Please explain Ivermectin

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Please explain Ivermectin


Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 162 total)
  • Author
  • #2006763

    2scents -“Initial trial indicating a quicker recovery for those with Redemsivir, the data was significant which is probably why they approved it.”
    “Hydroxychloroquine in Nonhospitalized Adults With Early COVID-19
    A Randomized Trial
    Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19”

    You really gotta go to that site to see the Truth about how the Genocidal Government says to treat COVID-19.

    From that site a Meta-analysis:
    Early treatment – 64% improvement
    0.36 [0.28-0.46]
    31 total studies
    54,621 patients.”

    Even with all Studies – HCQ was a better % than Redemsivir!

    There is no early study on Redemsivir.

    From that site a Meta-analysis (in-hospital):
    “Redemsivir – 22% improvement from 20 total Studies.”

    Please Stop defending the Genocidal Government!



    As noted by a previous poster, the meta analysis is only as good as the studies it includes.


    2scents -“CONCLUSION
    As synthesized in the Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis, the current evidence for the use of ivermectin in COVID-19 does not suggest any clear benefits in either inpatients or outpatients with respect to mortality, clinical
    improvement, or viral clearance”

    That would be in a perfect World.
    But I guess the powers that be – Don’t realize that we are in a Pandemic!?!

    So I’m Not proposing that e/o should be Forced to take other treatments, like they are doing with Vaccines, but Clinicians should have the options to get it and be covered by Insurance.
    I’ll give an example – When Cuomo was Emperor/Governor – NYS issued an order to Pharmacies that HCQ can’t be given out for Covid 19.
    This is called Genocide.
    Who is he to determine what therapies work or Not?!?
    It works better than Redemsivir!


    2 scents > NZ: As synthesized in the Cochrane systematic review

    as I suggested, just go to Cochrane reviews site – that has many years of expertise in doing meta-studies – and read those meta-reviews yourself.

    Someone counted that a 1 mln of professionals of different disciplines published or commented on COVID, all in good faith, but often outside of what they really know (that includes me). So, many people are trying obvious – aggregating someone else’s studies. Cochrane knows how to do it, they test for potential pitfalls and biases, others might not.

    To quote common seychel, you don’t do your own dentistry, don’t rely on amateur meta-studies.


    you know what they saying nowadays?….
    “peoples is more like animals then
    humens nowadays”
    -A certaint breslov guy i met in Uman 2 yrs ago
    i guess people relising this so they wanting animal medication and stuff


    “TU -“This is because a study, by its very nature, is a rigid one-size-fits-all (in order to reduce the potential of confounding variables) – everyone gets the exact same dose of the exact same drugs and does not get any other treatments whatsoever. ”

    You simply Don’t know what you’re talking about!
    Go to that website and see the studies on Ivermectin.
    The studies have different doses. Some are the same dose, but very few.
    And some are retroactive.
    A lot of them have combined other therapies”

    You did not grasp my point, not even a little bit!!
    Any one study will have to be internally homogenous in its protocol, which is the issue that I was raising, and one backed up by doctors who actually, you know, treat with Ivermectin and run the studies!! The fact that different studies chose different dosing titrations is irrelevant to this. Furthermore, there is a demonstrable sensitivity to higher dosing, which is itself a typical indicator of efficacy. I think it really is quite comical that Health thinks that “I don’t know what I’m talking about” when Dr. Pierre Kory had the following to say to me in an email:

    “It was GREAT. In fact there were sentences that I will have to borrow for other stuff or tweet they were so good – esp in the conclusion section as I recall.

    What also made me happy… is that there are so few of us fighting back against absurd bias and ignorance from pseudo-experts who willfully or not lack an understanding of EBM.. I would LOVE to have the time to take down these [vulgarity] publishing stuff out there but I often have not even enough time to go to the bathroom yes so thanks for being a partner in the fight for truth in science.

    I assume you saw this thing I wrote up recently? Attached”

    ” “I know of many, many docs who used Ivermectin for >year, most haven’t lost a single patient.”

    That’s great – did they do a Study?
    Do you actually practice medicine, or you just have degrees, or None of the Above?!?

    Nothing is a Cure for Covid 19.
    I hate repeating myself.
    You’re like the Government – all you need is Vaccines and you’ll be fine.
    Or like the Anti-Vaxxers – Covid 19 is Not worse than a Cold!”

    I have been in extensive correspondence with many prominent doctors and researchers, including some involved in a few of the Ivermectin studies, and including Dr. Pierre Kory himself. I have also read every single Ivermectin study, even the ridiculous ones anti-Ivermectin. The notion that I am somehow ignorant is comical. What are your qualifications, I might ask?? Dr. Kory indicated to me personally his intention to use some of my work. The only illiterate individual here is you, who wishes to ignorantly blather on about “there is no cure etc” and other such nonsense.

    As for the rest of this conversation, you need daas & a sense of how things work on the “inside” — something that I have labored to gain an appreciation of by correspondence with researchers and doctors who perform these studies or treat with Ivermectin actual patients — to understand what is actually indicated by a study, especially meta’s, which follow a rigid set of formulaic standards in evaluating evidence that often is unmoored from common sense when applied to some scenarios.


    TU -“The only illiterate individual here is you, who wishes to ignorantly blather on about “there is no cure etc” and other such nonsense.”

    The fact that you are posting to me – shows your Extreme Haughtiness!
    It’s not a cure, but a therapy.
    It’s obvious that you’re a Paper Pusher, Not a Clinician.

    I’m the only one on this site that says Ivermectin is okay to use for Covid 19.
    NOT AAQ, not 2scents and especially Not the Government!
    From my post on page 1:
    “Ivermectin from a Meta-analysis –
    69% improvement”


    2scents -“CONCLUSION
    As synthesized in the Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis, the current evidence for the use of ivermectin in COVID-19 does not suggest any clear benefits in either inpatients or outpatients with respect to mortality, clinical
    improvement, or viral clearance”

    Maybe they became a political group to please the US government and the WHO?!?

    From the Journal (American) of Therapeutics:
    “Ivermectin treatment versus no ivermectin treatment:
    Twenty-two trials (2668 participants) contributed data to the comparison ivermectin treatment versus no ivermectin treatment for COVID-19 treatment.
    All-cause mortality:
    Meta-analysis of 15 trials, assessing 2438 participants, found that ivermectin reduced the risk of death by an average of 62% (95% CI 27%–81%) compared with no ivermectin treatment [average RR (aRR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.73; I2 = 49%]; risk of death 2.3% versus 7.8% among hospitalized patients in this analysis, respectively. Etc.”


    Health, Cochrane is a long time established source for meta-reviews. If you suspect them of foul-play, please look at their study and tell us what lead them to a different conclusion than you other meta-study, and then we can ponder who is more reasonable.

    I looked briefly at the other site that impressed me with richness of references, but I think was a little cavalier with how they process them. They appear to be including a lot of very small studies and averaging them equally with large and very careful ones. Again, if you compare the two meta-studies step by step, we’ll see how they came to different conclusions.


    AAQ -“Health, Cochrane is a long time established source for meta-reviews. If you suspect them of foul-play, please look at their study and tell us what lead them to a different conclusion than you other meta-study, and then we can ponder who is more reasonable.”

    The first site I posted – http://www.c19early – maybe you can say that.
    But I did more research and I found From the Journal (American) of Therapeutics, what I just posted.
    BTW, I did look at Cochrane, and I saw only 3 authors.

    You must go to Ivermectin in the Journal (American) of Therapeutics!
    It’s a very thorough analysis of the Ivermectin studies.

    I personally don’t see a lot of patients with Covid 19, so I use Quercitin & Zinc.
    I used another drug with a pt. with double pneumonia, along with zinc, so the pt. didn’t have to go to the hospital.

    We are in this Pandemic, because the Government won’t acknowledge other therapies!
    We now are under the Fake Person called Biden.
    It’s because of our Sins.

    So we have s/o that posts to me here, because I corrected him on the Usage of the term of “Cure”.

    The fact is the Government should stop saying Ivermectin is not useful.
    If you don’t use it & the patient is deteriorating – at the least – it’s Negligence and at the Most – it’s Genocide!


    “TU -“The only illiterate individual here is you, who wishes to ignorantly blather on about “there is no cure etc” and other such nonsense.”

    The fact that you are posting to me – shows your Extreme Haughtiness!”
    Touché. I apologize, I didn’t meant to be that strident. And I definitely am not an anav k’Moshe.

    “It’s not a cure, but a therapy.
    It’s obvious that you’re a Paper Pusher, Not a Clinician.”
    I’m not a clinician or a paper pusher. I’m a researcher. (‘Paper pusher’ implies useless administrative bureaucracy.) I have helped a great many people acquire treatment for covid, or for post-vaccine side effects, or to prophylax against either of those. I have also helped a number of organizations develop or source anti-govt position covid policies. I am currently assisting with a lawsuit regarding vaccine mandates for people who already had covid. I have written a few essays regarding Ivermectin, one of which was enthusiastically endorsed by Pierre Kory personally. Ivermectin used by a competent doctor has >95% efficacy in early treatment to fully cure the patient of covid & any post-covid lingering pathologies, something not adequately captured by studies.

    “I’m the only one on this site that says Ivermectin is okay to use for Covid 19.
    NOT AAQ, not 2scents and especially Not the Government!
    From my post on page 1:
    “Ivermectin from a Meta-analysis –
    69% improvement” ”
    Touche again, I did not know that you are the lone voice of anything approaching reason here, I only commented in the first place because someone requested I post something responding to the conversation, I have no idea who is saying what generally, and I noticed your comments against some of what I said in my first post; and comments from those who are against Ivermectin are simply illiteracy and lack of comprehension about what exactly is being captured from the real world in these various studies, about which there is little I can say beyond the first post I made addressing the mechanisms of action for Ivermectin re covid. Either you understand the nature, and flaws, of studies, or you don’t. Simple cursory analysis of real-world experience with Ivermectin reveals that it is brilliantly effective, anyone who fails to see that is either intellectually dishonest, or has not looked at the actual unadulterated data/court cases/doctor testimonials (also an intellectually dishonest thing to do).


    Excerpts from a rebuttal to an article trying to hide behind the Cochrane Review:

    A Cochrane review is not some magical method for determining absolute truth that is free from human judgement, which is the only truly pertinent fact here, because anything subject to human judgement is by definition subject to human error, and corruption. A Cochrane review essentially is a collection of standards and tests dictating the quality and quantity of evidentiary value assigned to a data point or collection based on characteristics such as the source’s size, sampling, biases, protocols, and so on. It also provides a series of statistical methodologies by which one can assign a value to data or data sets, and combine data from different sources.

    There are at least two glaring flaws in this model:

    1. Ultimately, the application of Cochrane standards relies upon the research capacity and integrity of whomever is performing the review, meaning that the failure of the reviewer to accurately document pertinent characteristics will compromise the results. (To take an obvious but extreme example, suppose an RCT was fraudulently conducted but written up in a manner that successfully eliminates any trace of the fraudulent activity (again, to pick an absurd illustration, swapping the drug being tested with something else in an attempt to ensure that the trial fails to observe a benefit in the tested drug), a reviewer’s ignorance of this will lead him to categorize the study as high-certainty evidence per the Cochrane review standards.

    2. Cochrane reviews stipulate a hierarchy of evidence that while (let’s assume is) generally able to accurately capture the effect’s significance and certainty, it does so by assigning values to characteristics that are often situationally unwarranted, which can then falsely portray evidence as either weaker or stronger than it is. The prime example of this is probably the consideration of RCT’s as the ultimate “gold-standard” of studies, but there are plenty of other assumptions by the Cochrane standards that are somewhat unsound. To put this more succinctly, any formal, rigid formula used to assess something by definition lacks the flexibility to cope with situations where the available evidence will not conform to the exacting specifications demanded by the Cochrane standards, but where the evidence is obviously convincing and demonstrative to anyone with common sense.

    These flaws when combined with broad systemic corruption in the scientific community results in a cult-like insistence of ignoring an avalanche of real-world experience & evidence in favor of following the officially prescribed method of evidence assessment, which is what has occurred regarding Ivermectin. Here is a “theoretical” example to illustrate this: Suppose there was a pandemic where the world was caught flat-footed. Doctors and scientists scrambling to find an effective treatment rapidly began testing different drugs to see if any seemed to be of help. Harried doctors on the front lines, noticing a potential signal of a potential drug that might be efficacious, quickly organize ad hoc trials, where they essentially give a group of people, usually either health care workers or patients, the option to take or refuse the new drug. These trials show insanely huge reduction in mortality, disease severity and prophylaxis. As word starts to spread around the world, a few countries engage in mass distribution of this drug to a substantial portion, or all, of their population, with a reproducible tight correlation between mass distribution and near eradication of the pandemic virus. None of the evidence in this “hypothetical” would be acknowledged by a formal, proper Cochrane review, because these are either “low quality” studies, or determined and judged to be nullities, due to lack of adequate procedural controls, proper pre-registration, and similar technical specifications that dotted all the “i’s” and crossed all the “T’s”.

    With that introduction, let’s turn to the substance of this article. The author comically claims that being empaneled by a government is somehow a positive attribute for adjudicating the panel’s credibility regarding a controversial political topic. A govt panel is controlled by the govt, either directly or indirectly via some combination of legal, social, financial, and professional peer pressures, usually all of the above. Thus, you can be sure that the governments wishes and priorities will not be lightly disregarded.

    Next, he claims that such scientists are “independent”. The virtue of independence is meant to say that the scientist is unencumbered by any external influences in executing his scientific analyses. The most powerful corrupting influence currently present emanates from the scientific community itself. Thus, unless a scientist is demonstrably acting independently of the scientific establishment (at minimum), he is presumed to be not independent of the crushing peer/social/govt pressure, as is the case here, where in addition to the default scientific community pressure, as mentioned earlier, the govt itself constituted the panel. That the panel rejected a drug purchased by the govt as a potential useful treatment is wholly irrelevant, because there is no political cost to having purchased a drug, even for a sizable cost, that maybe could have worked out, as the citizenry (especially one already whipped into a panicked frenzy) would tend to appreciate that the govt is acting so proactively and therefore not feel as though the govt had acted irresponsibly. In any event, absurd and unreasonable govt expenditures are a common and routine phenomenon that does not excite the passion or provoke the ire of the population. Ivermectin, on the other hand, is politically charged dynamite, as anyone remotely familiar with the current political climate and discourse surrounding Ivermectin readily appreciates. Representation from across the medical spectrum is likewise irrelevant because the medical establishment itself is a primary corrupting influence on the scientific process, and everyone working under the aegis of the govt is equally subject to the corrupting whims and diktats of the politicians and bureaucrats who wield its powers. This claim is ultimately useful only as representative of the delusional naivete of the author.


    Their [c19Ivermectin . com] work, however, speaks for itself. Even more compelling are the genuine world-class medical pioneers who are the driving academic force behind the Ivermectin campaign, who hold this website and its creators in high esteem.

    In any event, this attack is not only dumb, it’s akin to attributing special relativity to some middling college physics professor while ignoring Einstein and claiming that the primary authority behind the theory is the no-name professor. The FLCCC, comprised of unimpeachably credentialed brilliant medical luminaries, presents a thorough overview and analysis of the evidence base and protocols for Ivermectin. The conundrum posed by the author is in truth a question of which experts should you trust: a govt empaneled committee who are essentially analyzing from comfortable perches in their ivory towers, who face no real threat of sanction for denying Ivermectin’s efficacy but face very real professional perils should they buck the medical/scientific/govt establishment, vs a group of brilliant doctors who have put their careers, social lives and reputations on the line while successfully using Ivermectin for a year and treated tens of thousands of patients directly and consulted for doctors worldwide who have collectively treated millions. Not much of a choice when you frame it honestly and accurately.


    If you look at their references for their Ivermectin research, you will find cited Lopez-Medina et al. This study literally engaged in deliberate scientific fraud. A panel dedicated specifically and solely to grading quality of evidence that cites an obviously fraudulent study lacks even a semblance of credibility. Period. There reference list is highly problematic for other the inclusion of other dubious references while omitting perfectly acceptable studies that were far less problematic procedurally than some of those included. Like Lopez-Medina. (At least they aren’t citing the Roman et al meta-analysis, which simply lied about the results of some of the studies whose results they were allegedly analyzing.) The FLCCC doctors, in a few of their weekly updates, explained the ins and outs of some of the ridiculous anti- studies. You can listen to an explanation of the evidence base from (formerly?) world-renown FLCCC President Dr. Pierre Kory here, and from expert WHO consultant Dr. Tess Lawrie here.


    In any event, this argument is rubbish, because one of the cornerstones of the current debate is the medical community’s censorship of dissenting opinions from mainstream journals and publications. Obviously, if the top journals simply refuse to publish any papers that would place the political narrative in serious jeopardy, you cannot adjudicate the credibility of a paper by where its published (or more to the point, where it is not published). A more viable approach to assess the credibility of a study by its provenance is to look at the authors – if they are highly credentialed and mainstream according to a Google search starting from before March 2020 who are not conforming to the establishment narratives, then they carry far more weight than those who do not meet these criteria. Ultimately, there is no substitute for sensible judgement, which is an intangible quality that some people have and some people don’t.


    This is functionally illiterate. A number of small trials all showing the same result is itself extremely high-powered evidence, because the chance of running, say, 30 independent trials with widely ranging characteristics and observing the same results are so infinitesimal as to be negligible. 25 small, individually underpowered studies are far more conclusive than one large trial, because while 25 trials with widely ranging characteristics can largely negate each other’s (potential) biases, one large study cannot overcome its own design flaws. (Yes, RCT’s can be designed quite horrifically while following every rule and standard, something which cannot be emphasized enough.) This is emphatically the case regarding Ivermectin, although you would have to look at the individual studies to get a sense of this, which the very website this author maliciously attacks provides, ie lists all of the studies with a summary of the basic results intelligible to a layperson.

    AND is a compilation of every study for Ivermectin (and other treatments), ranked chronologically from most recently published. They include every study run, regardless of the results, and regardless of the statistical significance. (They still have up the fraudulent Lopez-Medina and Roman studies.) Their list is not designed to filter out low quality garbage. This author is being ridiculous, a competent person easily understands the nature and purposes of the website, and would use a little, you know, judgement and certainly not cherry pick the first study as representative. Furthermore, a number of low-quality studies taken together provides quite robust evidence in sufficient numbers, because, as previously stated, the odds of practically all the studies show efficacy if there wasn’t any are so remote as to be absurd speculation. Furthermore, there is a marked tendency to label any study that was run somewhat haphazardly as entirely devoid of any evidentiary value. This is, to put bluntly, moronic and disingenuous. Someone treating ill covid patients doesn’t have time to properly randomize sorting into evenly propensity score matched groups and all of the other minutiae necessary to run a “proper” RCT for a disease that will either start recovery or turn towards ventilation (or death) within a week or two. Furthermore, delaying the start of treatment in any event increases the risk that treatment will not be effective, which is both highly unethical and reduces the chance of seeing a statistically significant result especially when you have a low study subject population to begin with.



    The Ivermectin evidence base, ranked in order of quality (ie, most improbable results if Ivermectin doesn’t work), is essentially:

    1. The clinical experience of thousands of doctors worldwide successfully treating patients with Ivermectin & Ivermectin centered protocols. This includes a spate of court cases where judges ordered hospitals to administer (or not impede administration of by 3rd party physician of) Ivermectin to already ventilated patients for whom their hospital had no other treatments to offer and who all subsequently recovered (with the notable exception of the Mt Sinai case where the patient died amidst the inconsistently administered Ivermectin during the court wrangling).

    2. The countries that mass distributed Ivermectin to part or all of their population with tightly correlated and reproducible “flattening the curve” of every covid metric (like Mexico, Peru, India, just to name a few), some of which had a control group of an untreated population or subsequent change of policy.

    3. The numerous prospective control trials, both random and unrandom, showing Ivermectin’s brilliant efficacy. I personally think that Carvallo et al, which was an unrandom control prospective prophylaxis study (the subjects chose whether to accept Ivermectin by choice), is the most compelling – 237/400 or so in the control contracted covid vs 0/788 on Ivermectin – ZERO!! – a result so lopsided and stunning that cannot possibly be chalked up to chance, biases or any other nonsensical pathetic attempt to invalidate the study.

    4. The small, individually underpowered retrospective observation trials.

    5. In-vitro/in-silico demonstrations of Ivermectin wiping out covid, and everything else not mentioned above.

    The Cochrane standards reject #1 outright, severely undervalue #2 because they are lacking one or more technical requirements, assign “low weight” qualification to almost all of the studies in #3 for not following proper academic protocol or for “risk of biases”, and basically exclude # 4 entirely as “noise”; while simultaneously incorporating straight up fraudulent studies like Lopez-Medina, poorly designed studies that dose too low, treat too late, use a demographic that already widely uses Ivermectin, and meta-analyses that are rigged by excluding all of the above while including all the aforementioned poorly designed junk studies, and have no mechanism for assessing the political corruption of the academic process.


    > The countries that mass distributed Ivermectin to part or all of their population with tightly correlated and reproducible “flattening the curve” of every covid metric (like Mexico, Peru, India, just to name a few),

    What is the claim specifically? I looked up Mexico, and their cumulative deaths are same as USA, their case fatality rate is several times higher than USA.


    AAQ – “What is the claim specifically? I looked up Mexico, and their cumulative deaths are same as USA, their case fatality rate is several times higher than USA.”

    I’m not TU, but I did search for you.
    It comes out that there is a YouTube video about this from Dr. Campbell.
    It seems that they did a quasi – study with Ivermectin.
    It was Pre-hospital.
    The pts. that got Ivermectin we’re significantly less likely to be hospitalized.
    I didn’t watch the whole video, but I’d assume that they found the same results in Peru & India?!?


    Now the Media is picking up the Anti- Ivermectin from the government, just like they did with HCQ.

    From Time magazine at the end of August:
    “How ‘America’s Frontline Doctors’ Sold Access to Bogus COVID-19 Treatments—and Left Patients in the Lurch”

    When did the US become a Regime , like Cuba?!?


    Anyone interested in Ivermectin’s success & the medical community’s insane corruption, search for “FLCCC WEEKLY UPDATE—September 8, 2021: Patients’ Rights on Trial” on Duckduckgo (I can’t vouch that all of the ladies are fully properly attired, I only listened to it). Goes through very detailed stories of a few of the court battles between evil hospitals and ventilated patients over Ivermectin.

    @AAQ, I do not understand your question. I spelled out my claim in plain, succinct language. What on Earth do cumulative deaths or CFR have to do with anything — I don’t understand how those can be used to articulate a cogent argument against my claim that the ‘curves’ ie the ongoing dynamic covid metrics experienced sudden, tight, reproducible cliffs???


    The coronavirus was deliberately released after decades of experimentation and development with the knowledge and cooperation of the the US and Chinese governments. They both had a hand in this bioterrorist act of unleashing covid on the unsuspecting public. The vaccine wasn’t just hurried to the market, it was ready for the public at just the right time. And that is why they are suppressing info presented by prominent doctors, professors and scientists, that’s why they are destroying their careers and tearing them apart, that’s why they are disregarding proven studies, all because this was and is planned by corrupt individuals for ideological reasons and financial gain. The fact is that Bill Gates and Fauci the Mad Scientist, both predicted viruses that were, and will be, caused intentionally and fighting the virus with repurposed medications is not part of their bigger plan.

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕

    Actually, Bill Gates is much smarter than you. He knew you would think that repurposed deworming drugs would be your choice, so he’s been putting sterilizing agents and tracking chips in Ivermectin for many years now. Don’t fall for it.


    Phil -“The coronavirus was deliberately released after decades of experimentation and development with the knowledge and cooperation of the the US and Chinese governments. Etc.”

    Enough with conspiracy theories!
    This is what I believe what happened:
    The Wuhan lab was sloppy & released a Bio Weapon by accident.
    Trump pushed very hard to get vaccines, as quickly as possible!

    Fauci is an opportunist.
    He worked for the government his whole life – now he wants to retire.
    If he okays Repurposed Drugs, he won’t have anything, besides his retirement.
    So he makes a deal with a Pharmaceutical company – he’ll get a Kickback.
    So he only allows Remesivir, not anything else!
    Remesivir costs thousands per patient, while let’s say Ivermectin, would only cost a few Dollars per a patient.


    BDE. Just in case anyone is interested, Veronica Wolski, a leading Invermectin promoter, also known for hanging “Ax the Vax” signs on highway overpasses, died several hours ago of Covid-related illness in a Chicago hospital. When not publishing in veterinary journals about the miracle Covid drug, Wolski spent much of her time tweeting verts for Qanon about Trump battling a cabal of Democratic pedophiles. Trumpkopfs, including their favorite attorney Lin Wood, showed their appreciation by flooding the hospital’s ICU demanding that she be treated with Ivermectin while on her deathbed. You just can’t make up this stuff. About 2 hours later, the YWN News page posted a story about the death of one EY’s leading anti-vaxers, Chai Shaulian, from Covid. He too was tweeting on his deathbed about the evils of vaccination programs.

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕

    while let’s say Ivermectin, would only cost a few Dollars per a patient.

    And cause 85% male infertility.

    (Yeah, I know that was debunked, but so was the pro Ivermectin study. So make up your mind, do you believe in debunked studies or not?)

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕

    Question for my fellow conspiracy theory people: the liberal government is pushing vaccines which are poison, and dismissing HCQ and Ivermectin which actually work. So the liberals are taking the vaccines, and the right wingers are taking Ivermectin and HCQ.

    We know the government is evil and genocidal, but why are they so stupid to kill off their own people and have the right wingers survive??


    DY -“We know the government is evil and genocidal, but why are they so stupid to kill off their own people and have the right wingers survive??

    I answered this already:
    “Fauci is an opportunist.
    He worked for the government his whole life – now he wants to retire.
    If he okays Repurposed Drugs, he won’t have anything, besides his retirement.
    So he makes a deal with a Pharmaceutical company – he’ll get a Kickback.
    So he only allows Remesivir, not anything else!
    Remesivir costs thousands per patient, while let’s say Ivermectin, would only cost a few Dollars per a patient.”


    DY -“so was the pro Ivermectin study. So make up your mind, do you believe in debunked studies or not?)”

    You gotta read all the posts here, before you comment!
    There are a lot of Studies that Ivermectin works.
    Stop focusing on what you hear or see on the News!
    Check out: &
    Ivermectin in the Journal (American) of Therapeutics!


    Health, everyone is entitled to interpret reality as they see ii. My conclusions are based on facts, whether it is the numerous patents for coronavirus gain of function going on for decades, or the work for the development of the covid vaccine BEFORE the pandemic. You can call my conclusions “conspiracy theories”, it doesn’t change the reality or history.

    Now I have some questions that I have as of yet not recieved rational answers to:
    1. What positive benefits does gain of function of the coronavirus animal virus have for humans that scientists here in the US have worked on for decades taking out numerous patents at every discovery?
    2. Why did the US collaborate with China on the research of gain of function of the coronavirus?
    3. How could Fauci predict in 2017 that there will be a viral pandemic during the Trump administration? How could he predict something will happen, that did indeed happen, if he did not have prior knowledge that it will indeed happen? I saw the video and he very clearly said what he said, if someone wants to deliberately misinterpret what he said it won’t change the fact that he said it very clearly
    4. Why is Fauci’s wife the head of the “ethics” department of the NIH?
    5. Why would Bill Gates predict natural AND DELIBERATE (that’s the exact term he used) pandemics a few years ago? Who could predict that there will be worldwide deliberate spread of pandemics if there was no background knowledge about it?

    I have many questions about the coronavirus pandemic and vaccines but I have no time to post them now. But let’s hear some rational answers to these questions first.


    Philosopher; while fauci will not want to admit funding gain of function research in China, that’s due mainly to optics. I think there are legitimate purposes for such research, such as how to respond to such mutations should they arise in viruses that are common, such as rhinovirus, flu, etc… experimenting on coronaviruses(which are common viruses) to see what would work in treating such mutated strains is perfectly legitimate.

    Of course, negligence in containment of such dangerous materials is intolerable, and i think it’s in this point that fauci knows he is at least partially responsible; the atheist chinese have little regard for human life and in true marxist fashion value the state above all. No American should have trusted china to do such things.

    I think the other issues you raise are not very compelling; people predict things all the time and often they are right – bill gates guessed something would happen and it did – there have beeb pandemics for millenia and guessing that it will be bad due to widespread travel is not a very big stretch. I’m sure there are tons of things bill gates predicted which didn’t come true.

    Re, faucis wife – nepotism and getting tapped for jobs due to protektzia might not be savory, but it’s politics as usual…. I don’t see a red flag vis a vis covid in that at all


    “Now I have some questions that I have as of yet not recieved rational answers to:”

    Here to answer all your questions.

    sure yo umay not like them, you are free to disregard rational answers, but they are there .It is your rejection of them that leads to your conclusions being called conspiracy theories

    1. Genetic code cannot be patented. changes can, so patenting them allows those companies to profit of any tests /treatments. And viruses tha taffect animlas obviously have implications for humans, since we depend on animals for food.

    2. Collaboration is good

    3. scientists have predicted things for decades. When thye are wrong criticise if right doesnt mean they caused it. Enviromentalists make all sorts of predictions “The Arctic will be ice free by year x” If that happens does that mean they did it?
    And right back at you, if He planned it why on Earth would he announce it publicly?

    4. I don’t know, did he fall in love with the head of ethics and married her, or did his wife get hired for the job. either seems rational .

    5. Same as #3

    hope this helps


    Ubiquitin, I didn’t ask how changes can be patented and how viruses effect animals. I asked how does gain of function benefit humans?! It doesn’t!!! That’s how how! This is bioterrorism! Your answers are so not relevent to what I asked.

    Collaboration is good only if it is for the benefit of humanity, but for what purpose case was there collaboration here? A gain of function of an animal virus that not only does not benefit humanity; it is so dangerous it has killed millions of people!! Collaboration in this case was deliberately evil.

    Predictions of naturally occurring pandemics can be understood. Predictions regarding INTENTIONAL occuring pandemics is a red flag. Predictions of a pandemic occuring particularly during the Trump Administration is not a common sciencific prediction… honestly, it seems like you are being deliberately naive…or are you really this naive?

    So the “head of ethics” of NIH can have a husband who has shares in the pharmaceutical company Moderna and making $ from covid vaccines…right, she is certainly an ethica individual guiding an ethical organization… This totally stinks of corruption.


    Phil -“Health, everyone is entitled to interpret reality as they see ii. My conclusions are based on facts,”

    So what?!?
    But it doesn’t change that my post are theories. Yours also is a conspiracy theory!
    But mine is more logical & palatable.
    1. Because Coronavirus tends to jump from animals to humans. The more we know about this virus – the more we can find therapies to combat it.
    2. To appease the public. I’m not sure if working on Bio – weapons is even legal here?!?
    3. Simply, every once in awhile, Pandemics occur in this world.
    We had the Spanish flu around 1918 – 1920.
    It was High – Time for another.
    4. He probably arranged that, because he didn’t want anyone to know that he was working with the Chinese Wuhan Lab.
    5. Bill Gates is a Nut Job.
    He’s been predicting population decline for 20 years.
    He wants to Depopulate the World.
    So it’s wishful thinking on his part.

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕

    I answered this already:

    Yeah but you’re pro vax.


    DY -“Yeah but you’re pro vax.”

    I’m a real Clinician. I believe in preventing disease and when disease occurs, helping the patient get better.
    There are very few like me, but there are a few.


    @Health – do you prescribe Ivermectin (or any of the other FLCCC protocol drugs)?


    I actually like good conspiracies and am always disappointed when some turn out to not be true. So, here is my theory how bad actors (Russians, Chinese) create dissent in free countries:

    1) attach to a community who are already deeply skeptical: note how Ivermectin is somehow mixed up with anti-vax and anti-mask crowd. There is no good reason that arguments for a good medicine need to be correlated with those.

    2) Find a product that are not very toxic, cheap, and have unclear test results, such as Ivermectin. They don’t care about what works – no controversy, what is toxic – hard to find volunteers. Easy to find products with unclear results in the current noise of course.

    3) Build a story why “establishment” does not want this medicine – allege corruption, discredit large trials because they are, by definition, run by large organization … I won’t be surprised that CCP or KGB could be running some of those small trials themselves.

    End result: doubling the rate of killing Americans. That is, this cheap propaganda is as effective as the original virus.

    So, how can you avoid hashash of being a partner with CCP if you sincerely believe in Ivermectin cure? Very simple. Detach the drug from the other ideas: go help people to get vaccines, wear masks, organize outside minyanim, and THEN offer Ivermectin to those who still get sick. Then, people will be more likely to take your arguments seriously.

    Gmar hasima tova


    TU -” do you prescribe Ivermectin (or any of the other FLCCC protocol drugs)?”

    If the need would arise.
    I posted this above:
    “I personally don’t see a lot of patients with Covid 19, so I use Quercitin & Zinc.
    I used another drug with a pt. with double pneumonia, along with zinc, so the pt. didn’t have to go to the hospital.”

    In the case of the double pneumonia, the pt. was already seen by PCP’s, they came to me so they didn’t have to go to the hospital.
    The pt. was already on Zinc & possibly Quercitin. And the pt. had already Remeron and was taking a steroid.
    Pulse Ox was in the 80’s.
    And 2 hours later after I gave the drug, it was in the 90’s.
    I’m not naming the drug, because our Genocidal Government is still studying it.
    But the one time I used it, it worked in 2 hours.
    I’m related to the pt. – so I was able to follow the case.


    For those who think that the Cochrane Collaboration and similar scientific orgs/endeavors are some bastion of intellectual honesty and rigor, this is from the BMJ:

    Cochrane – A sinking ship?
    Posted on 16th September 2018

    By Maryanne Demasi, PhD

    A scandal has erupted within the Cochrane Collaboration, the world’s most prestigious scientific organisation devoted to independent reviews of health care interventions. One of its highest profile board members has been sacked, resulting in four other board members staging a mass exodus.

    They are protesting, what they describe as, the organisation’s shift towards a commercial business model approach, away from its true roots of independent, scientific analysis and open public debate.

    There are concerns that Cochrane has become preoccupied with “brand promotion” and “commercial interests”, placing less importance on transparency and delivering “trusted evidence”.

    It began as a simmering personality clash, between the CEO and a board member, but now has boiled over into a spectacular war of words, where the underlying issues of Cochrane have bubbled to the surface, with many insiders predicting the beginning of the end of Cochrane.

    The dispute

    A meeting of the Trustees of Cochrane was convened in an effort to resolve an ongoing dispute between the CEO of Cochrane Collaboration, Mark Wilson and one of the founding fathers of the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993, Director of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, Peter C. Gøtzsche.

    It began with, what might be perceived as, fairly trivial issues. Wilson accused Gøtzsche of using Cochrane’s letterhead on a complaint to the European Medicines Agency about its evaluation of possible harms of HPV vaccines and testifying in a court case without overtly declaring his expert testimony was expressing ‘personal’ not ‘Cochrane’ views.

    Wilson alleged that it constituted a breach in the ‘Spokesperson Policy’, a claim denied by Gøtzsche. The dispute intensified after several people complained to the Board about Gøtzsche’s ‘take no prisoners’ approach to critiques of industry-funded science.

    Gøtzsche is well-known for his blunt criticisms over the harms of breast cancer screening programs, the overuse of psychiatric drugs, and has referred to the drug industry as ‘organised crime’. But his most recent article, with co-authors Lars Jørgensen and Tom Jefferson, was a stinging critique of the quality and methodology of Cochrane’s HPV vaccines review. [1]

    Immediate backlash ensued and the Cochrane leadership, accused Gøtzsche’s team of causing reputational damage to the organisation, fuelling anti-vaxxers and risking “the lives of millions of women world-wide by affecting vaccine uptake rates”, according to a complaint by the editor of the Cochrane group that published the HPV review.

    Gøtzsche stood by his group’s paper, sparking an urgent, internal review at Cochrane. On 3 Sept 2018, Cochrane’s Editor in Chief, David Tovey, and his Deputy, Karla Soares-Weiser, issued a statement claiming that the criticisms of the HPV vaccine review had been ‘substantially overstated’ and ‘inaccurate and sensationalized.’

    “People all over the world have interpreted the Cochrane editors’ criticism of us as being the ‘final word’” said Gøtzsche in frustration. “The editors did not even address our most important concern that the harms of the HPV vaccine had been greatly under-reported and that much of the clinical data is not included in the review”.

    Legal Review

    The Board of Trustees agreed to engage the services of an external law firm to independently assess the dispute between Gøtzsche and Wilson. In July 2018, Gøtzsche was presented with 400 pages of documents, containing allegations that he had breached Cochrane policies and damaged its reputation.

    Gøtzsche retaliated by submitting a 66-page dossier outlining, in painstaking detail, allegations that Wilson’s leadership team was ‘destroying’ Cochrane by treating it like it was a “brand or product”, accusing Wilson of “serious abuse and mismanagement of Cochrane”, “tampering with meeting minutes” and “management by fear”.

    The lawyers poured over the mountain of documents and were expected to deliver a verdict in time for the 13 Sept Governing Board meeting. Twelve hours before the meeting started, the Counsel’s report was delivered to the Board with a caveat that inadequate time was granted for a thorough review of all the issues.

    Nonetheless, the report found that none of the serious allegations against the Cochrane executive could be substantiated, nor did it find that Gøtzsche had breached the Spokesperson Policy or had acted inappropriately in his role as Trustee.

    The Board Meeting

    Co-chair, Marguerite Koster, allowed Gøtzsche ‘five minutes’ to state his case. Witnesses in the room say Gøtzsche was constantly interrupted before being asked to leave the room while the other Board members discussed the situation. Gøtzsche was given no further opportunity that day to defend himself.

    After more than 6 hours of deliberation, the remaining 12 Board members voted on whether Gøtzsche could remain as their 13th Governing Board member and continue to practice under the Cochrane license.

    Five voted to remain, six voted to remove and one abstained. In the end, a ‘minority’ vote [6 out of 13] saw Gøtzsche vacated from his position and lose his Cochrane membership. After 25 years of service to Cochrane and author of 17 Cochrane reviews, Gøtzsche would officially learn of his fate by an email.

    “No clear reasoned justification has been given for my expulsion aside from accusing me of causing ‘disrepute’ for the organization”, claims Gøtzsche. “This is the first time in 25 years that a member has been excluded from membership of Cochrane”.

    Several board members were shocked over the treatment of Gøtzsche.

    “The legal assessment essentially exonerated Peter of breaching the Spokesperson Policy so his enemies spent the day inventing new excuses to get rid of him”, said one member. “To expel Peter is totally disproportionate,” said another of Gøtzsche’s supporters. “It was like looking for any behavioural pretext to fire him.”

    The following day, 14 Sept 2018, four members resigned from the Governing Board in solidarity for Gøtzsche and because they felt something drastic had to happen in order to save the organisation.

    See here: Why we resigned
    “What should happen now, is that entire Board should resign and start again”, said one member after their resignation.

    On 15 Sept 2018, a statement to Cochrane Directors, from the co-chairs of the Governing Board, mentioned that four members resigned and that changes to the board were afoot, but did not mention Gøtzsche’s expulsion from the Board.

    “I don’t understand why they are sticking they’re head in the sand”, said one board member. “They should do something now to address everyone’s concerns”.

    Cochrane’s sinking ship

    The events that have unfolded in the last few days have consequences for Cochrane far beyond dealing with the public embarrassment of losing more than a third of its Governing Board.

    Much of Gøtzsche’s scientific work at the Nordic Cochrane Centre, has focused on exposing the flaws in clinical trials and the undue influence of the drug industry on medical research.

    In addition, there are the issues raised in a recent editorial, co-authored by Dr Tom Jefferson from Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford. It explains the problems behind the reliance of data from published journal articles, many of which are likely to contain ‘unfathomable bias’.

    “We know that the biomedical journals publish articles which are neutral at best, but are mostly positive and tend to emphasize benefits and downplay or even ignore harms,” says Jefferson.

    “What you end up within the medical journals is a shoe-horn version or a summarized version and you don’t know what criteria go into choosing which bits goes into the print version. So that introduces unfathomable bias”.

    Jefferson’s answer to whether we should ignore evidence from journal articles was ‘probably’ unless urgent steps aren’t taken to address the issue of reporting bias: cherry picking and spin of research findings

    This presents Cochrane with an enormous problem. The lifeblood of the organisation is in carrying out systematic reviews. The basic evidence, upon which these reviews are founded, is largely at risk of bias, especially for interventions where there is a huge market.

    “The contention that Cochrane has been publishing reviews that are mainly beneficial to the sponsors of these interventions is probably a fact,” says Jefferson. “If your review is made up of studies which are biased and in some cases are ghost written or the studies are cherry picked and you don’t take that into account in your review, then its garbage in and garbage out – its just that the ‘garbage out’ is systematically synthesised with a nice little Cochrane logo on it”.

    As for the data behind the HPV vaccines, it’s a question of whether anyone has seen the full data set. “The answer is no-one outside the vaccine manufacturers. Not the drug regulators and certainly not, independent scientists” says Jefferson. “So if you were to ask me what I think of HPV vaccines, I would say ‘I don’t know’ because I haven’t seen the full data set”.

    Furthermore, Gøtzsche says that Cochrane’s policy regarding the conflicts of interest of the authors of reviews is inadequate. “I proposed a year ago that there should be no authors of Cochrane reviews that have financial conflicts of interests with companies related to the products considered in the reviews,” says Gøtzsche “But Cochrane did nothing about it”.

    Currently, Cochrane allows up to half of the authors on a review to have conflicts of interest, a policy that is widely criticized by insiders, and largely unknown to the public.

    So why hasn’t Cochrane done anything about it?

    “Cochrane has become too sensitive to criticism of the pharmaceutical industry”, says one board member. Insiders say a ‘possible concern’ might be that Cochrane fears that Gøtzsche’s criticism of the HPV vaccines review would negatively impact its sponsorship from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

    Scientific censorship

    Cochrane has been accused of ‘scientific censorship’ and is now in ‘damage control’ to contain the PR nightmare.

    Publicly, Cochrane has always maintained it encourages debate about scientific issues, including controversial ones. “Cochrane values constructive criticism of its work and publicly recognises this through the Bill Silverman Prize … with a view to helping to improve its work, and thus achieve its aim of helping people make well-informed decisions about health care”, states Cochrane.

    However, the reality is very different. “They don’t believe in democratic plural science”, said one outgoing board member. “Good governance of science always requires open debates. The prestige of a scientific institution has to do with its ability to manage critical debates, not censor them”.

    “Science needs to be challenged, it should not be politically correct, it is not consensus seeking,” says Gøtzsche. “You cannot call a public challenge to science ‘controversial’, it’s a pejorative term. It’s simply what our job as scientists requires of us”.

    The future of Cochrane

    Cochrane is in a moral crisis and many say it has lost a democratic leadership. “On dozens of issues, the Board can only vote yes or no with very little opportunity to amend or modify the executive team ́s proposals,” says Gøtzsche.

    The entire US Cochrane Centre has already closed down in the spring of 2018, in frustration over management and other centre directors are also contemplating leaving Cochrane. Whereas those who’ve been critical of Cochrane’s direction, have simply withdrawn, Gøtzsche spoke out publicly and has borne the consequences.

    “A recovery from this dire situation would call for the dissolution of the present board, new elections and a broad-based participatory debate about the future strategy and governance of the organization”, says Gøtzsche.

    The Annual General Meeting on Monday (17th Sept) might shed light on Cochrane’s future.


    Same author wrote up this piece a few days ago on the leaked audio of the Cochrane board meeting to oust Gøtzsche:

    The Cochrane Tapes

    Three years ago, a scandal erupted within the Cochrane Collaboration, the world’s most prestigious scientific organisation devoted to independent reviews of health care interventions.

    One of its highest profile members, Prof Peter Gøtzsche, was sacked from the Governing Board, amid growing tension over Cochrane’s shift towards a commercial business model approach, away from its true roots of independent, scientific analysis and open public debate.

    The controversial decision to revoke Gøtzsche’s membership, a position in which he had been democratically elected, provoked the immediate resignation of four other Board members.

    Thirty-one of Cochrane’s Centre Directors from Spain and Latin America called for an independent investigation into the scandal.

    Coordinating editor of Cochrane Work, Jos Verbeek and other prominent scientists called for the entire Governing Board to resign and demanded that independent elections be held.

    But Cochrane remained defiant. Its leadership went on to ensure that Gøtzsche was stripped of his role as head of Denmark’s once famous Nordic Cochrane Centre, a legacy he built over 25 years.

    In 2019, Gøtzsche published a tell-all book detailing what he described as Cochrane’s “moral collapse.” At the root of the problem he blamed the CEO Mark Wilson, who has since resigned after 9 years at the helm, citing “personal reasons”.

    There has been continued speculation about what really happened in the boardroom that day in Edinburgh. Leaked audio recordings reveal the events that unfolded, raising questions about the conduct of Cochrane’s Board, and the legitimacy of Gøtzsche’s expulsion.

    This is what can be revealed on The Cochrane Tapes.

    Gøtzsche faces the Board
    A meeting of the Trustees of Cochrane was convened in Edinburgh, to resolve an ongoing dispute between Gøtzsche and Cochrane’s CEO, Mark Wilson.

    Cochrane had hired an independent Counsel to conduct an internal investigation into the dispute. The findings of that report are about to be discussed.

    As the meeting commences, co-chair Martin Burton instructs Board members on how to audio record the meeting on their computers.

    Co-chair Marguerite Koster acknowledges the “time crunch”, referring to the expeditious nature of the investigation by Counsel, whose report was delivered to the Board members only twelve hours prior to the meeting.

    All Board members are expected to have properly reviewed the case. However, they have not, with one Board member saying they had not received all the documents.

    Nonetheless, the meeting continues.

    The co-chairs have been instructed by Cochrane’s lawyers to ask Gøtzsche one question and then give him “five minutes” to respond before asking him to recuse himself. The question is a direct one:

    “Peter, do you accept the contents of this report?” asks Koster.

    But, it is not a simple ‘yes or no’ answer for Gøtzsche. Koster repeats the question a couple more times before compelling a response.

    “No”, says Gøtzsche who proceeds to point out his areas of disagreement.

    After two minutes and two seconds, Koster interrupts Gøtzsche and continues to do so until she receives a stern rebuke from one of the other Board members:

    “Given that Peter has not been able to speak more than 30 seconds without being interrupted would you at least allow him to ask a few questions?” says the Board member to Koster.

    Gøtzsche continues to plead his case to the co-chairs. “It’s not prudent of you to treat me this way. I’m just the messenger”, he says.

    Gøtzsche fires off more questions, provoking Burton to respond:

    “I intend to say nothing on this. I wish as the Chair to record my objection to this. The lawyers advised that we should ask him the question, we’ve asked him, given him five minutes. It is now 10 or 15 minutes and I think this is an abuse of process,” says Burton.

    “You must understand, Cochrane is in deep trouble and the world is watching what you’re up to,” Gøtzsche warns the members.

    Koster demands that Gøtzsche recuse himself from the discussion while the other Board members vote on how to move forward.

    Gøtzsche complies, but not before saying, “This is looking more and more like a Kafkaesque process, don’t you realise this?”

    The secret deliberation
    Gøtzsche leaves the room and twelve Board members remain.

    Burton, who was part of the dispute was not required to recuse himself, for reasons that remain unknown.

    Koster provides an ‘Executive Summary’ of Counsel’s report and then opens for discussion.

    Some Board members raise a complaint about the “selective” nature of the evidence that was submitted for investigation.

    “Counsel did not see all the information and he doesn’t know what has been going on in Cochrane”, says one Board member in Gøtzsche’s defence.

    “They have a very narrow view of the documents”, adds another.

    The discussion continues for several hours with intermittent breaks.

    It is frank, robust and at times, tense.

    It becomes evident however, that Counsel’s report will not give grounds for censuring Gøtzsche, so without this point of reference, the conversation turns to his “behaviour”.

    Gøtzsche’s behaviour
    “We have to do something about Peter’s behaviour. We cannot let it continue, it’s too costly,” says one member.

    Much of the blame is put squarely on Gøtzsche’s public criticism of Cochrane’s HPV vaccine review. Gøtzsche and colleagues claimed Cochrane’s review of the HPV vaccine was “incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias.”

    Some members of the Board were offended that Gøtzsche was “publicly trashing” Cochrane’s publication, saying that he “undermines the reputation of Cochrane” instead of keeping his scientific criticisms in-house.

    Notably, there is no equivalent objection to Gøtzsche’s co-authors, Lars Jørgensen and Tom Jefferson in the Boardroom.

    “[Gøtzsche] is going to push ahead and he’s going to say that Cochrane’s evidence is not trusted evidence,” says one member, strengthening the resolve to “get rid of him from the Board”, as Burton puts it.

    Other members in the room disagree, saying that publicly debating science is necessary to “enrich the reputation of Cochrane” and that the impact of Gøtzsche’s criticism was a “drop in the ocean” compared to the “tidal wave” of mainstream media support for Cochrane’s HPV review.

    Burton wants to avoid the perception that Gøtzsche is being ousted from Cochrane because of his criticisms of the HPV vaccine review, so he workshops ideas with the Board.

    “We have the option to say [publicly] that there were a series of other events and that it is absolutely not just the HPV review”, says Burton.

    Gøtzsche has opponents on the Board. They accuse him of being a “bully”, saying that action needs to be taken to “protect employees and enable a safe working environment”.

    No evidence is presented to the Board to substantiate bullying allegations but there are threats of resignation if Gøtzsche is not properly dealt with.

    After several hours of roaming the hallway, Gøtzsche becomes impatient and knocks on the door.

    Burton opens the door but blocks it and tries to prevent Gøtzsche from saying anything to the Board. Gøtzsche barges one step into the Boardroom, accidentally bumping into Burton on the other side of the door.

    “Don’t push me” says Burton with an accusatory tone.

    “I’m sorry. I have a question,” says Gøtzsche making inquiries about how long it would take.

    “This is unacceptable. I have been out the door for four and a half hours,” he says before telling the Board he would return to his hotel room.

    Burton shuts the door and complains of a bruised arm. It’s not clear if he will escalate the situation.

    “There’s no reason why we can’t call the police”, says one member in support of Burton.

    “They would laugh at us”, replies another, signalling its triviality.

    There’s some sympathy for Gøtzsche in the room.

    “We have to keep in mind how much we’ve been pushing him in the last couple of years. If you push me that far, I’d lose my temper,” said one member.

    The member points out the double standards being applied to Gøtzsche and proceeds to tell the Board about a physical altercation that they had six months earlier with Cochrane’s CEO Mark Wilson.

    “Mark [Wilson] lost his temper, he shouted at me, he assaulted me, he called Peter a liar and we’re excusing that?” recollects the Board member. Nothing comes of it.

    Gøtzsche’s enormous contribution to science is acknowledged.

    But then the conversation takes a dark turn. Board member Catherine Marshall, [now current co-chair] on more than one occasion, draws parallels between Gøtzsche and the MeToo movement, referencing the history of influential men whose “bad behaviour [is] overlooked and indulged”.

    Burton even draws parallels between Gøtzsche and Kevin Spacey, an accused sexual predator who did “wonderful work” but says that sometimes, “you’ve just got to call them out”.

    Some Board members warn Burton against implying that Gøtzsche had “criminal” behaviour.

    These warnings went unheeded. The defamatory insinuation made its way into Burton’s speech at Cochrane’s Annual General Meeting a few days later.

    Burton made an announcement about Gøtzsche, to over a thousand people in an auditorium;

    “We are living in a world where behaviours that cause pain and misery to people, are being ‘called out’”, leaving many with the impression that Gøtzsche’s “bad behaviour” might have been criminal in nature.

    Gøtzsche rejected the claims unreservedly and sought legal advice for damages.

    A distraction from the real issues at Cochrane?
    As the deliberations at the Board meeting continue, several members refuse to get drawn into the distraction from the “real issues” like the move to impose greater restrictions on Cochrane Centres and the organisation’s lack of pluralistic, scientific debate.

    One member delivers an impassioned speech to the Board:

    “Every single conflict between the central executive board and Peter is about an issue where the central executive board takes the side of the pharmaceutical industry. And I can document this,” says the Board member.

    Gøtzsche’s track record of publicly condemning the drug industry’s criminal behaviour has attracted a “history” of complaints to the Board and punishing Gøtzsche for expressing his scientific views plays right into the hands of the drug industry.

    “Industry will be elated,” says the concerned member, warning that Cochrane was setting a dangerous precedent whereby industry representatives only had to “write a complaint to Cochrane and then Cochrane caves in under the pressure”.

    When Burton suggests that Gøtzsche has breached the Code of Conduct for Trustees, one member requests clarity about what behaviour warranted the breach.

    “Can we be more specific?” asks the Board member but Burton dismisses the request and replies, “We don’t need to be more specific.”

    As the discussions continue, two things become clearer. One, there will be no further detail to the generic claims against Gøtzsche. And two, despite this, the co-chairs appear resolute in their objection to Gøtzsche’s continued service to Cochrane.

    Procedural fairness?
    The leaked recordings reveal much about the process applied to Gøtzsche.

    Board members had insufficient time to digest and assess the independent report. Gøtzsche is prosecuted in the room with generic and ambiguous claims made about his character, without an opportunity to contest.

    Burton’s position is clear. He says Gøtzsche needs to go or else he will continue to “misbehave”.

    One Board member suggests a formal mediation or arbitration to handle the dispute peacefully, to which Burton responds, “personally, I don’t think that’s an option”, pointing to the burden of costs.

    Amidst the discussion about Gøtzsche’s alleged “bad behaviour”, a procedural issue goes unnoticed.

    Gøtzsche was required to recuse himself after levelling complaints against Wilson and Burton.

    Yet, Burton remains in the Boardroom, he takes an active part in the discussions and is offered untimed opportunities for defence of claims made against him. He is also afforded access to ‘on call’ legal assistance.

    Burton is inexorably involved in the conflict. He was interviewed by Counsel and conclusions were drawn about Burton’s character and credibility as part of the investigative report, which mentions Burton 42 times.

    Why did Burton not recuse himself during those deliberations? Why did Cochrane’s in-house lawyers not advise Burton to recuse himself too? Or did they?

    The public punishment
    Considerable time is spent discussing how Cochrane can publicly explain Gøtzsche’s sudden exit. The co-chairs suggest a way to “force retirement” in order to “save face” with an agreement that is “legally robust” and one that Gøtzsche cannot “wriggle out of”.

    Some members try to warn Burton that the punishment is “disproportionate”. One says Gøtzsche is a “scapegoat” and objects to the Board taking “the nuclear option”. Another member says “this is like capital punishment” and some are concerned that this level of censure is usually reserved for people who commit crimes in the workplace.

    The co-chairs maintain they have been “scrupulous” and “impartial”, but this is likely to be challenged. Koster accuses Gøtzsche of being part of the “old regime”, “a dinosaur” who needs a “baby sitter” to manage him.

    Burton addresses the Board:

    “We can have as much huffing and puffing as we want, but as far as I’m concerned, he needs to leave the collaboration and have his membership taken away,” says Burton.

    The final vote
    Gøtzsche’s fate is sealed, he loses by one vote. But Burton is still troubled.

    “So it’s a majority of one. Very disappointed with that indeed,” says Burton annoyed with the support for Gøtzsche in the room.

    If Burton had abstained, which might have been expected in this case, the final vote would have been tied. In the event of an ‘equality of votes’ under the Articles of Association the ‘Chair’ has a second or casting vote.

    Koster would have cast the deciding vote. However, the outcome of such a vote will never be known since it is not possible to quantify Burton’s influence on the Board’s decision that day.

    The day after Gøtzsche’s ousting, four more board members resigned in protest, but not before they all received an email Mark Wilson’s senior advisor. It read:

    “Martin [Burton] has asked that if any of you recorded the meeting yesterday, you give me the recording when you next meet and delete it from your computers”.

    One Board member refused to comply with the CEO’s instructions to delete a record of the meeting, and now a transcript of The Cochrane Tapes is available here.

    It is difficult to quantify the damage to Cochrane’s reputation in the wake of this scandal, but a review of Gøtzsche’s book sums it up;

    It’s a “dark period in medical science where, a once trusted institution, carried out one of the worst show trials ever conducted in academia. The CEO and his collaborators went about their task in a manner that mirrors how the drug industry operates.”


    thanks, I was not aware of this recent controversy at Cochrane. I think this supports the idea that Cochrane was considered the authoritative meta-review group. Did this change now? I looked up – there is nothing substantial coming later after this 2018 controversy, hat is partially personal, partially scientific. The only other later articles are by the person who lost in 2018 and continues writing about it on sites with such intriguing names as “mad in america”…

    On substance, the discussion is
    1) are RCTs biased by design as they are often funded by industry
    2) do RCTs reflect clinical experience, as they often provide a simplistic set up and weed out complex patients, preferring patients with only one diagnosis, and ignore clinician input.

    I think both points may be valid, but to what degree? RCT meta-analysis still seems to be the best way to get noise out of the data. Hopefully, analysis of real data will find way into meta-analysis. This seem to be happening now with COVID. Some of the real data analysis, including from Israel, uses post-processing that emulates RCTs – by pairing patients from 2 groups based on similar demographic attributes.


    I posted earlier a whole lengthy essay on the limitations of Cochrane, especially as applied to Ivermectin. “As applied” is the critical indicia, as any system of evidentiary standards/rankings can be twisted to turn the evidence on its head, which is exactly what has happened with Ivermectin. RCT’s are not some magical truth potion, a competent scientist/researcher can design an RCT to give himself whatever result he wants (which has also happened in covid quite frequently).


    Also, what you see from the stories of Cochrane corruption is that “science”/academic institutions are not only susceptible to corruption/political influence, but that it is something fairly routine (observe the ease by which the Cochrane institution simply disregarded any semblance of intellectual honesty & following proper standards/protocols, an academic culture that was truly aghast at such interference with “pure honest research” would not produce top people that possessed no instinct for this. Science & scientific research that has significant financial support from govt is by definition fundamentally corrupted somewhat, as politicians do not care for truth but for whatever result best suits their political ambitions/incentives.)


    AAQ -“So, how can you avoid hashash of being a partner with CCP if you sincerely believe in Ivermectin cure? Very simple. Detach the drug from the other ideas: go help people to get vaccines, wear masks, organize outside minyanim, and THEN offer Ivermectin to those who still get sick. Then, people will be more likely to take your arguments seriously.”

    I agree with that, But, I mean a Big But, there are always people that won’t get Vaxxed, for Whatever reason.

    Why are the Genocidal Government Not letting them get Other Treatments?!?
    There are a few cases that families have gone to Court.

    This is Showing – we don’t care about your life, and we are Worse than Commy Countries!
    From my previous post:
    “We are in this Pandemic, because the Government won’t acknowledge other therapies!”


    DY, 2scents, After seeing how the medical establishment handled HCQ last year I didn’t bother looking into,or following any other possible medications such as those being discussed above, because I knew that no matter how effective they might be, there is no way the government is going to let it end the pandemic. Now regarding HCQ, I’ve posted much about it on previous threads, and the conversation keeps running into the same dead end. I post a points, questioning how the negative-HCQ studies were handled, and I receive no answer whatsoever. I’m no bill gates-micro chip conspiracy theorist, but there’s no question HCQ was pushed aside for money and politics. DY it’s rather simple, if Trump said it might work, than because Orange Man Bad, it doesn’t work and in fact it’s dangerous. It’s called *Politics*.
    I’ll repost the same questions I posted on the previous threads.
    -how studies that used extremely high doses can used as proof hydroxychloroquine is dangerous when given in low dosage.
    -how studies performed on hospitalized patients can be used as proof hydroxychloroquine is ineffective when utilized in an outpatient setting
    -how studies that exclude zinc can be as proof hydroxychloroquine is ineffective when given with zinc.
    -Why there hasnt been any golden standard studies preformed by fauci and co., that used the Zelenko protocol.
    -How a completely fraudulent study was allowed to be published in the Lancet and NEJM. (this was the study that caused many trials around the world to be paused, and never resumed.)


    this trial showed no significant difference of HCQ in outpatient setting
    April 22, 2021 Effect of Early Treatment With Hydroxychloroquine or Lopinavir and Ritonavir on Risk of Hospitalization Among Patients With COVID-19 The TOGETHER Randomized Clinical Trial

    Nov 2020 Do Zinc Supplements Enhance the Clinical Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine?: a Randomized, Multicenter Trial
    this trial showed no benefit adding Zinc

    I am not saying these articles are decisive. for example, first article showed 10% improvement, below statistical significance. But to claim that there are no such studies is not correct.

    Again, I would be curious to know how you came to conclusion that such studies do not exist –
    did you check clinical trial database yourself; did you search duck-duck-go; or did you read this claim somewhere and accepted?


    AAQ, no certainly haven’t been on top of every study, I frankly haven’t looked or researched any of these studies in quite a number of months. What I can say, is that early on, when there were doctors from all over the country reporting there own success using HCQ+Zinc in the outpatient setting, they would tend to be shut down and dismissed as snake oil salesmen, and what “actual studies” were the medical establishment and media using to dismiss them? Obviously flawed studies, studies that were designed to fail. Now you ask how I know, and why I think Zinc would’ve helped anything, and why it makes a difference if they were included in the study-thats not really the point. If frontline doctors are reporting tremendous success utilizing specifically A+B, studying just A can’t be brought as proof that A+B doesn’t work. And similarly, if you perform a study giving patients 800mg+ of HCQ, and observe some adverse effects, can this be brought as proof HCQ is dangerous when given in 200mg doses? I would think not. Yet thats exactly what the Medical establishment/media did. Now if you want to discuss how to know for sure zinc helps, in terms of clinical studies, I can look up some, I’ve definitely seen at least one specifically designed this way (HCQ+zinc vs HCQ alone) and bigger than the comparably small study on 191 patients I believe you were referring to. Though I think it’s easier and technically the same to look up studies preformed w/o zinc vs studies performed w/ zinc.


    TVOP -“Yet thats exactly what the Medical establishment”

    Excuse me.
    I’m part of the Medical establishment & so is the Chabadsker in Monsey.
    And so are a lot of other medical personnel and we always believed in HCQ + Zinc.
    You should have wrote the Genocidal Government holds this, even to this day!


    Health, pls excuse my lingo, I was referring fauci, the fda ect…


    for those who are looking for medicines, the good news that there are a number of promising candidates now that already showed some promise in trials. Quoting from a newspaper article – , molnupiravir, Favipiravir, PF-07321332, Synairgen, Budesonide, Dexamethasone, Remdesivir, plasma.


    Anyone can check out the now quite extensive FLCCC protocols, they have a very comprehensive and heavily documented explanation for everything they recommend.
    Also, for the record:
    PF-07321332 is an Ivermectin knockoff that is far less effective compared to [properly dosed] Ivermectin and has an unknown safety profile.
    Remdesivir is 100% a scam, definitely has zero efficacy once your in the hospital (post viral stage), and often causes renal or liver problems and even failure, and there is no legit trial data supporting its efficacy at any stage, there is good reason WHO recommends against its use.
    Dexamethasone is not a good steroid choice, methylprednisolone is far superior steroid, and NSAID like Celecoxib (Celebrex) (together with Famotidine) in a small control vs dexamethasone was far superior alternative.


    Remdesevir, not so much. Dex for the inflammatory phase, budesonide not so much. Plasma (rather monoclonal antibodies) more for the initial phase. Asprin and anti coagulation for those high risk and elevated inflammatory markers.

    There is no magic bullet, timing and understanding of the disease is key.


    Ivermectin: Safer than bleach, just as effective.


    The NIH is neither for nor against Ivermectin, its stance is that more studies and data is necessary.

    Ivermectin is not as cheap as people make it sound. the FLCCC has a weight-based recommendation, and if you add it up it can cost a few hundred dollars for each patient.

Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 162 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.