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.