-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Tigers of Old
- Start date
Here is the link to Dr. John Campbell's YouTube channel if you wanted to check it out.
Yeah I've seen his stuff. He's an intelligent guy who at least has higher degrees in health related areas. Watching his other videos he's yet another bad faith actor who presents cherry picked info and excludes that which detract from his case.
Gotta keep the grift running - his videos have I think over 1 million subscribers who enjoy this stuff.
I only watched the first minute of this one to get the gist and recognise the scam - the claim that Ivermectin and the new therapeutics are the same thing rebadged to make money has already been debunked. Even if they operate in similar pharmacological ways the point is that Ivermectin doesn't work in vivo.
Like I predicted, most of the ivermectin shills are now moving towards an anti-vaccine position now that the false promise of Ivermectin has been exposed. So you get the famous Ivermectin promoters like Pierre Kory now talking only about "vaccine injuries" and so on.
Last edited:
Here's the debunking of his latest thesis.
www.reuters.com
This is the danger of watching a plausible sounding and looking guy on YouTube. He shows you what he wants to show you.
Fact Check-Pfizer's trial COVID-19 drug is not the same as ivermectin
An article shared hundreds of times on social media claims a new COVID-19 preventative drug being trialed by Pfizer is “suspiciously similar” to ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medication that the World Health Organization (WHO), European and United States regulators have...
www.reuters.com
This is the danger of watching a plausible sounding and looking guy on YouTube. He shows you what he wants to show you.
Just for Dr @lamb22 - the latest Ivermectin scam paper retraction - just popped up on my twitter feed today.
Pierre Kory is the Doctor who gave evidence to Congress about how great Ivermectin was for treating Covid. Videos of him saying this are still in wide circulation on the internetz.
retractionwatch.com
He also had another paper retracted earlier this year.
Full thread here. This basically destroys the credibility of the FLCCC, another group Dr @lamb22 swears by. Unfortunate.
Pierre Kory is the Doctor who gave evidence to Congress about how great Ivermectin was for treating Covid. Videos of him saying this are still in wide circulation on the internetz.
Bad MATH+? Covid treatment paper by Pierre Kory retracted for flawed results
Pierre Kory A Wisconsin physician who has been pushing unproven treatments for Covid-19 has lost a paper on a hospital protocol his group says radically reduced deaths from the infection after one …
retractionwatch.com
He also had another paper retracted earlier this year.
Full thread here. This basically destroys the credibility of the FLCCC, another group Dr @lamb22 swears by. Unfortunate.
Last edited:
COVID vaccines cut the risk of transmitting Delta — but not for long
People who receive two COVID-19 jabs and later contract the Delta variant are less likely to infect their close contacts than are unvaccinated people with Delta.
www.nature.com
"Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus."
You should read the articles you post. Is not related to the John Campbell video. You probably know that anyway Mr Disengenuous. In particular Campbell acknowledges they are two different molecules. I would have thought that your scanning by osmosis would pick that up.Here's the debunking of his latest thesis.
Fact Check-Pfizer's trial COVID-19 drug is not the same as ivermectin
An article shared hundreds of times on social media claims a new COVID-19 preventative drug being trialed by Pfizer is “suspiciously similar” to ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medication that the World Health Organization (WHO), European and United States regulators have...
This is the danger of watching a plausible sounding and looking guy on YouTube. He shows you what he wants to show you.
The fact check is more a red herring exercise anyway getting people to look over there while not addressing the salient point as John does how Ivermectin works as a protease inhibitor (proven in numerous studies) which is the key point of his thesis.
Many of the Pfizer comments are typical mis-directions like Ivermectin might hurt you. Clearly Pfizer understood the efficacy of inhibiting the SARS COV 2 3CL protease in developing its drug which Ivermectin does.
Funnily Pfizer also claims a benefit the fact that their drug has only one method of action against the virus whereas Ivermectin has several , a notion which Campbell dispels quite effectively at the end of his video. Whereas a virus might mutate to escape one mechanism and still be effective it is unlikely to do so and be effective against multiple mechanisms of action.
It's amazing that you don't understand how poor that Reuters article is in relation to actually discussing the science.
Last edited:
Ha. You really are a piece of work. " I only watched one minute of his 22 minute video and then I set up a straw man thesis (which is never made by Campbell) that it's the same molecule rebadged and then I make my proclamations on that fantasy scenario" You protest about my personal comments about you yet you keep proving you are a disingenuous moron by your very words.
Dude, leave the personal insults out. So far you've called a dumbass, a moron and probably a few others. Make a case without resorting to personal abuse.
Last edited:
Here's where the article talks specifically about the protease inhibitor function. I guess you never made it that far down the article?
"A Pfizer spokesperson also denied the connection between the drugs, telling Reuters in an email: “Pfizer’s protease inhibitor is not similar to that of an animal medicine and is not the same mechanism.”
They added: “For COVID-19, protease inhibitors are designed to block the activity of the SARS-CoV-2 protease, which is an enzyme the virus needs to multiply and replicate itself in the body, and as a result, stop symptoms from worsening."
Just as I predicted - the ivermectin promoters are now shifting to be anti-vaxxers as the evidence for Ivermectin efficacy is proved fraudulent and retracted. Lamb's one of these.
I know it's super-boring and most here aren't taken in by @lamb22's woo, but for those who are tempted in by the Ivermectin promoter lies about the protease inhibitor function - some more literature explaining that Ivermectin has never been shown in vitro or in vivo to be a protease inhibitor - that idea from a computer simulation in one paper only. Both these articles are explicit about why Ivermectin's protease inhibitor function is purely theoretical.
www.washingtoninformer.com
www.factcheck.org
Can't wait for @lamb22's next retort that I'm a disingenous moron who doesn't understand science.
Merck, Pfizer COVID-19 Antivirals Different From Ivermectin
Merck and Pfizer are each developing a new oral antiviral drug that might prevent or treat COVID-19. The pills are very different from the antiparasitic medication ivermectin, contrary to claims online that they are "suspiciously similar" or that the companies are "repackaging" ivermectin in a...
www.washingtoninformer.com
Merck, Pfizer COVID-19 Antivirals Different From Ivermectin - FactCheck.org
Merck and Pfizer are each developing a new oral antiviral drug that might prevent or treat COVID-19. The pills are very different from the antiparasitic medication ivermectin, contrary to claims online that they are “suspiciously similar” or that the companies are “repackaging” ivermectin in a...
www.factcheck.org
Can't wait for @lamb22's next retort that I'm a disingenous moron who doesn't understand science.
Fact checking the fact checkers
AngryAnt posted a fact check that ‘debunked’ the claim that Ivermectin functions as a SARS Cov 2 3CL protease inhibitor which is interestingly what the new Pfizer drug does.
First Anty seems to believe that factchecker sites on the internet operate without bias and agendas which history suggest is not true. The Snopes example is instructive
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/deansterlingjones/snopes-cofounder-plagiarism-mikkelson
Anyway I am sure Reuters being owned by a private equity firm whose assets are managed by Blackstone are quite free of bias.
Anyway lets look at the article Anty posted and fact check it, First the heading
Fact Check-Pfizer's trial COVID-19 drug is not the same as ivermectin
I find the heading misleading. The Zero hedge article it is fact checking has a heading ‘Pfizer launches final study for Covid Drug that’s suspiciously similar to horse paste” While it might draw implications that it is the same it does not make that assertion. In the body of the article it states
“Coincidentally (or not),Pfizer's drug shares at least one mechanism of action as Ivermectin- an anti-parasitic used in humans for decades, which functions as a protease inhibitor against Covid-19, which researchers speculate "could be the biophysical basis behind its antiviral efficiency."
Lo and behold, Pfizer's new drug - which some have jokingly dubbed "Pfizermectin," is described by the pharmaceutical giant as a "potent protease inhibitor."
The thrust of the article concentrates on the irony of a new drug which has the same mechanism as Ivermectin being developed at the same time as the confected horse dewormer narrative was dominant in the media.
The article posts a tweets that suggest that Pfizer is simply rebadging Ivermectin but the tweet clearly has a “/sarcasm” footer attached
The pfizermectin line is clearly identified as humour and misconstrued by the Reuters fact checkers to be a statement of fact
By Reuters Fact Check This is clearly misleading
An article shared hundreds of times on social media claims a new COVID-19 preventative drug being trialed by Pfizer is “suspiciously similar” to ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medication that the World Health Organization (WHO), European and United States regulators have not recommended for treating the disease. However, Pfizer and an independent virologist told Reuters the two drugs function differently.
The statement is true but offers no insight on whether Ivermectin is an effective protease inhibitor.
Social media users have shared the Sept. 28 article, published by financial market website Zero Hedge here), hundreds of times (here, here, here).
This is possibly true …and?.
Some suggested Pfizer planned to launch a rebranded ivermectin: “It's official now - Pfizer will launch unpacked #ivermectin for of course significantly higher amounts than the medicine has been available so far,” (translated, here).
Once again true but how people respond to an article is irrelevant to the fact checking of the article. Here the fact checker seeks to go beyond the words of the article and seems to be implying a fellow traveller conspiracy. It is a carefully constructed scenario with negative connotations.
Pfizer announced on Sept. 27 the start of phase 2/3 trials of its new antiviral medicine, known as PF-07321332, for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection (here).
True
The following day, Zero Hedge published its article comparing PF-07321332 to ivermectin, claiming the two drugs share “at least one mechanism of action”. It referenced ivermectin’s qualities as a “protease inhibitor” and Pfizer’s description of PF-07321332 as a “potent protease inhibitor”.
True
The widely shared article adds: “That’s exactly what ivermectin, the prophylactic used for a number of reasons in both humans and animals, does”.
Including a screenshot of Pfizer’s March 23 press release on phase 1 of the drug’s trial (here), Zero Hedge then compares the language in a report about ivermectin in the Future Virology Journal (here). It highlights Pfizer’s description of PF-07321332 as a "protease inhibitor" with journal’s description of ivermectin as a "blocker of viral replicase, protease and human TMPRSS2".
True
However, this comparison lacks context, according to experts who spoke to Reuters.
“Pfizer’s drug has protease inhibitor activity like ivermectin, but they are a very different kettle of fish on a variety of levels,” said Dr Cheryl Walter, a virologist at the University of Hull.
First I am happy to accept Dr Walters credentials as a virologist but the above statement is misleading or deceptive as Reuters mention they spoke to’ experts’ but then just quoted one.
Ivermectin formulations have been approved in the U.S. for use as an anti-parasitic in animals, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (here). It adds that for humans, specific ivermectin doses are approved to treat some parasitic worms, while topical formulations can be used for external parasitic conditions, such as headlice.
True
Despite the article’s claims Ivermectin has saved “thousands” of COVID-19 patients’ lives,
I find this statement false. The article says “And unlike Pfizer's experimental drug, ivermectin already MAY have saved hundreds of thousands of lives from India to Brazil.
“May”: is not a definitive statement of fact. It expresses possibility.
an FDA consumer update says (here “Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing."
True but lacks context. Fact checkers should in balance highlight that the FDA is conflicted because it is funded by the entities it regulates and that as public funding has waned and drug industry funding has increased the number of approved drugs that have been withdrawn or black labelled has increased significantly. It should also be noted that drug approval advisory panel members receive significant sums of money from the companies whose drugs they evaluate many in 6 figure sums some in 7 figure sums
Dr Walter explained that PF-07321332 is a “direct acting antiviral drug”, while ivermectin “has multiple mechanisms of action on animal and human cells as well as some serendipitous antiviral activity”.
True but misleading. Ivermectin was developed as an anti parasitic drug but researchers discovered its anti viral effects thereafter. Monash university researchers found out in 2012 that it could kill dengue, zeka, influenza and many others. The word serendipitous means chance random or fate but is does not affect the real fact that it is possesses anti viral properties. Another example of the negative narrative being advanced. If you are killed serendipitously by an aircraft tyre falling on your head you’re still dead.
This means ivermectin likely has a range of “off-target effects on animal/human proteins,” Dr Walter said, adding: “We know it has multiple mechanisms of action and some of these actions could have unwanted, even dangerous side effects.
On one level this is a motherhood statement. We don’t know what we don’t know. However coming form a virologist who has real life knowledge this is bordering on liar liar pants on fire untruth. On WHO Vigiaccess data on medication adverse events Ivermectin is 300 times safer than covid vaccines. It has an unparallelled safety record over 30 years and 4 billion doses administered (to humans). A famous French toxicologist in studying 30 years of research found that there was no reported evidence of a fatality form an accidental or DELIBERATE overdose. The Chief Medical officer of England Chris Whittie wrote a paper where he stated that doses TEN times the recommended dose are safe. Dr Walters should be aware of these facts so the emphasis on dangerous side effects would be part of developing the negative narrative and clearly misleading at best. Cleverly it also downplays that Ivermectin has MULTIPLE mechanisms of actions against the virus and presents them as a NEGATIVE. Very clever but duplicitous deception
“What Pfizer have done is create a drug with a single job - stop the SARS-CoV-2 protease.”
Again very clever in presenting a limitation as a positive
A Pfizer spokesperson also denied the connection between the drugs, telling Reuters in an email: “Pfizer’s protease inhibitor is not similar to that of an animal medicine and is not the same mechanism.”
I find this statement borderline false but definitively misleading. Ivermectin was a medication developed for humans and 4 billion human doses administered. It is on the WHO’s list of essential medicines and its inventers won the Noble prize for HUMAN medicine (one of whom is advocating for its use to treat COVID). The Pfizer spokesman clearly is playing up the popular horse dewormer theme for public effect. Anti-biotics on the ivermectin criteria are also livestock medication as they are used extensively on animals particularly cattle to keep them free of bacteria and fatten them up for profit. Similarly porridge is horse feed
They added: “For COVID-19, protease inhibitors are designed to block the activity of the SARS-CoV-2 protease, which is an enzyme the virus needs to multiply and replicate itself in the body, and as a result, stop symptoms from worsening.
True
“Applying this powerful and potent mechanism of action to COVID-19 could alter the course of the pandemic.”
Absolutely true and why I and many others having been urging regulators to not ignore treatment, particularly early treatment (especially when SERENDIPITOUSLY you have a generic anti viral with this mechanism and an impeccable safety record sitting around available for use) at the expense of a one size fits all public health response
VERDICT
Missing context. The two drugs are different and do not use the same mechanism.
VERDICT; The fact check is misleading. It deliberately misstates the thesis of the article and then falsely attributes statements to the article which were not made. (Maybe Anty is lead author) It does not attempt to address in any scientific manner why Ivermectin’s mechanism of action as a SARS COV 2 3CL protease inhibitor is materially different from the Pfizer molecule. It does not provide any scientific context. For example the Campbell Video presents a number of papers from eminent publications which shows Ivermectin having the highest binding affinity of all the molecules they tested (at that time). The fact check says it talked to experts but quoted only one who actually only provided generic statements of fact or cliches without ever addressing in any technical detail HOW or WHY they differ and why Ivermectin would not work if it acts on the same protease. The expert was also misleading in not providing context for her statements about safety. The fact checker quotes a Pfizer spokesman which should be a red flag for any intelligent sceptic out there. (Hey I’ll just check Labor’s fiscal plan by asking Josh what he thinks about it). Again the Pfizer spokesman makes a misleading statement about Ivermectin being horse medication and then provides no details of how their medication is more effective. As far as I know there is no published results of the new molecule trial apart from a Pfizer press release. There are 60 ivermectin trials that show efficacy and many that outline the mechanism of action which is the subject of the article and debate.
BTW here is a BMJ article on Pfizer data integrity issues in their original Covid trial
www.bmj.com
This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here .
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
AngryAnt posted a fact check that ‘debunked’ the claim that Ivermectin functions as a SARS Cov 2 3CL protease inhibitor which is interestingly what the new Pfizer drug does.
First Anty seems to believe that factchecker sites on the internet operate without bias and agendas which history suggest is not true. The Snopes example is instructive
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/deansterlingjones/snopes-cofounder-plagiarism-mikkelson
Anyway I am sure Reuters being owned by a private equity firm whose assets are managed by Blackstone are quite free of bias.
Anyway lets look at the article Anty posted and fact check it, First the heading
Fact Check-Pfizer's trial COVID-19 drug is not the same as ivermectin
I find the heading misleading. The Zero hedge article it is fact checking has a heading ‘Pfizer launches final study for Covid Drug that’s suspiciously similar to horse paste” While it might draw implications that it is the same it does not make that assertion. In the body of the article it states
“Coincidentally (or not),Pfizer's drug shares at least one mechanism of action as Ivermectin- an anti-parasitic used in humans for decades, which functions as a protease inhibitor against Covid-19, which researchers speculate "could be the biophysical basis behind its antiviral efficiency."
Lo and behold, Pfizer's new drug - which some have jokingly dubbed "Pfizermectin," is described by the pharmaceutical giant as a "potent protease inhibitor."
The thrust of the article concentrates on the irony of a new drug which has the same mechanism as Ivermectin being developed at the same time as the confected horse dewormer narrative was dominant in the media.
The article posts a tweets that suggest that Pfizer is simply rebadging Ivermectin but the tweet clearly has a “/sarcasm” footer attached
The pfizermectin line is clearly identified as humour and misconstrued by the Reuters fact checkers to be a statement of fact
By Reuters Fact Check This is clearly misleading
An article shared hundreds of times on social media claims a new COVID-19 preventative drug being trialed by Pfizer is “suspiciously similar” to ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medication that the World Health Organization (WHO), European and United States regulators have not recommended for treating the disease. However, Pfizer and an independent virologist told Reuters the two drugs function differently.
The statement is true but offers no insight on whether Ivermectin is an effective protease inhibitor.
Social media users have shared the Sept. 28 article, published by financial market website Zero Hedge here), hundreds of times (here, here, here).
This is possibly true …and?.
Some suggested Pfizer planned to launch a rebranded ivermectin: “It's official now - Pfizer will launch unpacked #ivermectin for of course significantly higher amounts than the medicine has been available so far,” (translated, here).
Once again true but how people respond to an article is irrelevant to the fact checking of the article. Here the fact checker seeks to go beyond the words of the article and seems to be implying a fellow traveller conspiracy. It is a carefully constructed scenario with negative connotations.
Pfizer announced on Sept. 27 the start of phase 2/3 trials of its new antiviral medicine, known as PF-07321332, for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection (here).
True
The following day, Zero Hedge published its article comparing PF-07321332 to ivermectin, claiming the two drugs share “at least one mechanism of action”. It referenced ivermectin’s qualities as a “protease inhibitor” and Pfizer’s description of PF-07321332 as a “potent protease inhibitor”.
True
The widely shared article adds: “That’s exactly what ivermectin, the prophylactic used for a number of reasons in both humans and animals, does”.
Including a screenshot of Pfizer’s March 23 press release on phase 1 of the drug’s trial (here), Zero Hedge then compares the language in a report about ivermectin in the Future Virology Journal (here). It highlights Pfizer’s description of PF-07321332 as a "protease inhibitor" with journal’s description of ivermectin as a "blocker of viral replicase, protease and human TMPRSS2".
True
However, this comparison lacks context, according to experts who spoke to Reuters.
“Pfizer’s drug has protease inhibitor activity like ivermectin, but they are a very different kettle of fish on a variety of levels,” said Dr Cheryl Walter, a virologist at the University of Hull.
First I am happy to accept Dr Walters credentials as a virologist but the above statement is misleading or deceptive as Reuters mention they spoke to’ experts’ but then just quoted one.
Ivermectin formulations have been approved in the U.S. for use as an anti-parasitic in animals, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (here). It adds that for humans, specific ivermectin doses are approved to treat some parasitic worms, while topical formulations can be used for external parasitic conditions, such as headlice.
True
Despite the article’s claims Ivermectin has saved “thousands” of COVID-19 patients’ lives,
I find this statement false. The article says “And unlike Pfizer's experimental drug, ivermectin already MAY have saved hundreds of thousands of lives from India to Brazil.
“May”: is not a definitive statement of fact. It expresses possibility.
an FDA consumer update says (here “Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing."
True but lacks context. Fact checkers should in balance highlight that the FDA is conflicted because it is funded by the entities it regulates and that as public funding has waned and drug industry funding has increased the number of approved drugs that have been withdrawn or black labelled has increased significantly. It should also be noted that drug approval advisory panel members receive significant sums of money from the companies whose drugs they evaluate many in 6 figure sums some in 7 figure sums
Dr Walter explained that PF-07321332 is a “direct acting antiviral drug”, while ivermectin “has multiple mechanisms of action on animal and human cells as well as some serendipitous antiviral activity”.
True but misleading. Ivermectin was developed as an anti parasitic drug but researchers discovered its anti viral effects thereafter. Monash university researchers found out in 2012 that it could kill dengue, zeka, influenza and many others. The word serendipitous means chance random or fate but is does not affect the real fact that it is possesses anti viral properties. Another example of the negative narrative being advanced. If you are killed serendipitously by an aircraft tyre falling on your head you’re still dead.
This means ivermectin likely has a range of “off-target effects on animal/human proteins,” Dr Walter said, adding: “We know it has multiple mechanisms of action and some of these actions could have unwanted, even dangerous side effects.
On one level this is a motherhood statement. We don’t know what we don’t know. However coming form a virologist who has real life knowledge this is bordering on liar liar pants on fire untruth. On WHO Vigiaccess data on medication adverse events Ivermectin is 300 times safer than covid vaccines. It has an unparallelled safety record over 30 years and 4 billion doses administered (to humans). A famous French toxicologist in studying 30 years of research found that there was no reported evidence of a fatality form an accidental or DELIBERATE overdose. The Chief Medical officer of England Chris Whittie wrote a paper where he stated that doses TEN times the recommended dose are safe. Dr Walters should be aware of these facts so the emphasis on dangerous side effects would be part of developing the negative narrative and clearly misleading at best. Cleverly it also downplays that Ivermectin has MULTIPLE mechanisms of actions against the virus and presents them as a NEGATIVE. Very clever but duplicitous deception
“What Pfizer have done is create a drug with a single job - stop the SARS-CoV-2 protease.”
Again very clever in presenting a limitation as a positive
A Pfizer spokesperson also denied the connection between the drugs, telling Reuters in an email: “Pfizer’s protease inhibitor is not similar to that of an animal medicine and is not the same mechanism.”
I find this statement borderline false but definitively misleading. Ivermectin was a medication developed for humans and 4 billion human doses administered. It is on the WHO’s list of essential medicines and its inventers won the Noble prize for HUMAN medicine (one of whom is advocating for its use to treat COVID). The Pfizer spokesman clearly is playing up the popular horse dewormer theme for public effect. Anti-biotics on the ivermectin criteria are also livestock medication as they are used extensively on animals particularly cattle to keep them free of bacteria and fatten them up for profit. Similarly porridge is horse feed
They added: “For COVID-19, protease inhibitors are designed to block the activity of the SARS-CoV-2 protease, which is an enzyme the virus needs to multiply and replicate itself in the body, and as a result, stop symptoms from worsening.
True
“Applying this powerful and potent mechanism of action to COVID-19 could alter the course of the pandemic.”
Absolutely true and why I and many others having been urging regulators to not ignore treatment, particularly early treatment (especially when SERENDIPITOUSLY you have a generic anti viral with this mechanism and an impeccable safety record sitting around available for use) at the expense of a one size fits all public health response
VERDICT
Missing context. The two drugs are different and do not use the same mechanism.
VERDICT; The fact check is misleading. It deliberately misstates the thesis of the article and then falsely attributes statements to the article which were not made. (Maybe Anty is lead author) It does not attempt to address in any scientific manner why Ivermectin’s mechanism of action as a SARS COV 2 3CL protease inhibitor is materially different from the Pfizer molecule. It does not provide any scientific context. For example the Campbell Video presents a number of papers from eminent publications which shows Ivermectin having the highest binding affinity of all the molecules they tested (at that time). The fact check says it talked to experts but quoted only one who actually only provided generic statements of fact or cliches without ever addressing in any technical detail HOW or WHY they differ and why Ivermectin would not work if it acts on the same protease. The expert was also misleading in not providing context for her statements about safety. The fact checker quotes a Pfizer spokesman which should be a red flag for any intelligent sceptic out there. (Hey I’ll just check Labor’s fiscal plan by asking Josh what he thinks about it). Again the Pfizer spokesman makes a misleading statement about Ivermectin being horse medication and then provides no details of how their medication is more effective. As far as I know there is no published results of the new molecule trial apart from a Pfizer press release. There are 60 ivermectin trials that show efficacy and many that outline the mechanism of action which is the subject of the article and debate.
BTW here is a BMJ article on Pfizer data integrity issues in their original Covid trial
Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial
Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight. Paul D Thacker reports In autumn 2020 Pfizer’s chairman and chief executive, Albert Bourla, released an open...
This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here .
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Ok we'll make it hypothetical, If someone told you they hadn't watched a video but then told you what was in it and why it was wrong, would you call them a disingenuous moron ?
Maybe you're right, They might just be your standard garden variety moron.
I'd like to stop calling you a dumb ar$e but you're not making it easy. Stop confounding dodgy fact check sites founded by Pharmaceutical companies with scientific literature for god's sake.
Last edited:
I don’t get the angst. Water and plastic both have hydrogen in them.
Invermectin doesn’t have a credible study supporting Its efficacy. Its promoters of it as a cure for Covid have IMO caused many people to die and get seriously ill who bought into that and natural immunity.
If a drug is similar and does work then that’s great. If it has something that’s similar to IVM then so what. This is a conspiracy theory confirmation bias gone gang busters.
I agree drug companies are private enterprises that seek to maximise profit. That’s a whole different issue but it is what it is.
Invermectin doesn’t have a credible study supporting Its efficacy. Its promoters of it as a cure for Covid have IMO caused many people to die and get seriously ill who bought into that and natural immunity.
If a drug is similar and does work then that’s great. If it has something that’s similar to IVM then so what. This is a conspiracy theory confirmation bias gone gang busters.
I agree drug companies are private enterprises that seek to maximise profit. That’s a whole different issue but it is what it is.
