Fisking the debunkers

This has to be one of the best fiskings I’ve seen in a long time and the half of it is because it is delivered without rancour. It is a straightforward critique of a hit piece by the BBC that attempted to debunk numerous studies that have identified the efficacy of ivermectin in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID.

Here are some of the main points:  Firstly, the BBC article poisons the well from the get-go by rehashing the tired claim that ivermectin is a veterinary product, ignoring that ivermectin has safely been used in 3.7 billion doses by humans.

Secondly, the BBC rely heavily on, The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable, whose lead author is a student at St George’s, University of London.

Thirdly, the BBC purports to reveal that over a third of the 26 studies looking at ivermectin and COVID involved serious errors or potential fraud and yet no where do they actually reveal any such thing, neither naming the studies and their alleged errors/or misconduct. Nor does the Nature article above, which they heavily rely upon, do any such thing.  In fact, as Dr. Campbell suggests, the article provides no substantiation itself beyond the assertions made in the article, and reads far more like an opinion piece than anything else. Moreover, neither the BBC nor the Nature article, identifies the 26 studies it is supposed to have analyzed!

Fourthly, the ‘international group of scientists’, as described by the BBC article, and which it relies on entirely, is a Twitter group.

Just watch the video. His final point, regarding the request of Kitasato University to Merck to assist with clinical trials of ivermectin and COVID and Merck declining, even though the trial would have involved the contribution of Dr. Satoshi ?mura, tells you all you need to know.

 

 

13 thoughts on “Fisking the debunkers”

  1. There’s an odd vibe from the Left at the moment, which is that they feel they have to defend everything to the utmost. But in many of their most cherished doctrines there is no supporting evidence, or none that holds up.

    It’s clearly the case that anti-ivermectin has been adopted as dogma and therefore must be defended, despite abundant data that it works. Anti-nuclear is another one. The Mueller-Russian thing is another. And yet another is the 6th January Was An Insurrection lie. So we’re seeing the Left incarcerating grannies without trial and holding long hearings about something trivial.

    Their defensiveness is a bit of a tell that they are afraid of something.


    Report comment

    13
  2. Slightly amusing that Dr Campbell agrees that it’s bad to push conspiracy theories, whilst nibbling at the edges of a conspiracy.

    BTW, the video he refers to about the ‘relative’ safety of ivermectin is this one he did:

    Ivermectin or Molnupiravir

    Worth a look. One of the comments under the video says it all:

    “When it doesn’t it make cents it’s because it makes dollars.”


    Report comment

    8
  3. Ivermectin or Molnupiravir

    And this video might go some way to answer the question that Dr Campbell leaves us with…why did Merck decline to assist with the Japanese study?


    Report comment

    9
  4. It’s clearly the case that anti-ivermectin has been adopted as dogma and therefore must be defended

    The other bit of dogma is that even while the mRNA vaxxes do in some cases cause myocarditis in the young, it is rare and not a an issue as most survive…

    If Any of the medicos reading this would care to comment…

    The below article on myocarditis suggests that there is potential for permanent effects and damage to the heart. In one section it actually goes to say:

    The Myocarditis Treatment Trial reported mortality rates for biopsy-verified myocarditis of 20% and 56% at 1 year and 4.3 years, respectively.6 These outcomes are similar to the Mayo Clinic’s observational data of 5-year survival rates that approximate 50%.4

    Suggesting a high incidence of mortality.

    https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/circulationaha.105.584532

    Is this a potential for mRNA induced myocarditis?

    The DAEN site reports in the thousands incidence of ready and chest pain type issues…

    https://apps.tga.gov.au/PROD/DAEN/daen-report.aspx

    And Dr Campbell also has a very good vid out where – whilst discussing aspiration of syringes to ensure that the vaxx does not get into the bloodstream, also mentions a study where the mRNA is shown to cause heart inflammation and damage in mice when injected intravenously…

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nBaIRm4610o

    Intravenous SARS-Cov-2 mRNA vaccine administration induced grossly visible pathology in the heart.

    Are we setting up an epidemic of young boys dying or perm damaged given this manic drive to vaxx them?


    Report comment

    6
  5. Slightly amusing that Dr Campbell agrees that it’s bad to push conspiracy theories, whilst nibbling at the edges of a conspiracy.

    He’s pushing the envelope of the YouTube censor, Mater, without being censored.


    Report comment

    5
  6. He’s pushing the envelope of the YouTube censor, Mater, without being censored.

    Absolutely. He’s counting on the intelligence of the viewer to connect the dots.

    I think his faith in the intelligence of the general public might be misplaced, in the most part.


    Report comment

    5
  7. I have been watching John Campbell for more than a year. He is the classic British well meaning, authority deferring health scientist. He generally pushes all the usual dot points: get the vax, wear your mask, scan your code and roll up your sleeve.

    If John is attacking the BBC, they have fallen a long way down the credibility tree (which, of course, they have)


    Report comment

    3
  8. I have been watching John Campbell for more than a year. He is the classic British well meaning, authority deferring health scientist.

    I think that he has broached some VERBOTEN subjects directly and indirectly. So not sure if the statement above is true. I watch him because he looks at the data and – more importantly – deciphers the science literature particularly well … and explains the logic behind it as well!


    Report comment

    1
  9. Rorschach says:
    October 11, 2021 at 7:27 am

    Are we setting up an epidemic of young boys dying or perm damaged given this manic drive to vaxx them?

    We are talking about young men in the 18-40 age group here, i.e., men of military service age who have / will die, or be permanently incapacitated to a greater or lesser extent. If it emerges that only the unvaxxed will remain available to fight for this country then the question arises, will they?

    Seriously, what is there to fight for these days?


    Report comment

    1
  10. Old Bloke

    Seriously, what is there to fight for these days?

    To use a phrase often used as a militia unit motto in early Federation Australia, “For Hearths and Homes” – family and friends.

    Not much else, though.


    Report comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *