Big Pharma influences high-impact journals to selectively publish (purportedly) negative studies while outright rejecting positive studies from publication. JAMA did it again yesterday.
Link to excellent and very informative testimony in the Reiner Fuellmich "Court of Public Opinion" series. The person testifying worked on Wall Street for a number of years. She explains that one of the main reason the globalists want the Great Reset is that they cannot meet pension obligations, and they are afraid of the wrath of many millions of people who won't be getting payouts from their pensions. She also discusses a number of other motivating factors for the push toward the Great Reset.
There are 100's.. meta-analyses, especially of those treated early are overwhelmingly positive. Even the designed to fail RCT's showed summary benefit in meta-analyses although some were individually negative. Can find every single study here: https://c19hcq.com/. Also not that the way omiron enters cell and replicates ( endosomal pathway) maes HCQ particularly potent, I have had great results in omicron with it, sometimes even more than ivermectin
Thank you Dr. Kory for your dedication and persistence. We need more encouragement to contact our state legislators to change hospital protocols. I have created this modest website as a resource for the information you and your colleagues provide. www.yourtruthmaynotbemine.com
Bayesian methods provide an alternative that is better suited to supporting downstream decision-making. I think it would be useful to see Bayesian re-analyses of this and other papers on Ivermectin. I don't know how familiar you are with Bayesian stats, but if you need an expert, I am one, and I'd be glad to help you out.
Dr. Kory's substack should really be called something like "Pierre's Pulverizing Polemics", or "Kory's Killer Kaffeeklatsch". (yes that's a real word that is similar enough to 'musings' in tenor) Marik is more the "Medical Musings" type, and the alliteration works out - "Marik's Medical Musings".
My grandmother heard you on Dennis Prager recently. She had been somewhat resistant to being able to accept that the protocol drugs could be so effective - "how can the medical community be so evil as to deny and disparage effective drugs and kill so many people" - but after hearing Dr. Kory, she told me that she was so taken by his obvious sincerity that it finally "clicked" for her.
Dr. Kory is a modern day Oscar Schindler. Thank you so much for everything you do :))
I would prefer to have their definition of a “severe” case of Covid (<95% O2 Sat) with IVM in my system, than a non-severe case with no IVM. I would have a much better chance of walking out of the hospital alive!
Dr. Kory - Thank you for all that you are doing for your patients and everyone else in these trying times. You have saved so many more lives than you’ll ever know. You and Senator Johnson are the best!
As to their primary endpoint, an oxygen saturation level for an over 50, COVID-hospitalized population with co-morbidities of 95% is NOT serious COVID! Ventilation and death are representative of serious Covid, and both clearly favor IVM in this slightly underpowered study for those far more meaningful endpoints.
Thank you so much for writing this, Dr. Kory. As an MD, this did not make sense to me, especially knowing all of the overwhelming evidence that ivermectin works, but I have not taken the time to tear the study apart. Thanks to you and FLCCC, now I don’t have to. I find it very interesting that more patients were vaccinated in the ivermectin group than the control group and just the fact that so many of them were vaccinated. I wonder how that plays into the result as well. In addition, didn’t the Ivermectin group have twice as many obese patients as the control group? We all know that obesity is the highest risk factor for mortality in COVID-19.
I also wonder if the study authors purposely capped the enrollment of patients when it was starting to reach statistical significance for decrease in mortality. I used to never believe this kind of stuff could happen but this whole pandemic has really opened my eyes.
Regarding your musing on the JAMA article: You stated that the JAMA article is influential. I am not a medical professional. I am a lay person. I have read enormous numbers of medical journal articles, and articles such as yours. At some point thinking people realize that articles printed in medical journals aren't worth the paper they are printed on. I don't believe people are as confused as medical professionals think they might be. Like a jury, they instinctively come to know who they can trust and what the truth is. Although they may not be able to understand every detail, they come to understand enough. You are in a zero sum game except for historical documentation. Some are expecting you to tilt at windmills.
Many people in this group have liked my post and it is my sincerest hope that Dr. Kory does take note and respond to me. I myself published many months ago about Ivermectin and Vitamin D together and today I read somewhere that Ivermectin beat out most other medicines against COVID infections. From my own recent experience and from everything I am learning I think chlorine dioxide would easily beat out Ivermectin. Its actions are more clear, more prounounced and proven effective against all classes of pathogens for decades in the water purification industry and by campers.
The American Society of Analytical Chemists stated in 1999 that chlorine dioxide was the most powerful pathogen killer known to man. In 1988 NASA declared chlorine dioxide 'A Universal Antidote,' saying it was able to destroy mold and fungus, as well as bacteria and viruses, with minimal harm to humans, animals, or plants. Though approved by U.S. regulatory agencies, it was not thought of yet for internal use in people. Now, not only is it still not approved for medical use, the FDA will huff and puff and blow your house down and send you to jail if you dare sell chlorine dioxide as a medicine for the treatment of disease.
Our immune systems do not care at all for what the FDA thinks. Chlorine Dioxide is a highly effective weapon that the immune system welcomes enthusiastically. It's a weapon for health and a medical tool that has no equal in the world of modern medicine. It is a savior medicine when dealing with hospital antibiotic-resistant bacteria like MRSA. But the FDA would rather you die than use chlorine dioxide to clear your body of lethal pathogens. It would so much hurt the bottom line of pharmaceutical companies that it just cannot be allowed.
They would rather you end up in the hospital by not using Ivermectin as well. Dr. Kory has gotten some first hand experience how nasty the FDA can be. They make Muslem terrorists look like school boys. They will always be against anything good and always for pharmaceuticals, which are mostly mitochondrial poisons.
I’m not sure the psychological components of this study are properly considered. When a doctor who has seen a medicine work gives it to a patient, he has some confidence the drug will work and that helps relieve the patient's anxiety. Anxiety, I believe it has been shown, can depress the immune response.
So I think researchers in every medical study should be expected to explain their motivation for conducting the study, what their expectations were, and whether they received any positive or negative social feedback during the course of the study. The study Introduction seems to indicate the doctors were not enthusiastic about ivermectin from the start, and with the study being conducted while controversy over ivermectin was growing around the world, it would not be surprising if the controversy further affected their attitude, expectations and willingness to report objectively.
We are only told that the patients were given informed consent, but not how the issue was presented to them. Were they told they were being given an experimental medicine, and that they should watch for and report any adverse effects as soon as possible? Presenting the issue to them in that way, without confidence the drug would work, could provoke anxiety and possibly increase the rate of adverse events.
Interesting points. Being an open label study, both doctors and patients knew if they got IVM or not. How might that knowledge (and the instructions provided) have impacted the endpoints, especially the severity metric? Psychology can impact biology. And, certainly, psychology impacts what we see, what we attend to and how we react. What is most interesting is why the primary, but intermediate marker of “severity” did not show a difference but mortality did, favoring IVM by near statistical significance. Wouldn’t this suggest that their measure of “severity” is not a particularly good measure of severity? If it was, it should have done a much better job predicting the downrange endpoints, like ventilation and death. In fact, it looks like a slightly negative correlation…fewer non-IVM progressed to “severe” but later died than the IVM treatment group. Doesn’t that seem odd?
I would add a fourth concern. Open label study. In other words, doctors knew who got IVM and who didn’t. Consequently, the best endpoint in any open label COVID study is: 1) the one that can least likely be manipulated by the health care providers; and 2) is the most meaningful outcome given that the vast majority will survive COVID. Hospitalization, while meaningful as an endpoint, is negated in this study since all patients were hospitalized. That leaves death as the best endpoint, especially since their are no known treatments to reverse it. Now, add the 70% reduction in the death data from this [slightly underpowered] study to the existing meta-analysis data using the same endpoint, and the case for IVM is decisively stronger than before this study, CNN’s, Alex Berenson’s and MSM’s (mainstream medicine’s) gleeful opinion to the contrary notwithstanding.
I appreciate your honesty, integrity, and dedication. You are in my daily prayers.
Link to excellent and very informative testimony in the Reiner Fuellmich "Court of Public Opinion" series. The person testifying worked on Wall Street for a number of years. She explains that one of the main reason the globalists want the Great Reset is that they cannot meet pension obligations, and they are afraid of the wrath of many millions of people who won't be getting payouts from their pensions. She also discusses a number of other motivating factors for the push toward the Great Reset.
[URL unfurl="true"]https://brandnewtube.com/watch/reiner-fuellmich-talks-with-leslie-manookian-full-testimony-grand-jury_d3bCLz1ocHFVrm4.html[/URL]
I must've missed something. (And I thought I was paying attention. 😊) WHO is Alex Berenson?
There are 100's.. meta-analyses, especially of those treated early are overwhelmingly positive. Even the designed to fail RCT's showed summary benefit in meta-analyses although some were individually negative. Can find every single study here: https://c19hcq.com/. Also not that the way omiron enters cell and replicates ( endosomal pathway) maes HCQ particularly potent, I have had great results in omicron with it, sometimes even more than ivermectin
My doctor can not find a rationale for flccc's addition of hydroxy to early treatment.. you have a study? Many thanks
Thank you Dr. Kory for your dedication and persistence. We need more encouragement to contact our state legislators to change hospital protocols. I have created this modest website as a resource for the information you and your colleagues provide. www.yourtruthmaynotbemine.com
Many scientists are becoming disenchanted with null-hypothesis significance testing:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00857-9 .
Bayesian methods provide an alternative that is better suited to supporting downstream decision-making. I think it would be useful to see Bayesian re-analyses of this and other papers on Ivermectin. I don't know how familiar you are with Bayesian stats, but if you need an expert, I am one, and I'd be glad to help you out.
https://bayesium.com
Kevin - what do you think of this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353794395_Bayesian_Meta_Analysis_of_Ivermectin_Effectiveness_in_Treating_Covid-19_with_sensitivity_analysis_to_account_for_possibly_flawed_studies
I'll take a look at it.
Dr. Kory's substack should really be called something like "Pierre's Pulverizing Polemics", or "Kory's Killer Kaffeeklatsch". (yes that's a real word that is similar enough to 'musings' in tenor) Marik is more the "Medical Musings" type, and the alliteration works out - "Marik's Medical Musings".
My grandmother heard you on Dennis Prager recently. She had been somewhat resistant to being able to accept that the protocol drugs could be so effective - "how can the medical community be so evil as to deny and disparage effective drugs and kill so many people" - but after hearing Dr. Kory, she told me that she was so taken by his obvious sincerity that it finally "clicked" for her.
Dr. Kory is a modern day Oscar Schindler. Thank you so much for everything you do :))
I would prefer to have their definition of a “severe” case of Covid (<95% O2 Sat) with IVM in my system, than a non-severe case with no IVM. I would have a much better chance of walking out of the hospital alive!
Dr. Kory - Thank you for all that you are doing for your patients and everyone else in these trying times. You have saved so many more lives than you’ll ever know. You and Senator Johnson are the best!
As to their primary endpoint, an oxygen saturation level for an over 50, COVID-hospitalized population with co-morbidities of 95% is NOT serious COVID! Ventilation and death are representative of serious Covid, and both clearly favor IVM in this slightly underpowered study for those far more meaningful endpoints.
Thank you so much for writing this, Dr. Kory. As an MD, this did not make sense to me, especially knowing all of the overwhelming evidence that ivermectin works, but I have not taken the time to tear the study apart. Thanks to you and FLCCC, now I don’t have to. I find it very interesting that more patients were vaccinated in the ivermectin group than the control group and just the fact that so many of them were vaccinated. I wonder how that plays into the result as well. In addition, didn’t the Ivermectin group have twice as many obese patients as the control group? We all know that obesity is the highest risk factor for mortality in COVID-19.
I also wonder if the study authors purposely capped the enrollment of patients when it was starting to reach statistical significance for decrease in mortality. I used to never believe this kind of stuff could happen but this whole pandemic has really opened my eyes.
Regarding your musing on the JAMA article: You stated that the JAMA article is influential. I am not a medical professional. I am a lay person. I have read enormous numbers of medical journal articles, and articles such as yours. At some point thinking people realize that articles printed in medical journals aren't worth the paper they are printed on. I don't believe people are as confused as medical professionals think they might be. Like a jury, they instinctively come to know who they can trust and what the truth is. Although they may not be able to understand every detail, they come to understand enough. You are in a zero sum game except for historical documentation. Some are expecting you to tilt at windmills.
Many people in this group have liked my post and it is my sincerest hope that Dr. Kory does take note and respond to me. I myself published many months ago about Ivermectin and Vitamin D together and today I read somewhere that Ivermectin beat out most other medicines against COVID infections. From my own recent experience and from everything I am learning I think chlorine dioxide would easily beat out Ivermectin. Its actions are more clear, more prounounced and proven effective against all classes of pathogens for decades in the water purification industry and by campers.
The American Society of Analytical Chemists stated in 1999 that chlorine dioxide was the most powerful pathogen killer known to man. In 1988 NASA declared chlorine dioxide 'A Universal Antidote,' saying it was able to destroy mold and fungus, as well as bacteria and viruses, with minimal harm to humans, animals, or plants. Though approved by U.S. regulatory agencies, it was not thought of yet for internal use in people. Now, not only is it still not approved for medical use, the FDA will huff and puff and blow your house down and send you to jail if you dare sell chlorine dioxide as a medicine for the treatment of disease.
Our immune systems do not care at all for what the FDA thinks. Chlorine Dioxide is a highly effective weapon that the immune system welcomes enthusiastically. It's a weapon for health and a medical tool that has no equal in the world of modern medicine. It is a savior medicine when dealing with hospital antibiotic-resistant bacteria like MRSA. But the FDA would rather you die than use chlorine dioxide to clear your body of lethal pathogens. It would so much hurt the bottom line of pharmaceutical companies that it just cannot be allowed.
They would rather you end up in the hospital by not using Ivermectin as well. Dr. Kory has gotten some first hand experience how nasty the FDA can be. They make Muslem terrorists look like school boys. They will always be against anything good and always for pharmaceuticals, which are mostly mitochondrial poisons.
Have you seen Meryl Nass's article which includes 50 ways they tried to discredit chlorine?
"How a false hydroxychloroquine narrative was created, and more"
https://merylnassmd.com/how-false-hydroxychloroquine-narrative/
I’m not sure the psychological components of this study are properly considered. When a doctor who has seen a medicine work gives it to a patient, he has some confidence the drug will work and that helps relieve the patient's anxiety. Anxiety, I believe it has been shown, can depress the immune response.
So I think researchers in every medical study should be expected to explain their motivation for conducting the study, what their expectations were, and whether they received any positive or negative social feedback during the course of the study. The study Introduction seems to indicate the doctors were not enthusiastic about ivermectin from the start, and with the study being conducted while controversy over ivermectin was growing around the world, it would not be surprising if the controversy further affected their attitude, expectations and willingness to report objectively.
We are only told that the patients were given informed consent, but not how the issue was presented to them. Were they told they were being given an experimental medicine, and that they should watch for and report any adverse effects as soon as possible? Presenting the issue to them in that way, without confidence the drug would work, could provoke anxiety and possibly increase the rate of adverse events.
Interesting points. Being an open label study, both doctors and patients knew if they got IVM or not. How might that knowledge (and the instructions provided) have impacted the endpoints, especially the severity metric? Psychology can impact biology. And, certainly, psychology impacts what we see, what we attend to and how we react. What is most interesting is why the primary, but intermediate marker of “severity” did not show a difference but mortality did, favoring IVM by near statistical significance. Wouldn’t this suggest that their measure of “severity” is not a particularly good measure of severity? If it was, it should have done a much better job predicting the downrange endpoints, like ventilation and death. In fact, it looks like a slightly negative correlation…fewer non-IVM progressed to “severe” but later died than the IVM treatment group. Doesn’t that seem odd?
I would add a fourth concern. Open label study. In other words, doctors knew who got IVM and who didn’t. Consequently, the best endpoint in any open label COVID study is: 1) the one that can least likely be manipulated by the health care providers; and 2) is the most meaningful outcome given that the vast majority will survive COVID. Hospitalization, while meaningful as an endpoint, is negated in this study since all patients were hospitalized. That leaves death as the best endpoint, especially since their are no known treatments to reverse it. Now, add the 70% reduction in the death data from this [slightly underpowered] study to the existing meta-analysis data using the same endpoint, and the case for IVM is decisively stronger than before this study, CNN’s, Alex Berenson’s and MSM’s (mainstream medicine’s) gleeful opinion to the contrary notwithstanding.