Dr. Pierre Kory

[AutumnW]

All of the major pro ivermectin studies have been vetted carefully now and most of them are either intentionally fraudulent or very sloppily done. And sloppy to the point that they are useless. There are several small studies that have yet to be completed and am not sure if they are properly structured, to eliminate placebo effect, high risk of bias, etc...

Kory and his partner Paul Marik, had their protocol study retracted by the Journal of Intensive care medicine. Sentara Hospital, Eastern Virginia, (where the study was conducted) complained to the journal.

This article on Retracted studies explains quite clearly what was wrong with the studies, how the basic math was wrong, etc..etc...mortality rates turned out to be higher in the patients that were fully dosed using the full Kory/Marik treatment protocol, referred to as Math+ The plus is ivermectin.

Anyway, not a good look and they can rail on all they want about an overarching conspiracy to silence them, but their own paper stands out as a huge red flag.

From the article

In addition, of those 191 patients, only 73 patients (38.2%) received at least 1 of the 4 MATH+ therapies, and their mortality rate was 24.7%. Only 25 of 191 patients (13.1%) received all 4 MATH+ therapies, and their mortality rate was 28%.’

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11/09/bad-math-covid-treatment-paper-by-pierre-kory-retracted-for-flawed-results/#more-123476

[indigopete]

Just wondering, but are you familiar with the general underlying principle by which Ivermectin and similar therapies such as hydroxychloroquine are claimed to work ?

[jaybee]

Was there not an obvious and intense campaign against ivermectin - and MSM outlets, like CNN, not done their absolute best to steer people away from using it - (for example the Joe Rogan / horse de~wormer thing) I might be able to take the OP report a little bit serious -

I expect the hospital mentioned has been co opted / bribed or blackmailed to contradict the data - maybe just changed the figures their end - because there is no end of criminality and lies where the Pandemic Hoax and 'Vaccine' Agenda is concerned...


The data from Sentara Norfolk General Hospital that [are] reported in this paper are inaccurate.


One idea that has cropped up is that not only is the award winning, cheap, safe drug (ivermectin) a way to prevent Covid and save lives when given as an early treatment - or even a last hope life saver - it may help clear the Gene Therapy Jab from the system in some way.... especially if genetically modified parasites and hydra are involved - ivermectin being an anti parasitic drug -

[Billy Vasiliadis]

Just a few thoughts Autumn. Discussion like this is good, as it helps us discover what is true and what perhaps isn't, even when we don't like it. I'm hoping Kory and the FLCCC do address this and provide an explanation.

I'm not a scientist, so everything I have to say on this is ultimately coming from another source. Perhaps that disqualifies me.

The article you have linked doesn't come across as all that neutral imo. It refers to Ivermectin as 'dewormer', which has been ongoing propaganda used to discredit it unfairly. There are studied mechanisms for how Ivermectin works against covid. This recent video does a good job I thought of explaining some of them:
ufy2AweXRkc

You've written that the mortality rates were higher in the fully treated group. I'm not sure if by this you are suggesting that the treatment is actively harmful or that it doesn't do anything?

Here is the table they are referring to in the retraction:
https://i.ibb.co/HCXx74N/Math-Table.jpg
Source: https://flccc.net/math-plus-rationale-journal-of-intensive-care-medicine-dec2020/ (pdf download)

The 2 rows at the bottom are the hospitals where MATH+ was used. The newly calculated percentages basically align the results at Sentara (hospital B) with the mortality of the rest of the table. Although there is still the lower mortality of United Memorial (hospital A), which still stands as far as I'm aware. If the numbers for Sentara were fudged I'm guessing we should also see this other hospital claim the same?

I think it might also be worth noting that Marik has recently filed a suit against Sentara:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/FLCCC-Marik-Case-Release-FINAL-Nov-9.pdf

The timing is a bit interesting. This paper was released in December of 2020 if I am reading correctly. Why didn't they flag these numbers earlier?

As for the Ivermectin studies being small, I feel like this is inevitable. Large studies cost lots of money, and with Ivermectin being generic, where is this money going to come from? I just can't help but notice that so often cheap generic drugs, and alternative therapies more generally, are always scrutinised to the nth degree, but novel drugs get rave reviews and are widely used and recommended. A good example of this is Remdesivir. As far as I'm aware this is still used often, but even the WHO came out against (https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-recommends-against-the-use-of-remdesivir-in-covid-19-patients) its use. This dynamic has been evident during the covid era. It has basically been vax or nothing.

There is every reason to discredit Ivermectin, and everything else Kory and the team are doing. A lot of the things they promote are not patented drugs (although some are) and anyone can get them easily. Of course this doesn't prove that the therapies work, but it makes sense in my mind why powerful interests would go after them.

There are more than just the Ivermectin studies. There are numerous papers on things like Vitamin D, Fluvoxamine etc (https://c19early.com/). The protocol includes many of these. That is what I see the FLCCC doing, promoting accessible early treatment that empowers people. I actually think perhaps too much focus has been placed on Ivermectin alone.

Again, I'm not a scientist so I guess it is possible that all of these studies are flawed and don't really prove much. It is times like these where I kind of wish I were a trained scientist. Would make this business of discerning truth a bit easier.

Thanks for making me think Autumn haha :handshake:

[PurpleLama]

Ah, I must strongly recommend perusing some of the (long) twitter threads of this data scientist:

https://mobile.twitter.com/alexandrosM

It appears that the people who are spearheading the anti-ivermectin as covid therapeutic narrative are not operating in good faith, at all. Please take some time to be advised of what is really going on with this.

[indigopete]

Ah, I must strongly recommend perusing some of the (long) twitter threads of this data scientist:

https://mobile.twitter.com/alexandrosM

It appears that the people who are spearheading the anti-ivermectin as covid therapeutic narrative are not operating in good faith, at all.

Of course they're not. There's not a snowball's hope in hell of therapies being formally shown to work. There is FAR too much at stake. If ever there was an inpartial large scale study that demonstrated significant performance of these therapies then:


bang goes your emergency use authorisation
and then the vaccine rollout with it
and the digital biometric IDs with that
and the CBDCs (https://www.ecb.europa.eu/home/search/html/central_bank_digital_currencies_cbdc.en.html) with that
which would pull the rug out from under the entire Great Reset (https://in-this-together.com/pseudopandemic) agenda


The therapies all more or less work along the same principle - it isn't hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin that really do the business, it's zinc (as I understand it). The hydroxy/mectin serve as ionosphores to get the zinc into the cells. Whatever the merits of individual drug trials, this principle has been demonstrated to be extremely powerful both theoretically and in oodles of studies. IMO, randomised trials are kind of useless for demonstrating this compared with anecdotal evidence because everyone gets exactly the same treatment so they're generally set up to fail. (Such as the first big Ivermectin trial where they gave everybody 10 times the dose knowing that it would fail. But they didn't get away with it, the study got called out and was retracted from the Lancet).

This is why Pierre Cory always talks about "doctoring". They treat each patient on a case by case basis TRYING to cure them, unlike a mass randomized trial funded by big pharma where they're TRYING to demonstrate is doesn't work. They have to give them zinc with it.

See:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33236142/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34514483/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32837895/hydroxichloroq
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210621/Zinc-inhibits-SARS-CoV-2e28099s-main-protease-in-vitro.aspx
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7395818/

Here's another great example of this "zinc+ionosphore" principle being extremely effective: Nigella Sativa (black cumin). It happens to have both the zinc and the ionosphore (quercetine in this case) on board: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.30.20217364v2

See it being discussed here:

SOwa6-EOohI

[Bill Ryan]

For reference (being a good librarian here! :) ), do also see this thread:


Dr Pierre Kory on the prevention and treatment for Covid 19 (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113244-Dr-Pierre-Kory-on-the-prevention-and-treatment-for-Covid-19)

And:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfnIkDwrjw8
Chris Martenson's YouTube text:
Evie and I went to Houston on 1/3 to 1/6 and met up with the front line doctors behind the MATH+ and the iMASK protocols which they say are transforming Covid care and prevention. You know, the one that used the Drug Which Shall Not Be Named or DWSNBN2 (pronounced "dwizz-n-bin") These doctors are true heroes. They are putting their reputations, careers and tremendous personal energy on the line. They are tireless champions of doing what's best for their patients and they are driven to help many more.
And here are the links to the protocols.


I-MASK+ Prevention & Early Outpatient Treatment Protocol for COVID-19:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-plus-protocol (https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-plus-protocol)



MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19:
(https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/math-plus-protocol)https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/math-plus-protocol



I-RECOVER Management Protocol for Long Haul COVID-19 Syndrome (LHCS):
https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-recover-protocol (https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-recover-protocol)

Also:


Ivermectin in COVID-19:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19

And finally, don't forget this Avalon thread:


EMERGENCY CALL: A member in urgent need
(https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?116392-EMERGENCY-CALL-A-member-in-urgent-need)(Yes, it works. :) )

[PurpleLama]

Here is the retraction notice:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0885066620973585

It appears that the basis of the retraction amounts to one of the two hospitals involved in the study admit to fudging the data, after the fact, and use that point to request a retraction of the study review. Note, study review, this is not a paper that is based on what would be a clinical trial, and even with this contraversy, there remains some evidence of efficacy of the MATH+ protocol. Also note, this review is about patients who are critically ill, not about early treatment or prevention.

My prediction is that this will turn out to be the result of political pressure on the administrators of the hospital which has requested the retraction. It is entirely based on their admission of providing faulty data.

[AutumnW]

I am continuing to follow this story and am open to alternative interpretations, as you all should be, if it's all about truth seeking.

As David Fuller describes, I am with those who question authority and have great contempt for big pharma. Also, am very concerned about what our surveillance society will lead to. I totally get being anti-covid vaccine, as it is a new technology and nobody has to convince me that there are major side effects, particularly in young people.

But for me, facts matter. And it may seem like crazy hair splitting on my part and an attempt to undermine someone who is doing some great work because I am philosophically opposed to alternative treatments. I'm not. It's right up my alley. But I am aware of my own bias in this area and have watched some alternative media heroes become more and more strident, contemptuous and willing to accept any and all info that conforms to their bias. That includes those promoting Kory. I don't include Bill in this because he's not a one hit wonder and is not making money off of supporting Kory's claims.

I am including this video and would appreciate it if some here would watch it. David Fuller of Rebel Wisdom quit his job at the BBC to support Jordan Peterson and help him get a leg up by making a documentary film about him, years ago. He is an anti-establishment kind of guy, very good friends with Bret Weinstein and Heather Hying of the Dark Horse podcast. I realized watching him how much his own thoughts and feelings mirror my own and how confusing it has been for me to be able to articulate them without getting emotional. I wish I could be more even keeled and diplomatic as he surely is.

I think in conclusion I do want to reinforce a point here. Nobody is asking anyone to change their world view. That's pretty impossible and condescending. Just be aware that we are all susceptible to eliminating, brushing off information that doesn't conform to our larger world view. And I wonder why this is. Because, nobody has to change their world view about Big Pharma, or how corporations control and manipulate, in order to incorporate factual data. They can coexist quite well.

Anyway, thank you all for responding to my post. Autumn.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94jwkGduDls

[AutumnW]

I posted the wrong video. Here is the one I wanted to post originally, but am leaving the other one up for anyone interested.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plLmTWHeKrI

[PurpleLama]

There is a number of people within mainstream and alternative media who have been very dishonest, operating in bad faith when it comes to Bret and Heather.

David Fuller is among them.

It is beyond my technical ability to demonstrate with links, but essentially some of his data had bad math and some mathmaticians called him out on it, and he doubled down and continued his narrative in bad faith. This specifically related to the data he was using in attempt to denigrate Bret and Heather.

Having seen this, I will decline to watch the above posted video. I confess, I have a strong bias in favor of the Darkhorse duo, having followed their material since sometime in 2018. If ever new data emerges, they are always quick to change their public stance, if it happens that they have gotten anything wrong.

I don't know if you are familiar with them, outside of their willingness to allow doctors and scientists come forward on their show who challenge mainstream narratives around covid. If you are not, I highly recommend checking them out, Autumn (or anyone), as they are definitely old school liberal thinkers who I think would appeal to you.

[Bill Ryan]

I'm taking the liberty of copying this post from Hym (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?116806-Recent-Cardiac-Events-Amongst-Sports-People&p=1462562&viewfull=1#post1462562), which he shared with the community 25 minutes ago on the new Sports Injuries thread. (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?116806-Recent-Cardiac-Events-Amongst-Sports-People)

It might deserve being posted on every other thread we have.

@AutumnW, we love and respect you dearly, but please don't post another thing, anywhere, until you read this and reply to Hym (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/member.php?7088-Hym) personally either on this thread or the one where it was originally posted. That's a direct request that I'm making of you.

:heart:

~~~
At 11 p.m. on the 15th of last month, Oct.'21, I got a frantic call from my son asking me to immediately come over to his place. I left right then, knowing that the worst may have happened and also knowing that I did not fear it, as my son would need me to be strong and supportive, to be there with him.

He had thrown up and was shaking. I gave him a big hug to comfort him, sensing for myself the immediate, bodily perception of what was really going wrong. He said he had a headache, his lower back was hurting and that his heart was racing.

He laid down on his bed and put his hands over his heart, doing his best to calm down. I did what all parents who Love their children do. I sat down next to him and breathed deeply, calming down the perceptions he was feeling, that I too was feeling and have always felt when in anyone else's presence, experiencing that whatever calm I generated would be received by them.

I didn't get much sleep that night, even kept my shoes on while lying down.
My son said he wasn't going to leave (his body), not for a long time.
He told me he didn't want to die. I knew what he had done, despite the amount of detailed and simplified information I had shared with him. All of us parents know the limits of advice, even direct, clinical and documented science.

The next morning he told me that he had a Moderna mRNA shot at the CVS pharmacy 4 days before. That was only the 2nd 'shot' he had in his life. He asked me not to be mad at him...and of course I wasn't.

In fact, a month before he had taken the shot I got a soul message from him that prepared me for the event, messages I get with people I Love and from some I know, even casually....it's all up to them, an integral part of their true being, the highest form of subtle communication.

I had already bought the cleansing supplements, the true protocols (from many, including Dr. Zelenko, Mikovits, Battar, etc.) and had them on a shelf above the kitchen counter, ready for just such an occurrence. I went home, got the supplements, NAC, zinc, astaxanthin, quercetin, D3, melatonin and some quality Vit.C. and went back to his place, giving him the details I had written a few weeks before. He already knew some of the healing protocols for what was obviously a systemic reaction to graphene oxide, yet had most likely only researched them in the days after his initial reaction.

Now my son is not an elite athlete, but he is much healthier than the average 27 year old, having been a lacto-vegetarian since birth. He doesn't indulge in any drugs/'legal' or 'illegal' poisons, alcohol, smoking, etc.. He does eat well and gets exercise daily with long, brisk walks and biking around town.

I have known him all of his life, I even delivered him, and from 5 yrs. old on was/am his only constant and present parent. This event was a heart shaker for both of us. However, I recognized the real reason for his decision.....I smiled at him and said "I don't blame you for making this decision for Love. No one can". It was clear that he was worried he wasn't going to be able to visit his fiance in her home country and thus the drastic and dangerous decision to get the shot. This decision was amplified by the fact that they have moved up their plans to get married because of the impending mandates that may fall upon my son's travels to be with her.

Though supportive of him and always present for him, when he calls, I did say that risking his life for Love was not what was called for, as you can't Love anyone when you're dead, and that is a very harsh soul lesson to take beyond this lifetime. In fact, just as in the first two times he was with her this year he had taken an at home test (useless, as we know) and one before leaving to get back to the states.

My son did report his severe reactions to VAERS and has that printed report, a return acknowledgement from the cdc, to go along with his vax card. I am now quite aware of symptoms my son's body may give him and I do know the range of health threats, the possibilities, that the government sanctioned poisoning may have on his future, far beyond my massive studies, learning, and documentation that any researcher would be proud of.

We all have our moments, our inspirations that prompt us to stand. I have been standing for a very long time, and I am constantly reminded that I have to take very good care of myself in order to go from standing to running into the fray that is worth the fight.

My son has constantly told me to stay out of it, yet that is not my nature nor the nature, the life, the vibrance of many who have shown up here at this time, certainly not the nature of many here on Avalon. His presence has always prompted my need for a deeper perspective, even if in those few times he has been forced to aggressively assert his rights it may seem a contradiction of his words. I get it and am thankful for the insight.

In respect to my son still having a parent and his expectations of this, I have learned a measured value of what approaching important issues from entirely different avenues of action can do to being effective.

I see this adjustment as being whatever I've needed to find other paths to solutions, and I am grateful for the push. I do know that I've never expressed my capacity to do other things that a parent will do when the life of their child is impacted, even limited.....and I've known of the possibilities of deceitful media influence and the steps that negative controlling forces may exert upon our Loved Ones.

I'm good with whatever I will do in response.....which in the best possible events will be the indictment, trial and sentencing of all of the perpetrators and their subsequent punishments.

I always take it personally, as not to do so is not to be who I am.

[AutumnW]

Bill, What part of anything I wrote would cause you to think that I would dismiss severe reactions to vaccination? There HAS been a governmental freak out over covid, I figure.

I feel so sorry for Hym and his son and think its a very good thing that he reported his reaction to the CDC. It came right out of the blue and he had no history of this kind of illness. Plus it happened very shortly after his shot, so yes, cause for great concern.

If we're talking anecdotal stories, here's another one--not meant to dispute, just to examine vaccine risk and covid risk from all angles. I've spent the better part of a year researching ivermectin, covid vaccines and my own risk factors. It took forever and my own research to establish that people who have had me/cfs for as long as I have are very immune suppressed. I had thought it was the opposite and that every time I got sick it was just a major relapse of the illness. Nope....I was wrong.

The very best studies I could find illustrated one of the main problems with nailing down a diagnosis of ME/CFS. The immunopathology of the illness in its earlier stages indicates a ramped up immune system. In later stages of the disease the immune system goes into collapse, for obvious reasons. Having had it for over 40 years and noting changes myself in how I react to colds and flu in the last 10 years, I assumed and rightly so, that I was in immune exhaustion.

I had put off getting the vaccine because I have and had many of the same suspicions that so many others have. But after very careful consideration, I had the shots and zero reaction to them. Does this mean the vaccines are all just great and everyone should get them? No. Would I ever suggest anyone get vaccinated. Nope. I am not confident enough of it's safety, across the board, to do that.

Now ironically, just after I was vaccinated I spoke to my sister-in-law and she told me about a young friend of hers, a woman in her forties, who was struggling with the same issue, I had been wrestling with. She had cancer as a child, and was worried about the effect of the vaccines, as she didn't know how it would effect her, specifically, due to her medical history. Very sadly, she died of covid a few months ago.

Anyway, it isn't a one size fits all issue. Not black and white. It's very hard for me to reach any definite conclusion on the over all picture, because it's fuzzy and involves so many factors.

Now, before you reply back, would you please watch the second video I posted? It's about how freaking difficult it is. I will email you about what I know about a certain podcaster you follow. I had been following him for 14 years, so know him quite well. And if we're working off anecdotes, I have a few!:happy dog:

[AutumnW]

Purple llama, I respect your opinion but as you can't provide links about his 'dishonesty' I can't take this specific claim about Fuller too seriously. You do know that the one who has been hardest on Darkhorse's ivermectin claims is the same guest, Yuri Delgin, who exposed the Wuhan lab leak theory on...the Dark Horse podcast. I think, but am not positive, that he is an epidemiologist and statistician and was able to zero in on lab leak, using those skills.

I think you may be thinking of Yuri Delgin rather than Fuller here. Fuller and Bret and Heather are friends and I if you watch the second video I posted you will see that he doesn't denigrate them at all. The worst he says about them is this, "They take a strong position on ivermectin, which is fair, but as there can be serious consquences, and in the interest of science journalism, they should have guests on their show that provide a counterpoint."

He emphasizes that those counterpoint guests should be people who have equal distrust of Big Pharma as they do, not scientists who work for or with any institution where there would be an automatic conflict of interest.

[PurpleLama]

Purple llama, I respect your opinion but as you can't provide links about his 'dishonesty' I can't take this specific claim about Fuller too seriously. You do know that the one who has been hardest on Darkhorse's ivermectin claims is the same guest, Yuri Delgin, who exposed the Wuhan lab leak theory on...the Dark Horse podcast. I think, but am not positive, that he is an epidemiologist and statistician and was able to zero in on lab leak, using those skills.

I think you may be thinking of Yuri Delgin rather than Fuller here. Fuller and Bret and Heather are friends and I if you watch the second video I posted you will see that he doesn't denigrate them at all. The worst he says about them is this, "They take a strong position on ivermectin, which is fair, but as there can be serious consquences, and in the interest of science journalism, they should have guests on their show that provide a counterpoint."

He emphasizes that those counterpoint guests should be people who have equal distrust of Big Pharma as they do, not scientists who work for or with any institution where there would be an automatic conflict of interest.

The argument was one he was having in public, on Twitter, and that is why I must confess that I do not have the ability to go tracking this down. It was plenty for me to put him in the camp, so to speak, with folks like Yuri Delgin, Sam Harris, Clair Lehman, and more. People who are going after Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, and these two people I happen to hold in high regard.

More specifically to the topic of the thread, Dr. Kory has begun his response to the retraction here (https://mobile.twitter.com/PierreKory/status/1458892074510651405).

You might want to catch it soon, these days the censorship is a real problem.

[AutumnW]

Oh thanks, I will check out his response, PL

[AutumnW]

Purple llama, I respect your opinion but as you can't provide links about his 'dishonesty' I can't take this specific claim about Fuller too seriously. You do know that the one who has been hardest on Darkhorse's ivermectin claims is the same guest, Yuri Delgin, who exposed the Wuhan lab leak theory on...the Dark Horse podcast. I think, but am not positive, that he is an epidemiologist and statistician and was able to zero in on lab leak, using those skills.

I think you may be thinking of Yuri Delgin rather than Fuller here. Fuller and Bret and Heather are friends and I if you watch the second video I posted you will see that he doesn't denigrate them at all. The worst he says about them is this, "They take a strong position on ivermectin, which is fair, but as there can be serious consquences, and in the interest of science journalism, they should have guests on their show that provide a counterpoint."

He emphasizes that those counterpoint guests should be people who have equal distrust of Big Pharma as they do, not scientists who work for or with any institution where there would be an automatic conflict of interest.

The argument was one he was having in public, on Twitter, and that is why I must confess that I do not have the ability to go tracking this down. It was plenty for me to put him in the camp, so to speak, with folks like Yuri Delgin, Sam Harris, Clair Lehman, and more. People who are going after Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, and these two people I happen to hold in high regard.

More specifically to the topic of the thread, Dr. Kory has begun his response to the retraction here (https://mobile.twitter.com/PierreKory/status/1458892074510651405).

You might want to catch it soon, these days the censorship is a real problem.


Best part: Sentara, in their ignorance, tried to call out the 28% mortality of patients who got all components of MATH+ as if it was a bad thing - without realizing those were ICU patients at a time when U.S institutions were reporting UP TO AN 88% MORTALITY in the ICU-- Kory's twitter feed today

The point is the control group ended up with fewer fatalities, and I imagine the control group would have had to match in days of symptoms and overall severity of illness, those who received the special sauce of ivermectin (when the study was initiated)

The study ended just before the people in the special sauce group died. I think it was appropriate that Sentara brought this to the attention of the journal. Whether Kory was aware of these deaths is anyone's guess but he shouldn't be surprised that it was reported. :flower:

I hope I am wrong and that there is some grosse error here, but I simply have to accept what I can't easily explain away.

[Billy Vasiliadis]

This is from the study itself:


The MATH+ protocol (Table 1) reviewed above has been implemented in the treatment of COVID-19 patients at 2 hospitals in the United States; United Memorial Hospital in Houston, Texas (J.V) and Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia (P.E.M). MATH+ was systematically provided upon admission to the hospital at United Memorial while at Norfolk General, the protocol was administered upon admission to the ICU.

According to their study, they provided treatment at Sentara only to those admitted to the ICU. I think we can assume these are the most challenging cases to treat.

Now this is where I am getting confused. Here is the table again:
https://i.ibb.co/HCXx74N/Math-Table.jpg

The way I first read this is that the mortality for the MATH+ hospitals are being derived from only those patients they treated. So for Sentara that would mean they treated 191 patients admitted to the ICU, and for United Memorial they treated 141 patients admitted to hospital, and then they calculated the mortality from those 2 cohorts. And the study itself seems to suggest that as well:

The average hospital mortality at these 2 centers in over 300 patients treated is 5.1%.

The control group reads to me as being the other hospitals in the table, where MATH wasn't used at all.

The retraction notice however suggests that only a subset of those 191 patients at Sentara were treated using MATH:

We have conducted a careful review of our data for patients with COVID-19 from March 22, 2020 to July 20, 2020, which shows that among the 191 patients referenced in Table 2 that the mortality rate was 10.5%, rather than 6.1%. In addition, of those 191 patients, only 73 patients (38.2%) received at least 1 of the 4 MATH+ therapies, and their mortality rate was 24.7%. Only 25 of 191 patients (13.1%) received all 4 MATH+ therapies, and their mortality rate was 28%.

The updated overall mortality for this group still looks favourable at 10.5%. But if we only take the treated subset (73 + 25) and assume that this cohort of 98 people were ICU patients like the paper says, that would make the MATH treated (partial therapy + full therapy) mortality roughly 25%. In Kory's tweet he says the ICU mortality rate at that time was 88% in general. I don't have a source for that percentage however. But if true it still shows the treatment in a good light. And even if we ignore the 88% figure from Kory, 25% still looks good in comparison to the rest of the table, which I'm assuming used all hospitalised patients as the denominator, not just ICU patients. This suggests with MATH used, ICU mortality resembles general hospitalization mortality. Which sounds good right?

Also interesting is that of those 191, according to the retraction notice, there were 93 who weren't treated with MATH (191 - 73 - 25). The question I have is were these ICU patients or general admission patients? If the overall mortality for the 191 is 10.5%, what is the mortality for the 93 non MATH treated people? If my math is correct it is roughly 4% which is at odds with the rest of the non MATH treating hospitals, where the mortality is lowest 15%.

So there are still some points of confusion that need clarifying (at least for me they do).

This is all very confusing lol.

[AutumnW]

Hey Billy, Thanks so much for looking into this and analyzing it. There are plenty of people who are going to be taking a good second and third and fourth look at it, most likely. Maybe they can cut through the confusion. It's like trying to read the entrails of a goat!:waving:

[Delight]

Here is a tweet today discussing the paper retraction

1458892074510651405

[PurpleLama]

Ah, I must strongly recommend perusing some of the (long) twitter threads of this data scientist:

https://mobile.twitter.com/alexandrosM

It appears that the people who are spearheading the anti-ivermectin as covid therapeutic narrative are not operating in good faith, at all. Please take some time to be advised of what is really going on with this.

This person has investigates the retraction of Dr. Kory's paper, and posted the results on twitter.

https://mobile.twitter.com/alexandrosM/status/1459258080475058176

Note, this is the first post of a thread, you will have to follow the link to read it all.

[AutumnW]

Purple Llama,

Relying exclusively on Kory's own word, as explanation, allows him to be judge and jury of himself. Put another way, it becomes a matter of faith and his proponents become adherents and the FLCCC, no better than a cult.:sun:

[PurpleLama]

Purple Llama,

Relying exclusively on Kory's own word, as explanation, allows him to be judge and jury of himself. Put another way, it becomes a matter of faith and his proponents become adherents and the FLCCC, no better than a cult.:sun:

The @alexandrosM thread does not rely on Dr. Kory's own word, so to speak. It not a very long thread (so please read it), it ends with him pointing out that the supposed reasoning for the retraction was actually acknowledged in the paper, itself. My hypotheses that this will turn out to be another covid-political stunt seems to be bearing out.

[AutumnW]

I've read enough of Alex's posts to appreciate he is an FLCCC adherent, without a science background. You have to understand that I was rabidly pro ivermectin until I looked into some of their statistical aberrations and charts that Kory was using to back up his claims.

It was confusing, I thought I had to be mistaken, a nitpicker, or not seeing what I should be seeing, because I trusted Chris Martenson and those he trusted.

Now, sadly, I realize none of them are devoid of ego and in Martenson's case, not above exaggerating and twisting stats to confirm his thesis. Its been a constant moving of goal posts. And though it has all taken place within a rapidly evolving viral situation, that doesn't explain it all of the goal post migrations! It has been really difficult as I was a member of his forum for 14 years and considered him a friend. But...live and learn!

But hey, thanks for putting that info together!

[jaybee]

[snip]

Of course they're not. There's not a snowball's hope in hell of therapies being formally shown to work. There is FAR too much at stake. If ever there was an inpartial large scale study that demonstrated significant performance of these therapies then:


bang goes your emergency use authorisation
and then the vaccine rollout with it
and the digital biometric IDs with that
and the CBDCs (https://www.ecb.europa.eu/home/search/html/central_bank_digital_currencies_cbdc.en.html) with that
which would pull the rug out from under the entire Great Reset (https://in-this-together.com/pseudopandemic) agenda


[snip]




that's it in a nutshell....

those pushing the pandemic hoax + 'vaccine' roll out and moving Western Nations into an authoritarian nightmare - don't care how many people die through lack of proper treatment that utilizes cheap effective drugs like Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine - in fact they want as many deaths as possible to hype up the fear mongering - such is their lack of empathy and humanity...

the whole situation is beyond crazy but this is what we have to deal with and live with at the moment...

[jaybee]

More specifically to the topic of the thread, Dr. Kory has begun his response to the retraction here (https://mobile.twitter.com/PierreKory/status/1458892074510651405).

You might want to catch it soon, these days the censorship is a real problem.

Just in case... I've copied and pasted the 8 part response -

Dr Pierre Kory said...

Thread re: retraction of the FLCCC paper from the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine
It is unfortunate that JICM retracted an entire paper based on their refusal to accept an update to 1 section of data that had little relevance to the focus or conclusions of the paper (1/8)

This was a comprehensive paper - 13 sections, nearly 200 scientific references detailing the science behind each MATH+ element of the 2020 protocol. The data in question was in 1 section and WAS ACCURATE when we originally submitted- i.e. a 6% COVID mortality at Sentara (2/8)

After peer-review & publication, a very unusual request came to us from JICM. Sentara Hospital asked the journal that the paper be updated with longer-term follow up data calculated differently (they never said our original data was inaccurate). (3/8)

Using Sentara's method, they came up with a 10% mortality - STILL FAR LESS than the 23% U.S hospital mortality average average we were loosely comparing it to. (4/8)

Best part: Sentara, in their ignorance, tried to call out the 28% mortality of patients who got all components of MATH+ as if it was a bad thing - without realizing those were ICU patients at a time when U.S institutions were reporting UP TO AN 88% MORTALITY in the ICU (5/8)

We then provided the only follow-up data we had - JICM refused to accept. We then offered to retract the entire section with the old Sentara data - JICM refused. The conclusion of the paper (it was a RATIONALE paper) still stands without the Sentara data even being included. 6/8

This action by the journal puts the FLCCC again on the growing list of scientists whose peer reviewed manuscripts on repurposed drugs have been retracted by editors throughout the pandemic (after passing peer review!). (7/8)

If medical research is there just to serve in supporting mainstream collective thinking and censor those who might have alternative approaches or differing interpretations, the future of medicine will be very dark. (8/8)

[end]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

hospitals - doctors - pharmacies - etc (throughout the world) are all being pressurized in various ways to collude with the twisted Official Narrative - it's a sorry state of affairs - :(

[Billy Vasiliadis]

This person has investigates the retraction of Dr. Kory's paper, and posted the results on twitter.

https://mobile.twitter.com/alexandrosM/status/1459258080475058176

Note, this is the first post of a thread, you will have to follow the link to read it all.

This unfortunately didn't resolve this whole issue for me. It still isn't clear, from the 191 patients at Sentara, who got what and who was in the ICU or not.

The retraction notice should have been more detailed, it leaves open many questions. If you are going to make a retraction I'd have thought the reasons for doing so would be explained more clearly. There shouldn't be this guessing.

I'm not convinced that the FLCCC manipulated the data from what has been provided so far. Going to need more than this.

I will say this. I'm open to the idea that Ivermectin has been oversold and that it isn't a miracle drug. I do believe it works, based off of some of the turnarounds some have made when starting on it. I'm thinking the focus really should be on holistic treatment and not any one therapy. Which, to be fair, doctors like Peter McCullough have been saying for a long time now.

I wouldn't be surprised if Kory and others have exaggerated some things, but again, I haven't seen anything so far which is worthy of dismissing them and their message all together. Even if Ivermectin and the protocols only work half as well as they are said to, that is still worth listening to and implementing IMO.

[PurpleLama]

I've read enough of Alex's posts to appreciate he is an FLCCC adherent, without a science background. You have to understand that I was rabidly pro ivermectin until I looked into some of their statistical aberrations and charts that Kory was using to back up his claims.

It was confusing, I thought I had to be mistaken, a nitpicker, or not seeing what I should be seeing, because I trusted Chris Martenson and those he trusted.

Now, sadly, I realize none of them are devoid of ego and in Martenson's case, not above exaggerating and twisting stats to confirm his thesis. Its been a constant moving of goal posts. And though it has all taken place within a rapidly evolving viral situation, that doesn't explain it all of the goal post migrations! It has been really difficult as I was a member of his forum for 14 years and considered him a friend. But...live and learn!

But hey, thanks for putting that info together!

@alexandrosM is actually a neutral operative who is trying to inject sense making into the covid treatment contraversies. Like I said he is a data scientist, one whe deals with logic and sense making in complex systems. He is not a medical doctor, no, but he is a scientist. I forget what he said his actual degrees were in, but when I come across those details I will provide them. I have listened to a lot of live conversations he has had with other scientists on these and other topics, and in my view he is a genuine person trying to parse out a very complex issue. I brought his material into this thread precisely because I knew this to be the case. While it is important to see both sides of a story, it can be even more important to bring in neutral third party observers who are inclined to go through source materials and extract the pertinent details for laymen such as ourselves.

I am only vaguely aware of Chris Martenson, and I have not read anything he has said about these subjects.

[PurpleLama]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEEnBRuVcAgAibO?format=jpg&name=large

Ok, so Dr. Marik is head of the ICU at the Sentara hospital. The administration had ordered its doctors to discontinue the MATH+ protocols, and he filed a lawsuit against the hospital. Then the hospital approached the JICM to have the paper retracted, which would help the case of the hospital.

[Pam]

This person has investigates the retraction of Dr. Kory's paper, and posted the results on twitter.

https://mobile.twitter.com/alexandrosM/status/1459258080475058176

Note, this is the first post of a thread, you will have to follow the link to read it all.

This unfortunately didn't resolve this whole issue for me. It still isn't clear, from the 191 patients at Sentara, who got what and who was in the ICU or not.

The retraction notice should have been more detailed, it leaves open many questions. If you are going to make a retraction I'd have thought the reasons for doing so would be explained more clearly. There shouldn't be this guessing.

I'm not convinced that the FLCCC manipulated the data from what has been provided so far. Going to need more than this.

I will say this. I'm open to the idea that Ivermectin has been oversold and that it isn't a miracle drug. I do believe it works, based off of some of the turnarounds some have made when starting on it. I'm thinking the focus really should be on holistic treatment and not any one therapy. Which, to be fair, doctors like Peter McCullough have been saying for a long time now.

I wouldn't be surprised if Kory and others have exaggerated some things, but again, I haven't seen anything so far which is worthy of dismissing them and their message all together. Even if Ivermectin and the protocols only work half as well as they are said to, that is still worth listening to and implementing IMO.

Good points made. There are so many variables that can come into play besides the Ivermectin protocol. Think of the possibility of outcomes if we have 2 people following the protocol and have the same symptoms and are similar in other aspects. One of them lays in bed non stop, survives on diet coke and junk food, doesn't make any effort to practice any type of breathing technique to benefit the lungs. He doesn't even move much in his bed. While in bed he has been obsessing about a recent breakup and has a lot of resentment. Person 2 makes sure to stay well hydrated with clean water, eats nutritional food that is tolerable for the condition, practices deep breathing techniques to benefit the lungs and gets up and moves about as tolerated. When feeling up to it practices meditation.

I don't think it would be surprising if their outcomes were different. I could have added more details to a holistic approach, but I do agree that treating Ivermectin, or that any combined drug intervention as the be all end all is not enough. Ultimately, at the end of the day, it is the body that heals itself, all we can do is provide it the best opportunity to do that.

[Vangelo]

... Think of the possibility of outcomes if we have 2 people following the protocol and have the same symptoms and are similar in other aspects...

Something similar happened with me and it is how I learned of Ivermectin.

I was chatting with a woman I work with before our weekly, online status call. She was very upset because her son (away at college) called that morning and was sick. His symptoms lined up perfectly with Covid and his roommate was in the same state.

The following week she told me that her son and roommate were enrolled in a study and were given an experimental medicine.

The next week, she reported her son was fine but his roommate was very sick and in the hospital.

We did not discuss her son's experience for a couple of months or so. Then someone who normally attends our online meeting was absent because they got covid. This reminded me to ask her about her son and the study. It turned out that her son was given Ivermectin and his roommate was not. The roommate eventually got better.

That was all I needed to hear and I purchased Ivermectin (this was a year ago) after I found an online doctor to prescribe it.

[Bill Ryan]

A very personal and poignant article by Dr Pierre Kory, published today:


https://brownstone.org/articles/saturday-night-fights-at-the-pharmacy

Saturday Night Fights at the Pharmacy

I am exhausted: physically, emotionally, and morally. Although I am not sure moral exhaustion is “a thing,” the daily witnessing of masses of physicians and pharmacists abandoning their core responsibility of placing the welfare of the patient as their primary consideration.. is beyond wearying.

In the United States of Pharma, individual docs and pharmacists have been led so far astray, forgivably or unforgivably, due to the relentless barrage of dis-information targeted at them by the federal pharmaceutical regulators (further supported by relentless, daily propaganda appearing in both major media and medical journals).

Let us be clear about the rule and tradition. In the US, doctors are permitted to prescribe any medicine that has been approved by the FDA, even for indications the medicine was not originally approved for. Such “off-label” prescribing is both legal and historically encouraged by the FDA.

Pharmacies are there to fill prescriptions, and in only rare circumstances and in only a handful of states do they have the right to refuse to fill a valid prescription.

Otherwise, what medicines are deployed, for whom, and for what purpose, is a matter between patient and doctor. This is the long-standing rule.

This principle has been violated now for almost two years. It has created a labyrinth of confusion over basic and well-tested therapies for dealing with a virus that can be very serious for many.

It is no longer the case that any doctor can depend on any pharmacist to distribute safe and effective medicines. They are very likely now to say no and they do so as a result of having been been unfairly intimidated by the threatening memos issued by federal agencies and the state medical and pharmacy boards, These reprehensible cations are just the latest salvo in the pharmaceutical industry’s decades-long war on off-patent, repurposed medicines.

What prompts me to write this was my most recent failure (and the resulting distress that led to terrible sleep last night) over not being able to get a pharmacist to fill my orders in the hours prior to closing of pharmacies for an acutely ill COVID patient that had contacted me reporting high fevers, sore throat, and body aches.

I immediately wanted to start him on a short course combination regimen of three, old, safe, cheap generic medications, all with large clinical trials evidence bases (https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/the-global-disinformation-campaign?r=iutjw&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web) showing high efficacy against COVID (ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, fluvoxamine).

What is important to note is that, months ago I stopped trying to contact ANY pharmacy unless I KNEW they would fill my scripts for these off-patients medications because unless I knew a pharmacy was “safe”, I ran a high probability of entering an un-affordably time-wasting and ultimately losing argument with some smug, obstinate pharmacist.

As a result, we early treatment docs have long since been forced to build lists of “safe haven” pharmacies where we know we can easily get access to these medicines for our patients.

However, last night, I was inspired to make an attempt on a new, unknown pharmacy on behalf of my new patient as I had just read Steve Kirsch’s substack (https://stevekirsch.substack.com/) about my colleague and early COVID-treatment pioneer/expert Dr. Brian Tyson, in which was included the letter written by Dr. Brian Tyson’s attorney (also with the last name Tyson) that was used to “sway” a local pharmacy that had suddenly refused to fill.

The letter is thorough (https://www.skirsch.com/covid/TysonIvermectin.pdf), deeply well-argued, and informs the pharmacists that they are; 1) violating the civil rights of patients, 2) interfering with a physician’s ability to practice medicine and 3) exhibiting behavior that constitutes the unlicensed and negligent practice of medicine.

Now, I had argued all these points before in previous “conflicts” with pharmacists, but never all at the same time, and rarely threatening a lawsuit. Duly and newly emboldened.. I made the call.

4:20 Pacific time (pharmacies close there at 6pm).

Transcript (from memory):

“Hi, I’d like to call in a prescription for a couple of patients.”

“OK, what’s the first patient's name and date of birth?”

“Timothy Thomas (not his real name), born Nov. 6th, 1977.”

(pause, clacking of keyboard)

“OK, what does he need?”

(Wait for it)

“He needs ivermectin, 3 milligram tablets, I want him to take 15 each day as he is a big guy, and for 5 days with a refill. Then he needs, hydroxychloro…

“Doctor, I am sorry but I cannot fill the ivermectin. The owner has said we are not to fill for COVID, there is no evidence it works.”

“Listen, I don’t know who the owner is but you are the pharmacist on duty, and I am calling in a prescription to you, not the owner.”

“I,I, I am sorry but I can’t..”

I look at the letter, and then start spewing rapid fire arguments at him, “well unfortunately for you, my patient is an executive of a company and their lawyer is prepared to and will send a letter of intent to sue if it has not been filled because you are violating his civil rights, blocking my licensed ability to practice medicine and care for my sick patient, and you are clearly practicing medicine illegally and highly ignorantly. You should at least know what you are doing if you are going to do it without a license man.”

“But I am allowed to refuse, doctor.”

“That is what you think and what you have been told… But, I can promise you, that when you bring your arguments up in court as to why you refused, they will not hold up if any harm comes to my patient by your refusal. They will NOT HOLD UP, but you can try. The lawyer will serve the letter on Monday, I promise you, we are fed up out here and are fighting back, all of my fellow physicians being blocked by pharmacists are now using legal action (OK, so I overstated things a bit), I am sorry you are in the position you are in, but you have no rational or scientific evidence to support a refusal, but if you want to go to court to find out, we can make that happen for you”

“I..I.. feel intimidated.”

“Well, I am sorry for that, but you are hurting my patient and my ability to care for them. It is THEY who YOU are intimidating Sir. All you have to do is take my script, fill it, and we don’t have to go on like this. These medications are FDA approved, I am using them off-label based on a large body of evidence and experience in COVID, and off label prescribing is both legal and historically encouraged by the FDA. You are clearly practicing medicine and I promise that will be proven to you in a court of law. Please just fill it and you wont have to hear from me or my patient again.”

(Pause, silence)

“I cannot do it, I am not supposed to.”

“OK then, I will also remind you that you are legally required to provide me your name and license number as we will be pursuing legal action against you.”

“I am not giving you my name, I am not comfortable with that.”

“OK, so you think I can’t find it out? Fine, I am also documenting this refusal. Again, I am not interested in a contentious argument, I am asking you simply to fill the prescriptions for two sick patients who need my help, and if you do, you won’t have to hear from me or the patient’s lawyer.”

He whispers.. “OK, tell me the rest of the prescriptions.”

I tell him the rest, then say, “my patient will be there by closing time, thank you and I apologize for my tone but I am just trying to do the best for my sick patients.”
Victory? Yes! Haven’t won one of these in months.

I finish telling him the rest of the scripts for my patient and his wife (I also needed to call in medicines for her so she could have some on hand and also begin ivermectin as a prophylactic agent given it ensures an easier course (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356962821_Ivermectin_Prophylaxis_Used_for_COVID-19_Reduces_COVID-19_Infection_and_Mortality_Rates_A_City-Wide_Prospective_Observational_Study_of_220517_Subjects_Using_Propensity_Score_Matching) even if she is already or eventually becomes infected).

I then happily call the patient, tell him to get his wife to pick up the medicines along with the other over-the-counter compounds that have clinical trials supporting their use. And then I go to the couch to literally lay down (insane day of dozens of patient care requests, other zooms and phone calls, maybe 12+ hours on the phone).

30 minutes later.. patients texts me.. my wife went there and the pharmacist won’t fill.

Now, despite the fact that I co-wrote a document with Executive Director Kelly Bumann of the FLCCC and Unity Project Founder Jeff Hanson, called “Overcoming the Barriers to Access, (https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Overcoming-Pharmacy-Barriers.pdf)” which is a document full of sound, pragmatic tactics and dialogue examples offered to patients (and docs) in order to help them navigate such pharmacist obstructions, they typically will not work when it is an hour before closing on a weekend.

So, here I am the next morning. Fortunately I was able to get two of the medicines filled through another pharmacy, with enough for his wife as she unsurprisingly fell ill overnight (omicron moves fast). Unfortunately, they will have to wait until tomorrow to get the third medicine from a “friendly” or “underground” pharmacy (not really underground but you get the analogy).

This is what it is like out here trying to fight for patients sick with COVID – widespread delays in care as blocking access to generic or “repurposed” medicines by ignorant/arrogant pharmacists is ubiquitous. The majority of pharmacists (not all!) have simply stopped thinking critically or devoting effort to review the evidence base, instead simply believing what they are told by their Boards (a.k.a. their “Ministries of Truth”). As if the insane numbers of ill omicron patients to care for is not challenging enough.

In the words of Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, who went after his state’s Pharmacy Board when they tried to scare the states pharmacists away from prescribing ivermectin by sending them threatening letters, “it is shocking that pharmacists are suddenly developing a conscience after spending the last decade handing out opiates like they were M & M’s”.

Well said and tragically absurd.

This newfound conscience influencing such actions is likely further fueled by a sometime resident psychology of pharmacists who may feel “less than” a physician given their limited scope of patient care tasks.

Emboldened by a seemingly legal opportunity to assert superiority and control over physicians, many find these irresistible. Consequently,they seem to be “getting off” from telling the “stupid” doctors that the Ministry of Truth has done the research for them and the Ministry has found, that in the name of science, doctors should stop using “ineffective horse de-wormer” to treat COVID.

Just another day in the life of an early COVID treatment expert.