The latest “Ivermectin Doesn’t Work” study was published last week in The New England Journal of Medicine and is plagued with errors. I am demanding a retraction and could use your help.
Apr 10, 2022·edited Apr 10, 2022Liked by Darby Shaw
How are we supposed to convince the jabbed believers to take Ivermectin or HCQ should they become infected? My sister, for example, would never take anything other than perhaps Paxlovid, and was very critical when us unjabbed family members used Ivermectin to get us through our sars-cov-2 infections. That 30% will hold out, stubbornly, much to their own detriment.
I understand what you're saying. Same problem in my family. I just know that these shoddy studies in what have been viewed as the most prestigious medical journals certainly aren't helping anything.
One of the hardest, and in my opinion, most valuable lessons in life has been learning not to try to control other people's choices. I read once that it is one of the most common causes of depression. I believe it. All you can do is try to give people good information. Then you have to let them make their own decisions, just as they are letting you make yours. I think one of the reasons today's liberals are so absolutely miserable is that they are constantly trying to control everyone else's choices (e.g. vaccine mandate).
That’s been one of the hardest things I’ve ever done. I know someone fairly well right now who is triple jabbed, had underlying thyroid conditions and now has a heart condition. I am not sure but seeing as it correlated with time of booster by a couple of months, it’s hard not to think adverse effect. I could make cogent suggestions for mitigation but I believe it’s that person’s responsibility to ask. This person was a key figure at our office in implementing the mandates. I doubt they will ask me. Ps I mention thyroid because quite a few reports of jab injuries have resulted in low thyroid individuals, including one actual study in an otherwise healthy lady who had major heart complications : https://www.cmaj.ca/content/194/16/E581
Darby, this is a great find. I looked at that study with suspicion, but could not find anything. I am glad that you devoted it such a dogged attention.
Thank you for sharing this letter an identifying so many issues in the paper. If I may offer a bit of advice: It would be most effective to focus only on facts and assume the authors acted in good faith, even if you don't believe it. Otherwise the authors and editors will not take the valid points of criticism seriously.
Thank you. I actually reached out numerous times to the lead author, investigator, and editor. I was polite and respectful and simply asked for clarification. They all ignored me. The editor in chief of NEJM is the same genius who sits on the FDA committee that voted to authorize the child vax for 5 - 11 year olds and said we won't know how safe the vax is until we start giving it, as if that is the standard. The lead investigator, Dr. Mills, directly lied in one of his earlier group email responses, in which he claimed to have the support of Dr. Kory and the FLCCC for not just his study but its conclusions. Clearly, as Kory has since made clear, that was not the case. So, I think I've seen enough evidence that these guys are not acting in good faith. Hence, the tone of my letter. That said, I think it's a good strategy for my readers to now follow up with their own emails in which they give these guys the benefit of the doubt. All we really want at this point are answers.
Although they know full well they are crooks and rascals. But these types despise being recognized as such. They want everyone to keep pretences while they help commit mass murder.
As tempting as it is to tell them what we think of them, it's more effective to give benefit of (long gone) doubt. Insult them and your email will be instantly deleted.
33% of People will LABEL you MISINFORMATION regardless (these people are useful idiots and propaganda zombies), we must continue to focus on the 66% (supermajority) whom do not know, but whom are not generally hostile to TRUTH.
33% of PEOPLE SUPPORT & ENFORCE THIS INSANITY:
Misinformation is all information that lacks alignment, support, or agreement with the public-state messaging campaigns that are presently active within the national public-state messaging system.
-Citizens are to use social media responsibly, and with caution, as one might be held liable for their content, and for the damages that others attribute to you.
-Citizens be careful, even on your personal webpages, when authoring, creating content, or when commenting publicly, anywhere others can be misinformed.
-Citizens are obliged to ensure their views are consistent with state-public messaging. Non-compliance has varying levels of social & legal consequences.
This is particularly relevant in current times, where approved public health narratives, approved geo-political narratives, and approved internal political narratives save lives, ensure peace, prosperity, and a continued democracy.
Citizen remember that your views expressed may be consistent with evidence-based material, but may not necessarily be consistent with public-state messaging system, therefore it will be labeled misinformation, and you a spreader of misinformation.
Have shared on FB (for all the good that does with their control of what they let you post!) Will definitely send emails to all you have suggested! Thanks for all the good that you are doing!
Done. Signed retired, former ASCP member, lol. To facilitate, I added that "vaxxed included" statement is at the end of para. 1 in the trial abstract, whereas "vaxxed excluded" is in the Trial Protocol of the full report, 5.3 Exclusions, p. 48.
Darby, can you help me pinpoint evidence that patients are having difficult accessing ivermectin? I know that many states have introduced or passed legislation allowing for the prescribing of ivermectin and prevention of pharmacies to deny filling the prescription. But what exactly is the pushback that prescribers are receiving, other than the FDA, WHO, AND CSC being unwilling to approve the drug for covid19? Thanks for all your hard work!
The legislation in a select few states allowing for prescription of Ivermectin is in direct response to pharmacies and medical boards preventing doctors from prescribing it or refusing to fill the prescriptions. I believe most states are still giving patients who want Ivermectin or HCQ a hard time, but I don't have a state-by-state breakdown. I would actually like to see that breakdown myself.
I'm wary. I've seen so many papers withdrawn over the last few years on the back of pressure from the Pharma industry & cancel culture (one and the same I guess) that I'm inclined to express disapproval but not demand retraction. Maybe aim to get a message on it eventually, something along the lines of 'this paper is full of crap'.
I understand. At this point to be honest I would settle for them simply answering my questions. The fact that they won't may mean they have no good answers.
Let’s add the recent cmac.ca mathematical modeling so-called study by Fisman along with it. His delightful ha ha work is a thinly veiled piece of propaganda which several have already answered far better than I can.
How are we supposed to convince the jabbed believers to take Ivermectin or HCQ should they become infected? My sister, for example, would never take anything other than perhaps Paxlovid, and was very critical when us unjabbed family members used Ivermectin to get us through our sars-cov-2 infections. That 30% will hold out, stubbornly, much to their own detriment.
I understand what you're saying. Same problem in my family. I just know that these shoddy studies in what have been viewed as the most prestigious medical journals certainly aren't helping anything.
Do unto others. You must accept their decision as you would like them to accept yours. Iow, with respect.
If at some point they change their mind, they can then feel free to ask you for assistance.
One of the hardest, and in my opinion, most valuable lessons in life has been learning not to try to control other people's choices. I read once that it is one of the most common causes of depression. I believe it. All you can do is try to give people good information. Then you have to let them make their own decisions, just as they are letting you make yours. I think one of the reasons today's liberals are so absolutely miserable is that they are constantly trying to control everyone else's choices (e.g. vaccine mandate).
That’s been one of the hardest things I’ve ever done. I know someone fairly well right now who is triple jabbed, had underlying thyroid conditions and now has a heart condition. I am not sure but seeing as it correlated with time of booster by a couple of months, it’s hard not to think adverse effect. I could make cogent suggestions for mitigation but I believe it’s that person’s responsibility to ask. This person was a key figure at our office in implementing the mandates. I doubt they will ask me. Ps I mention thyroid because quite a few reports of jab injuries have resulted in low thyroid individuals, including one actual study in an otherwise healthy lady who had major heart complications : https://www.cmaj.ca/content/194/16/E581
Alas, there is no way. You can take a horse to the water, but you can’t make it drink.
Darby, this is a great find. I looked at that study with suspicion, but could not find anything. I am glad that you devoted it such a dogged attention.
Can't we ask for study data?
Thank you, Igor. Hopefully the investigators will have logical explanations for these problems. We're waiting...
Thank you for sharing this letter an identifying so many issues in the paper. If I may offer a bit of advice: It would be most effective to focus only on facts and assume the authors acted in good faith, even if you don't believe it. Otherwise the authors and editors will not take the valid points of criticism seriously.
Thank you. I actually reached out numerous times to the lead author, investigator, and editor. I was polite and respectful and simply asked for clarification. They all ignored me. The editor in chief of NEJM is the same genius who sits on the FDA committee that voted to authorize the child vax for 5 - 11 year olds and said we won't know how safe the vax is until we start giving it, as if that is the standard. The lead investigator, Dr. Mills, directly lied in one of his earlier group email responses, in which he claimed to have the support of Dr. Kory and the FLCCC for not just his study but its conclusions. Clearly, as Kory has since made clear, that was not the case. So, I think I've seen enough evidence that these guys are not acting in good faith. Hence, the tone of my letter. That said, I think it's a good strategy for my readers to now follow up with their own emails in which they give these guys the benefit of the doubt. All we really want at this point are answers.
Although they know full well they are crooks and rascals. But these types despise being recognized as such. They want everyone to keep pretences while they help commit mass murder.
As tempting as it is to tell them what we think of them, it's more effective to give benefit of (long gone) doubt. Insult them and your email will be instantly deleted.
That is true. A Strict diplomatic protocol is advisable in these official communications. As you say.
Agreed, 100%. In my email, I listed the errors & points needing clarification. Then highlighted the urgent need for quality data to prevent confusion.
Best not to imply any sort of agenda.
33% of People will LABEL you MISINFORMATION regardless (these people are useful idiots and propaganda zombies), we must continue to focus on the 66% (supermajority) whom do not know, but whom are not generally hostile to TRUTH.
33% of PEOPLE SUPPORT & ENFORCE THIS INSANITY:
Misinformation is all information that lacks alignment, support, or agreement with the public-state messaging campaigns that are presently active within the national public-state messaging system.
-Citizens are to use social media responsibly, and with caution, as one might be held liable for their content, and for the damages that others attribute to you.
-Citizens be careful, even on your personal webpages, when authoring, creating content, or when commenting publicly, anywhere others can be misinformed.
-Citizens are obliged to ensure their views are consistent with state-public messaging. Non-compliance has varying levels of social & legal consequences.
This is particularly relevant in current times, where approved public health narratives, approved geo-political narratives, and approved internal political narratives save lives, ensure peace, prosperity, and a continued democracy.
Citizen remember that your views expressed may be consistent with evidence-based material, but may not necessarily be consistent with public-state messaging system, therefore it will be labeled misinformation, and you a spreader of misinformation.
It's an uphill battle, to be sure. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to keep fighting.
Have shared on FB (for all the good that does with their control of what they let you post!) Will definitely send emails to all you have suggested! Thanks for all the good that you are doing!
Thank you!
I will forward to friends and send an e-mail to each person listed at the NEJM. Thank you.
Thank you!
Done. Signed retired, former ASCP member, lol. To facilitate, I added that "vaxxed included" statement is at the end of para. 1 in the trial abstract, whereas "vaxxed excluded" is in the Trial Protocol of the full report, 5.3 Exclusions, p. 48.
https://doctors4covidethics.org/new-videos-on-findings-of-arne-burkhardt-and-walter-lang/
Darby, can you help me pinpoint evidence that patients are having difficult accessing ivermectin? I know that many states have introduced or passed legislation allowing for the prescribing of ivermectin and prevention of pharmacies to deny filling the prescription. But what exactly is the pushback that prescribers are receiving, other than the FDA, WHO, AND CSC being unwilling to approve the drug for covid19? Thanks for all your hard work!
The legislation in a select few states allowing for prescription of Ivermectin is in direct response to pharmacies and medical boards preventing doctors from prescribing it or refusing to fill the prescriptions. I believe most states are still giving patients who want Ivermectin or HCQ a hard time, but I don't have a state-by-state breakdown. I would actually like to see that breakdown myself.
I'm wary. I've seen so many papers withdrawn over the last few years on the back of pressure from the Pharma industry & cancel culture (one and the same I guess) that I'm inclined to express disapproval but not demand retraction. Maybe aim to get a message on it eventually, something along the lines of 'this paper is full of crap'.
I understand. At this point to be honest I would settle for them simply answering my questions. The fact that they won't may mean they have no good answers.
And they would certainly use any implied blame as an excuse not to reply.
yep, that's about where I am. The anti HCQ and IVM people are dug in and I don't care any more.
Let’s add the recent cmac.ca mathematical modeling so-called study by Fisman along with it. His delightful ha ha work is a thinly veiled piece of propaganda which several have already answered far better than I can.