Discussion with Prof Andrew Gelman on Ivermectin trials for Covid-19

Professor Andrew Gelman (Professor of Statistics at Columbia University) and I discuss the recent I-TECH clinical trial on Ivermectin for Covid-19. Ivermectin has not been found to be effective for prevention or treatment of Covid-19. Prof Gelman and I discuss issues in clinical trials and their interpretation.
Subscribe: kzbin.info...
Buy me a coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/GregTK
My gear: higheredutech.com/gear/
Intro/Outro music: "Do it again", by Enzo Orefice. Licensed via StoryBlocks www.storyblocks.com/audio/sto...
▬ Contents of this video ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
0:00 Introduction
1:03 The I-TECH trial out of Malaysia
5:55 First thoughts on meta-analysis
8:03 Large effects, small effects, and the power of clinical trials
10:21 "The penicillin model" in scientific pursuit
13:39 Secondary outcomes in the I-TECH study
15:13 Why not just consider death?
17:37 Selection and publication bias are complicated in social and medical science.
24:06 Selection bias and other issues in meta-analysis of ivermectin studies.
31:11 The garden of forking paths and researcher degrees of freedom
▬ Disclaimers ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
This video is for educational purposes only.
I have no conflicts of interest. I do not receive any compensation or support from any company making or developing Covid-19 vaccines or novel therapies. I made this video on my own time and with my own money and equipment, with no incentives or sponsorship (though you can buy me a coffee).
▬ About Andrew Gelman ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
- Andrew's Author page at Amazon amzn.to/34bkHnK
- Department page at Columbia www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/
- Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_...
- Google Scholar scholar.google.com/citations?...
- Blog statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/
▬ About this channel ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I'm Greg Tucker-Kellogg, PhD, a biology professor in Singapore with a career spanning both biotechnology and academia. Videos on this educational channel cover some of my scientific and teaching interests in genomics, bioinformatics, and biochemistry, as well as topics in current scientific issues of public interest. Links to my professional profile are available in the "about" section of the channel.
▬ References ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
- Gelman A, Carlin J. Beyond Power Calculations: Assessing Type S (Sign) and Type M (Magnitude) Errors. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2014;9(6):641-651. doi:10.1177/1745691614551642
- Lim SCL, Hor CP, Tay KH, et al. Efficacy of Ivermectin Treatment on Disease Progression Among Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19 and Comorbidities: The I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Internal Medicine. Published online February 18, 2022.doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed...
- Tushar VS Sample Size Estimation in Clinical Trial Perspect Clin Res. 2010 Apr-Jun; 1(2): 67-69.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc...

[@clairelariviere3122]

Interesting talk. Thank you! Genuine expertise is calm, considered and non-chaotic and the two of you stand solidly in your integrity.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Thank, Claire. It was a fun conversation, if a bit free-ranging.

[@thoughtfeeder7573]

@claire - Gelman is in politics and statistics, it's very clear both of them haven't the faintest clue what they are talking about regarding IM. Predictably, Democrats do NOT like IM, for obvious reasons as it contravenes their political narrative. They predictably cherry pick certain studies (badly designed ones like I-TECH) and ignore other data. They are totally wedded to their narrative even with more and more coming out show it has merit, see here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJfcgJyenaZ3aqM

[@clairelariviere3122]

@@thoughtfeeder7573 your comment is neither true nor helpful. It’s condescending and shows a mind that’s been hijacked by disinformation.

[@thoughtfeeder7573]

@@clairelariviere3122 Unhelpful. OK so you are of the same disposition as the aforementioned then. You might find this unhelpful, others will not. Untrue? Nothing of the sort. As for condescension - well that would all be in the eye of the beholder. This Greg person is absolutely full of it, pontificating about cherry picking and misinformation when this is exactly what he does himself. Now calling in random non-experts in medical science to back up his stance. Your adherence to his agenda serves only to exhibit a mind that is saturated in political bias and little else.

[@clairelariviere3122]

@@thoughtfeeder7573 you don’t know a thing about me. You’ve never met me. It’s abusive to presume that you know someone else’s mind, especially one you have never met.

[@clintwarren9116]

Prof Gelman is a breath of fresh air, thank you. Love the garden of forking paths. Wow, doesnt that describe our challenge of politicalization of science. We seem widely to be doing the opposite of his prescription.

[@arielsanpedro1484]

Pls make a video about released pfeizer datas on adverse reactions.

[@rbronsing]

Very nice talk. This sort of colloquium should be held more, people can learn that way.

[@Ivan_BSGO]

Have either of you heard about the study from Itajai, Brazil? I'd like your opinion on it. "Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching" EDIT: Also, interesting discussion on how bias creeps in. Enjoyed that.

[@Flyfish325]

I asked the same question.

[@frogsong100]

Yes, it was debunked.

[@Ivan_BSGO]

@@frogsong100 I've heard that some in the Ivermectin group did not take the full course and somehow that 'proves its not effective' but the group still showed benefits. That's all I could find and it's really not convincing. It only shows me that people want to believe what they already believe.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

I'm working on a video about it. It's a terrible, terrible study.

[@eugenedukeman8141]

Placebo effect?

[@adamaprimo9023]

Does anyone know if this ivermectin study or the Oxford study is using the same protocol as the one used by ivermectin proponents?

[@roystonrichards1556]

There is supposition that they don't just as there is supposition that they don't use the widely and easily available commercial generic versions of ivermectin in their trial hence the reason given when the trial was halted. Another supposition by cynics is that Oxford may be somewhat reluctant to give ivermectin any credit whatsoever as it would put them at odds with WHO, FDA and many governments, medical professionals and media outlets around the world.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

This study (I-TECH) used a protocol that is quite close to the FLCCC (ivermectin proponent) protocol. Within 5 days of confirmed infection, 0.4mg/kg/day for five days. The FLCCC advocates would say that the average time was 5.1 days, so not under 5, but the subgroup analysis suggests that if anything the people treated earlier with ivermectin did *worse* .

[@jeffcoyle3177]

Me again.! I’d like to know Prof G thinks of the 70% reduction in death rate (3 Vs 10) in the IVM cohort in this trial whatever the biological reason that IVM might or might not have worked. In other words if the deaths per group was reversed what would the interpretation have been? Did the IVM have an “unintended benefit consequence” of significant sepsis reduction? On a different subject what’s your view on Vitamin D deficiency on COVID-19 outcomes? Regards.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

At one point he indicated that it was "not proximate" and "very noisy", because the death rate was low in both groups, so it's hard to attribute the difference in deaths to the treatment.

[@enkido5838]

Dr Greg did a great job in his other video on the malasia trial in explaining how that trial was not sufficently powered (big enough) to make that finding statistically significant (too noisy). That means that the effect is not proven. It also does not disprove smaller effect. Those sorts of additional observations are often the catalyst for further study but choices have to be made about priorities. You cannot follow up every idea.

[@XxToxicVenom5xX]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg a 70% reduction is not "noise" , especially with population of 1000+ in the ivm arm

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@@XxToxicVenom5xX There was not a population of 1000+ in either arm. It was 490 in total for both arms. But more to the point, *four of the deaths in the control group were from nosocomial sepsis*. That is, they were from an bacterial infection, unrelated to Covid, picked up in the hospital.

[@frogsong100]

@@XxToxicVenom5xX - 70% is fake info.

[@SP-ss4uo]

So can we agree the mrna vaccines are safe?

[@superwilcox9026]

Omicron is a better natural vaccine and is safer to get than the synthetic vaccine. Already have 2 coworkers who swore by the vaccine having side effects. One cant close their hands and wont stop tingling the other has been getting blood clots so, not all that safe.

[@SP-ss4uo]

@@superwilcox9026 absolutely theres stories all over the world where people have been vaccine injured . But if you say that you get canceled. In New Zealand there are still pushing boosters and jab for 5 to 11 year olds

[@geneschultz7336]

Great discussion, supports and fits well with Gideon M-K’s analysis of the Malaysian study. I have a question, and forgive for not having the exact study titles. There was one from Australia released I believe in 2020. But my question is do earlier in vitro studies showing that very high dosages of Ivermectin were required for a significant antiviral effect clarify or at least offer possible follow-up research for the I-TECH study?

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

The core problem is that there's probably no way to reach anywhere near those concentractions in vivo. Pharmacokinetic studies of ivermectin have never achieved it, or even within almost two orders of magnitude. Hypothetically, if one _were_ able to reach that concentration, ivermectin safety would have to be studied from scratch. At that high a concentration, it might have a lot of other targets, and there's no reason to assume it would remain as safe as it is at much lower concentrations.

[@bmint]

🤔what’s your take on cbd for a treatment? 🤔

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

I don't really have an opinion on it. Certainly not an option here in Singapore

[@bmint]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg it is allowed for extraordinary medical purposes there, could studying it be considered extraordinary? Especially considering its results so far.. may be a good study and access to a research grant from your government?

[@eugenedukeman8141]

Not at all noticing hyperfocus, neither is anyone else.

[@danieltausk4726]

I think it is a bit silly to focus on one specific RCT like the I-TECH trial when you have so many other RCTs, it is just one more datapoint and it should be considered in context. Nevertheless I should mention one important point that you haven't mentioned: this is an open label trial and progression to severe desease is the endpoint which is most subject to biases of the investigators, while death is completely objective. So that is one reason to look at death, though it is not the primary endpoint. But of course I don't think this trial alone proves anything, it is just one more datapoint to be analyzed in context.

[@Baard2000]

If this trial is actually too small in participants...how did Pfizer to manage the Mulniparivir trial with only 350 participants which were a very selective group ( bc of the unknown effect on pregnant women or cancer patients ) get approval etc etc ?? With such small group and , referring to @15.08 ....... I suspect something with money , lobbying etc. As it might have been coincidence that the treated group did better even without treatment. Still they got approval.

[@bidentity69]

A few inaccuracies in your post . Molnupiravir is Merck drug not Pfizer . The interim analysis in the trial involved 775 participants and the final analysis 1433 participants

[@Baard2000]

@@bidentity69 only 1400 ? Ok

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

It's not too small, because it was planned for a large effect. It seems that a large effect of ivermectin is pretty implausible at this point. But it's impossible to tell from this trial whether there was a small harm, no effect, or a very small benefit.

[@solarnaut]

(( Professor, the MOB is at the gates with torches and pitchforks, what shall I tell them ? )) " IT'S COMPLICATED ! " (( Ummm, yeah, but NO, that doesn't seem to appease them! )) B-)

[@hughbassoon]

yes its a bit like the CDC giving guidance or guidelines which are based on the best evidence at the time, but it can change at any minute. Unfortunately, that's life, but a lot of people don't find that answer very satisfying. There is comfort in the black and white.....the extremes, even if they are wrong. Throw the torches!!!

[@ryandugal]

Doesn’t ivm cut viral amino acid chains before they can fold?

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

No

[@MISSYGful]

OMG Really? Jesus wept.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Wait, why?

[@LindaStevensBZ]

"No evidence that it provides benefit". HELLLOOOO. That means it doesn't work.

[@MrArdytube]

it seems true that there is not good evidence for either opinion about ivermectin. Otoh the situation is not entirely neutral since in many cases an optimistic view of ivermectin leads to false confidence… which can often underlie poor choices. This dynamic is easily more dangerous than any direct negative side effects from ivermectin

[@terjeoseberg990]

This study that they are discussing proves that Ivermectin is significantly less than 50% effective. What it doesn’t prove is whether or not it’s 5-10% effective.

[@Shelmerdine745]

Completely wrong. You need to show efficacy of a drug. You do not need to show the opposite, how silly is that?

[@MarcosElMalo2]

Would you like to buy a tiger repelling rock? Only $10.

[@williamverhoef4349]

@@Shelmerdine745 Again, spot on. The pro-ivermectin community has to demonstrate it actually works, not just that there is no evidence that it does not work. Absurd. And that's setting aside lack of plausibility as well as all the evidence that ivermecton almost certainly does not work for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19, lacking only a well controlled, methodologically sound, random controlled clinical trial to hammer the nails in.

[@oilenglai4128]

My comment for the itech study is the sampling stage was when patients already in critical breathing problem which indicates that the virus had ravaged the lower respiratory cells and ivermectin usage from this stage is unethical to be useful or not. We know ivermectin is exceptionally effective in deterring the "latching" of virus to cells and subsequent entry and therefore should be applied at the onset of symptoms rather than at the critical breathing difficulty stage. The itech study was done with insufficient critical understanding of ivermectin mechanism and therefore the results were so ' noisy '

[@MrArdytube]

I think the situation is more complicated than pro vs anti ivermectin. IMO if is a situation of expertise trusting vs hostility to authority. And in that context there is basically no acceptable evidence that can change many people’s inherent skepticism about the people/authorities who present that evidence.

[@solarnaut]

Indeed ! I used to think we humans were rather "logical," but I've come to fear not only how extremely we are animated by "emotional" (or complicated) forces, but how righteous our self perception is under a false guise of being a logical and intelligent acting being.

[@solarnaut]

"QUESTION AUTHORITY" yet it is tempting to suppose medical experts obey a duty for public health. Yet, "authority" seemed to FAIL at the very beginning of the pandemic in telling the PUBLIC, "don't wear masks ( because WE need them all)" It is hard to fit nuance into a MEGAPHONE.

[@MrArdytube]

@@solarnaut Good points There is an interesting article about public health attitude toward masks… I will separately post that link That said,,.. it would be good to remember that when the mask comment was made…. It was essentially accurate in that there were a very small amount of Covid cases and a very limited geographic spread… and so the need/effort effectiveness of universal masking was very small… especially in the context of shortage of PPE even for medical staff That said, the communication was abysmal. Although we should also remember that scientists are not trained public communicators

[@terjeoseberg990]

But they used Ivermectin a lot in Brazil and in India. If it was effective, why would both those countries bother with vaccines? Why did so many people die in those countries?

[@solarnaut]

@@MrArdytube Hmmm, "interesting" though I'm a tad skeptical about the "limited geographic spread", though I have neither a time line for the "public don't need masks" message nor a timeline of the spread, but I did later hear (Fauchi?) acknowledge that part of the motivation for the "public don't need masks" message WAS because the medical community wanted (and, yes, "needed, more so, than the public") ALL the available masks. So, they apparently had the "public can't handle 'the truth' nor be trusted to 'do the right thing' and not panic buy up all the masks that we need, so let's just lie to them?" attitude ? NOT a great way to begin a global pandemic presumably requiring public trust and cooperation, even if a lot of the public actually "can't be trusted" to do the right thing. :-s In an ideal world there would be layers of communication skills/abilities within the government response systems. Not sure how much difference it might have made if the structures Obama's team left (in the wake of Ebola) had not been dismantled by the 2017 president?

[@trafferz]

Good interview. I'm on the positive on ivermectin, negative on covid vaccines side of this. Good to check my interpretations, so appreciated. Pfizer original study data coming out. Hope you'll do a video on that.

[@normanspurgeon5324]

Countless people have had their lives saved, by receiving ivermecti; these are great events according to the clinicians,but ignored by these fellows as "anecdotal". A clinician does what works for the patient. These fellows exalt themselves with their scepticism, and then call it a day.

[@Ellecram]

Sigh...you REALLY need to check your research bud. Not just the amplified social media reports.

[@ex8280]

Had three covid scare, preventatively treated myself all three times. Never had symptoms. No taking over ER beds.

[@66steverose]

Wow...with the amount of videos you are doing on this subject, you must be being paid well.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

LOL, no I'm not paid a cent.

[@enkido5838]

Not being fervently anti-ivermectim has earned me numerous pejorative comments from the anti-ivermectin community. It is great to see that the coverage on this channel has moved to the scientific middle ground.. Pretty much every word from prof Gelman reflected impressions which I have formed over time. Wonderful honesty about how unscientific it is to state and defend the extremes. Summarised as "Statistics is hard". His comments were also very consistent with prof Greg's recent excellent review of the Malaysia study. Note to CDC: not a single reference to a horse. I believe the lower P outcomes for which the malasia study was not powered, can legitimately be used as design inputs to future studies.

[@fintonmainz7845]

Is there an English language powered version of this?

[@Shelmerdine745]

You need proper data to approve a drug. It’s as simple as that. People are not “anti-ivermectin”, they just say the data showing significant efficacy are not there. Absolutely nothing extreme in that. It’s not two-sided at all.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

@@Shelmerdine745 They’re equating “in favor of rigorous analysis and use of the scientific method” with “anti-ivermectin”. The original comment reveals the commenter’s (badly) concealed bias and quickly indicates that they are not here for intellectual honesty.

[@enkido5838]

@@Shelmerdine745 And Ivermectin is approved and widely applied for human use. You are correct that the statement "the data to show efficacy is not there" is valid.. That is a scientifically worded statement deliberately misinterpreted for IVM. As pointed out in this video the statement *the data to show lack of efficacy is not there* is equally valid. Given that various trials including the Malaysia one suggest the possibility of efficacy,(not proving it) and given the low cost, ready availability and well proven safety record of the drug, the logical conclusion would be to advocate for proper trials.. Dr Campbell has been advocating for that and gets extraordinary vitriol in response. Even in this excellent video, Dr Greg referred to a "Gospel" of IVM. That is unprofessional and unscientific. Your opening statement that "you need proper data to approve a drug" is obviously true, but misleading. Ivermectin is approved for human use in appropriate doses and the normal state of affairs is that doctors could then prescribe it, including "off label" prescriptions perhaps based on the type of *indications* currently available from incomplete or underpowered trials. Yes there was an anti~IVM campaign which contains lies and misuse of science. The absurdity to top it all is the picture of horses on the CDC website and almost all MSM coverage. Appropriate to late night comedy perhaps, such pathetic unprofessional handling of a serious subject does real harm in its damage to the credibility of what should be valuable institutions. Straight forward lies include a statement from the original manufacturer that IVM lacked safety data, Decades of safe use belie that. Misuse of science included the banning of prescribing IVM for covid by several health bodies around the,world and censorship of its discussion on KZbin. And of course statements such as "it is as simple as that" when very little is.

[@vtbn53]

@@enkido5838 Ivermectin IS approved for human use, but not for Covid.

[@angelinebriscoe-sperling8177]

Hi Greg, I just started listening so just into half of it. I remember watching how data analysis works. The results in many of the methods were hilarious, but fair to say that the TV programme was exactly about that. I remember a result being that they found out that blond people have a greater love for cats than dark-haired people. This is a discussion about data and methods, good or bad, in any studies. I suggest you get some people who have worked with Ivermectin or people who looked on while it was used and how they observed it. The comment that people would use Ivermectin for career reasons is the joke of the year. How were established doctors and scientists who dealt with the topic Ivermectin treated in the last two years would answer that one. I'd love to know any advantage for medical people for using or dealing withe the Ivermectin topic, just one. But we are at a different stage in the pandemic now. Many things will be cleared up on all these topics in the future, the topic of the immune system, the Vitamin D discussion and the age and medical and social conditions of the people who died. Also why other vaccines that were not from the big pharmaceutical companies were ignored or punished. The story of Prof. Stöcker's vaccine, the Lübecker vaccine, is being cleared in court. But is is just another of the many treatments for Covit that were surpressed. Now that the beginning of the papers from the FDA/ Pfizer has been released, it would interest me how you see the first pages and especially the listed adverse effects of the vaccines. Also the studies on the length of time the vaccines are effective for 5 to 11 year olds, published by New York State. One last thing on Ivermectin and the comment of your guest that if Ivermectin was effective that it would be more in use. Well, I think we have to ask more why so much fuss is about Ivermectin. Why were the doctors given so high penalties to even losing their licence for prescribing Ivermectin if Ivermectin is harmless or maybe even helpful. As usual, I write too much and I am writing while listening so not so concentrated, if I have anything else to ask I will probably write again later on. Thanks for the video and the guest. Maybe we just need more medical people with their experience during the past 2 years. Do you know the percentage of people who died from Covit? Thanks again.

[@nonflyingdutchman9573]

A career advantage for medical people using Ivermectin is that there are people making lots of money selling Ivermectin. Which vaccines were 'punished'? Why are you so interested in the first pages of the FDA/Pfizer data being released when we now have so much more data over a much longer timescale than was ever presented in the clinical studies?

[@angelinebriscoe-sperling8177]

@@nonflyingdutchman9573 That is simply not true about doctors earning a lot of money through Ivermectin. Why or why not I am interested in things is, I think, something a psychologist would be interested in or maybe a potential employer, but details of my interests would never interest a stranger. Up to now, we have not enough information on the side effects of vaccines. As far as I know, this is an obligation to provide this information before applying any treatment on anyone. It's a given. I will have to look at your comment again to see if there is any other points to comment on. But, thank you for taking the time to write. I did address Greg because it is my experience that he has a way of replying that seldom to never has an undertone of aggressiveness and is always polite no matter how our opinions may differ and though it may be that he feels frustrated, he is polite enough and gentleman enough not to show it in his writing. We can learn that too, it's professional. You asked which vaccine was punished although I named it quite clearly in my comment addressed to Greg. Reading helps😉

[@terjeoseberg990]

They used Ivermectin in Brazil. Doctors were not punished for using it. They were encouraged to use it. But, it didn’t work. If it did, they wouldn’t bother with vaccines in Brazil.

[@terjeoseberg990]

@@nonflyingdutchman9573, Good points.

[@angelinebriscoe-sperling1463]

@@terjeoseberg990 as I said, the pandemic is nearly over and the discussions about Ivermectin will be cleared when the hype is over. We will all have a lot of Information to digest. I hope we find answers and solutions for future situations. I am not pro or contra anything that helps, I just want honesty and help to stop more deaths. Any little helps. The Information about the role of Vitamine D is also interesting to protect health and even save lives.

[@louisofarrell]

Talking of bias: Prof Andrew - the trial does not show a positive or negative result. Prof Greg: prominent label with FAIL in his video. Maybe that is why you refer to the duscussion as free-ranging. My position, IM is not a miracle, but it might do more good than harm. I took IM when I got Delta as well as Omicron, despite being vaccinated.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

It failed show a benefit. That's a negative result. Andrew was using negative in sense of harm to patients.

[@louisofarrell]

I admire that you take time to respond to most comments. My interpretation: the I-TECH trial had a negative result, e.g. the trial failed IM treatment - neither positive nor negative (harm to patients), we cannot pronounce on IM as a treatment

[@nonflyingdutchman9573]

@@louisofarrell It's a principle of science that you can never prove a negative

[@mail4lana]

It'll be a very negative result if we get a bunch of ivomec resistant parasites after mass, indiscriminate, unnecessary use 😬

[@Lily-Bravo]

@@mail4lana I have wondered whether the IVM persists in the pee of the people taking it, and finds its way into the environment with unknown effect.

[@eugenedukeman8141]

Let's all ignore the obvious bait retracted paper that got this bullshit started. There is no end to the low life tactics that are used to assassinate someone's character. Didn't realize John Campbell could be such a threat to the agenda. What is your motivation for weighing in, just to muddy the waters?

[@mail4lana]

Thank you! I still hate statistics 😁

[@Shelmerdine745]

I like statistics, dislike most statisticians.

[@frogsong100]

46.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[@charlesmaguire6096]

@@Shelmerdine745 94 percent of statistics are made up on the spur of the moment including this one

[@karidobie]

Where you two get you financing?

[@solarnaut]

fair play, mr. putin, fair play ! B-) No, seriously, I mean it, fair play !

[@terjeoseberg990]

Financing for what?

[@MarcosElMalo2]

@@terjeoseberg990 How can they afford $20/month internet access if they aren’t both on the payroll of big pharma? I think if you spend all day and half the night loafing and trolling on the internet, having a job becomes suspect. Having a job is a pretty good indication that you’re getting paid by an employer (don’t try to contradict me on that) and have an economic interest in the status quo. This is doubly true if you’re self employed! The exception is if you’re profiting from “rebel science” (which isn’t really science at all) or weird fringe political beliefs. Then we don’t talk about your sources of income.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

For what? I'm making these vides on my own time with my own money in my guest room/home office. I suppose I could be watching netflix, but there's no financing involved in either case (though you are welcome to buy me a coffee).

[@terjeoseberg990]

@@MarcosElMalo2, So you’re claiming that everyone who has a job is in on this big conspiracy because they’re getting paid? What exactly is this conspiracy? That’s their goal?

[@ImperialManiac1]

Keep up the good work. So sad that the algorithm means this gets so little exposure while conspiracy nuts get millions of views. Google need to implement some kind of impact factor rating to content and promote it on the basis of scientific evidence.

[@marvinvogel1985]

This chat is more philosophy ... And dash of hypocrisy.....

[@jimgraham6722]

Keeping well hydrated important. Taking IVM tabs with large cup of water helps.

[@stephenjones7804]

Yes it is very good at getting rid of parasites.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

@@stephenjones7804 Specific parasites. Ivermectin isn’t a broad spectrum treatment for every parasite.

[@paulyoung4422]

Poor John Campbell and his good friend Prof Tim Spector, won't like this.

[@martifingers]

Sadly Dr Campbell, who has done some very good work, will simply not engage with critics. I do not find his explanation for this particularly convincing and this results in mistakes which are not corrected in an easy to discover way. Great shame, I think.

[@Shelmerdine745]

When did Spector promote ivermectin?

[@Shelmerdine745]

@@martifingers He’s been wrong on almost every analysis he’s done for two years now. People have died because of his misinformation.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

Why bring that misinformed non-expert into the discussion? It’s not about him. (I know why you might want to bring him up. I just don’t think it’s productive on this video.)

[@enkido5838]

@@Shelmerdine745yes We need more pictures of horses to protect us from the evil Dr C. DIsgraceful of Campbell to advocate for proper trials to inveatigate a possible dirt cheap readily available treatment. And of course, to not roundly condem IVM makes him a fervent anti vaxxer. And that is scientific proof that vitamin D could not possibly help anything. And who ever heard of such a ridiculous idea that prior infection. might provide immunity to a disease. How could a mask possibly reduce transmission of a disease, especially and airbourne one.

[@joseamilcarsalgadolainez3586]

INVERMECTIN, YES M.D Pierre kory FLCCC In youtube.

[@nilminideen5296]

Nothing controversial, I know as a fact people who used it became all well . In fact it usually given to African countries due to they have so many parasites and diseases etc

[@MarcosElMalo2]

Ugh, where to start? Ivermectin is given to individuals for specific parasites that are endemic in certain parts of the world. It is quite effective against these specific parasites, but not against other parasites that might also be present. You’ve made a few weird errors. Ivermectin is not given to African countries. It’s given to individual people infected with these specific parasites, not to “African countries” due to the people in those countries having “so many parasites and diseases etc”. I hope you see why your imprecise understanding is problematic. It’s not just that you’re over generalizing, it’s that your generalizations are weird logic errors.

[@quetailion6762]

blah blah blah

[@fintonmainz7845]

Sorry but you can not know that people used it to get better. Most people recover from covid with no treatment.

[@frogsong100]

@@fintonmainz7845 - Oh yeah? Covid -19 case fatality percentages, from npr news on Feb. 25, 2021 Thailand 0.32% Laos 0% = zero Cambodia 0% = zero Isreal 0.74% Norway 0.89% Iceland 0.479% New Zeland 1.17% Finland 1.3% Sweden 1.97% USA 1.78% UK 1.17% Denmark 1.12% S. Korea 1.78% Australia 3.14% Switzerland 1.79% Canada 2.53% Thailand 0.32% Covid -19 case fatality percentages, from npr UPDATE: Feb. 27 France 2.3% Germany 2.86% Spain 2.16% Thailand 0.32% UPDATE May 20, 2021 Thailand 0.58% France 1.83% Italy 2.98% China 4.7% Update for Thailand June 27th 0.78% Sept. 5th 1.0%