luisenriquereyes | 48 points
Dr. Pierre Kory makes a compelling case for Ivermectin on The Doctors 2/8/2021[-] Haitchpeasauce | 10 points
Most people are not pregnant women. Do we not give them ivermectin on account of this contraindication?
Why fixate on precautionary tales when we have studies that address this exact problem?
Why straw man insinuating Dr Kory opposes masks and distancing by promoting ivermectin, when these are part of the I-MASK+ protocol?
I do not recall a moment where she debates the data or the underlying studies.
Where is this fine tooth comb she talks about.
[-] scaramangaf | 1 points
You are giving her too much credit. She's dumb as a doorknob.
[-] scaramangaf | 9 points
how frustrating to be debating an airhead.
Oh yes she also failed to mention that the vaccinations havent been tested on pregnant women either????
[-] mekikichee | 3 points
Ivermectin has more data on safety (40 years!!!)
Ivermectin also has more data on efficacy then the vaccine.
Clown world 🤡
[-] lemallette | 2 points
Ivermectin can cause severe side effects, but almost all occur when the drug is given to a person with a systemic parasitic infestation. So its safety record for this viral infection should be the same as for treating lice.
Efficacy? Reducing clinical cases by 95% and severe cases by nearly 100% is hard to beat. Not disputing the effectiveness of ivermectin, but it has NOT been studied as a preventive in 15,000 subjects (with an equal number of placebo controls) like the Moderna vaccine. Citing NEJM publication from last week.
[-] mekikichee | 1 points
The vaccine studies are not even completed yet! How many people got sick before they unblinded the study? 236? We are basing 95% efficacy on 236 cases? How sick were they? What test was used to confirm infection? Now, the placebo arm is shrinking as participants are being offered vaccines leading a loss of critical information.
We got 3 months of data so far. We don’t know what we don't know - that's why we let science do science. Right now, all we have are hopes and assumptions.
Ivermectin is a bridge to a proper studied vaccine. Shameful it was suppressed in order to obtain EUA for the vaccines.
[-] lemallette | 0 points
Directly from the NEJM article: "Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group."
No vaccinated patient developed severe Covid-19 and only 11 developed any symptoms.
Infection with SARS-CoV-2 was confirmed by RT-PCR.
Given such a spectacular efficacy, it would be unethical to continue the study further.
The pre-specified number of cases required for statistical conclusions was 151. The number 236 was reached.
[-] stereomatch | 1 points
Ivermectin can cause severe side effects, but almost all occur when the drug is given to a person with a systemic parasitic infestation. So its safety record for this viral infection should be the same as for treating lice. Efficacy? Reducing clinical cases by 95% and severe cases by nearly 100% is hard to beat. Not disputing the effectiveness of ivermectin, but it has NOT been studied as a preventive in 15,000 subjects (with an equal number of placebo controls) like the Moderna vaccine. Citing NEJM publication from last week.
I should note that the two groups - vaccine participants vs ivermectin participants are slightly different.
So a minor point to add to your points is that while the vaccine trials are larger than the typical ivermectin trial so far, the vaccine trials do not give huge numbers for mortality etc.
The reason this happens and why vaccine trials have to pick a much bigger participant numbers, is that vaccine trials expose participants to the virus randomly (i.e. as and when a participant gets exposed to the virus on their own).
Since from 15,000 participants, very few will be exposed, even fewer will get symptoms, you wind up with very few who actually get exposed.
And fewer still who would have died if they were not given vaccine (if 2 percent is the mortality rate for those who test PCR positive).
This is why in the 15,000 participant vaccine trials, the actual number of deaths is close to single digits or zero.
So while for safety etc., a 15,000 participant vaccine trial may give better data than say a 100 patient ivermectin or other drug trial of ICU patients - still when it comes to examine severity of disease, or mortality, these seemingly large vaccine trials have very few actual disease and fewer still mortality figures.
So in short a 15,000 participant vaccine trial may be sufficiently "powered" (i.e. large enough to give a meaningful signal statistically speaking) for safety, they may not be hugely powered for the (much smaller number of) symptom severity, and will be just moderately powered to examine mortality.
This distinction is often missed when people argue in a debate or in a handwaving public debate between much larger number of participants in a vaccine trial vs a smaller trial of symptomatic or ICU patients.
[-] mekikichee | 7 points
Does she use the same argument with vaccines?
Vaccine:
no long term safety data
incomplete study did not include pregnancies, or people with comorbidities
no completed RCTs (placebo group is now shrinking)
Ivermectin:
40 years of safety data
17 RCTs + 3 meta-analyses + OCTs
She says as part of her argument that you can't give Ivermectin because it hasn't been tested on pregnant women so if her friend was pregnant she would have to exclude her. Hmmmm wait a minute I was aware that the vaccinations haven't been tested on pregnant women in clinical trials at the moment either so why are we giving out vaccinations??? Bit of a flawed argument there.
[-] mekikichee | 4 points
Poor Pierre. He looks "done" Same old bs.
[-] paredes916 | 3 points
Get em Doc
[-] giddyrobin | 2 points
Wow. He did great.
[-] stereomatch | 2 points
The original link above has since been removed:
"This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Terms of Service."
But it could possibly be also have been for copyright reasons (though perhaps the line above would be different then?).
This smaller segment of the program is available on YouTube on The Doctors channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJiB4DbLisY
In addition the full program is available here (as posted in comment below by u/luisenriquereyes/):
If YouTube deletes it should be available, in segments, on the shows site here: https://www.thedoctorstv.com/episode/13069
The full 14 minute video is also available on vimeo:
https://vimeo.com/511637234
The Doctors program features Dr Pierre Kory (president of FLCCC) for the pro-ivermectin side, and a lady doctor to present the anti-ivermectin ("or let's wait for more trials") i.e. the generic camp.
As a result she is unprepared for the discussion - it would be another matter if she has treated covid19 patients with ivermectin, and has a first hand understanding of the issue.
There are two hosts - the older plastic surgeon doctor on the left doesn't speak through the whole program, but at the end seems to deliver the judgement - a pro-ivermectin conclusion that: "what's the harm in trying".
Dr Pierre Kory as a practitioner who has used ivermectin, has that advantage when arguing his case.
The program hosts seem positive - after all they have chosen to cover this story, which itself signals interest (and brings it to wider attention).
The blurb that runs at the start also paints a positive picture - highlighting both the pros and the opposition in the form of a slow NIH.
The plastic surgeon older host at the end also delivers his view that "if it doesn't hurt what's the harm in trying".
The FLCCC obviously don't want to be saying that use horse paste ivermectin (which many in the US are using) - as that will be used to label them as quacks. Individual members may differ from this view for situations where there is no alternative. In the video, Dr Pierre Kory is pressed on this and he says they don't advise taking veterinary form:
at the 13:15 minute mark:
The older plastic surgeon host: There could be a concern that people might try to get their hands on the veterinary version of this drug (ivermectin) which is out there a lot because animals get these parasites - obviously you are going to advise against this .. Dr Pierre Kory: Yeah, no, we cannot advise to take the veterinary version - we don't have the safety data for that. Our whole goal is that to disseminate the knowledge of its unparalleled efficacy ..
[-] [deleted] | 1 points
[deleted]
[-] lurker_lurks | 12 points | Feb 09 2021 02:50:06
Gonna back this up before the algorithm yeets it into the void.
permalink
[-] luisenriquereyes | 6 points | Feb 09 2021 03:01:03
If YouTube deletes it should be available, in segments, on the shows site here: https://www.thedoctorstv.com/episode/13069
permalink
[-] lurker_lurks | 4 points | Feb 09 2021 03:18:31
Nice!
permalink