It’s been a while since we’ve had a Carping Comments posting. (Largely due to our prior Carper having been banned, I think…)
So why now? Well, there’s a Dr. John Campbell posting about Ivermectin that included one of his videos, which he has retracted. The “story” behind this is that his video was reading an abstract where the article was not yet published, and there was a claim made after the fact that it had been “retracted”. But when you go to the original article it does not have the usual “retracted” statement. So was it? As of the last video about it by Dr. John Campbell (or at least the last one I’ve seen where he explains all this) there was still no formal retraction. But given the slightly informal nature of pre-prints, is that normal or not?
So out of an abundance of caution, Dr. John C. pulled his original video that was based on the paper. So far so good.
Yet since putting my posting up, 2 different “new” folks have popped up doing “smear type” comments per Dr. John Campbell. (Had they not had the “insult to the person” nature I’d have just let them through, but… we have a “no insults to the person” policy. Normally not applied to “Public Persons” such as politicians, but Dr. John Campbell is “just a blogger somewhere” ant not what I’d consider a “Public Person” in that sense. So are these just Mislead Mean Persons, or are they part of a Media Hit Team (as we have seen so often these days on anything Political or that goes against The Great Narrative – which now includes dissing hard core anything Ivermectin, even though it clearly works well… I’m now entering my 3rd year of use with ZERO issues and ZERO Chinese Wuhan Covid… not even Omicron…)
I waited a while (mostly due to packing up my house… and a little to see if any new news showed up per said original paper) after the first comment showed up, and just a day or so ago another one showed up. Both of these came in “some time later” from the posting date, and both have that feeling of being a Reputational Hit Piece. Like maybe they are bots or Trolls sent out to do a Cancel Culture kind of hit on Dr. John Campbell.
Now I’ve watched a LOT of his videos, and his method is pretty straight forward. Find papers in the academic literature, read them, go through what they say and comment about it using the background of other works in the field and a good dose of sound reasoning (so if the BMJ British Medical Journal publishes something it is likely right and given more creds, but if it is Joe’s Pretty Good Idea, it gets a bit more challenge). Not a lot of Personal Opinion involved. In fact, he frequently says “That’s not ME saying it, that’s this paper from FOO”. So criticism of HIM is usually rather stupid. He’s just the messenger (and not a very biased one at that).
So, OK, here’s the comments and my comments about them.
Here’s a link to the posting these folks are carping about:
Here’s his followup posting / video about Ivermectin. It looks at a newer article and also comments about the prior abstract supposed “retraction” (that I still don’t know if it was or wasn’t – as I’m busy packing and don’t have the time to chase it down). The basic point found in this review of the literature is that, yes, as a prophylactic Ivermectin works. Even at about 1/2 the proper dose given with way too long an interval given the drug half life.
On to the Carping. I’m not going to do my usual “Dig” into things like the IP number to see where they originate, just not enough time.
This is utter garbage.
Its not a randomised trial
Its written by people promoting ivermectin and making millions
OK, first off, starting with a “garbage” insult is a bit rude. Then the assertion that ONLY a randomized trial can be valid? What about meta-studies? Observational studies? A hell of a lot of good valid understanding comes from open eyes and a working brain. Confirmation via an RCT is nice, but NOT necessary. OK, flag starts to rise…
They are being investigated for fraud and human rights violations.
Since just saying “I think ivermectin ought to be looked at” gets you “investigate” by the Hit Mob and “human rights violations” can now include using the wrong pronoun, that’s at best weak tea. It also is irrelevant as the Cancel Culture Mob have made those things boring and typical for anyone the Mob doesn’t like.
Only 6% of people took all the doses.
No statistical data on who took what is available.
No source cited. No data provided. Nothing to validate this assertion. But, OK, it might be the case. Maybe. But it falls into the typical “stuff on the wall” list of complaints from folks who are trolling or bots or paid to smear.
Its an observational study
Uh, are you advocating that ALL the prior valid Observational Studies from ALL the other medications be retracted? Eh? It’s a long long list of Peer Reviewed Literature… At this point the flag is about 1/2 way up.
The authors conclude ” this doesn’t prove ivermectin prevents covid”
And why would a tiny dose that would be absent from patients for nine out of fourteen days possibly do anything if it isnt there? By magic? It simply doesn’t even make common sense let alone bringing science into it.
“Proof” is a high barrier. It indicated, which is enough to push for a more involved test and enought for thinking individuals to evaluate what was on offer themselves. (Which is, after all, the basis of the Scientific Method).
John Campbell is a renowned idiot who couldn’t interpret the contents of a can of soup let alone a crap attempt at a publication.
And there’s where the flag goes to the top of the pole. I’ve got a pretty darned good People Reader and Dr. John Campbell is a careful and fairly accurate person. Like all of us, he sometimes makes mistakes, but he also recognizes them and posts corrections. I find him HIGHLY dependable and careful. Calling him a “renowned idiot” is pretty much confirmation the poster is Carping, not thinking. Then the slur about ability to interpret? Just flat out lying for effect. I’ve watched a lot of his stuff and he is very good and very careful about pointing out what’s valid, what’s marginal, and where things are just a bit daft.
Also note the slur at the original Abstract. It was never held out as a full article publication. Either the commenter is not very careful, or this is a typical “claim what is not so you can carp about what isn’t” insult approach.
In any case, this one doesn’t pass the Smell Test for letting them through as a regular commenter.
But it aged a few days (weeks?) in the queue… and then ANOTHER one shows up from a different person. Starting to look a bit like a Take Down effort. One doesn’t make it so the next guy in the work queue picks up the “assignment”? (Life of a systems admin, you have to look at things a bit paranoid or Bad Guys will pwn you…)
Campbell pulled the video because his shoddy treatment of the Miami study was exposed by, among others, Iakov Efimneko, study’s lead author.
Or, more accurately, he pulled the video when it was asserted the abstract in question had been retracted despite there being no retraction notice on the Abstract. “Shoddy treatment” is just a mindless slur. He treated the abstract with some care and was careful to point out that the ARTICLE was not available to review so might have issues. Then, which is it: Was the ARTICLE dissed by Iakov or was the ABSTRACT or was it the “treatment” by Dr. Campbell. A muddy sentence at best mostly, seemingly, as a vehicle for putting up a slur.
No, I need not watch. Had I more time I might, and I may later, but usually an insult laden comment with a “Must Watch” demand just points you at some kind of Hit Piece or minor propaganda effort. I’ll “get to it later”. Maybe.
As well, the conclusion that Campbell quotes (verbally and in text), asserting the Miami study’s “unequivocal” findings omits this key line ,which suggests not oversight, but a bad faith actor: “Further double-blinded placebo-controlled RCT’s with large samples are required for defintie conclusion.”
Perhaps because that’s ALWAYS the case? Folks edit critiques for length and leave out “filler and fluff” that’s already well known. It’s ALWAYS the case that Observational Studies that indicate something is pretty darned good ought to be followed up with an RCT. BUT for off patent meds, that’s essentially never done as Big Pharma gets no money from it. That topic has been beat to death a dozen times so quite reasonably can be edited out. “bad faith actor” is again just a slur. There is NO evidence for that, and plenty for the contrary. He saw evidence for some question, so pulled the original video. Hardly “bad faith”. Sir, you lie. I have never seen Dr. John Campbell lie. At most, the occasional human error, typically corrected and owned.
What does Campbell quote the sentences before and after this, but omit a key finding? Intellectual dishonesty.
And another B.S. slur. How about just “editing for time and removing what looks like the usual boiler plate” where EVERY non-RCT paper says basically the same thing: Study it more and send money. There is NO evidence for any dishonesty in the edit, but plenty in the carping about it.
Now, from the Sys Admins POV, this is looking a lot like an organized Hit & Take Down of the Cancel Culture Mob (and / or Big Pharma or Chinese funded Troll Farms) aimed at an effective presenter showing evidence of a good drug working (and that they desperately want to keep folks from using as the GEBs middle name is “EVIL”…)
There’s just so much evidence and proof that Ivermectin works that the attempts and efforts to suppress it can only be evil. Any honest broker would do an honest trial of it (not one that uses too low a dose, on too long an interval, and long after viral replication is over – as so many Pharma Acolyte studies have done – designed to fail.)_
But whatever. There’s the Carping Comments for folks to look at. Now I can delete the originals from, the Moderation Queue.
No deaths were recorded for people jumping from planes with backpacks.
from Jo Nova
For a long time there were no Randomized Control Trials (RCT) studies showing benefits from parachutes — yet people continued to use them. It wasn’t until 2018 that a paper was finally published, surprisingly showing that there was no statistical difference in jumping with or without one from an average altitude of 4,000m.
This satirical paper makes real points about the flaws of the hallowed RCT’s:
It’s easy to design an RCT to show the opposite of the truth.
Reading the abstract of a paper is rarely enough. Reading a news headline, even less so. Details are everything.
RCT’s are not random if the test subjects have opinions and can self-select themselves out of the experiment.
These authors are black-belt professionals at medico-lingo. Those that appreciate the wit will want to read the whole thing rather than just the snippets below (I really can’t do it justice):
The Onion couldn’t have come up with a better line!
Its written by people promoting ivermectin and making millions
Although I’m guessing the Onion would have got the punctuation right.
I had to laugh at that one.
Dr. Campbell is one of the very few honest players in this Covid game.
He leans over backwards to be fair and impartial, always making a point of “the paper says this, this is not my opinion”. And he corrects mistakes later.
Of course, just being on YouTube, he is a sitting duck for all the evil and ignorant trolls who want to take pot shots at him. So he has to be extra careful.
IVM works against all variants of Covid. BigPharma can’t make that claim. The best they can do is say that if you keep getting booster shots every few months, maybe you won’t get as sick, “trust us”.
Meanwhile in South Korea, one of the most vaccinated countries, cases and deaths are going up.
Heh, that one is a good one. There are a few ‘peer reviewed’ papers that were computer generated and got past said ‘review’ and published, though they were gibberish.
John Campbell has been brave enough to stick his head above the parapet again, by mentioning this: “The illusion of evidence based medicine”.
It’s an article in the British Medical Journal :
“Evidence based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialisation of academia, argue these authors”
Stand by for both John Campbell and the British Medical Journal to be misinformationised. Perhaps the BMJ’s article is already getting memory holed?
John Campbell’s video:
I hadn’t noted the potential for Ivermectin lowering of blood pressure until just recently. At this point in time this is the only caution I have seen, as associated with its use.
Have you tracked your pressure before and after use?
I talked with a few that have … no physical issues, and they would not have noticed had they not checked. In association with the blood pressure meds they got very low.
It is safe to say, that if the woke crowd believes something, it is a lie. Russia Collusion, Hunter’s laptop, etc. They have their moment where big tech backs them up and deletes all dissenters, before the truth eventually makes its way into the mainstream via the alternatives. Once it becomes immune from Big Tech cancellation, it is then ignored by the woke, but the truth is finally acknowledged by the rest of civilization.
And so it is with Ivermectin. It is coming up on the outside and soon the truth will be parroted by all but the woke and big tech. But neither of them will acknowledge it, they will ignore it. The trolls are just trying to delay that moment by carping on the outside avenues to general acceptance by all non-idiots.
Wouldn’t want Vitamin I in the way
“CDC Recommends More Booster Shots for COVID Compliance, FDA Unilaterally Authorizes Fourth and Fifth Vaccination Shot
March 29, 2022 | Sundance | 20 Comments
Proving yet again, that once you get locked into the vaccine rona-coaster, you are not getting off until the rides over. The CDC has recommended, and the FDA has approved COVID-19 booster shots number four and/or number five depending on your life expectancy and vulnerability status.”
“I hadn’t noted the potential for Ivermectin lowering of blood pressure until just recently. At this point in time this is the only caution I have seen, as associated with its use.
“Have you tracked your pressure before and after use?
“I talked with a few that have … no physical issues, and they would not have noticed had they not checked. In association with the blood pressure meds they got very low.”
That is very interesting. I wonder what the mechanism might be. BP meds are another cash cow for Pig Pharma. And Ivermectin is only, what, 10¢ a dose?
Ivermectin also shows promise as an adjuvant cancer therapy. No RCT’s cuz they’re expensive and Ivermectin is off patent, but 40 years of safety data on humans, dogs, cats, not to mention very expensive horses is a pretty good record.
It’s got a better safety profile than Tylenol.
And then, of course, early effective treatment for Covid, which makes the “vaccine” injections look completely unnecessary, ineffective, and certainly not safe, as well as illegal, given that the EUAs are all premised on no other effective treatments available.
Good heavens, it’s a triple threat! No wonder the carpers are out in force. Lots of money on the line.
Re “but 40 years of safety data on humans, dogs, cats, not to mention very expensive horses is a pretty good record.”
Don’t forget sheep and cattle at same dose rates
Of all the people reporting Covid, the Good Doctor is a breath of fresh if slightly long winded air.
He states source and quotes source every step of the way.
His sources are usually qualified for the viewer’s discretion ie, the source is trusted or long established etc, he actually does quite thorough diligence as part of his presentations.
He walks the layman through a complex topic with good explanation of terms.
Many so called Covid pundits would need a thorough rework to even be close to his clinical fact and data based approaches.
Around that area
“Big Brother’s going to love this, but it scares the hell out of me”
“An ominous article in National Geographic is titled “The controversial quest to make a ‘contagious’ vaccine”. ”
The idea that because we have cracked the genetic code we therefore know all there is to know about Biology is hubris.
The Shadow Biosphere
Why We May Not Be Alone on Earth w/ Janusz Petkowski
The original link to the abstract still works and it is still there, with no “retracted” comments at all.
So was it retracted or are they saying it was to sow confusion?
The most common attack on Dr Cambell is that he is not a medical doctor he was a Nurse, which I believe to be true.
But you do not need to be a doctor to read and interpret medical studies.
AC Osborn: “The most common attack on Dr Campbell is that he is not a medical doctor he was a Nurse, which I believe to be true.”
In some places there are “nurse practitioners”, who “are trained to assess patient needs, order and interpret diagnostic and laboratory tests, diagnose disease, formulate and prescribe treatment plans. NP training covers basic disease prevention, coordination of care, and health promotion, but does not provide the depth of expertise needed to recognize more complex conditions.”
The “nurses are not doctors” argument is strange. Is it because nurses are mostly female? True they are not allowed to do things doctors do, and they are always subservient to a doctor. Now due to Covid, we have found out that doctors are no longer doctors. They are subservient to administrators on the hospital, national, and international level. They are no longer allowed to use their own judgment; they must follow protocol (without saying who decided that protocol).
Doctors are trained (it seems) to be arrogant, and nurses are caring by nature. Of course, not all doctors are bad and not all nurses are good. I’m just saying Dr. Campbell is a star and should be a role model. He is not a researcher either. He spends a lot of time reading the science and trying to explain it. Too many doctors only read the MSM.
In his own words:
He has also written a couple textbooks, which he is giving away free (PDF versions)
If they are training doctors to be arrogant, they’re failing everyone. Back in the old days, they were taught to be humble, because they can’t and don’t know everything. They’re still human, though, and subject to fads and politics at least as much as any other group. Lawyers, on the other hand …..
@another ian: “Don’t forget sheep and cattle at same dose rates…” And goats!
@Philip Mulholland: “The idea that because we have cracked the genetic code we therefore know all there is to know about Biology is hubris.”
You know, in actual code-cracking, the plain text must be meaningful, and, in most cases, attested, before it’s given any credence. Calling it a genetic “code” is confusing it with language; it’s only an analogy. Even with language, short of a Rosetta Stone, translation is a free-for-all. And what does the genetic “code” say about epigenetics. So yeah, lots of hubris to go round.
The Global Evil Buffoons are going to be so disappointed.
So much for code-cracking: https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/when-is-mrna-not-really-mrna
Interesting read as well: https://www.eugyppius.com/p/rob-them-of-their-problems-or-youll
Anyway, Ivermectin, cheap, effective and safe, attracts carpers for some reason.
Oh, and good clinical physicians *listen* to both the patient and the nurse. Getting too sure of yourself, in clinical practice, is asking for trouble.
And very few remember that Ivermectin is one of lots of macrolides.
Dr. Malone’s article nails it. And nails why many should not take the essentially monoclonal antibody inducing inoculations where it isn’t really known what the tissue half-lives are in live human bodies, as opposed to tissue culture or animal models (the conditions are not the same, even if they’re somewhat equivalent). In the case of injections, a variable amount *will* be transported to the local lymph nodes first, and then may be circulated throughout the body. True enough, the concentrations will decline; but the consequences may never be fully known, even with years of follow up; almost regardless of how much ‘alpha or beta’ testing happened previously. The real test of any product is when it goes live and gets used by millions to billions. I agree with his conclusion.
Re “AC Osborn: “The most common attack on Dr Campbell is that he is not a medical doctor he was a Nurse, which I believe to be true.”
IIRC the system in UK and here in Oz is that a “doctor” graduates with Batchelor of Medicine and Batchelor of Surgery” and the “Dr” is honourary.
So, if you get a testy one and have a Ph.D. you can use the comment “I’m a Dr too and I earned mine”. Seems Dr Campbell has a Ph. D. so he is “Dr”.
A sign of further medical training and qualification is when the title is “Mr”
The TOGETHER ivermictin RCT was released yesterday. It found no improvement with 400 ug/kg IVM for three days.
I will be interested to see what Dr. Campbell has to say about the TOGETHER IVM trial.
Designed to fail, by any chance?
People I know who have been given IVM report feeling better the day after the first dose. Therefore, viral load should have been measure before the first dose was given. Second, they are using PCR test, so Devil could be in those details – haven’t looked at that yet.
@jim2 – FauXi, Pfizer, and the GEBs aren’t giving up easily on Covid and the boosters. The WEF and GEBs (same, same) need vax passports to kick of the all-digital currency and social scoring schemes.
Just reading the short initial blurb of the results you posted above had me thinking it’s yet another study done badly and on purpose to discredit IVM as a treatment.
I took a quick look at that paper. I’d say it was designed to fail in multiple ways, for political purposes. A deeper dive into the reported data is needed. (One main one is that they included people who present as late as 7 days after symptom onset, which are not necessarily specific.) Their dose is 3 days of doses, as well; which will be suboptimal for some.
The Together study lists everything but Mortality numbers and rates in it’s tables and charts.
They show Death as a probabilty but do not give any numbers for either group.
As it is the most important outcome you would think they might list it.
This one by any chance?
IIRC don’t both NEJM and the Lancet have a retraction history in that area?
And for those “gold standard trials” there is the one on the non-effectiveness of parachutes
Yes, that one, another ian. Though seemingly I can’t comment on that thread, human bodies make hydrogen peroxide, and other oxidants, as one of the acute phase reactants to deal with infections. Our bodies make 0.1N hydrochloric acid to start digestion of some of the food we eat. Saliva in the mouth also has chemicals that start digestion of some food, too.
“The controversial quest to make a ‘contagious’ vaccine” …
Isn’t that what Omicron was? The negative side effects of Omicron are apparent … the negative side effects of Covid vaccine are not completely apparent … the negative side effects of a man-made contagious ‘vaccine’ would be scary to all but Faucci and his adherents.
More on “The Covid Trail”
Pfizer docs say Ivermectin works (as do hundreds of thousands of Indians who took it)
“The surprising part of the document in on page 17 which lists current therapies. It states “clinical management of COVID-19 includes a variety of therapies, which are primarily recommended for use in a hospitalized or clinical trial setting”. It then lists various drugs such as remdesivir and dexamethasone which it says should be used for severe disease or critical care hospital setting.
A few paragraphs down and it lists therapies to be used in a clinical trial setting.
What do we have here? Ivermectin is listed as a current therapy in Pfizer’s own documentation.
This document is from April 2021. “
@jeremyp – I think it’s a CYA thing.
It’s in there, but says ‘Clinical Trials’. Then we’ve all read about the clinical trials, done badly, where “Ivermectin doesn’t work.”
That’s just a guess on my part as to why it’s in the Pfizer document. CYA: “Our due diligence says IVM might work. Someone can try it.” But then they have all those designed-to-fail studies to point to and just ignore any positive results.
I had a link to another paper in which Fauci was clear Ivermectin was a very good prophylactic. Damned if I can find it again – it appeared at the same time as the first leaked document on the clinical trials. Cross with myself, as I now have hundreds of papers and articles related to the Covid shambles archived.
I’ve seen that, jeremyp. Someone posted that here a few times, though it’s been a while. IIRC, he also was the one who said HCQ and zinc were very helpful. That info was from another outbreak a few years before the Kung Flu outbreak.
There were also links to where FauXi said “Masks don’t work” in 2006, 2009 or maybe 2011, and I remember it on TV in March of 2020. Other than the March 2020 incident, the other dates are from memory, but close enough.
Shortly after his March 2020 announcement, he had to cover for his screwup and that’s when Masks! Masks! Masks! 2 masks! 3 masks! 4 masks! started getting pushed by FauXi and everyone else.
That March 2020 video sure disappeared down the memory hole in a hurry!
Here’s another peach from Fauci (Dr. Faustus?)
“The most potent vaccination is getting infected yourself” – Dr. Fauci (pre C19)”
@jeremyp re “most potent vaccination”
That’s a new one on me. It has 2.6 million views, so there are at least that many people who know that his push for the jabs, even for those who had a case of Wu Flu, was driven by the money motive.
FauXi is a GEB where the ‘G’ = Greedy and Government and Globalist. Not everyone can hit the trifecta like that.
Indeed. The man is barely human
Highest paid bureaucrat in the US Government.
@E.M,: I’ve followed the progression of Dr. Campbell’s presentations, and I think your assessment of his style and professionalism is spot-on. In the larger context, the acknowledgement of the usage of Ivermectin as approved ‘treatment’ would invalidate the use of the vaccine emergency use… tearing down the entire financial model and the business case, and removing the tort shield the vendors currently enjoy.
It seems that day-by-day the enormous list of adverse reactions (and Pfizer’s hiring of case workers to handle them) gets longer, and is indicative of a catastrophic problem with the stuff. This cannot be sustained, IMO.
Further, the gaming of PR channels with fake news is very disappointing.
For one, I am ready for the facade to end.
Highest paid – and enormously wealthier than that salary would suggest all the same; indeed, this seems to be the norm for high “public” servants these days, a career of lining your pockets with public money.
“For one, I am ready for the facade to end.”
Indeed. Sadly, I think the real game has only just started.