Thanks for your courage to confront the horrors that we're being confronted with. You are a hero, along with your peers, who are speaking truth to power. You have helped to create a powerful alliance of ethical and moral physicians and scientists around the world. Do you have any updates on the litigation against Andrew Hill or the WHO?
Looking at a broad body of evidence is always the better/more valid way to go. The habit of pointing to ONE study to try and refute the other side has no scientific basis and is annoying in the extreme. Reproducibility is key and should be rewarded.
Thank you for this! I am having a bit of an argument with a nephew who summarily dismissed ivermectin based on the discussion and conclusion alone, which doesn't match the data in the TOGETHER trial, yet he somehow feels it must lead him to dismiss all the other positive trial outcomes. [Orange man bad, ivermectin bad.] Regarding the ten-year hesitancy on approving steroid use for preterm labour: By 1983 at least one hospital in Toronto, staffed by neonatal specialists trained in Britain, had adopted the steroid treatment as standard of care for preterm labour, not as part of a trial. I went into preterm labour at 25 weeks with my first baby and was given dexamethasone with other drugs. I wonder if I would have my son today if that hospital had stood back waiting for more, bigger trials for 8 more years, instead of acting on what was already known in 1981.
does Ivermectin sterilize covid in the nose, According to The Viral Delusion a documentary Covid has not been isolated. If that is true what is the vaccine working on. Any ideas?
Thank you for this excellent article. Ivermectin really is a wonder drug, and it is a shame and crime that it is being banned or vilified only for pushing the dangerous vax. Ivermectin helped me with my Omicron a month ago, I only had a low fever for 2 days and have been virus free after day 7.
Thank you for your courage and integrity to continue to challenge the narrative. You and your colleagues have kept me sane and I will continue to follow and support your work for as long as it takes. Tess for PM!!
I don't suppose anyone remembers a presentation that Tess did in which she had a couple of pie-charts of different research methodologies and their strengths and weaknesses? She was using it to demonstrate that the over-reliance of today's doctors on RCTs, as if they are the be-all-and-end-all of knowledge, is sadly blinkered thinking. I've been trying to locate this presentation and the charts without success...
There was also a 'high dose ivermectin' group, yes? 0.4mg/kg x 3 days. Still way below the dosage used by experts at the time I believe, plus was to be given specifically on an empty stomach instead of with a meal.
In your analysis, why have you included non-randomized trials like Okumus and Hashim, and also extremely questionably studies like Niaee? You’ve also included Petkov, which isn’t actually published.
I think you’ll find, when these very dodgy studies are excluded (as they should have been from the beginning) that ivermectin has no efficacy.
I try to keep an open mind about all possible therapeutics, but looking at this from the mainstream point of view, as informed by the mainstream experts, ivermectin has been very unsuccessful. Mainstream is not a bad word when it comes to practicing medicine, as we come from a long line of shamans before scientific proof entered the profession!
It just seems like people are clinging to this like a conviction, rather than a conclusion. Most of the highest paid subscriptions here on Substack are written by clinicians/writers with some sort of scientific background, but who cling to fringe treatments and garner loyal supporters who consider them heroic for bucking the mainstream? I'm no expert in evaluating what works and what doesn't, so I'm not commenting to start an argument. I'm a family doctor, and I rely on experts better trained and informed than myself to help guide me through difficult treatment analyses. I can't become an expert on each of the thousands of nuanced conditions I see in my practice. So I guess my question is, why not follow the scientific consensus, and not search for conspiracy? Why include poor quality studies when they support your thesis, but then discount better designed studies (showing little benefit) when they are not perfect? Please let me know why these very well-researched and presented studies do not give you pause about still thinking Ivermectin works? Thanks if you review these mainstream links from the NIH, and even more thanks if you can honestly and dispassionately refute the validity of the expert panel conclusions:
Once again, I am trying to keep an open mind about all this, but I just don't get it. If Ivermectin really worked I would be completely open to taking it or prescribing it. Absolutely! Check out Table 2d. Thank you!
Thanks for your courage to confront the horrors that we're being confronted with. You are a hero, along with your peers, who are speaking truth to power. You have helped to create a powerful alliance of ethical and moral physicians and scientists around the world. Do you have any updates on the litigation against Andrew Hill or the WHO?
Looking at a broad body of evidence is always the better/more valid way to go. The habit of pointing to ONE study to try and refute the other side has no scientific basis and is annoying in the extreme. Reproducibility is key and should be rewarded.
Thank you for this! I am having a bit of an argument with a nephew who summarily dismissed ivermectin based on the discussion and conclusion alone, which doesn't match the data in the TOGETHER trial, yet he somehow feels it must lead him to dismiss all the other positive trial outcomes. [Orange man bad, ivermectin bad.] Regarding the ten-year hesitancy on approving steroid use for preterm labour: By 1983 at least one hospital in Toronto, staffed by neonatal specialists trained in Britain, had adopted the steroid treatment as standard of care for preterm labour, not as part of a trial. I went into preterm labour at 25 weeks with my first baby and was given dexamethasone with other drugs. I wonder if I would have my son today if that hospital had stood back waiting for more, bigger trials for 8 more years, instead of acting on what was already known in 1981.
Thank you for speaking out and bringing your expertise to this latest “hit” on the use of Ivermectin. God bless you.
Very helpful
Thank you Dr Lawrie.
Thank you for sharing wisdom. Keep doing this very relevant and important job.
I hope that you are also given access to the data
does Ivermectin sterilize covid in the nose, According to The Viral Delusion a documentary Covid has not been isolated. If that is true what is the vaccine working on. Any ideas?
Thank you for this excellent article. Ivermectin really is a wonder drug, and it is a shame and crime that it is being banned or vilified only for pushing the dangerous vax. Ivermectin helped me with my Omicron a month ago, I only had a low fever for 2 days and have been virus free after day 7.
Thank you for your courage and integrity to continue to challenge the narrative. You and your colleagues have kept me sane and I will continue to follow and support your work for as long as it takes. Tess for PM!!
I don't suppose anyone remembers a presentation that Tess did in which she had a couple of pie-charts of different research methodologies and their strengths and weaknesses? She was using it to demonstrate that the over-reliance of today's doctors on RCTs, as if they are the be-all-and-end-all of knowledge, is sadly blinkered thinking. I've been trying to locate this presentation and the charts without success...
There was also a 'high dose ivermectin' group, yes? 0.4mg/kg x 3 days. Still way below the dosage used by experts at the time I believe, plus was to be given specifically on an empty stomach instead of with a meal.
Hi Dr Lawrie.
In your analysis, why have you included non-randomized trials like Okumus and Hashim, and also extremely questionably studies like Niaee? You’ve also included Petkov, which isn’t actually published.
I think you’ll find, when these very dodgy studies are excluded (as they should have been from the beginning) that ivermectin has no efficacy.
I try to keep an open mind about all possible therapeutics, but looking at this from the mainstream point of view, as informed by the mainstream experts, ivermectin has been very unsuccessful. Mainstream is not a bad word when it comes to practicing medicine, as we come from a long line of shamans before scientific proof entered the profession!
It just seems like people are clinging to this like a conviction, rather than a conclusion. Most of the highest paid subscriptions here on Substack are written by clinicians/writers with some sort of scientific background, but who cling to fringe treatments and garner loyal supporters who consider them heroic for bucking the mainstream? I'm no expert in evaluating what works and what doesn't, so I'm not commenting to start an argument. I'm a family doctor, and I rely on experts better trained and informed than myself to help guide me through difficult treatment analyses. I can't become an expert on each of the thousands of nuanced conditions I see in my practice. So I guess my question is, why not follow the scientific consensus, and not search for conspiracy? Why include poor quality studies when they support your thesis, but then discount better designed studies (showing little benefit) when they are not perfect? Please let me know why these very well-researched and presented studies do not give you pause about still thinking Ivermectin works? Thanks if you review these mainstream links from the NIH, and even more thanks if you can honestly and dispassionately refute the validity of the expert panel conclusions:
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/ivermectin-data/
Once again, I am trying to keep an open mind about all this, but I just don't get it. If Ivermectin really worked I would be completely open to taking it or prescribing it. Absolutely! Check out Table 2d. Thank you!