Ron writes:
Daniel,
I’m writing from Florida, where the sheriff’s department bans masks, and won’t let you in if you are wearing one, and the governor is bent on endangering the lives of our children.
Thanks for giving your time to keep us up to date on the latest information concerning the pandemic. I know that you have discussed Ivermectin ad nauseum, but I am hoping you can take a look at a site that exists solely to promote Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, and give me some tips on how to debunk it with those I know who tell me “This is real science, and you must believe the science!” (https://ivmmeta.com/)
As I mentioned, this is a site devoted solely to convincing people that Ivermectin is the cure, so what could be more scientific than that. It also spends a good bit of space listing countries that use Ivermectin, as if that were evidence of it’s benefits. But the main method of this site is to use web crawlers to find “restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials”, and lists sources of “PubMed, medRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Collabovid, Research Square, ScienceDirect, Oxford University Press” (but also includes the ambiguous: “the reference lists of other studies and meta-analyses, and submissions to the site c19ivermectin.com”).
They also mention straight out, “Multiple treatments are typically used in combination”, including monoclonal antibodies!!! I have pointed out to those citing this site as science that a treatment of tap water and monoclonal antibodies, if given early, will show benefit, not at all due to the tap water.
I showed them your last assessment, and the response was “I don’t know why the fine doctor says that there is not enough evidence, there is tons of scientific proof”, and again point to this site.
It appears that they find any study that mentions Ivermectin, web scrape the most serious outcome, the count of participants, and the percentage benefit found, do something they call “exclusion based on sensitivity analysis”, and then add the counts and percentages to their overall total, to give them one huge study that has supposedly meaningful results.
Ron
John writes:
Drs TWiV:
Not quite dawn here in Greater Braddock and 10C.
Are there numbers anywhere for the vaccination rate among those who have already had COVID? Does anyone who has already been thru it refuse a jab or two? I suspect the % is higher than overall, anyway, which might be another argument to the stridently obtuse.
With continued admiration of your tireless efforts,
John
Nick writes:
Hi my name is Nicholas and my wife is pregnant (24 weeks). She had COVID in January of this year. We have read articles stating that the immunity given after being infected is better than the immunity given after vaccination. So based on that she doesn’t want to get vaccinated until after she gives birth. I’m an icu nurse (fully vaccinated) who deals with COVID on each shift and I’m concerned given how I see the worst of the worst with COVID.
Thank you for all your work!
Nicholas
Jessica writes:
Dear Dr. Griffin,
I greatly enjoy your podcasts.
I wonder what you think about this seemingly minor issue that might not be so minor in its effect. As a young nursing student I was taught that when giving injections that were not meant to be intravenous (for example subcutaneous or intramuscular), that care should be taken after inserting the needle to pull back and be sure no blood came back. If blood came into the syringe, the needle might be in a vessel and an unintentional IV administration might result.
Now retired, I have been told that most people giving injections don’t bother with that anymore
But here Dr Campbell discusses a peer reviewed study, which was done in animals because this would never pass human subjects review, so a grain of salt should be added to its otherwise good looking experiment.
In this experiment, mRNA vaccines were injected into the experimental group intravenously on purpose. Controls were injected with the same, but intramuscularly. Then myocardial tissue was examined.
This might be somewhat parallel to the difference between the vast majority of human vaccinees who got a good intramuscular injection and the rare humans who were accidentally injected intravenously. If practitioners don’t pull back anymore, we don’t know who got what or how many people got an accidental IV injection, but this could be an interesting question.
It’s only one paper, but it might be a clue on the path to discovering the mechanism behind the rare myocardial damage of vaccine recipients, and maybe a simple way to prevent it.
Many thanks,
Jessica RN, MA
Here are the links: