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?
Thank you so much Michelle, we are all part of a collective movement based in truth and transparency. There is no litigation - we are still hopeful that Andrew Hill will come forward and tell the truth in the interest of science and humanity.
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.
Sounds like you received good treatment, Aliss. Do you think your nephew might be interested in reading about systematic reviews? It can be tricky having these kinds of conversations with loved ones, I know...
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?
My understanding is that IVM halts viral replication. Nasal sprays and specific mouthwashes kill Covid in the nose the throat, significantly reducing the viral load. The full protocol is available at www.flccc.net
I am thinking that sterilizing the virus is equally important to treating existing conditions(covid). While the IVM treatment reducing hospitalization is extremely important stopping replication is even more valuable.
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!
Thank you Ryan, I am very familiar with these references. Just as you are an expert in your field, as a family GP, I am an expert in systematic reviewing and guideline development. I assure you that the methodology of this work is routine. I agree that it is hard to get that the existing health authorities are ignoring, at best, or misrepresenting, at worst, the evidence on ivermectin. For the full story on the corruption of the evidence on a safe, effective off-patent medicine for Covid-19, I recommend Phil Harper's substack:
Dear Dr McCormick, in addition to Phil Harper’s excellent “The Digger” Substack, also read the excellent work by Alexandros Marinos Substack, “Do Your Own Research” https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/
Ok I will try to review some of his writings. Thanks. It looks like he is an investigative journalist? Any medical background? I don't think your assertion that you are an expert in systematic reviews is quite enough to discount the NIH panels of similar experts that I linked to though.
Fluvoxamine and steroids are also effective off-patent meds that have shown some benefit, and doctors prescribe them for COVID, depending on the clinical situation. But the vaccines (while not risk free!) have not killed 12-22 million people worldwide (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00104-8), and have actually saved the lives of millions. Ivermectin, which has usually been presented to me as an option by unvaccinated patients, would not have done that, and has not done that, in countries that liberalized it like Brazil, etc.
I try to be aware of my own biases and convictions. I have some reluctance to find a pill for every problem, and I buck some of the guidelines imposed upon me when the evidence is not there. For example, guidelines used to implore doctors to get their diabetic patients' blood sugars down as low as possible, and we were actually dinged in terms of "quality" ratings if we didn't achieve certain benchmarks in this regard. I refused to play that, as accumulating evidence actually showed more harm with intensive glucose lowering. Finally the evidence and consensus evolved, and those guidelines have been amended. Science, uncertainty, and proof are malleable, I get it. I try not to be dogmatic. But once again, the preponderance of good evidence shows Ivermectin not working! I would consider prescribing that malpractice, based on the original links and systematic reviews and guidelines that similar panels of experts like yourself have provided for docs like me.
I'm sure I won't change minds with this obscure comment buried on your site, but as a leader that your readers respect, consider taking a step back and checking the mechanics of human thinking that can get us into trouble. Doing our own research is not always good, and this podcast by the SETI institute really helped me consider the logic and patterns of my own thinking:
I won't comment again, but reach out to me if any of this makes you question what the Ivermectin zeitgeist is preaching. And I will try to read through that Phil Harper substack. Thanks for your expert analysis, just not convinced at all.
Dear Dr McCormick, suggest you also contact Dr Peter McCullough and Dr Pierre Kory at the FLCCC Alliance. Dr McCullough is on Record as saying that the ABSOLUTE EFFICACY of EARLY TREATMENT COMBINATION THERAPY (in correct dosage) is 80% - 99.99% (if taken within 72 hours) (including Ivermectin, Zinc, Doxycycline etc.). According to a study in The Lancet, the ABSOLUTE EFFICACY ("Risk Reduction") of the C19 'injections' is/ranges 0.84% - 1.28%. Further, there is little to zero C19 Vax "Adverse Effects Risks" given over circa 4 billion doses of IVM over the last circa 40 years, with minimal if any major side effects and no direct deaths.
Thanks. I’ve read the FLCCC site and it seems like they cherry pick their evidence. Before I read them again, have you reviewed the links and podcast I originally recommended?
I just would like to say thank you for being so polite and respectful. You seem like a good doctor who is trying to do the right thing. I would suggest reading Dr. Kory's critique of the Together trial.
Dear Dr McCormick, in addition to Phil Harper’s excellent “The Digger” Substack, also read the excellent work by Alexandros Marinos Substack, “Do Your Own Research” https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/
The real world experience of the use of ivermectin also supports the Forrest Plot findings. Dr Shankara Chetty in S.Africa has treated over 7,000 patients with an early treatment protocol that includes ivermectin. He has had not 1 single death, not one hospitalisation. No need for the use of oxygen. In Uttar Pradesh - population 240 million- in the height of the pandemic last summer they had 414,000 cases a day and 4,000 deaths. IVM was given to the population and by August 5 th the numbers had plummeted to under 30 cases a day and only 4 deaths a day. Similar examples exist in Japan. An Amazonian city of Coari used it for prophylaxis giving it out in libraries and bakeries and they had no one in their hospital with C19 unlike the rest the Brazil where the hospitals were full of patients sick with C19.
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?
Thank you so much Michelle, we are all part of a collective movement based in truth and transparency. There is no litigation - we are still hopeful that Andrew Hill will come forward and tell the truth in the interest of science and humanity.
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.
Sounds like you received good treatment, Aliss. Do you think your nephew might be interested in reading about systematic reviews? It can be tricky having these kinds of conversations with loved ones, I know...
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?
My understanding is that IVM halts viral replication. Nasal sprays and specific mouthwashes kill Covid in the nose the throat, significantly reducing the viral load. The full protocol is available at www.flccc.net
I am thinking that sterilizing the virus is equally important to treating existing conditions(covid). While the IVM treatment reducing hospitalization is extremely important stopping replication is even more valuable.
thank you
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.
Very glad to hear you've had a good recovery, Ullie.
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!!
Thank you Clare, your support is greatly appreciated.
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!
Thank you Ryan, I am very familiar with these references. Just as you are an expert in your field, as a family GP, I am an expert in systematic reviewing and guideline development. I assure you that the methodology of this work is routine. I agree that it is hard to get that the existing health authorities are ignoring, at best, or misrepresenting, at worst, the evidence on ivermectin. For the full story on the corruption of the evidence on a safe, effective off-patent medicine for Covid-19, I recommend Phil Harper's substack:
https://substack.com/profile/29702429-phil-harper
Dear Dr McCormick, in addition to Phil Harper’s excellent “The Digger” Substack, also read the excellent work by Alexandros Marinos Substack, “Do Your Own Research” https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/
Ok I will try to review some of his writings. Thanks. It looks like he is an investigative journalist? Any medical background? I don't think your assertion that you are an expert in systematic reviews is quite enough to discount the NIH panels of similar experts that I linked to though.
Fluvoxamine and steroids are also effective off-patent meds that have shown some benefit, and doctors prescribe them for COVID, depending on the clinical situation. But the vaccines (while not risk free!) have not killed 12-22 million people worldwide (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00104-8), and have actually saved the lives of millions. Ivermectin, which has usually been presented to me as an option by unvaccinated patients, would not have done that, and has not done that, in countries that liberalized it like Brazil, etc.
I try to be aware of my own biases and convictions. I have some reluctance to find a pill for every problem, and I buck some of the guidelines imposed upon me when the evidence is not there. For example, guidelines used to implore doctors to get their diabetic patients' blood sugars down as low as possible, and we were actually dinged in terms of "quality" ratings if we didn't achieve certain benchmarks in this regard. I refused to play that, as accumulating evidence actually showed more harm with intensive glucose lowering. Finally the evidence and consensus evolved, and those guidelines have been amended. Science, uncertainty, and proof are malleable, I get it. I try not to be dogmatic. But once again, the preponderance of good evidence shows Ivermectin not working! I would consider prescribing that malpractice, based on the original links and systematic reviews and guidelines that similar panels of experts like yourself have provided for docs like me.
I'm sure I won't change minds with this obscure comment buried on your site, but as a leader that your readers respect, consider taking a step back and checking the mechanics of human thinking that can get us into trouble. Doing our own research is not always good, and this podcast by the SETI institute really helped me consider the logic and patterns of my own thinking:
http://bigpicturescience.org/episodes/skeptic-check-do-your-own-research
I won't comment again, but reach out to me if any of this makes you question what the Ivermectin zeitgeist is preaching. And I will try to read through that Phil Harper substack. Thanks for your expert analysis, just not convinced at all.
Dear Dr McCormick, suggest you also contact Dr Peter McCullough and Dr Pierre Kory at the FLCCC Alliance. Dr McCullough is on Record as saying that the ABSOLUTE EFFICACY of EARLY TREATMENT COMBINATION THERAPY (in correct dosage) is 80% - 99.99% (if taken within 72 hours) (including Ivermectin, Zinc, Doxycycline etc.). According to a study in The Lancet, the ABSOLUTE EFFICACY ("Risk Reduction") of the C19 'injections' is/ranges 0.84% - 1.28%. Further, there is little to zero C19 Vax "Adverse Effects Risks" given over circa 4 billion doses of IVM over the last circa 40 years, with minimal if any major side effects and no direct deaths.
Thanks. I’ve read the FLCCC site and it seems like they cherry pick their evidence. Before I read them again, have you reviewed the links and podcast I originally recommended?
Hi
I just would like to say thank you for being so polite and respectful. You seem like a good doctor who is trying to do the right thing. I would suggest reading Dr. Kory's critique of the Together trial.
Dear Dr McCormick, in addition to Phil Harper’s excellent “The Digger” Substack, also read the excellent work by Alexandros Marinos Substack, “Do Your Own Research” https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/
The real world experience of the use of ivermectin also supports the Forrest Plot findings. Dr Shankara Chetty in S.Africa has treated over 7,000 patients with an early treatment protocol that includes ivermectin. He has had not 1 single death, not one hospitalisation. No need for the use of oxygen. In Uttar Pradesh - population 240 million- in the height of the pandemic last summer they had 414,000 cases a day and 4,000 deaths. IVM was given to the population and by August 5 th the numbers had plummeted to under 30 cases a day and only 4 deaths a day. Similar examples exist in Japan. An Amazonian city of Coari used it for prophylaxis giving it out in libraries and bakeries and they had no one in their hospital with C19 unlike the rest the Brazil where the hospitals were full of patients sick with C19.
In Zimbabwe we see a similar picture using IVM.
The evidence of efficacy is there.