Ivermectin and the search for truth
Controversy around ivermectin as a so-called wonder drug in the fight against COVID raises important questions about truth
Up until last week I’d never heard of ivermectin. Neither have any of the front-line professional healthcare workers I know. Yet the drug, commonly used as a treatment for parasitic ailments, is mired in controversy as regards its potential as a prophylactic in the treatment and, some claim, the prevention of COVID-19.
Some studies claim almost 100% efficacy in preventing death-related mortality, a claim that is highly unusual in medical circles, even with the most successful treatments for any ailment. These same studies have received a great deal of publicity and in the U.S. for example, patients are demanding that doctors administer the treatment,
Some physicians are warning against its use. This article from the NYT is fairly typical of the critique in circulation:
Though it has not been shown to be effective in treating Covid, people are now clamoring to get the drug, trading tips in Facebook groups and on Reddit. Some physicians have compared the phenomenon to last year’s surge of interest in hydroxychloroquine, though there are more clinical trials evaluating ivermectin.
Why is there a problem?
In order to understand this problem, you need to know that the cast of characters engaged in the debate from a medical worldview are people most have never heard of but are respected in their fields of expertise or inquiry.
Chief among those in favour of ivermectin as part of a treatment regime for COVID-19 is Dr. Tess Lawrie who runs an independent research business with, among others, the World Health Organisation as a client. Her organisation, The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd is supported by donations and has no commercial ties to any drug manufacturer. As such, it claims to be free from bias both in ts methods and its financial dependencies. It published a paper in July/August that said:
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
In a recent podcast, Dr. Lawrie went further saying she is certain ivermectin works. That’s a bold claim.
However, there are plenty of people who think that Dr. Lawrie’s conclusions are wrong even though her methods of assessing data are designed to eliminate bias. One of the studies upon which she relied and which garnered a great deal of interest in Latin America, was shown to be borderline if not outright fraudulent. Lawrie defended saying that even excluding the study, her conclusions remain valid.
If all that wasn’t controversial enough, journalist David Fuller found himself at the centre of a YouTube censoring debacle that was only solved when heavyweight journalist Matt Taibbi weighed in with his Meet The Censored: Ivermectin Critic David Fuller story in which he said:
It’s an unfortunate fact, but the human beings at the Google/YouTube press team have repeatedly proven to be the last, best option for fixing errors in some of the more bizarre content moderation cases. In this instance, when I reached out to YouTube to ask if they’d made a mistake, and perhaps confused Fuller with the people he was criticizing, the company quickly fixed the glitch, unstruck the strike, and restored his video, with the statement:
Upon further review, we determined that videos posted by Rebel Wisdom and Peak Prosperity were incorrectly removed. The videos are not violative of our policies and as such they’ve been reinstated.
Problem solved, right?
Not exactly. Not only was Fuller’s case just one in a recent series of deletions and strikes doled out to makers of reports about Covid-19-related issues, but the episode showed how dicey even discussing any of these issues has become for independent media figures. Fuller has done plenty of work for mainstream outlets and could have done so with this topic, but intentionally went the alternative route to take on ivermectin.
“I deliberately chose to tell the story on Rebel Wisdom rather than pitching it to a legacy media outfit,” he says. “I didn’t want to give Bret’s fans the chance to paint it as an ‘MSM smear.’”
Do you see where this is going? YouTube’s policies about medical misinformation are not fully formed and in this case, the algorithms that decide whether specific content breaches their terms or not as intelligent as you might reckon. Far from it.
I’ve watched Fuller’s videos which run very long - think 90 mins plus on a few occasions - and I get what he’s trying to do. While he is a sceptic on the ivermectin topic, he made a valiant attempt to get both sides of the story. The difficulty was that he could not get both sides of the argument to talk in conversation with one another so there was no means for each side to directly challenge the other. Fuller was the filter and while I saw good evidence of impartiality it was never quite enough.
For me, the problems surrounding the ivermectin controversy run much deeper.
It has long been held that double-blind randomised trials are the gold standard for assessing the efficacy of a particular treatment in clinical trial scenarios. However, as most in medicine and in my past academic field of social psychology will agree, we cannot account for the infinite variety of human experience. So even when a particular treatment is deemed safe, there will always be a percentage of people for whom adverse effects or complications arise.
In the study of human behaviour and performance, replication is seen as important. But replication has its own problems. In this story from 2012, looking specifically at replication, the authors said:
Admittedly, carrying out exact replications of someone else’s work is hardly the most glamorous way to spend your time as a scientist. But we are often reminded – most recently by an excellent article in the APS Observer (Roediger, 2012, and this issue) – that replication is one of the cornerstones of scientific progress. Keeping this in mind, the three of us each repeated the procedure for Bem’s ‘retroactive facilitation of recall’ experiment in our respective psychology departments, using Bem’s instructions, involving the same number of undergraduate participants (50) as he used, and – crucially – using Bem’s computer program (with only some minor modifications, such as anglicising a few of the words). Either surprisingly or unsurprisingly, depending on your priors, all three replication attempts were abject failures. Our participants were no better at remembering the words they were about to see again than the words they would not, and thus none of our three studies yielded evidence for psychic powers.
We duly wrote up our findings and sent them off to the JPSP. The editor’s response came very quickly, and was friendly, but negative. The journal’s policy, the editor wrote, is not to publish replication attempts, either successful or unsuccessful. Add something new to the study (a ‘replication-and-extension’ study), he told us, and we may consider it. We replied, arguing that, since Bem’s precognitive effect would be of such clear importance for psychology, it would surely be critical to check whether it exists in the first place, before going on to look at it in different contexts. The editor politely declined once more, as described by Aldous (2011), and Goldacre (2011).
Whatever your views on testing methods and methodologies, whether in clinical or psychology test settings, we are faced with dilemmas that are often exploited by those with their own agendas.
Science and scientific findings in many fields are open to interpretation, dispute, and, at times, outright hostility. Add in the mantles of fake news or misinformation and is it any surprise that people are readily confused, sceptical, or denying when faced with ‘facts’ or ‘truths?’
Speaking personally, I’m glad that I’m double jabbed against COVID-19 and this year, for the first time in my life, I will get the annually offered ‘flu jab. Why? Because the preponderance of evidence I have seen - flawed though it often is - leads me to believe that on the balance of probabilities, vaccination for these potential killers IS the safest way to protect both myself and those around me. I’d not bothered with the flu jab in the past because I’m almost never ill, even when those around me are suffering. The COVID-19 experience has demonstrated an element I was missing - that of protecting others while also protecting myself in the (unlikely?) event that I fall ill.
Even so, I am left wondering whether the evidence-based studies that Dr. Lawrie is so sure hold the keys for the long-term management of COVID-19 should be taken more seriously and should be followed up by others. I can imagine why a positive outcome would seriously vex the pharmaceutical industry which is making fortunes out of the COVID-19 pandemic. But that misses the point.
In the world of human behaviour, 12-Step programs and their variants have shown to have remarkably good results for those that follow the programs. But they’re not a panacea. They don’t work for everyone - not by a long shot. Does that mean these programs should be set aside, ignored, or vilified? I can’t think of anyone who would agree with that idea.
In my world, human lives don’t have a price, and when economically motivated politics stand in the way of progress then I get annoyed. Add in the censorship angle as practiced by the likes of Facebook, YouTube, and, to a lesser extent Twitter and I fear for our real freedom to have honest, open debate designed to illuminate the human journey.
What do you think?
World
Has a crime been committed, what do you think.
shawn
9 hr ago
Although you would never know it if you watch corporate media its all coming apart now. The evidence surrounding the vaccine efficacy, media censorship VAERS data, VAERS data coverup and much more is emerging from the shadows.
Now the question is does the concept of Noble Truth justify the terrible price paid by the innocent victims.
Aid agencies are reporting 150,000.000 tertiary dead(not confirmed) due to lockdowns and corporate driven management of the pandemic(opinion).
Early in 2020 some very brave and innocent doctors/scientists testified and informed the American Congress and the CDC/FDA/WHO of alternatives. Doctors of renown, heavily credentialed and experienced in their fields, doctors that had the scientific weight to demand attention.
Looking rearward it seems clear now the corporate strategy did not include any alternate form of attack but the highly profitable gene therapy incorrectly called vaccine. Hence the need for the Noble Truth narrative.
In Canada, cars lined up for PCR testing which we now know/believe was over cycled, to drive the numbers(only my opinion)
Imagine what this pandemic would have looked like if, as an example caplets of Ivermectin were made available at the same time as the drive in PCR program. I am told Ivermectin is so safe the dosages can be approximate. Lets say each PCR tester had a selection of caplets for 100 - 150 lbs 150-200lbs 200 -300lbs etc.. just given as prophylactic. Instead of what actually happened, go home let it develop and if to the point of serious symptomology go the hospital.
Another band of techs specialize in nursing homes distributing ivermectin in roughly the same manor. Possibly at the same time delivering nasal irrigation devices/products and basic training to the staff. Depending on the size of the home a nasal wash every 2nd-3rd day, would that have helped. How many seniors would have been saved dying alone and terrified. Did you have a senior die alone.
Was this a crime or just bad management
Shawn663