You both are very nuanced sensible people that never claim anything with arrogant certainty but instead explore the questions we all have and cannot articulate properly. You are much appreciated. Keep up the good fight. It’s absolutely heartbreaking to watch the ad hominem attacks, now even from those that should champion your inquiry in a world where you stand to lose everything by not mouthing off the group indoctrination.

Expand full comment

I agree that the claims presented here are not arrogrant and aim to explore the questions at hand. However not only do these arguments lack in rigour and statistical validity by going off the books, meaning by turning to the Public without adressing the people who regulate the drug or vacines one offers little. The FDA, EMA and WHO have all looked at the validity of ivermectin and do not recommend it in clinical trials, they continue to monitor the situation and should they see reason to change course they will. In fact even the vacine maker Merck has stated that they do not currently think ivermectin is an effective treatment option (and that's the maker of the drug who would directly make money from selling it), they also continue to monitor the evidence.

Rasining concerns when there are some is a good thing to do. However concerns should be raised with the authorities in charge and scientists in the relevant field, by turning bystanders into the discussion and then convincing them with questionable evidence one promotes the exact kind of groupthink the authors of this piece warn about.

As time goes on we will see whether Ivermectin is effective (full disclosure: At this moment I see no reason to think so) there is currently a large scale randomized trial under way and we learn more once the result come out.

Expand full comment

Merck is unlikely to make money on ivermectin since the patent is long expired and other manufacturers can and do produce it.

Rather, Merck has a financial incentive to discount the effectiveness and question the safety of ivermectin, given Merck's investment in new COVID-19 treatment/prevention products.

Expand full comment

Hmm I see your point. However Merck's own Covid vacine failed the test and Merck is now actively trying to help others manifacture their vacine. Not all vacine makers are even making money out of the vacines, as several have pleged to not do so. They do make money through other means though.

I get that people are sceptical of big pharma, but there is a cheap drug whose patent has expired that's used to treat covid, it's called Dexamethasone. It's an Anti-inflammatory drug that's mainly given to treat sympotms, particularly severe cases. It's quite well known and recommended as treatment by several regulatory bodies, though it's not used as Prophylaxis as far as I know (I see no reason to think it would be wise). Big pharma has increased distribution of the drug and sought approval for its use. So the argument that big Pharma is surpressing a cheap drug is not convincing to me.

Expand full comment

The study which resulted in dexamethasone becoming part of the officially designated standard of care (reported here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2021436) found an a 17% reduction in death, with a 95% confidence interval of 7% to 25% reduction (or as given in the study, 83% of the control-arm deaths in the treatment arm with a 95% confidence interval of 75% to 93%). (The impact was more positive--around 26% reduction--for those on ventilation, about 18% reduction for those on oxygen only, and actually negative--increasing the mortality rate--for those not requiring either.)

The evidence quality in the study was high in some respects, such as in that a large number of patients were enrolled. Dosage was essentially binary, so there is apparently no evidence pointing, even directionally, toward an optimal dosage. And so apparently no evidence of a dosage-dependent effect.

Although the overall numbers treated are lower, the various ivermectin studies, taken together, show dose-dependent positive effects of significantly larger magnitude than in the dexamethasone study, and show positive effects at every stage and severity of disease (including for prevention as discussed here), and under varied conditions and against various controls.

Statistically speaking, larger effects such as those appearing from ivermectin can be detected by smaller studies. (When the effect is large [and dose dependent] you don't require as much data to conclude that the results are not likely the product of chance.)

Expand full comment

Merck is also working on Molnupiravir as a treatment, and possibly other things as well. So failure of the Merck vaccine candidate does not remove conflicts of interest regarding potential utility of ivermectin in prevention and treatment.

Of course a conflict of interest by itself does not necessitate that Merck's statements suggesting or implying safety risks in the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 are incorrect. But the statements themselves seem to lack any clear basis and thus suggest, of themselves, that they may not be well founded.

Expand full comment

Thanks for taking the time to go through the study and for the detailed reply.

The study you cite seems indeed to be one of the important studies. However I should note that drugs, in this case dexamethansone, are not approved due to a single study. Normally you need a large number of them and several rounds of internal review. Dexamethasome is a known drug that's used to treat inflammatory symptoms in covid cases so it does what it's known to do. IVM on the other hand works on parasites and it does so in a way that is not directly applicable to covid, namely by targeting the parasites nervous system. On top of that there is the whole dosage issue which suggests the amount of IVM, for parasite treatment that's around every 6 months, is not enough even if you increase the amount to a few times a week. In fact it was suggested that the needed amount would be toxic in humans. All of that to say that the way the drug works for covid is unkown. That doesn't mean it's ineffective but it's one of the reasons dexamethasome was approved, there we know more.

I agree that more significant effects can be found easier with smaller sample sizes. However I have not seen that with IVM, the Egyptian study was retracted so no need to get into that. The Argentinian study discussed here also has several serious flaws in my view. Several of the better studies with IVM, where there are actually randomized groups show only slight effectiveness. All of that to say I am just not convinced that IVM is highly effective, if it was the randomized studies would have picked that up and studies would consistently show it as highly effective. We're still only one year in the pandemic, so I don't expect definite answers and lots of trials on IVM are on their way, around 70 last I checked. Some better than others and when the data comes out we will see. I really hope it is effective because a cheap effective drug would be a Godsent in the pandemic, however so far I see no reason to think it is.

That's a good point with Merck and Molnupiravir. The conflict of interest remains. However the problem with this reasoning in my view is that many industries are dominated by a few big firms, think of the big four in accounting or even OPEC, that doesn't mean there is a conflict of interest every time or that there isn't one, but the argument by itself is just not convincing. The pandemic is a huge event for most industries even more so for Big Pharma and there are reasons Big Pharma is dominated by a few companies. It's just really expensive to develop medical drugs or finance trials that might go nowhere and profit takes years or even decades to roll in. There are conflicts of interest in the industry and lots of problems, I mean the health care cost in the US is just outrageous. We should be vigilant, but in the end it's like you said "Of course a conflict of interest by itself does not necessitate that Merck's statements suggesting or implying safety risks in the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 are incorrect". What convinced you you say is hte statements by Merck, which you suggest lack any clear basis. At least based on the statement I read it simply stated that company scientists took a look and where not convicned it didn't offer much reasoning beyond that. This is pretty common as a press statement, so I would be wondering what statement you thought laked a clear basis ?

Anyways thanks for taking the time, feel free to email me the statement.


Expand full comment

It is true, and I recognize and agree with your point, that dexamethasone in COVID-19 treatment is being used for its well-known effects--reducing inflammation. But it is also true, if I recall correctly, that steroidal anti-inflammatories of any kind were officially recommended against or even ruled out in COVID-19 treatment by the major oversight agencies until the report of the above-referenced study, and also that the official standard of care was changed as a result of that (single, but numerically well-powered) study.

I looked back at Merck's statement (here https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/), and maybe I was a little unfair to them, but I think their comment on "a concerning lack of safety data" seems a little disingenuous. The comment, rather artfully, raises the issue of safety - almost as if the company which knows and understands the drug best has particular concerns - but without suggesting any specific risk or basis for suspecting one.

I have not seen anything to suggest, other than the argument in the Quillette paper, that the effective dosing frequency, for ivermectin, if any, should be more than weekly. (I believe it has been shown that the half lives of ivermectin's primary metabolites are longer than the compound itself.)

I recognize some things are expensive, including new drug development and testing. And that conflicts of interest do not always result in action to the advantage of the self or the self-entity and against that of others. But the risk is present and sometimes worth considering.

Expand full comment

Also this is not an either or if Ivermectin was effective in treating Covid Merck could make money both ways selling Ivermectin as one of the many Covid products while also selling the others.

Expand full comment

The issue of dexamethasone not being used for prophylaxis is key here - IVM could (if it works as suggested) essentially eliminate the need for vaccines and new drugs like remdesivir and molnupiravir which is where the money is made. Dex doesn't pose that same risk so they can be more permissive with supporting its use.

Expand full comment

Sure, that's a good point. Like I mention above there are other reasons too. However first off the evidence for IVM as a prophylaxis is even weaker than that for a treatment. For example the Meta-Analysis mentioned in the article needs to be redone since some of the studies were retracted.

Moreover, the reason I mention dex is to be clear that cheap effective drugs can be approved. It is often suggested that IVM is kept under wraps because it so cheap, dex shows this is just not the case. You are essentially modying the argument saying it's also because dex is not a prohylactic while IVM is. The problem with this is that you can essentially always modify the argument by pointing out differences between IVM and dex, there are plenty after all. Like even if let's say it's proven tomorrow that IVM is not a prophylactic and we both agree the proof is legitimate, however that may happen, then you could just point to another difference. In essence if you assume there is a conspiracy then almost anything can be seen as evidence for it.

What would convicne me would be hard data to pack it up as conspiracy. So for example think back to the 60s when people were saying the goverment is lying about Vietnam, eventually the Pentagon papers were released and those internal documents by the goverment showed that to be true. Or since the patent for IVM ran out one of the big pharma companies could break ranks and sell IVM if that then proved to be effective that would make the idea that it's being kept under wraps more credible. Or if you show that Merck is making a scientific error, like wrongly interpreting a study, and consistently and I agree that it's an error then that would make the idea that it's being kept under wraps more credible.

Expand full comment

Bravo! This needs to be read by everyone! Very clear and balanced... Well thought out! Now go outside bare foot and have a great weekend! You deserve an applause for this!

Expand full comment

Whilst your arguments on Ivermectan and vaccines are well-reasoned, and definitely backed up by far more evidence than much else we have seen in this pandemic, could you in future elaborate on why there is a need to eradicate it?

The virus had a 0.5%-0.9% CFR in an immunonaïve population. Now that people have gained immunity either through natural infection or through vaccination, the CFR in a pre-exposed population could now be lower than flu. Early data from the UK looks like its heading this way.

It appears that ssRNA viruses effectively compete with each other by triggering the same parts of the immune system (CTL, IFN etc). This means the mortality from Covid won't be simply added to the mortality from flu.

In summary for these paragraphs:

1) What is the true cost for leaving Covid endemic?

Multiplying a small problem by infinite years does not constitute an infinite problem.

Then, it would need to be asked:

2) What cost are you willing to pay to avoid the presence of Covid?

This would include an assessment of NPIs such as lockdowns and social distancing. The collateral damage from these is enormous, especially to the poorer and already-comorbid. Would you want a global lockdown to give everyone Ivermectan? How severe would the scars be from such an intervention?

3) Do you think you can eradicate a highly transmissible virus?

Even if we become immune to the disease, the virus might be one that remains transmitted from person to person with few real consequences, like dozens of respiratory viruses currently are.


4) If there is a potential program that could successfully eradicate Covid, and do less collateral damage to us than the benefits we earn, why use this program on Covid?

There are far more pathogens that do more extensive damage to us on a constant basis. Staph aureus, tuberculosis, pneumococcus, E Coli, meningococcus, pseudomonas etc. These are all less contageous, and have great tolls on human life. If we're in the business of making pathogens go extinct, aren't there quite a few more up the list?

None of the above detracts from your highlighting of Ivermectan as part of a global strategy moving forwards, but might at least drive at why extinction might be the correct goal.

Expand full comment

In Australia Ivermectin has been championed by Dr. Tom Borody, the gastroenterologist who pioneered faecal transplants for intractable bowel disorders. However, he has been ridiculed and silenced, even though he has conducted successful trials using triple Covid therapy of Ivermectin, Doxycycline & Zinc. GPs here are too afraid to prescribe Ivermectin because of the campaign against it by medical bureaucrats. It is impossible to procure off label, except in veterinary products, which are themselves disappearing from Ag supplies.

Expand full comment

bret & heather - another prong in the attack against getting covid, and driving it to extinction, is better health. No one, other than a few doctors on YT, ever mention getting healthy and fit as a way to better survive an infection. My preference is: stop eating sugar, lo carb/hi fat nutrition, aerobics and resistance training. aim for a BMI of 21-ish. Who is talking about this in msm?

Expand full comment

I agree. Also intermittent fasting and the odd 48 to 72 hour fast help general health a lot. I don't know that they have covered fasting and they don't appear to support low carb in particular, but in the podcast they do talk about getting outdoors, eating good food and getting plenty of sunshine and exercise etc.

Expand full comment

In addition to what I said above, I 100% support this remark as well.

Expand full comment

There is more to surviving COVID-19 than surviving COVID-19. While age and certain comorbidities increase the odds of a severe course and death from COVID-19, this is not the case with Long Covid, which most often begins with asymptomatic, mild or moderate disease and tends to afflict people in the 20-60 age range. In the Long Covid forums, it is the fit and (formerly) healthy, athletic people who are more the rule than the exception. Prevention is imperative, and it’s unfortunate that the vaccine does not protect from infection.

Expand full comment

yes, i have had long covid but it finally has become more subtle. i wonder if being fit makes me more in tune with my body so slight disturbances are more noticeable. after several years of no chemicals in my food my senses have become more acute. and i pay attention more when something feels "off". at first it was on about a 3 week frequency, much rarer now.

Expand full comment

I’m always glad to hear of others who make it to the other side. That constitutes hope. I have experienced a complex and severe course with Long Covid. I was glad when the FLCCC published a protocol for Long Covid and am on it, but it would apparently be naive to expect a magic bullet to quickly dispatch with dysautonomia, mast cell disorders, debilitating fatigue, the GI issues, and whatever is causing my oxygen to hover in the upper 80s, low 90s for 17 months. Our medical establishment is unfortunately unprepared and, it appears, unwilling to make an honest attempt to address Long Covid. I can’t emphasize strongly enough the need to prevent the infection in the first place. The vaccines don’t do this. Having good health is important, but it’s also a good idea to learn what protocols are suggested to prevent infection. The FLCCC, which has been active in treatment and prevention since early April 2020, has good information on this.

Expand full comment

I'm reposting my earlier comments regarding preventative measures:

There are other things in the pipeline that are not vaccinations nor developed by the pharmaceuticals that are already available to prevent individuals from catching Covid. One is a safe nasal spray called Xlear that has been available for years. Check out these websites:



Another product to include in the arsenal is called "aeronabs"


Expand full comment

Why do you say vaccines don't prevent infection? It's true a person can become infected but the chances of getting very ill or dying are greatly reduced. The hospital cases right now are mostly the unvaccinated. see my earlier post today for preventative measures not even talked about in main stream media. (As you may notice, I am pro-vaccine but also am pro-alternative/complementary protocols.)

Expand full comment

Hi Della. Thanks for the responses. I read up on the aeronabs link. Hadn’t heard of that before! Interesting. I am familiar with the nasal sprays. Seems like a good idea. I know that the FLCCC recommends mouthwash to cut down on the viral load. Same principle.

On vaccines and infection, I’m drawing the same distinction between SARS CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease that is drawn by the CDC, NIH and others, who advised us all throughout autumn 2020 that the primary goal of the vaccines was to prevent severe COVID-19 disease symptoms, hospitalization and death — not to prevent SARS CoV-2 infection. As Fauci said in December on vaccinated people, “You could be prevented from getting the clinical disease and still have the virus that is in your nasopharynx because you can get infected." https://twitter.com/CuomoPrimeTime/status/1337233712317083650

It’s unfortunate that this has all been framed as a pro vs. anti-vaccine issue, rather than the necessity to avoid the two worst outcomes, one of which is Long Covid, and both of which could be avoided by preventing infection in the first place. It is important to understand that the vaccine offers no protection against Long Covid, which can begin with mild, moderate or severe disease, as well as asymptomatic infection, and tends to attack fit, healthy, athletic people in the 20-60 age range.

Expand full comment

Your best chance of surviving ITU is with a BMI 25-30. The raw data shows that life expectancy is highest with BMI in the same range, but there are other confounds that make this harder to infer as strong a conclusion (people lose weight when dying of almost any cause)

Expand full comment

I really appreciate what you're doing here. You are making some very careful and nuanced points, based on the available data we have. If you are right about even half of what you're saying, I believe that this piece will be an important part of human history.

Expand full comment

"It is in our collective interest to extinguish the virus."

I am not willing to accept this baseline assumption without more deliberation on the nature of the threat by covid and the costs to extinguish covid. A mandate to extinguish a virus without an equal discussion of the costs of doing so, plays right into authoritarian hands. As you point out, "the elderly are at the most at risk from covid", and with regard to children that get covid (which is rare), only "0.2% of pediatric patients required mechanical ventilation". Mankind survived and even thrived for millions of years with much worse odds of survival from far more serious threats. From where I stand this virus looks more like a psychological and spiritual crisis than a medical one.

Expand full comment

Well, if a young person has Myocarditis and/or pericarditis it doesn't "heal" or go away. They will have it their entire life. The heart has memory and will remember the trauma. It's problems and effects will surface in the future, not a good thing. It's also not psychological or spiritual, it's deadly.

Expand full comment

And what about rates of suicide due to the governments horrific policies throughout the pandemic? It's way, way up. It would be bizarre to consider the small number of people who suffer from Myocarditis but ignore the people who commit suicide as a result of "lockdown" and other societal disruptions that are justified on the grounds that covid is a much bigger threat than it actually is.


Are you saying that covid triggers untreatable Myocarditis while the vaccine triggers treatable Myocarditis. Below is what the CDC has to say about the Myocarditis caused by the mRNA vaccines. Is there some specific data set that you're reacting to with your remark?


Expand full comment

What you did not take into account is that if you get sick, even if the virus doesn't kill you, it has still diminished your body's capacity for repair. That's my understanding anyway - that it has the capability to shave years off your lifespan. I really don't think we want this virus around forever.

Expand full comment

You'll probably post a link to some doctor somewhere conjecturing. Whatever. You know what else reduces lifespan? Loneliness. Despair. Loss of job. Loss of a business. Loss of purpose. Lack of exercise. Drug addiction. Lock down's, drug addiction, and medical fascism are far, far greater threats to young people's health than covid, and its not even close.

Expand full comment

I never said that I support draconian lockdowns. I think ivermectin and other drugs, together with better vaccines, can still do the job.

Expand full comment

Even if re-purposed drugs like Ivermectin were recommended by the government and thus, more widely prescribed, I still object to agreeing to the mandate that we must extinguish the virus without much more deliberation about the actual threat posed by the virus and the likely costs. The hard fought and easily lost civil liberties are not worth sacrificing in order to guarantee everyone's safety from a respiratory virus. Be very wary of those who propose to wage wars on nebulous and evolving things like terrorism, poverty, or corona-viruses -- all things that have been a part of human life for millions of years. They can't win such wars and that's the whole point.

Expand full comment

Yeah. In the final analysis, I think you are right.

Expand full comment

Actually there is recent evidence in studies on the NIH website that shows that people that successfully recover from COIVD lungs heal completely. The study was done on patients that were having other lung biopsies and the patients agreed to allow their tissues to be examined and it showed no damage. That is great news because originally they did think there would be permanent damage, in some ways some scientist are looking for the truth.

I put a link to the study below: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003497521013072

This is great news for everyone!!

Expand full comment

Well, that's good news at least. Still, healing is achieved by cells dividing and they can only that so many times until they reach their Hayflick limit. What remains to be seen is whether this is of particular importance with COVID or not. IDK.

Expand full comment

Me either I am not educated in this area of science at all. To be honest I was so thankful to see some good news even the slightest amount can give us hope. The last over a year has been so stressful and depressing for so many people. All we can do is try to push forward. Have a good day!

Expand full comment

I’m glad you took this approach. It makes a nice placemat of the data points that merit examination.

Expand full comment

My favorite "Bad numbers and flawed analysis" are these statements that 99% of the COVID hospitalizations/deaths are in the unvaccinated. Most start their counting in early December when no one was vaccinated. But our dear Dr. Fauci takes the prize in an NPR interview on 30 July...

There's one striking number that people who choose to remain unvaccinated should remember: In the United States, if you look at ALL the COVID deaths, 99.5% of them occur among unvaccinated people and 0.5% occur among vaccinated people. So if ever there was a statistic that's striking, to tell you the difference between a vaccinated and an unvaccinated person, that's it.


How stupid does the good doctor think we are? In the first 9 months of 2020 everyone was unvaccinated, and corticosteroids and anticoagulants were not yet in widespread use saving the sickest of the sick. The fact that the mainstream news never refers to the breakdown between vaccinated and unvaccinated in the prior 2 weeks tells me those numbers are probably somewhere south of 99%.

Expand full comment

Also, the CDC chose to stop counting cases among the vaccinated excluding hospitalizations as of early March. Funny how if you don't count something the numbers go down.

Expand full comment

You are reading my mind - I would like to see data: vax status/hospitalization/death my weeks

Expand full comment

I ran across this today. Same thing but Berenson breaks it down with some numbers.


Expand full comment

* by weeks -

Expand full comment

Great article that deserves to be widely read.

One observation on your recommended multi-pronged approach: the FDA’s EUA rules (summarised by the FDA here https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained) permit them to grant (and maintain?) an EUA for the COVID-19 vaccines only if “… there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.”) This seems to mean that the FDA cannot permit option 3 of your multi-pronged attack (i.e., by acknowledging the existence of effective re-purposed drugs) unless it: (1) first approves the vaccines (so EUAs don’t apply); or (2) revokes the EUAs (ending the vaccine campaign)? In other words, the FDA permits EITHER vaccines OR repurposed drugs?

I’m not a betting man, but my guess is that there is some good money to be made on betting that the FDA will recognise the existence of an adequate, approved and available drug (being sceptical, likely an expensive one currently under development, rather than a re-purposed one) very promptly after approving one or more of the vaccines currently available under EUA… The question in my mind is what harm will be done in the interim period?

Expand full comment

Very interesting point - I had not looked at it that way

Expand full comment

You two are my proverbial sermon on the mount. I’ve now come to understand that everything the government, media, and science says is a lie. Thank you for opening my eyes to the rank corruption and profit-driven filth that populate this planet. I live to serve your every word.

Expand full comment

This article and these topics are worthy of better than drive-by sarcasm and trolling.

Expand full comment

Let’s clear up the “new variant” bullshit once and for all.

The first “variant” has still never been scientifically isolated. This has been publicly documented via Freedom of Information Requests to the U.K. government and in CDC documentation in the US, and I quote, “since no quantifiable sample of the virus exists”....

It still cannot be detected accurately via PCR / lateral flow testing.

PCR does not test for virus material, it is an amplification tool that detects RNA, which is similar to DNA. We all have it. If you amplify test material using PCR enough times, “you can find anything in anybody” to directly quote Kary Mullis, the creator of the test.


No one in Brazil had heard of the Brazilian variant.

The Indian variant only reared its head AFTER the jab was rolled out. You only have to look at official statistics to see this.

No scientific evidence has been offered to confirm the existence of this new variant.

If you are still believing this tripe, then you may need to question the following:

Your sight.

Your hearing.

Your misguided trust in media and government.

What it means to be intelligent and educated.

Your ability to use the internet.

Your ability to apply critical thought to these ever changing nonsensical rules.

You can visit a supermarket, with 300 people, but not a small shop that fits three, or get your nails done in the most sterile environment EVER. Sheesh. Really? 🙄

Go to a supermarket but can’t eat inside? 🤯

At this point, I cannot believe that ANYONE still buys into this, but this has been the finest display of propaganda seen in decades, and I guess brainwashing runs deep.

And to the people that KNOW, that this the biggest scam to have ever been foisted upon humanity, but are still wearing masks in shops and getting your children tested, ask yourself why? Fear? Apathy? Don’t want to rock the boat? Afraid of what your friends might think?

Afraid of upsetting someone?


Think about the life you are providing for your children. How will you be able to look them in the eye and say you couldn’t be bothered to fight for them?

How long do you think these controls will continue for if you keep allowing it?

And when I hear people say, “if only people followed the rules, it would all be over,” that has to be the most idiotic thing yet.

This is continuing BECAUSE you followed the rules. BECAUSE YOU COMPLIED. Because you showed the government how easily you can be controlled and manipulated, and how easily you rolled over and gave up your freedoms and happiness.

It’s very easy for people to shoot the messenger rather than look inwards. So shoot the messenger if you wish, but maybe try doing something that actually matters instead.


This ends when we all refuse to comply. This ends when we refuse to allow other people’s fear dictate how we live our lives.

This ends when we refuse to close our businesses for the umpteenth time, serving no purpose other than creating an enormous wealth divide and destroying livelihoods, families, forcing repossessions and suicides, creating a plethora of mental health issues, and this list can go on for ever...

Enough is enough. (Although I’m pretty sure I wrote this this time last year).

Expand full comment

"The most recent meta-analysis of the efficacy of ivermectin" is certainly not the one you cite. Please see here for something more recent and rigorous: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full

Are you really so arrogant to think that you can solve this global pandemic while hanging out at your house and podcast studio? Based on what publication or citation experience in almost any of the fields that overlap with this are you drawing? Do you think by attending graduate school for Evolutionary Biology at Michigan you are fully qualified to be commenting on all these issues? And commenting is fine, but you are making medical claims based on one-sided poorly run studies. You listen to doctors with degrees from the Caribbean and ignore the best doctors in the world. You seriously cannot be this deluded. I have been a fan of your whole project right up until this Ivermectin business. And that is what it is, one only need to look at a time series of your Patreon describers to see the intervention for your business model. Of course you may dismiss that effort since it based on a mathematical model, and we all know how useless those can be! It can frustrating to hear people talk when they are outside their lane. You both fancy yourselves as experts on many topics in which you have no training, for which you have no credible experience, and to which you may be influencing people. Fine, it is usually quote harmless and a little quaint. This is not that. This matters. You are either deliberately grifting, which I do not believe, or you are doubling down on an idea you thought sounded good with no ability to turn back. Please stop. You are not the smartest people in the room and you likely rarely have been. If you had been you would have been somewhere besides Evergreen and had career records not so easily forgotten. Learn some humility, be better, and just consider for a moment you could be making the biggest mistake of your lives. I doubt you will since you think almost the entire world is doing that themselves and only you have the right answers. Tune in, subscribe, donate! Be better.

Expand full comment

How about spending the bulk of your comment arguing against specific points in the article rather than engaging in an ad hominem diatribe? Lame.

Expand full comment

Let’s all give Kel a round of applause for reminding us how NOT to refute an argument. Thanks Kel! Now go have a smoke and calm down hun.

Expand full comment

Congratulations on being the smartest guy ever with the first comment. You've really outdone yourself in refuting Bret and Heather's thoughtfully written piece with something equally well thought out that didn't just resort to attacking their motivations. Oh wait...

Expand full comment

Do you have an actual argument or are you just here to pose as superior?

Expand full comment

last time I heard from Kel Varnsen it made me laugh:


this time around it's just another lame ad hominem rant that we (rather intelligent people) don't need - need an example? Here you go. You write "You listen to doctors with degrees from the Caribbean and ignore the best doctors in the world." I did check out the CVs of some of the doctors mentioned by Heather and Bret, and so could you:


My conclusion: Kel Varnsen is either a robot or an idot. Case closed.

Expand full comment

A bit further down in the Google results...

Kel Varnsen

Latex Salesman


Expand full comment

Why are you so mean? What is your solution?

Expand full comment

I suspect this is a quadrigendered person of IHOP who identifies as an attack helicopter and still has a grudge from Evergreen.

Expand full comment

Ken Varnsen -- I witnessed in the early days of HIV/AIDS 'Dr.' Anthony Fauci shut down and humiliate the Nobel Prize winning co-creator of the PCR technology. He also savaged the career of a world-renowned virologist and retro-virus expert based at U.C. Berkeley. HIV/AIDS was obviously a very complex disorder and one that deserved the wisdom of many experts, and certainly that of front-line treaters. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. If you want to talk about 'grifters' you need to up your game and to better understand a BIG PHARMA machine...and the role of various functionaries in it. That would be your 'homework'.

Expand full comment

There was eventually a gigantic exposé of Fauci’s catastrophic AIDS record that appeared in one of the major liberal magazines or newspapers. I forgot where it was and went to look for it. Needless to say it appears nowhere on the web. On the other hand there’s a nice story about Fauci receiving the Ryan White prize, named after a pediatric AIDS sufferer who endured bullying due to myths and falsehoods about how HIV spread—myths singlehandedly started by Fauci himself. The man is a blight on medicine, but unfortunately he’s also an escape artist.

Expand full comment

I recall this, too, but cannot locate the article. It would be good to compare the scenarios, e.g. with HIV/AIDS we had the Green Papas monkey story and the Canadian flight attendant as Patient One. Poor Ryan White!

Expand full comment

This may not be the article alluded to but interesting nonetheless: https://www.altheal.org/texts/house.htm?fbclid=IwAR3kgChmQZsYonInnZLu-J3FkqEHw0IN261eRWQD5h2wspyvvEVW-hB99l4

Expand full comment

Oh my! This is n^zi doctor stuff.

Expand full comment

Read Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime if you haven't. It's very illuminating.


Expand full comment

Thank you Neil. This is Leslie in my other life as a researcher of organized crime in my 'woke' helper field.

Expand full comment

"I have been a fan of your whole project right up until this Ivermectin business." Obvious lie.

Expand full comment

one bot spams another bot - that's just hilarious

the next generation will spam each other without bothering us human beings, I hope

let's focus on the task at hand: driving SARS-CoV2 extinct - and then we get rid of the darn bots...

Expand full comment

Martine, what is "this business", do you have any links or documentation? Can you prove any lies? Oh well, just thought I'd ask. You don't need to reply as we're sure you won't.

Expand full comment

Well, since you asked...I recommend you first read the original article and the comment on it to which I replied for context. The commentator is using a rhetorical tactic common among trolls wherein s/he attempts to establish her/his credibility as a disillusioned former supporter. It's a form of concern trolling.

Expand full comment

You are not the steel man. Only Bret has that wood. Heather is very lucky to have access to it.

Expand full comment

Oh my God, I am in awe with the level of discipline to write such an article! May it get where it needs to get with the best outcome! I am rooting for you all!

Expand full comment

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

― George Washington

Expand full comment

Upon discovering Ivermectin is NOT used to treat TAPEWORMS despite it's broad range against multiple parasites, out of curiosity I wondered then what is used to treat Tapeworms and apparently its a a drug called Niclosamide. Then while looking into just what Niclosamide did I happened upon it's use in treating syncytia in covid; https://www.virology.ws/2021/04/08/a-tapeworm-drug-to-treat-covid-19/ ...... which led me to this paper; Drugs that inhibit TMEM16 protein block SARS COV2 Spike Induced Syncytia https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03491-6 ...... What drugs? You mean there are readily available drugs that can inhibit the syncytia formation involved in severe covid infections, well lets see what drugs they recommend, oh look antidepressants amongst several suggestions, I wonder if there is any connection between people on anti depressants being less susceptible to severe covid symptoms lets look it up...... and yes there apparently is; Association between antidepressant use and reduced risk of intubation or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: results from an observational studyhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-021-01021-4

This is interesting because if a non scientific idiot like me with just an arts background can discover these disease attenuating measures while the CDC, The WHO the AMA "what have you", pretend to know of nothing but vaccines, staying home with covid , taking acetominaphen and fluids as the recommended treatment then its not covid that's the main problem, not downplaying covid but we are trusting the people that were supposed to prevent this from happening in the first place; it's like a restaurant that has massive deadly cases of food poisonings to the point that something must be done but the people in charge of the investigation are the chef and his kitchen staff while the servers are in charge of speaking to the public and censoring anything anyone says that is critical of the restaurant.

Expand full comment

You would think that viewing youtube discussions by.. or reading articles featured in.. CHEST (medical specialty journal under BMJ medical journal umbrella) featuring the pronounced positive immunomodulatory effects on lung damage in Covid-19 patients

would spark interest. We have had access to this information since Spring of 2020 and later read about it in Fall of 2020.


Those of us who were determined not to perish while waiting for Vaccinations to come riding over the hilltop to save us followed this closely. We had lots of company.


But it seems the ivory tower armchair specialists are unable to access journals that aren't helping to create spin and narrative that benefit a certain stockmarket portfolio.

I do not forgive those who turned their backs on us.

ONCE ILL: "Take Vitamin D, C and zinc and go to the ER if you have difficulty breathing" was the robotic advice issued .. well into a Covid-19 patient's early illness.. after waiting for their positive PCR results and a call back from their 'concerned' HC provider. They usually didn't even recommend monoclonal antibody treatment.. even for those who had a target on their head.

To those proactive HC providers: forgive me for painting with a broad brush. I know you are out there and I believe you are the true heroes of of this pandemic.

Expand full comment