The Cureus case of Ivermectin for Covid in Brazil, Part 2

A recently published retrospective observational cohort study of Ivermectin use in the city of Itajai, Brazil has gotten a certain amount of buzz by Ivermectin-for-Covid proponents, but is deeply flawed. In this, the second of two planned videos about this study, I address the science of the paper.
Ivermectin has NOT been shown to be beneficial for treatment or prevention of Covid-19.
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...
▬ 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 have no stake, financial or otherwise, in Ivermectin. 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).
▬ Contents ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
00:00 Introduction and background
00:50 TL;DR
03:05 The study details
08:02 "Ivermectin regular users" versus "non-users": a minefield of issues
19:25 WARNING: Statistical Lies Ahead
25:03 Propensity Score Matching and its limitations in this study
32:36 Hot takes versus slow burns in science communication
▬ 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 ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
- Kerr et al www.cureus.com/articles/82162...
- Covid-19: Trial of experimental “covid cure” is among worst medical ethics violations in Brazil’s history, says regulator www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n...
- Reiffel, James A. “Propensity Score Matching: The ‘Devil Is in the Details’ Where More May Be Hidden than You Know.” The American Journal of Medicine 133, no. 2 (February 2020): 178-81. doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2019....
- “To Use or Not to Use Propensity Score Matching? - Wang - 2021 - Pharmaceutical Statistics - Wiley Online Library.” Accessed April 2, 2022. onlinelibrary-wiley-com.libpr....
▬ WARNING ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Misinformation or non-recommended links below. Here for reference
- Dr. Pierre Kory's telemedicine site drpierrekory.com/
- Dr. Lucy Kerr's website portallucykerr.com/
- Dr. John Campbell's video about this study • Ivermectin in Africa a...

[@enkido5838]

That is a truly ingeneous or blatant statistics trick. I hope this would never get into a proper journal.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

I assume you are referring to the "strictly regular users" preprint, where they kicked anyone who got sick out of the treatment group? That is quite something, isn't it? I agree, I hope it never gets anywhere.

[@enkido5838]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg yes indeed. You explained it with brutal clarity.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@@enkido5838 Brutal clarity is my goal.

[@christopherrobinson7541]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Brutal Clarity sounds like a winning name for an aftershave. (Or possibly a code name for a classified project).

[@JPCoetzee]

@@christopherrobinson7541 also an excellent name for a punk band

[@tattootrader]

That was a great breakdown of how they were trying to pull one over with the statistical lies. I would have battled to arrive at that same conclusion on my own. So thanks yet again for another great vid.

[@bmint]

Yea because that’s the only time “they” did that right? Who is they?

[@williamverhoef4349]

In the mean time... SciCheck dissects John Campbell: On March 6, John Campbell, who has a doctorate in nursing education but is not a physician, posted a video about the drug that amassed nearly a million views. It incorrectly presented two weak studies as “powerful” and “overwhelming” evidence that the drug works to combat the disease. After reviewing preliminary results of a study - that was later canceled by its authors - and the results of the flawed study, John Campbell asks his viewers: “Why isn’t this in the newspapers?” “This is why I think ivermectin is going to be one of the big scandals of this [pandemic]" "It’s almost as if information has been deliberately suppressed throughout the pandemic, to be quite honest” The studies Campbell highlights are not in the news because both have significant limitations and are not randomized controlled trials, which are considered the gold standard of clinical research. On March 14, Campbell replaced the original video with a new version that eliminates the discussion of the first study. Campbell said he deleted his March 6 video from his KZbin channel because one of the two studies featured in that video was “flawed.” The new video, however, still shows original footage from the March 6 video of Campbell discussing the second study. We reached out to Campbell to ask why he didn’t include important context about the two studies - and why he omitted mention of stronger evidence from randomized controlled trials that have not found ivermectin to be helpful with COVID-19. But we did not hear back from him. They did not hear back from him. Sound familiar? Dr Susan Oliver. Dr Greg Tucker-Kellogg. Dr Dan Wilson. Dr Yan Yu. And now SciCheck. There's lots more (see link below - just replace 'DOT' with a dot). Honestly, at this stage, a friend of John Campbell should tap him on the shoulder and convince him to call it a day before he does any more damage to public health. John Campbell is a public health hazard. www.factcheckDOTorg/2022/03/scicheck-evidence-still-lacking-to-support-ivermectin-as-treatment-for-covid-19/

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

I saw this! They actually include my interview with Iakov Efimenko in their bibliography, but misspell "Biotech"

[@williamverhoef4349]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Congratulations. To be included as a reference in a fack check on John Campbell must be particularly pleasing, especially when he ignored them for a response, just as he ignored you and the others I mentioned above. I did skim the references, but I missed the reference to your interview among those 25 links - I always like to point out the number and quality of the links in Fact Checks when those who don't like the result claim it is just another opinion.

[@angelajones4193]

I was accused of being a troll by one of the posters on Dr Campbell's videos simply for pointing out that the authors of one of the studies he had mentioned had stated that ivermectin didn't work as a treatment for Covid!

[@samsmith962]

Thank you for the link 👍

[@clairelariviere3122]

I have read your comment twice now. I agree and, sadly, am beginning to wonder if Campbell is mocking the whole situation and, by extension, his loyal legion of fans. Social media is no place to « do your own research » because most of us in mid life simply don’t have the media savvy to sniff out misinformation. Campbell types are also becoming more like infomercials (for what I’m not sure) that people consume as entertainment and confuse it with education. My older parents had very little formal education and, in my opinion, valued expertise, patiently tried to understand complex issues and didn’t presume to be entitled to « do their own research ». Stupidity is clearly not a result of not having access to enough information. 🤦‍♀️

[@martifingers]

When this study was reported on Dr Campbell's channel I was vilified by other commenters for daring to question the study's lack of controls. I specifically was struck by the possibility of self selection bias but was dismissed as a "naysayer". Now let's hope Dr Campbell does a full analysis of why this was such a poor study.

[@quetailion6762]

lol pretty sure "doctor" campbell wont do that

[@monicaambs]

I am certain the spot light seeker (Dr John Campbell) will NEVER reveal this. He gets so enamoured with anyone who has DR in front of their names and he swallows everything that comes from them like a drunken whale.

[@Dragonslairminis]

He's never corrected himself in the past, why would he start now?

[@monicaambs]

@@Dragonslairminis Exactly. He’s way too chicken to be honest. Keeping the truth from your spouse, your kids or in his case, the public, is lying by omission.

[@vtbn53]

@@Dragonslairminis He did ONCE very grudgingly, but I won't hold my breath on this one.

[@tubeloobs]

This man has the best intros on KZbin

[@johnmilton2077]

love the TLDR summary at beginning, thank you

[@tiagovouga7922]

Thank you very much for this very informative work.

[@monicaambs]

Excellent review as always.

[@Lily-Bravo]

Prof Greg, I feel I have learned such a lot from your videos. Thanks for taking the time to do all this. Someone else has mentioned your intro as being the best on KZbin and that has spurred me into asking if it is a known piece of music? I play piano and would like to increase my repertoire.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Thank, @Lily. The music is from a license I purchased to Storyblocks, and is called "Do It Again" by Enzo Orefice (which I assume is a nom de plume). I'll put a link to it in the description, since I doubt I can put a link to it in the comments without KZbin deleting it.

[@Lily-Bravo]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg What a quick reply, thanks so much! I'll have fun playing this.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

I'm glad you asked, because it turns out I forgot to paste in my usual subscribe/my gear/buy me a coffee thing in about the last 6-7 videos! Now I've added a link to the music.

[@Lily-Bravo]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Just to let you know, It's not a nom de plume and it is Italian for Goldsmith., but I just looked it up and how to say it too, Blushes are spared,

[@brucecanny]

You and DR Susan oliver are doing great work. She just did a video comparing the TOGETHER study with this study (she previously did one on the Brazil study with same conclusion but yours is more in depth).

[@justthetruth870]

Thanks for the in-depth breakdown of this subject. I viewed both the videos and feel that I am now much better informed on the subject. I'm really enjoying your chanell, keep up the good work. Cheers.

[@vtbn53]

10 hours? I can't wait that long LOL. This going to be a good one I reckon (aren't they all?).

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Thanks for waiting! I made this really late at night, and I think it's helpful to give people some time to be aware of the premiere.

[@vtbn53]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg That's ok, just showing my enthusiasm is all.

[@JK_JK_JK]

What is the Covid-related mortality for non-elderly persons with no comorbidities??

[@eddyneuret4207]

Well done !

[@rbronsing]

In rare diseases, external control arms are sometimes being looked at, and there too you'd use for example PSM to see if your groups are comparable. I would have asked to see a sensitivity analysis of uncontrolled confounders, as you'd do in the he case of externally controlled studies. (and, even the c19 ivermectin metanalysis site gives the I2 statistics and never mind the interpretation of that either). With this study, it's like they're not even trying. Thanks prof Greg, for giving me a few laughs again.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Excellent points, thank you. They seem to be blissfully unaware (whether intentionally or not) of uncontrolled confounders.

[@smicksatusadotnet]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg "Naively unaware" or "Grossly neglectfully unaware" or "Just plain lying (aware but pretending not to be)".... The result is the same: Reject the findings and go back and try again. Thanks for demonstrating others' faulty awarenessness, BaBwPG, I feel priveleged to have people like you bridging the gap between my limited knowledge and their taking advantage of errors.

[@drummingjack7055]

Thank you very much for the video!

[@hassankassem7017]

Another brilliant misinformation-busting video Greg! I'm totally against fast news and all for slow news. Fast news fuels the fire of misinformation, sensationalism and factionalism - certainly not the scientific method. Keep up the hard work!

[@Backtothescience]

Great, well thought out video as usual, Greg. I didn't know about the new preprint. Talk about doubling down.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

I'm glad you and I covered different issues! I originally had a whole secion on some of the oddities in their data (like those wacky smoking stats), but my video was too long to keep it. Everyone should go watch yours kzbin.info/www/bejne/sInUZ4F3j5agotU

[@steve6375]

What happened to the IVM Oxford Uni PRINCIPLE trial? That is a double-blind proper trial. Surely they should have results by now?

[@skepticalbadger]

Still going.

[@markbrzezinski8889]

It not due to finish until the end of this year so the results will be very useful Post pandemic.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@@markbrzezinski8889 Perhaps, but Covid will be with us for the rest of our lives, so it's still valuable information.

[@PerryScanlon]

Did the Oxford study really get put on hold for "supply" issues?

[@neilthompson8668]

There have been other clinical trials which show ivermectin t be ineffective 1.Efficasy ofIvermectin treatmenton disease progression among adullts with mild to moderate covid 19 and comorbibities. ,Lim et al, Jama intern med, 2022 2. Effect of early treatment with ivermectin among patients with Covid 19, Reis et al. N.Eng.J.Med. May 5th 2022. both the trials showed that Ivermectin was ineffective,

[@justenhansen]

Soooooo, you're saying "regular ivermectin users" were essentialy, by definition, people who didn't get sick. Great study. 👍👍

[@Schokland2007]

Hopefully Greg's video is not a drop in the ocean of misinformation. John Campbell got 490,415 views and 24K likes on his positive review of the Itajai study. Depressing!

[@williamverhoef4349]

"John Campbell got 490,415 views and 24K likes on his positive review of the Itajai study. Depressing!' Well, the grifter's got the recipe for fame and fortune: forget about all the hard work involved in getting it right, that only gets you one video per week, just go with what your gut tells you so you can churn out one every day and fill the bath tub with cash. And appeal to the lowest common denominator, that's the ticket.

[@clairelariviere3122]

Agreed. From what I can tell, too many people won’t/can’t/ refuse to say « I don’t know ». So, rather than sit in that discomfort, real indeed during the pandemic, they go searching for someone like Campbell who apparently is quite happy to oblige with daily videos, almost like fireside chats with a trusted elder. He disregards the truth in order to give people what they want…a framework of « we are the only ones who are on top of this stuff and,stick with me because I’ll guide you. ». So people suspend their better judgement, jump in the life boat he’s providing and contemptuously flip the bird to the rest of us. Sad.

[@jimscalm3231]

@@clairelariviere3122 Notice your saying people cant say "they dont know" then proceed to imply that your opinion is the correct one and anyones crazy that follows anyone else. I actually don't know. I think some things look optimistic and I enjoy debate so I like talking to rational people on both sides. I don't think your working in a lab so Im not sure how you can be so positive that it is not effective. Why? Because you watched this video ? Wouldnt that be doing the same as your accusing someone that watch Jon Campbell of doing? You also heard it from CNN when they called it Horse Paste. If you don't know Jimmy Dore you should look him up. He was full blown screaming at anyone that uttered vaccines not being effective or ivromectin. Jimmy got his booster and went downhill pretty quick to where his body was shutting down for 4 moths after. Doctors didnt know what was wrong with him then he got told they wanted to put him in a test trial. They gave him ivromectin, he disputed it and said isnt this horse poison. The doctor told him thats just propoghanda on tv. Jimmy made a quick recovery and he started to notice everything was a ie after. His news show is pretty funny now and it was interesting watching a public figure go through this.

[@clairelariviere3122]

@@jimscalm3231 your comment makes so many assumptions it was a complete waste of my time to read it. You have no idea who I am, what I’ve read or seen and actually where I live ( not everyone in the world has CNN. Unless you have something to contribute I will politely ask that you stop wasting my time.

[@matthewnicholls5496]

I enjoyed your analysis but I have a few questions 1) Where can I find the science on how occupation, living conditions and socio- economic factors play an enormous role in infection? Can't find where those papers are. 2) I haven't seen any science on how using IVM indicates higher socio- economic status. 3) Masking has been shown not to work, as per the CDC IDJ meta analysis Feb 2020 as well as the Bangladesh study Jan 2021 so I can't see how that would affect outcomes. I also can't find studies on distancing ( not any real RCTs) Can you tell me where they are? 4) If they base their paper on strict IVM users only then the whole study is bunk. 5) The risk of dying from covid 19 for IVM group is .0054 and the non IVM group is .173 before PSM. If there is 4 times the number using IVM as opposed to non IVM would the PSM have to reflect this? There would be four times the number of over 50s in the IVM group and therefore it would not be possible match them, especially as the vast majority of deaths would be in the over 50 group? Thanks in advance for any help you can give.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

1. There is a great deal of research that's established links between socioeconomic factors and infectious disease in general, so that association predates (and is much broader than) Covid. There's a recent review article addressing an interesting question: are pandemic-associated health inequities driven more by higher exposure and risk of infection, or by differences in health care access? The recent review (in the journal "Health Equity", and titled "Factors Associated with Health Inequalities in Infectious Disease Pandemics Predating COVID-19 in the United States: A Systematic Review") is quite readable. I don't think I can leave a link in the comments, but if you google the title or search PubMed you'll find it. 2. I'm not saying IVM use indicates socioeconomic status in general. I'm saying that signing up (and showing up) for a volunteer program may be associated with socioeconomic status and leave out the destitute. It might not, but the authors don't do anything to address this issue. 3. No, masking has not been shown not to work. 4. Yes. 5. Those differences are so large its highly unlikely to be due to an antiviral effect of IVM. People taking IVM, of course, were likely protected from parasites. Since common covid steroid treatments (e.g., dexamethasone) can aggravate parasitic infections that could lead to an indirect positive effect from IVM

[@vtbn53]

Just wondering if you are OK Prof Greg?

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Just fine. See my post in the communities tab. Thanks for asking!

[@dharmacharinipasadanandi7110]

School run time in UK, but I'll watch on catch up! Thanks.

[@BS-ge4ne]

👍 everyone needed to know that

[@dharmacharinipasadanandi7110]

@@BS-ge4negood, they must be so relieved... ; )

[@sundaysommers1476]

Thank you.

[@doughill1945]

August 2023 Is it a paper you co authored about Ivm that has been attacked as severely flawed. ? or is it a person with a very similar name?

[@samanthagrave1964]

Thank you

[@vtbn53]

A big thumbs up Prof Greg, between you and Dr Susan you have knocked this load of garbage out of the park. I think you have shown that this paper contains all three types of lies.

[@fintonmainz7845]

To use your analogy, the usual suspects will build a new park around wherever the ball landed. Dealing with these people is like trying to dig a hole in the sea.

[@D9Wx]

Hahahaha u don't even understand what's being talked about,u are not a guy to be judging as this youtuber is clearly of severely low intelligence and integrity. A pathetic biased sheep.

[@D9Wx]

​@@fintonmainz7845 said the low iq hypocrite with zero knowledge of Physiology and science. Haha ur average narsissistic propagandist sheep

[@minRef]

30:10 Thank goodness for the slow burn.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

It's not for everyone!

[@angelapowell2366]

'Weak tea' 🙌 thanks for the video !

[@daraorourke5798]

Curious.But yes...

[@RoyGBiv-lc8tv]

Great content! Keep it up!

[@garthdryland]

If that's not a biased paper, then I'm Santa lol

[@eddyneuret4207]

On the importance of timed data. Went back in the pre-print as something else was disturbing: the size of the "strictly regular user" group: two different sizes (Figure 1 and 2). As per Itajai gvt clarification note from early 2021, only 8,312 participants (all ages and all cities) retrieved the 4th (~120mg-150mg) and 5th dose (reaching the 180mg). While the pre-print mention, I guess participants above 18yo and from Itajai city only: 4,643 in Figure 1. Strict users (let called it Option A) --- coherent with Itajai gvt note 8,325 in Figure 2. Strictly regular user (let called it Option B) --- not in line with Itajai gvt note if you exclude

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Nice work! It seems there's not enough lipstick for this pig. The timed data is necessary for the Cureus paper to be sensibly analysed, but I don't think there's any fair way to get value from the "strickly regular user" preprint. It's designed to deceive.

[@debgarston1060]

I am horrified that this study was even published. I would like to hear the people who peer reviewed it explain the problems you pointed out.

[@dcottt95]

It was a preprint at the time, I think they gave authors a chance to clean it up and they never did

[@billhenry1994]

This was an awesome illustration of how "figures don't lie but liars figure". By excluding subjects who didn't complete the full course of IVM treatment, the study utterly destroyed any validity of its findings. This was an egregious distortion that seems most unlikely to have been accidental. It seems more likely the study was an intentional misrepresentation. What possible motivation would the authors have to do so? Maybe their allegiance to the undisclosed conflicts of interest (as described in Part 1) is higher than to the truth.

[@jaydy71]

I like the new TL;DR part at the beginning. It probably won't work well with convincing ivermectin cultists and such, but then again that is probably not the aim of this video anyway.

[@traianliviudanciu8665]

Risk of brain or liver damage induced by use of ivermectin at some patients ,must be always be in mind. Even some dog breads are very sensitive at ivermectin.

[@dr.jon.l]

OH! I got a shout-out!!!! LOL

[@Documentts]

What’s worse for you tho Ivermectin or the vaccine ?

[@nonflyingdutchman9573]

plenty of people getting hospitalised due to taking Ivermectin, plus they don't get any protection against covid 19, unlike with the vaccine, so clearly Ivermectin is worse for you

[@traianliviudanciu8665]

Ivermectin accumulate and risk of intoxication occur. Especially If alcoholic beverages are used.

[@Max-fw3qy]

Why don't you interview the guy who did the study, flavio Cadegianni? He would gladly come here and defends his work.

[@Marco-it2mr]

Maybe then he can also defend demanding doctors report their conflicts of interest, and then not informing the journal (Cureus) that he had received money from a company that produced ivermectin (which is a VERY obvious conflict of interest!).

[@janlabuschagne4759]

If any persone attack in every fideo ,be careful.

[@DamienOglesby]

Can you Please do a vídeo on the new pfizer documents from 1st April?

[@oldgaffer9212]

Iv asked loads of times he won't do it

[@DamienOglesby]

The question is why not???? Pfizer wanted to keep the info hidden for 75 years why? He says he and only a few others speak the "truth" or gives correct info.......then why not do a vídeo on these documents? This is what is really important now!

[@oldgaffer9212]

@@DamienOglesby I don't think he fancies that one tbh. Huge news and surely interesting but nothing.

[@hawaiianrobot]

which documents from april 1st?

[@DamienOglesby]

@@hawaiianrobot the pfizer documents from the vaccine. It speaks about natural immunity being just as good as the vaccine etc etc. While being told to get vaccinated after having covid. So a breakdown would be nice so there is no misinformation no?

[@fintonmainz7845]

Great work Professor.

[@petitio_principii]

The socioeconomic status confounder is likely amplified by the ideological associations that the whole topic ended up having. The president is a staunch promoter of all the improvised pharmacological attempts to tackle covid, and his voters and current followers/fans have a higher proportion of upper class/high-income individuals than the population at large. Somewhat implicit on it, at least to some degree, many doctors themselves are said to be highly ideologically aligned. But that in turn must have also the effect of homogenizing to some degree the adoption of such practices, to the extent that they'll end up influencing patients of lower income, be that in the public healthcare system or private plans. In the other hand, I suspect/hope that MDs are somewhat below-average in myopic support of such things, when thinking of the correlation of support and SES.

[@oldgaffer9212]

Iv heard the dose was way to low. Like giving half an aspirin for a bad headache Prof

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Are you referrning to the paper by the FLCCC folks, or the TOGETHER trial paper? The Cureus paper was 0.2mg/kg/day for 2 days. The TOGETHER trial was 0.4 mg/kg/day for 3 days.

[@oldgaffer9212]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Do the vaccine trial data.Youv done ivermectin to death now

[@inbox0000]

here is another video from another spin doctor for you to dissect! kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5atZod_iZutrM0

[@Marco-it2mr]

Weirdely enough, the video description isn't all that bad!

[@Flyfish325]

Google the name Andrew Wakefield sometime. Dr Wakefield made himself famous through misinformation and not science. Same path as Dr. John Campbell.

[@hawaiianrobot]

i mean at least john isn't performing unnecessary medical procedures on disabled children, in some cases endangering them so much that emergency surgery was required, and now they need lifelong care. he's 'just asking questions' about dodgy studies which is probably preventing people from getting vaccinated (which I guess wakefield did as well)

[@Documentts]

My mother has Covid. Triple vaccinated and she is very sick. I cannot see how ivermectin would make things worse

[@Marco-it2mr]

ivermectin can cause side-effects. Those side-effects come on top of the COVID. Definitely makes things worse!

[@richvid9814]

Is she in the hospital?

[@slyanover]

John Campbell is the one getting burnt here.

[@frogsong100]

The people who believed his advice on ivermectin are the ones who got burned.

[@oldgaffer9212]

He hasn't posted anything on this particular study but he will

[@jimjamson9534]

As a proponent of IVM, I am greatly saddened by the continuing biased studies and analyses done on thus drug. I am sad to say that if I see Pierre Kory on the author list, I now assume the article is biased rubbish.

[@wbaumschlager]

Great strategy.

[@creativologist1813]

Considering Kory makes $1000 per telehealth call peddling the snake oil he's probably sad too.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Let me just say it would be great if IVM worked for Covid. Avi Bitterman just published a meta-analysis on how it might help covid patients in some countries by acting as an anti-parasitic, rather than as an anti-viral. That's an intriguing possibility. At any rate, the ACTIV-6 clinical trial is testing 0.6 mg/kg/day for SIX days. Eventually, even Kory won't be able to object to results that don't meet his claims.

[@wbaumschlager]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Great. Do they include zinc?

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@@wbaumschlager I'm not sure. But many (most) of the studies that FLCCC claims show a huge effect for IVM (including the Brazil study that is the topic of this video) don't include zinc. Zinc seems to be an issue for FLCCC only when studies show negative results, never when they claim positive results.

[@bmint]

It’s been a month.. where are those new videos you were talking about, in your community section? They are watching the dis/mis information.. did you decide to stop spreading it? We see the needle and the damage done! Do you?

[@bmint]

Hey look at that.. you didn’t block me.. why?

[@bmint]

Where the fanboys at.. come spread some further dis/mis information on the professors behalf.. only to be told how he did not educate “you” properly and “we” are not dumb enough.. Because that’s what a good teacher does! Right?

[@wbaumschlager]

I still wonder why you call a 23 % risk reduction "no difference".

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

What are you referring to?

[@williamverhoef4349]

"I still wonder why you call a 23 % risk reduction "no difference".' Hmmm...must have missed it ;)

[@marcuslewis1890]

Little tree 🌲 standing in the shadows of the big tree 🌲 🧐

[@anthonywilson8998]

They did No know anything yet still think we take them seriously. Just a load of total RUBBISH.

[@geofflander5720]

If it can be shown in a couple of minutes people didn't take the drug in the trial why is this video so long? Who needs a lesson on scoring systems if there is little evidence the drug was taken? Why was there any need for 2 videos? We are unlikely to learn the truth about this drug and possibly a raft of others in these covid charged times. I suspect this paper should be withdrawn. Did The Lancet have to withdraw a paper about another possible contender on that raft? See sentence 4. Dr Campbell had an interview with an Indian doctor who told him his hospital didn't use Ivermectin because it appeared not to make any difference to outcomes. Dr Campbell promised us great things from Japan which have not arrived yet as far as I know. Just because people watch a video might not mean they believe all that's in it. Dr Campbell is always asking these days for people to tell him he is wrong, here you have.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

What can I say? My style's not for everybody

[@williamverhoef4349]

" Dr Campbell is always asking these days for people to tell him he is wrong" What's the point? He completely ignores them. He has even ejected one from regular guest appearances in his videos.

[@eddyneuret4207]

It's not just about the number of people who took or not the ivm but the whole: the study and it's publication, the data, the methods and their conclusion.

[@geofflander5720]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Freedom of speech is vital for me. Please continue.

[@geofflander5720]

@@williamverhoef4349 Dr C took down that IVM abstract video, did he not? How much did that incident dent his credibility? I don't know. This Brazilian study seems deeply(!) flawed, maybe it'll be two studies he has to remove. Yes, one contributor has gone. To state the obvious: no one is forcing anybody to watch him.

[@JTHeidrick]

Controlling for all of the areas of concern brought up in this video would have made completion of this study impossible. In a perfect world, maybe, but the financial cost of doing it as seems to be suggested this video is not realistic. This is yet and one of those other videos that nitpicks everything to pieces and totally forgets that all of this was taking place in the midst of a Health crisis. Sometimes you have to run a study based on the parameters that are allowable given the circumstances. And the huge statistical difference in the treated versus untreated group is so immense that it cannot be ignored or discounted as this diatribe suggests. The only place that could have done such a large scale study would be in the United States. We have the financial means for doing this. But no, the CDC, NIH, and FDA had no interests and running any studies early in the course of this pandemic to determine if inexpensive OTC drugs I need help. As a result, we are still debating all of this and programs like this channel produces continue to be presented as if it is meaningful just when the pandemic is ending

[@lari5891]

correctly conducted studies that controlled for those factors through randomization, did not find an effect, much less such a huge effect. And yes the NIH funds ivermectin studies, plus studies on other inexpensive drugs that did have an effect.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Remember when the authors of the Florida conference poster realised the flaws in their analysis and decided not to publish the study? That was a good decision. Sometimes, if the uncontrolled confounders are obviously too large, it's better not to do the study than to publish a study that makes unsupportable claims.

[@williamverhoef4349]

"This is yet and one of those other videos that nitpicks everything to pieces" Nitpick? Did we watch the same video At least you said "nitpicked to pieces"! This video (parts 1 and 2) totally eviscerted that paper. Slam dunk. Period

[@jimscalm3231]

If I were to play devils advocate I could say that it would be more likely that a person in the high risk category would choose to be in the Ivromectin group. This would have made the Ivromectin group as a whole be higher risk. Perhaps there were some minor conditions that may slightly move the numbers such as socialogical although I don't agree. Id expect to see younger people who didn't want the hassle of taking the medicine fall into the no group and people worried to go in the ivromectin group. At the end when the ivromectin group contains 75% of the subjects and there are 25 ish deaths and the non ivro group has 75 deaths with only 25% of subjects that is too wide of a gap to be an accident. Im also not sure how you can keep saying " We don't know if they were already taking ivromectin" . It sounds like your suggesting that people may have been showing a positive response because they were taking the very medicine your claiming doesnt work. I still need more information. It seems like all studies stopped when they were appearing to be a threat to the vaccines.It will be interesting to see a proper study complete.

[@TheAlastairBrown]

I think the overall problem is that it's a convoluted mess - how did they manage to give 137,000 people Ivermectin, yet not design a study properly? They're having to take the data at the end, go backwards, adjust all the values and mess around with everything, ignore fairly massive problems, whereas it should have been much more well designed from the outset.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Maybe? We simply don't know, and that's one of the reasons the study's results can't be accepted at face value.

[@frogsong100]

Please name one country that has successfully used ivermectin to prevent or treat Covid-19.

[@eddyneuret4207]

The problem lies on the "no data published". I mean the timed data. In the first study they use the cut-off date of Jul 30th, 2020 and in the second, the pre-print, they use Sept 19th, 2020 as the mid-point of the program. So, they have the time series data .... and they have just one thing to do: release the anonymized data - as they 'advertise' in the the study - and that's all ... but never they will.

[@jimscalm3231]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Yes in a 200,000 person study it's not easy to keep track perfectly about exactly what everyone does. At the end of the the day there was a measurable result. Your debating the information that brought us to the end but none the less at the end a substantial reduction in deaths and hospitilizations was recorded. You've made a bold assumption that they wern't counting anyone until they had 180mg but still counting the other group. I would hope you have something solid to base a claim like that on. You would be saying that study is a fraud. If you can get past that assumption and follow a study assuming it is in good faith the numbers were 70% less deaths and 50% less hospitalizations in the ivromectin group. You might not like the study and that is worthy of debate and discussion but that was the end result. All the what ifs can be discussed but if it wasnt the ivromectin what the heck else did the ivro group do because they experienced a high level of protection. It seems you're not enthused about the hope of saving lives because your giving no weight to the 70% fewer deaths and 50% fewer hospitalizations and trying to dismiss and debunk the study because it would go against your interests or beliefs. Alot of lives were saved and you can't let your guard down for one second to ask why ?

[@charlesmaguire6096]

absence of evidence is not evidence of abcence

[@ezlaptopstand]

A very thorough analysis of the methods, and errors, in this study. Congratulations. I’m sure if you did an analysis on the huge number of other studies however, that you would find what groups of other scientists have found on IVM, that is, that the overwhelming majority of scientific study data on it supports it’s use, rather than discounts it’s use. As a scientist I’m sure you are aware that one, or even several studies, that confirm or do not confirm a hypothesis, do not necessarily prove the results one way or another to an overwhelming degree, and that large volumes of studies do a much better job of this. You should also be aware that a number of studies that have been used to prove the hypothesis that IVM does NOT work to a significant degree, have been proven upon detailed review, to be just as replete with errors as this one. Anytime research is undertaken on any topic you will find a percentage of papers among them, no matter what conclusion they arrive at, that have methods or analysis that are not entirely valid, and a percentage that will be severely faulted. My question for you, is do you realize this,…and perhaps you should look at the entire volume of evidence and do a thorough analysis of them all, instead of cherry picking like this. A criticism you previously made on another study, to discount the efficacy of IVM, by showing negative results, involved a study where the experimental group was made up of individuals that were predominantly in an advanced stage of illness, which involves a sampling bias that will more likely result in a higher number of unsuccessful outcomes. IVM is known to have a differential level of effectiveness based in severity of illness, and like all anti-viral treatments, the earlier they are administered, the better the outcomes.

[@nonflyingdutchman9573]

There is no credible data supporting the use of Ivermectin, none.

[@ezlaptopstand]

@@nonflyingdutchman9573 you are obviously censoring yourself.

[@ezlaptopstand]

@@nonflyingdutchman9573 or more precisely, are censoring what you look for and are willing to expose yourself to.

[@nonflyingdutchman9573]

@@ezlaptopstand In what sense? If you think there's 'an overwhelming majority of scientific study data on it supports its' use' then give us your best example. What study do you recommend we read? give us the authors, title and journal and I'll read it with an open mind

[@lari5891]

@@ezlaptopstand watch the following video for the analysis of those studies: "Fake ivermectin meta-analysis (ivmmeta) vs The Science". Watch also the series: "Science mistakes made by ivermectin fan" available in youtube

[@trance500r]

Who to believe 1 *The Government 2*Professor Greg 3* Doctor Campbell 3*Doctors in Australia 4* Dr Fauci the World ...etc etc etc D.Y.O.R stay away from Vaccine, the Natural Immunity the best

[@frogsong100]

"The Union health and family welfare ministry on Monday revised the Covid-19 treatment guidelines and removed the use of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and the antiviral drug favipiravir from its list of advised treatment." India June 20, 2021

[@williamverhoef4349]

"Who to believe' Well, you have to make an effort. What have you been doing over the entire 30 months of the pandemic?

[@Lily-Bravo]

Natural Immunity failed all those who died. Sadly they can't be here to argue that point themselves.

[@trance500r]

@@williamverhoef4349 staying away from the so called vaccine☺️

[@oldgaffer9212]

@@frogsong100 India also refused the vaccine

[@user-kh1vo2fc6s]

Weak

[@wojciechszlaga130]

What a disinformation…

[@lucasdelima537]

Hi! Brazilian here. Great video! The study definitely does not prove that Ivermectin is capable of treating COVID-19 (or that it has any measurable positive side-effect in the treatment of COVID-19). I saw your other video about the TOGETHER study, in which you provided a very thorough review as well. My question really is about public policy, because (a) we want to protect people from COVID-19, reduce # of deaths, long-term effects, yes, but (b) we also want to do it in a way that (b.1) does not put further pressure on national budgets (and every vaccine we purchase is money we don't spend in social programs or treating other diseases), (b.2) does not lock people down in their homes, which hurts them economically and psychologically (if not physically as well), and (b.3) does not compromise people's immune systems with 4, 5 shots of vaccines the long-term side effects of which we still don’t know (and, in this particular point, I give credit to Dr. John Campbell's remarks). I have no devotion to Ivermectin as a miracle drug - if it works, wonderful, if it doesn't, we need something that does. But that something needs to be readily available to people everywhere at low to no cost at all. Health experts and politicians stop short of saying what should be done to achieve this goal. Should the patents of medications developed by Astrazeneca or Pfizer be broken?

[@nonflyingdutchman9573]

How do you define 'long-term side-effects? No vaccine in history has shown a side-effect that appeared more than 2 to 3 months after dosing and we've been dosing these vaccines for over 2 years now. We have the long-term data; there's no plausible mechanism by which something that is cleared from your body in 2 to 3 days, as the vaccines are, can cause a problem only after more than 2 years after it was cleared. Vaccines are very cost effective if you compare to the cos of hospital and intensive care costs - about $20 versus $2000/day in ITU. Breaking the patents might help in the short term but you could forget about any Pharma company developing anything for the next pandemic.

[@lucasdelima537]

@@nonflyingdutchman9573 No vaccine in history has been developed and administered at the speed of these vaccines to a global population. Also, "we've been dosing these vaccines for over 2 years now" is very generous - in Brazil, a large part of the population is yet to receive the 3rd dose (the so-called "booster" dose). So no, I don't think we have sufficient data about long-term side effects today. Your response to the question about breaking the patents is exactly what the pharmaceutical companies profiting from this pandemic would say. It does not solve the issue of balancing costs, budget pressures and the welfare of society in general - it just puts pressure on us as taxpayers to keep funding costly vaccines and medications to the detriment of having enough to pay for everything else.

[@nonflyingdutchman9573]

@@lucasdelima537 it's fact that these vaccines have been getting dosed for over 2 years and we now have more data on these vaccines than any medical treatment in history. If you were a pharmaceutical company would you spend the $billions to develop the next new treatment if governments had cancelled your patents on the last ones? Where do you think the money comes from to develop the next product if not from the profits on the last one? You wouldn't expect Apple, for example, to give it's product away, why do you think Pharma companies should?

[@lucasdelima537]

@@nonflyingdutchman9573 It is definitely not a fact that we have sufficient data on the long-term side effects of the vaccine on people that got 3 or 4 shots. Vaccines indeed started being administered at some point in late 2020 - UK was December 2020, I believe. But the data from what happens to patients once they receive repeated doses of the vaccine has not come out yet (and we need time before these studies are carried out). If you read my original post carefully, I am not claiming that these results will show harmful long-term side effects at all - I am stating that these are, to this point, unknown for people with (in my original post) 4, 5 doses. Or 3, 4 doses. In terms of the second point you made, about pharmaceutical companies spending billions to develop new treatments, there are certain goods and services that are and have been made gratuitous or "open source" for the benefit of society in general. One example was the issuance of compulsory licenses by developing countries for third-parties to manufacture drugs to aid in controlling HIV, AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria without approval from the patent holder, following the WTO Doha Declaration of 2003. So there is a precedent for this, regardless of whether it is in line with the political/economic view of pharmaceutical companies. In terms of where the money comes from, it comes from (i) consumers that purchase drugs from those pharmaceutical companies (because governments have not invested in partnerships with public universities for the production of these drugs to the general public at no profit), but it also comes from (ii) tax subsidies given by governments to these companies in many countries. Tax subsidies that are financed with taxpayer dollars, taxpayers that have suffered through this pandemic with their families and loved ones. True, the incentive to produce a breakthrough drug or vaccine is what drives these companies to push the limits of biotechnology for the benefit of their customers, but it's evident that in situations of public health crises and deaths en masse, governments must use their power to ensure people don't die simply because they don't have enough money to be vaccinated or treated (and that is the reality of low-income countries in many parts of the world today - they have purchased the vaccines, but at a prohibitive cost for their own public budgets, a cost that they may never fully recover). In moments of crisis (and this is and has been a global crisis), ensuring public health is not dependent on the profit interests of private companies is ensuring the workforce continues to produce other goods and services and that societies are able to recover themselves and grow. Finally, I won't respond to the comparison between breaking/waiving the patent rights for pharmaceutical companies in a moment of global crisis and breaking/waiving the patent rights for consumer electronics made by Apple. Those are not comparable.

[@lucasdelima537]

@@lari5891 I won't respond to your point about Bolsonaro because I believe you're arguing against a point I haven't made. Investing in vaccine development is exactly what I believe we should do (not something that is particularly effective for this pandemic, but certainly for future pandemics, and they may come) - through partnerships with public universities to ensure, as much as possible, that vaccines and drugs are produced at little to no profit. The public policy question I posed to the author of the video was whether we - not just "we in Brazil", but "we in any country" - should push for breaking/waiving the patent rights of big pharmaceutical companies (if we find that only their drugs are efficacious in fighting COVID-19, and not other inexpensive drugs like Ivermectin).