordable, and widely available drug has the potential to eradicate a global disease, yet powerful people are doing everything in their power to ignore the evidence and silence those who know the truth. They make lots of claims which, if taken as factual, make the case seem like a slam dunk. Do you investigate their claims or take them at face value? I can't investigate all of their claims and even if I had the time I don't have the expertise to make any definitive judgement. Still, whenever I follow their breadcrumbs I find that many of their claims are nowhere near being factual and the sources of information upon which they base their claims are often shaky. First, their suggestion that they don't stand to gain from this is clearly false. Bret Weinstien has made a ton of money as a direct result of this discussion. They seem to believe that the lab leak theory has reached a conclusion. 'We were right'...well, there are significant flaws in their analysis and there is nothing conclusive anywhere to be found. Regarding ivermectin, they mention Tess Lawrie and imply that she is a highly credible source. I search for an analysis of Tess Lawrie's claims and find this: healthfeedback.org/authors/tess-lawrie/Again, I don't have the expertise to make any definitive judgement, but it appears that Tess Lawrie has some significant issues with her analysis and credibility. Joe Rogan asks if there are any credible critics of ivermectin and they essentially say no. I don't understand this. When I search for analysis of the various studies, I find plenty of criticism which seems to be very well-founded. What gives? They assert that 'there is no money to be made in generics'. What?!!! A quick Google search reveals that generics make a ton of money. Merck would make a killing if they were providing ivermectin as a prophylactic and treatment to the entire population of the world. Given that they are not marketing their own vaccine, wouldn't Merck have a significant interest in lobbying for the acceptance of ivermectin? Yet, they don't recommend it. Why? Their claims about the usefulness of RCT's in general are quite confusing. Apparently they don't find RCT's to be very valuable in the context of COVID, but how else does the scientific world come to any meaningful understanding? From what I can tell, ivermectin has been administered at various dosages and in combination with various other drugs and supplements. Nothing has been standardized. Are they really suggesting that the medical community should just guess which dosage and combination should be prescribed? Essentially, doctors would be conducting trial and error experiments on their patients. How does that make sense? There are seemingly massive blind spots in their arguments and none of what they are saying seems solid enough for the various agencies to approve ivermectin as part of COVID treatment and prevention. So, after listening to over an hour of this, my feeling is the same. I would LOVE it if ivermectin were proven to be a cheap and effective treatment. If there is potential there, I believe it should be pursued (and apparently it is). But there doesn't seem to be anywhere near enough understanding for it to be declared a 'miracle'. What dosage? What combination? For who? For how long? How does it interact with other drugs? What is the efficacy on new strains? Etc., etc. Given how much there is to be understood, it strikes me as being very suspect that they make their claims with such confidence. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Jun 26, 2021 12:28:20 GMT -6
Merck would make a killing if they were providing ivermectin as a prophylactic and treatment to the entire population of the world. Given that they are not marketing their own vaccine... For all the folks arguing that 'big pharm' has a stake in silencing the voices that advocate for non-vaccine Covid treatments, this right here is exactly the thing that completely destroys their argument. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 26, 2021 13:22:43 GMT -6
Listening now, and this is a convincing conversation. Their narrative is very compelling; a small group of well-intentioned scientists are trying to share the irrefutable evidence that a totally safe, affordable, and widely available drug has the potential to eradicate a global disease, yet powerful people are doing everything in their power to ignore the evidence and silence those who know the truth. They make lots of claims which, if taken as factual, make the case seem like a slam dunk. Do you investigate their claims or take them at face value? I can't investigate all of their claims and even if I had the time I don't have the expertise to make any definitive judgement. Still, whenever I follow their breadcrumbs I find that many of their claims are nowhere near being factual and the sources of information upon which they base their claims are often shaky. First, their suggestion that they don't stand to gain from this is clearly false. Bret Weinstien has made a ton of money as a direct result of this discussion. They seem to believe that the lab leak theory has reached a conclusion. 'We were right'...well, there are significant flaws in their analysis and there is nothing conclusive anywhere to be found. Regarding ivermectin, they mention Tess Lawrie and imply that she is a highly credible source. I search for an analysis of Tess Lawrie's claims and find this: healthfeedback.org/authors/tess-lawrie/Again, I don't have the expertise to make any definitive judgement, but it appears that Tess Lawrie has some significant issues with her analysis and credibility. Joe Rogan asks if there are any credible critics of ivermectin and they essentially say no. I don't understand this. When I search for analysis of the various studies, I find plenty of criticism which seems to be very well-founded. What gives? They assert that 'there is no money to be made in generics'. What?!!! A quick Google search reveals that generics make a ton of money. Merck would make a killing if they were providing ivermectin as a prophylactic and treatment to the entire population of the world. Given that they are not marketing their own vaccine, wouldn't Merck have a significant interest in lobbying for the acceptance of ivermectin? Yet, they don't recommend it. Why? Their claims about the usefulness of RCT's in general are quite confusing. Apparently they don't find RCT's to be very valuable in the context of COVID, but how else does the scientific world come to any meaningful understanding? From what I can tell, ivermectin has been administered at various dosages and in combination with various other drugs and supplements. Nothing has been standardized. Are they really suggesting that the medical community should just guess which dosage and combination should be prescribed? Essentially, doctors would be conducting trial and error experiments on their patients. How does that make sense? There are seemingly massive blind spots in their arguments and none of what they are saying seems solid enough for the various agencies to approve ivermectin as part of COVID treatment and prevention. So, after listening to over an hour of this, my feeling is the same. I would LOVE it if ivermectin were proven to be a cheap and effective treatment. If there is potential there, I believe it should be pursued (and apparently it is). But there doesn't seem to be anywhere near enough understanding for it to be declared a 'miracle'. What dosage? What combination? For who? For how long? How does it interact with other drugs? What is the efficacy on new strains? Etc., etc. Given how much there is to be understood, it strikes me as being very suspect that they make their claims with such confidence. Thank you for taking the time to watch what you have so far and for raising a lot of important question. I highly encourage you to finish the rest of the episode as time allows! I'd like to answer this one first - "Do you investigate their claims or take them at face value?" I investigate to the best of my abilities for sure. I would never intentionally share something false here or anywhere else. I have a certain perspective(that isn't political believe it or not) that influences what I share here. I shared it way earlier in this thread...and I'm not looking for sympathy at all but it does seem relevant to your question here. To make a long story short, I was nearly killed by medical malpractice 10 years ago. It took an MD with an alternative approach to restore my life. That is why I am more open than the average person to doctors like Dr. Kory. Personal experience does not trump good science, but it would also be nearly impossible for that to not shape the way I see the world since then. The 2nd thing to note is that a dear friend of mine died from covid in March of 2020. He was advised by his doctor to stay home for 10 days(with a fever all 10 days). We were all so concerned and asking questions but not given anything to do other than "stay home and rest." His neighbor had a pulse oximeter, brought it over and his blood oxygen level was 80. Finally, calling the doctor with that information, they admitted him to the hospital. He was dead 2 days later. So, if anyone has wondered why I may take a particular interest in therapeutics like ivermectin, it's because I watched the system offer no help and I lost someone I loved dearly because of it. His wife couldn't be with him when he passed and then because she had been around him, no one could visit her. No one so much as hugged her for 2 weeks after her husband died. The best we could do was sit on her deck and talk to her through the storm door...it's one of the most cruel and heartbreaking things I've ever seen play out in my entire life. So, again I'm not looking for sympathy...I'm really not...but I think those two things are important when discussing things with me here. Your concern about Brett Weinstein financially gaining from the increase in YouTube viewership is an important one and one that we should all keep an eye on. I like the fact that he admitted that the majority of his income these days comes from YouTube. The flip side of any suspicion we can have about his financial motivations is that if he doesn't stop talking about ivermectin his channel is going to be gone any day now. Sure, he can go to rumble or somewhere else at that point but it would essentially be the end of his influence because the majority of his work and followers have been built on YouTube. So, the fact that he's willing to risk all that says to me that he honestly believes in what he's saying. If he were a fraud, I think he'd toe right up to the line on ivermectin, completely back off to keep his channel, then find the next topic to do the same with. I've listened to Brett's podcast for a couple of years now so I have a bit more perspective on him than some. Having said that, if he were raising these concerns without Dr. Kory, I would be a lot less inclined to listen. Brett is a scientist though and I do appreciate the perspective(evolutionary biology) he brings and I think he does a good job of admitting where he may be wrong. As far as Dr. Kory goes, his group FLCCC Alliance is a non profit that was started during the pandemic with a group of other doctors. Their motivation comes across as genuine to me. They were working on the front lines during the worst of it and were genuinely searching for better ways to save lives. Here is a quick link about them and their credentials: covid19criticalcare.com/about/flccc-alliance-contributions-to-the-field-of-medicine/When they say there is no money to be made in generic drugs I think what they mean when compared to say remdesevir for example. A generic might come in around $45 to treat a covid patient where as a newer drug(not out of patent yet) like remdesivir will be around $3000 per patient. The Merck thing is very unusual. The speculation I've seen as to why they would speak negatively about their own drug(ivermectin) is that they are working on 2 new drugs to replace it and have received hundreds of millions of dollars from the government to do so. They go deeper into this on the episode so be sure to check that section out. In regards to any critics of ivermectin, Dr. Kory mentions he just filmed a debate that will be up hopefully next week so I look forward to seeing what comes from that. When it comes to RCTs, a couple of things stood out to me. They aren't asking to have ivermectin approved by bypassing RCTs, they're just saying that the threshold for RCTs that it took to get ivermectin approved for 2 of it's current uses were far less than the data they currently have for ivermectin treating covid. Another key factor in any of these studies is whether or not it was used early. Dr. Kory himself says that once a patient comes to him very late in their battle with covid that ivermectin(or not much for that matter) is very helpful. They get into some other details about taking it with food or an empty stomach, etc.. but hopefully you've gotten to that point in the episode by now. Another thing they criticized and something I've noticed myself is that some of the people offering up rebuttals(like the one shared a few posts above this one) are maybe not the most qualified people to do so? The rebuttal posted above that was critical of Dr. Kory/FLCCC was done by a computer science professor. A brilliant guy, I'm sure, but just for me personally I value the opinion of these 5 doctors that have been treating thousands of covid patients more. I hope this Oxford study brings some much needed clarity but in the meantime I highly value these doctors' real world experience. I think the most confusing thing to me overall is that ivermectin has been around so long(40 years) and has such a great safety profile that I can't imagine a better candidate to try and safely supplement the vaccine campaign. It seems like a win-win to me. I know it's a troubling thought that anything being done during the pandemic might not have the best of intentions but sometimes when things don't make sense it's because they're making dollars instead 😂 In the wise words that Joe Rogan ended the show with... "sort that out for yourselves ladies and gentlemen." 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 26, 2021 13:23:26 GMT -6
Merck would make a killing if they were providing ivermectin as a prophylactic and treatment to the entire population of the world. Given that they are not marketing their own vaccine... For all the folks arguing that 'big pharm' has a stake in silencing the voices that advocate for non-vaccine Covid treatments, this right here is exactly the thing that completely destroys their argument. There is way too much positive data for anything to destroy the argument at this point. Did you listen to the section where they discussed this? If not, you should! |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 26, 2021 15:17:59 GMT -6
Listening now, and this is a convincing conversation. Their narrative is very compelling; a small group of well-intentioned scientists are trying to share the irrefutable evidence that a totally safe, affordable, and widely available drug has the potential to eradicate a global disease, yet powerful people are doing everything in their power to ignore the evidence and silence those who know the truth. They make lots of claims which, if taken as factual, make the case seem like a slam dunk. Do you investigate their claims or take them at face value? I can't investigate all of their claims and even if I had the time I don't have the expertise to make any definitive judgement. Still, whenever I follow their breadcrumbs I find that many of their claims are nowhere near being factual and the sources of information upon which they base their claims are often shaky. First, their suggestion that they don't stand to gain from this is clearly false. Bret Weinstien has made a ton of money as a direct result of this discussion. They seem to believe that the lab leak theory has reached a conclusion. 'We were right'...well, there are significant flaws in their analysis and there is nothing conclusive anywhere to be found. Regarding ivermectin, they mention Tess Lawrie and imply that she is a highly credible source. I search for an analysis of Tess Lawrie's claims and find this: healthfeedback.org/authors/tess-lawrie/Again, I don't have the expertise to make any definitive judgement, but it appears that Tess Lawrie has some significant issues with her analysis and credibility. Joe Rogan asks if there are any credible critics of ivermectin and they essentially say no. I don't understand this. When I search for analysis of the various studies, I find plenty of criticism which seems to be very well-founded. What gives? They assert that 'there is no money to be made in generics'. What?!!! A quick Google search reveals that generics make a ton of money. Merck would make a killing if they were providing ivermectin as a prophylactic and treatment to the entire population of the world. Given that they are not marketing their own vaccine, wouldn't Merck have a significant interest in lobbying for the acceptance of ivermectin? Yet, they don't recommend it. Why? Their claims about the usefulness of RCT's in general are quite confusing. Apparently they don't find RCT's to be very valuable in the context of COVID, but how else does the scientific world come to any meaningful understanding? From what I can tell, ivermectin has been administered at various dosages and in combination with various other drugs and supplements. Nothing has been standardized. Are they really suggesting that the medical community should just guess which dosage and combination should be prescribed? Essentially, doctors would be conducting trial and error experiments on their patients. How does that make sense? There are seemingly massive blind spots in their arguments and none of what they are saying seems solid enough for the various agencies to approve ivermectin as part of COVID treatment and prevention. So, after listening to over an hour of this, my feeling is the same. I would LOVE it if ivermectin were proven to be a cheap and effective treatment. If there is potential there, I believe it should be pursued (and apparently it is). But there doesn't seem to be anywhere near enough understanding for it to be declared a 'miracle'. What dosage? What combination? For who? For how long? How does it interact with other drugs? What is the efficacy on new strains? Etc., etc. Given how much there is to be understood, it strikes me as being very suspect that they make their claims with such confidence. Thank you for taking the time to watch what you have so far and for raising a lot of important question. I highly encourage you to finish the rest of the episode as time allows! I'd like to answer this one first - "Do you investigate their claims or take them at face value?" I investigate to the best of my abilities for sure. I would never intentionally share something false here or anywhere else. I have a certain perspective(that isn't political believe it or not) that influences what I share here. I shared it way earlier in this thread...and I'm not looking for sympathy at all but it does seem relevant to your question here. To make a long story short, I was nearly killed by medical malpractice 10 years ago. It took an MD with an alternative approach to restore my life. That is why I am more open than the average person to doctors like Dr. Kory. Personal experience does not trump good science, but it would also be nearly impossible for that to not shape the way I see the world since then. The 2nd thing to note is that a dear friend of mine died from covid in March of 2020. He was advised by his doctor to stay home for 10 days(with a fever all 10 days). We were all so concerned and asking questions but not given anything to do other than "stay home and rest." His neighbor had a pulse oximeter, brought it over and his blood oxygen level was 80. Finally, calling the doctor with that information, they admitted him to the hospital. He was dead 2 days later. So, if anyone has wondered why I may take a particular interest in therapeutics like ivermectin, it's because I watched the system offer no help and I lost someone I loved dearly because of it. His wife couldn't be with him when he passed and then because she had been around him, no one could visit her. No one so much as hugged her for 2 weeks after her husband died. The best we could do was sit on her deck and talk to her through the storm door...it's one of the most cruel and heartbreaking things I've ever seen play out in my entire life. So, again I'm not looking for sympathy...I'm really not...but I think those two things are important when discussing things with me here. Your concern about Brett Weinstein financially gaining from the increase in YouTube viewership is an important one and one that we should all keep an eye on. I like the fact that he admitted that the majority of his income these days comes from YouTube. The flip side of any suspicion we can have about his financial motivations is that if he doesn't stop talking about ivermectin his channel is going to be gone any day now. Sure, he can go to rumble or somewhere else at that point but it would essentially be the end of his influence because the majority of his work and followers have been built on YouTube. So, the fact that he's willing to risk all that says to me that he honestly believes in what he's saying. If he were a fraud, I think he'd toe right up to the line on ivermectin, completely back off to keep his channel, then find the next topic to do the same with. I've listened to Brett's podcast for a couple of years now so I have a bit more perspective on him than some. Having said that, if he were raising these concerns without Dr. Kory, I would be a lot less inclined to listen. Brett is a scientist though and I do appreciate the perspective(evolutionary biology) he brings and I think he does a good job of admitting where he may be wrong. As far as Dr. Kory goes, his group FLCCC Alliance is a non profit that was started during the pandemic with a group of other doctors. Their motivation comes across as genuine to me. They were working on the front lines during the worst of it and were genuinely searching for better ways to save lives. Here is a quick link about them and their credentials: covid19criticalcare.com/about/flccc-alliance-contributions-to-the-field-of-medicine/When they say there is no money to be made in generic drugs I think what they mean when compared to say remdesevir for example. A generic might come in around $45 to treat a covid patient where as a newer drug(not out of patent yet) like remdesivir will be around $3000 per patient. The Merck thing is very unusual. The speculation I've seen as to why they would speak negatively about their own drug(ivermectin) is that they are working on 2 new drugs to replace it and have received hundreds of millions of dollars from the government to do so. They go deeper into this on the episode so be sure to check that section out. In regards to any critics of ivermectin, Dr. Kory mentions he just filmed a debate that will be up hopefully next week so I look forward to seeing what comes from that. When it comes to RCTs, a couple of things stood out to me. They aren't asking to have ivermectin approved by bypassing RCTs, they're just saying that the threshold for RCTs that it took to get ivermectin approved for 2 of it's current uses were far less than the data they currently have for ivermectin treating covid. Another key factor in any of these studies is whether or not it was used early. Dr. Kory himself says that once a patient comes to him very late in their battle with covid that ivermectin(or not much for that matter) is very helpful. They get into some other details about taking it with food or an empty stomach, etc.. but hopefully you've gotten to that point in the episode by now. Another thing they criticized and something I've noticed myself is that some of the people offering up rebuttals(like the one shared a few posts above this one) are maybe not the most qualified people to do so? The rebuttal posted above that was critical of Dr. Kory/FLCCC was done by a computer science professor. A brilliant guy, I'm sure, but just for me personally I value the opinion of these 5 doctors that have been treating thousands of covid patients more. I hope this Oxford study brings some much needed clarity but in the meantime I highly value these doctors' real world experience. I think the most confusing thing to me overall is that ivermectin has been around so long(40 years) and has such a great safety profile that I can't imagine a better candidate to try and safely supplement the vaccine campaign. It seems like a win-win to me. I know it's a troubling thought that anything being done during the pandemic might not have the best of intentions but sometimes when things don't make sense it's because they're making dollars instead 😂 In the wise words that Joe Rogan ended the show with... "sort that out for yourselves ladies and gentlemen." 😁 I remember reading about your two experiences and I'm so sorry to hear about your friend. Heartbreaking. I've had close calls myself. My inclination is to be highly skeptical of any single individual's advice, no matter how experienced they are. Humans are imperfect and our health care system is not set up to incentivize time consuming consideration of a patient's needs. I think there is a distinction to be made between scientific understanding and the misapplication of that understanding, and in most cases the issue is with the former. My point about Bret Weinstien is that he makes his living as a commentator/quasi philosopher, not as a scientist. His notoriety (and presumably wealth) increased exponentially because he was 'cancelled'. Very similar to Jordan Peterson, he took a public stance against a social policy at his university. There was some backlash and he parlayed that into a very, very lucrative career as a media personality. I have no idea where his motivations truly lie, but I can say with certainty that his visibility and income increase whenever he is involved in a controversial discussion. I posted this before...his Patreon subscribership is up more than 300% since he was 'censored'. Last I checked he was #1 on the podcast charts in his category. He's doing very well, and controversy drives his numbers up, not down. He is very well-positioned to follow the likes of Sam Harris who created his own outlet to reach his audience. He'd clearly do well with the pitch 'YouTube censors scientists...subscribe to my platform to get the REAL truth.' That's not to say that he doesn't believe his own theories...just that it seems disingenuous to talk like his family's income is on the line. Hardly. You definitely come across as being sincere and honest in your efforts here, and I definitely understand your skepticism. I don't think you're posting stuff carelessly, but I do wonder how much you've looked into the rebuttals to Dr Kory's arguments. They are convincing enough to me that I wonder how Dr Kory can be so self assured. He doesn't really address them head on...he discounts them in an offhand kind of way. If you were to take his word for it you would be lead to believe that the science is clear. As far as I can tell it isn't. In fact, the FLCCC group you referenced states that it's unclear in their own website disclaimer. Why is that? Either way, these guys are in a win win situation. Because they've positioned themselves as anti establishment, they can easily discount evidence that might contradict their theories. "Oh, Oxford developed a vaccine so they have an interest in disproving the effectiveness of ivermectin." If a study doesn't go their way they can claim bias or fraud or coverup or whatever, and their audience will be more inclined to stick with them to learn the 'real truth'. if their theories prove to be correct, they will take a massive victory lap around all of social media. They can't really lose. The solution? Irrefutable proof of safety and effectiveness. Not a hodgepodge of problematic trials with disputable results. It either works or it doesn't. Imagine being in charge of public health policy and Dr Kory encourages you to make a public recommendation to treat covid with ivermectin: OK, show me the evidence.A lot of it is anecdotal. I can't make public policy based on anecdotal evidence.Look at these trials. These trials are vastly different...dosage, duration, drug combinations, potential for bias, lack of placebo, participants excluded without explanation...I can't make public policy with this.Look at India. India no longer recommends ivermectin for covid. Correlation is not causation. Covid data from India is very loose. We have no idea what is actually happening over there. I can't make public policy with this.
I dunno. Seems like they expect the entire medical community to embrace their theories and I don't see how they can expect that at this stage. Maybe down the road they will be proven correct. That would be great for all, but they have a lot of heavy lifting to do to get there. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 26, 2021 16:13:32 GMT -6
Thank you for taking the time to watch what you have so far and for raising a lot of important question. I highly encourage you to finish the rest of the episode as time allows! I'd like to answer this one first - "Do you investigate their claims or take them at face value?" I investigate to the best of my abilities for sure. I would never intentionally share something false here or anywhere else. I have a certain perspective(that isn't political believe it or not) that influences what I share here. I shared it way earlier in this thread...and I'm not looking for sympathy at all but it does seem relevant to your question here. To make a long story short, I was nearly killed by medical malpractice 10 years ago. It took an MD with an alternative approach to restore my life. That is why I am more open than the average person to doctors like Dr. Kory. Personal experience does not trump good science, but it would also be nearly impossible for that to not shape the way I see the world since then. The 2nd thing to note is that a dear friend of mine died from covid in March of 2020. He was advised by his doctor to stay home for 10 days(with a fever all 10 days). We were all so concerned and asking questions but not given anything to do other than "stay home and rest." His neighbor had a pulse oximeter, brought it over and his blood oxygen level was 80. Finally, calling the doctor with that information, they admitted him to the hospital. He was dead 2 days later. So, if anyone has wondered why I may take a particular interest in therapeutics like ivermectin, it's because I watched the system offer no help and I lost someone I loved dearly because of it. His wife couldn't be with him when he passed and then because she had been around him, no one could visit her. No one so much as hugged her for 2 weeks after her husband died. The best we could do was sit on her deck and talk to her through the storm door...it's one of the most cruel and heartbreaking things I've ever seen play out in my entire life. So, again I'm not looking for sympathy...I'm really not...but I think those two things are important when discussing things with me here. Your concern about Brett Weinstein financially gaining from the increase in YouTube viewership is an important one and one that we should all keep an eye on. I like the fact that he admitted that the majority of his income these days comes from YouTube. The flip side of any suspicion we can have about his financial motivations is that if he doesn't stop talking about ivermectin his channel is going to be gone any day now. Sure, he can go to rumble or somewhere else at that point but it would essentially be the end of his influence because the majority of his work and followers have been built on YouTube. So, the fact that he's willing to risk all that says to me that he honestly believes in what he's saying. If he were a fraud, I think he'd toe right up to the line on ivermectin, completely back off to keep his channel, then find the next topic to do the same with. I've listened to Brett's podcast for a couple of years now so I have a bit more perspective on him than some. Having said that, if he were raising these concerns without Dr. Kory, I would be a lot less inclined to listen. Brett is a scientist though and I do appreciate the perspective(evolutionary biology) he brings and I think he does a good job of admitting where he may be wrong. As far as Dr. Kory goes, his group FLCCC Alliance is a non profit that was started during the pandemic with a group of other doctors. Their motivation comes across as genuine to me. They were working on the front lines during the worst of it and were genuinely searching for better ways to save lives. Here is a quick link about them and their credentials: covid19criticalcare.com/about/flccc-alliance-contributions-to-the-field-of-medicine/When they say there is no money to be made in generic drugs I think what they mean when compared to say remdesevir for example. A generic might come in around $45 to treat a covid patient where as a newer drug(not out of patent yet) like remdesivir will be around $3000 per patient. The Merck thing is very unusual. The speculation I've seen as to why they would speak negatively about their own drug(ivermectin) is that they are working on 2 new drugs to replace it and have received hundreds of millions of dollars from the government to do so. They go deeper into this on the episode so be sure to check that section out. In regards to any critics of ivermectin, Dr. Kory mentions he just filmed a debate that will be up hopefully next week so I look forward to seeing what comes from that. When it comes to RCTs, a couple of things stood out to me. They aren't asking to have ivermectin approved by bypassing RCTs, they're just saying that the threshold for RCTs that it took to get ivermectin approved for 2 of it's current uses were far less than the data they currently have for ivermectin treating covid. Another key factor in any of these studies is whether or not it was used early. Dr. Kory himself says that once a patient comes to him very late in their battle with covid that ivermectin(or not much for that matter) is very helpful. They get into some other details about taking it with food or an empty stomach, etc.. but hopefully you've gotten to that point in the episode by now. Another thing they criticized and something I've noticed myself is that some of the people offering up rebuttals(like the one shared a few posts above this one) are maybe not the most qualified people to do so? The rebuttal posted above that was critical of Dr. Kory/FLCCC was done by a computer science professor. A brilliant guy, I'm sure, but just for me personally I value the opinion of these 5 doctors that have been treating thousands of covid patients more. I hope this Oxford study brings some much needed clarity but in the meantime I highly value these doctors' real world experience. I think the most confusing thing to me overall is that ivermectin has been around so long(40 years) and has such a great safety profile that I can't imagine a better candidate to try and safely supplement the vaccine campaign. It seems like a win-win to me. I know it's a troubling thought that anything being done during the pandemic might not have the best of intentions but sometimes when things don't make sense it's because they're making dollars instead 😂 In the wise words that Joe Rogan ended the show with... "sort that out for yourselves ladies and gentlemen." 😁 The solution? Irrefutable proof of safety and effectiveness. Not a hodgepodge of problematic trials with disputable results. It either works or it doesn't. Imagine being in charge of public health policy and Dr Kory encourages you to make a public recommendation to treat covid with ivermectin: OK, show me the evidence.A lot of it is anecdotal. I can't make public policy based on anecdotal evidence.Look at these trials. These trials are vastly different...dosage, duration, drug combinations, potential for bias, lack of placebo, participants excluded without explanation...I can't make public policy with this.Look at India. India no longer recommends ivermectin for covid. Correlation is not causation. Covid data from India is very loose. We have no idea what is actually happening over there. I can't make public policy with this.
I dunno. Seems like they expect the entire medical community to embrace their theories and I don't see how they can expect that at this stage. Maybe down the road they will be proven correct. That would be great for all, but they have a lot of heavy lifting to do to get there. I'm half way through the JRE episode and have to say Kory and Weinstein do a good job of describing the dangerous of censorship, at least as I see it. I'm not 100% convinced by everything they say. In fact, I'm still in the "considering the evidence" phase when it comes to Ivermectin. But I think they're worth listening to, if someone is so inclined, and don't see how they can be considered nefarious. Wrong? Yeah maybe, I hope the truth reveals itself. But they seemed to speak in a pretty measured fashion. Warned the audience several times on where they might be wrong, where they're just postulated, what some of their educated guesses are etc. To your points above however, a huge amount of public policy AND healthcare policy regarding COVID was passed on anecdotal evidence, a hodgepodge of inconsistence trials with disputable results or really no evidence at all. Its been a shit show. Policies regarding masks, social distancing, eye protection, quarantines/lockdowns and the shuttering of businesses, the use of non-invasive ventilation and heated high flow systems, early intubations, using pcr tests as a diagnostic tool etc etc etc. Just about all of those things fail to meet the standards you stated in one way or another. A lot of what was said by the CDC, WHO, State Health Dept turned out to be flat out wrong. So my point is that when hugely detrimental public policies, like lockdowns, have already been implemented (and sustained) without meeting very high standard of evidence, or with a moving target of what evidence should be used and what goal we're trying to achieve, I don't think its unreasonable to hear these guys out. That's just my opinion and I respect when others feel different. But back to my main over all point...these guys shouldn't have to go on JRE to express their views. Youtubes policy of taking down videos that don't conform to the CDC is a bad policy. Edit: I hope that didn't come off as confrontational, didn't mean that way at all and I'm not implying that you're saying all those things |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 26, 2021 16:52:56 GMT -6
Not confrontational at all! I'm happy to be wrong.
Fair point about policy. It was definitely all over the place, especially early on when nobody truly understood what we were up against. They were taking educated guesses and in hindsight they turned out to be wrong in some cases.
I have to say again that these guys have a huge platform. 'Censorship' actually increases their visibility and income. Didn't Dr Kory testify before congress?
I haven't heard a good explanation for why Kory would make the claim that there is overwhelming evidence that ivermectin is a 'miracle' and a 'gift' but have such little in the way of irrefutable evidence.
We have to remember that there have been a number of equally enthusiastic physicians who have made similar claims about other treatments. Dr. Stella Immanuel comes to mind. How does a regulatory body give all of the various theories equal consideration? Can a physician and a media personality expect the world's regulatory agencies to adopt their theories before they are actually proven? The vitamin guy was pretty enthusiastic in his assertion that all we need is to boost our immune system with vitamins.
I actually find it interesting that I am at odds with these guys in particular. I agree with much of what they have to say, especially regarding the profit motives of the healthcare industry. Hopefully some of this discussion will bring some of my conservative friends around to the idea that deregulation, lack of oversight, corporate donations, and unbridled capitalism can be extremely problematic in really important ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jun 26, 2021 16:55:14 GMT -6
My concern is the push to vaccinate kids.
The long term effect of these COVID vaccines cannot be ascertained and while the elderly are more at risk of the virus itself and at the latter phase of their lives, vaccinating kids with vaccines that there is no data collected to determine what negative impacts could result from side effects that don’t manifest until months or maybe years down the track is IMO playing Russian Roulette (see those damn Russians again!)
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 26, 2021 17:29:02 GMT -6
Not to get too far off track but just a side note about YouTube's censorship policy. Out of all the stuff that has gotten taken down from Brett Weinstein's channel...guess which one didn't? The interview with Geert Vanden Bossche 🤣. I kid you not, it's been up for 2 months in its entirety. I personally felt like his thoughts on everything were the most out there. I appreciate YouTube letting him be heard I guess but it's just wild that Dr. Kory and Dr. Malone episodes have been taken down and that one has not.
|
|
