I guess it's time to talk about the NIH...

[dneal]

... and mainly the collusion of Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci.

For months, Doctor and Senator Rand Paul questioned Fauci on "gain of function" research. Fauci denied funding it. When Eco-Health was discovered to have received funding, and channeled it to Wuhan; Fauci continued to dodge. It's not "gain of function" research (which was banned). "It doesn't meet the definition" (which changed on the NIH website).

Now we know Eco-Health tried to get funding for bat corona virus research from DARPA, who rejected it as it appeared to be illegal gain of function research. Fauci funded it though.

When Senator Tom Cotton was relaying intelligence that the virus might have begun in a lab (in Wuhan), he and anyone else who raised the idea was labeled a "conspiracy theorist". People were excoriated and censored. Journal articles were published labeling the notion a "conspiracy theory".

Now we know that Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci were aware in early 2020 of not only the possibility, but the likelihood. Their own email shows they conspired to squelch the notion, because of "international harmony" and other ludicrous reasons.

Three leading epidemiologists from Stanford, Harvard and Oxford met to discuss health policy in response to the virus; Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci conspired to have them labeled "fringe", and ensured a "public takedown" was published.

Leftist media and leftists in general (many here) gleefully mocked Rand Paul as "just an eye doctor". The Great Barrington Declaration was ridiculed, with Fauci himself characterizing the "protect the vulnerable" approach advocated as a "let it (the virus) rip strategy".

So it appears that Fauci authorized and paid for a global pandemic, and was happy to slander or silence anyone who dared to point it out. It appears Fauci's strategies have failed, and he was happy to slander or silence anyone who dared to point it out.

The list goes on. We now have more clarity on comorbidities and death rates. We now have more clarity on dying "with" vs dying "from" covid. More lies from Fauci (and the rest of the NIH, to include the CDC). We now know cloth masks did nothing. We now know surgical masks do little.

What other lies have we been told? Why, after two years, is there no treatment protocol for covid; and why are doctors who have been trying to develop one been slandered, silenced and had their jobs threatened?

Fauci lied, people died.

[manoeuver]

Imagine if Fauci had said in March 2020: "There is a virus spreading in China, it will get here eventually and we'll need to manage it. We know a lot about the virus already, because we were studying it in a lab, from which it escaped. Sorry bout that."

He absolutely could have said that, he knew it to be likely at the time.

[manoeuver]

Imagine if Fauci had said in March 2020: "There is a virus spreading in China, it will get here eventually and we'll need to manage it. We know a lot about the virus already, because we were studying it in a lab, from which it escaped. Sorry bout that."

He absolutely could have said that, he knew it to be likely at the time.

instead he's said literally everything else.

[dneal]

Which is why we can't believe anything he says now. The credibility of the entire NIH is compromised.

[Chuck Naill]

Seems to be a consistent message from those treating patients in the hospital, get the vaccine, wear a mask, and keep 6' distance. I listened to Michael Osterholm early on discussing the aerosolized nature of the virus and acted accordingly.

I began wearing a mask in April 2020 and never tested positive working for a healthcare provider, in and out of hospitals, and clinics while others in the same agency tested positive. They were the ones who ignored masking and distancing, carrying on life as usual. Some got sick and some died.

I am neither a Fauci fan nor enemy. Do what you want. It is your life.

Perhaps had I been isolated and was never around others I would have ignored it all.

[dneal]

Seems to be a consistent deflection from the topic.

[Chuck Naill]

Seems germane to me. You wrote "The list goes on. We now have more clarity on comorbidities and death rates. We now have more clarity on dying "with" vs dying "from" covid. More lies from Fauci (and the rest of the NIH, to include the CDC). We now know cloth masks did nothing. We now know surgical masks do little."

You don't know any of this to be true. Pure conjecture and wishful thinking. More the need to be right in your own eyes than anything else. Or, I told you so. You're free to do as you please. Go on and mingle, don't mask, don't distance, don't receive a vaccine. Then, if nothing happens, you will have proven your point for what is best for you.

[dneal]

This is about the NIH's self-sabotage of their own credibility. The list of their mistakes (and now demonstrated lies) is what "goes on".

When people objected to the death toll, and "death from" vs "death with", and used car accidents as an example; they were mocked. Now we know they were right.

Fauci lied about masks. He told us they didn't do anything, and then said he said that because he was worried about shortages. Then he started talking about double and triple masking. He destroyed his own credibility.

Fauci Said Masks 'Not Really Effective in Keeping Out Virus,' Email Reveals (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fauci-said-masks-not-really-effective-in-keeping-out-virus-email-reveals/ar-AAKCZ0c)


Anthony Fauci wrote in February 2020 that store-bought face masks would not be very effective at protecting against the COVID-19 pandemic and advised a traveler not to wear one.

The Washington Post and Buzzfeed News have obtained hundreds of pages of Fauci's emails through the Freedom of Information Act, revealing more about the early days of the pandemic.

In one message, Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, replies to an email from Sylvia Burwell, believed to be the Sylvia Burwell who was health and human services secretary for three years under President Barack Obama. Burwell had asked for advice about wearing face masks while traveling. Fauci's reply is dated February 5, 2020, and is available in a document cloud provided by Buzzfeed.

Fauci wrote: "Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection.

"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."

He added: "I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location."

Fauci has previously been criticized for changing his position on masks. Early on in the pandemic, he advised against wearing face coverings, but that advice evolved over time.

On March 8, 2020, Fauci said "there's no reason to be walking around with a mask," according to Reuters—but this was before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its guidance on masks on April 3.

Of course Fauci isn't even an epidemiologist, so what does he know. Maybe we should have been listening to Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorf and other actual epidemiologists (who haven't been caught lying, let alone on multiple occasions).

Fauci lied, people died.

[Chuck Naill]

Your choice. :)

[dneal]

My choice has nothing to do with this thread. Fauci lied, people died. Fauci might actually be directly responsible for creating this world-wide pandemic. He and Francis Collins certainly destroyed the credibility of the NIH.

[Chuck Naill]

Your conclusion is not supported by the information you posted. I know you believe it, and that's why it is your choice.

[dneal]

What conclusion? That Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci lied? That's not my conclusion. The evidence is there for anyone to see.

We need a devastating takedown of fringe epidemiologists. Lab leak is a conspiracy theory. NIH didn't fund gain of function research.

Three lies that cost 800k lives in the U.S. (so far).

Oh how the mighty have fallen.

[Chuck Naill]

People are dying because of many factors including not distancing, not masking, not taking the virus seriously. Since I was alive in January 2020, I remember those recommendations from several sources other than Fauci. I've already mentioned Osterholm.

I've posted interviews from ER nurses where dying people said the virus was not real. They cursed those trying to help them. https://twitter.com/JodiOrth/status/1327771329555292162?s=20

Your conclusion that Fauci is at fault is complete nonsense. Not saying he handled everything properly, but I know too many Trump supporters who followed his lead and are now dead. So, if it gives you the warm and fuzzies to believe Fauci is a monster, I won't stop you. However, since this is a public forum, opposing voices are in order.

[dneal]

Who told you all that? The lying NIH? People aren't dying because they didn't wear a mask. They aren't dying because they didn't social distance. They aren't dying for not taking the virus seriously.

They're dying due to age and comorbidities. They're dying due to poor immune health and immune deficiencies. They're dying from coronavirus for the same reason they die from influenza. They might be dying because you and other internet monkeys chimp scream whenever treatments are explored. Vitamin D? YOUTUBE MISINFORMATION!!! Ivermectin? "GAAAAH!!! SCIENCE DENIERS TAKING CATTLE WORMER!!!".

Practicing physicians (i.e.: not: lying, non-epidemiologist, career bureaucrats) are developing treatment protocols, at great risk to their careers. They're trying to save lives while bureaucrats create lies. Epidemiologists are trying to recommend effective public health policies, while bureaucrats are writing and publishing lies.

The guy who developed mRNA technology questions vaccine risk to young people? "BAN HIM FROM TWITTER!!! STOP THE MISINFORMING SCIENCE-DENIER!!!"

A mob with their torches and pitchforks out to kill any monster they believe threatens them.

But what I believe isn't the issue. The issue is Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci destroying their credibility, and the credibility of their organizations during a pandemic when people should have no reason not to trust them. Trump didn't do that, Collins and Fauci did.

[Chuck Naill]

I'll repost this in case you didn't see and read. https://twitter.com/JodiOrth/status/1327771329555292162?s=20

No way to blame this on Fauci or anyone else. People did it to themselves, pure and simple.

If you contract the disease and die, it isn't Fauci's fault. It is your own fault.

[dneal]

Fauci funded bat corona virus research. Fauci lied about that. Fauci lied about scientists thinking it more likely the virus originated in a lab. Fauci lied about masks. Fauci lied about actual epidemiologists recommendations on public health policy. Fauci isn't an epidemiologist, so he certainly isn't an expert on epidemiology. He just plays one on TV.

Yeah, none of this is Fauci's fault - even if you contract a disease he paid for, which likely escaped from a lab.

Fauci lied, people died.

Collins and Fauci destroyed the credibility of the NIH - through their documented lying.

[Chuck Naill]

Wherever it originated makes no difference. Not that it is not important at some point. If you are trying to put out a fire, knowing where it started is of no use. Put the damn fire out and deal with the other later. The problem was, you had a president who was trying to save his political rear by downplaying the seriousness and suggesting people drink bleach. The Trumpians came to hate Fauci but give Trump a pass. In a recent rally where he said he got the booster, he was booed.

Okay, so execute whosever you want, but you own actions, you own. You cannot blame anyone but yourself @dneal.

I don't except the nurse's experience matters to you, but others might find it informative.

[dneal]

Trump lives in your head. Trump lied about all sorts of things, but Trump didn't lie about gain of function research. Fauci did. Trump didn't lie about lab origins. Fauci did. Trump didn't lie about epidemiologists. Fauci did.

When you pay for illegal gain of function research, it makes a difference so that no one does it again - if nothing else. To use your analogy - you find out what caused the fire to make sure it doesn't happen again.

What you don't do is keep listening to the fire chief once you find out he's the arsonist. You also don't let him keep being the fire chief.

[Chuck Naill]

Trump lives in your head. Trump lied about all sorts of things, but Trump didn't lie about gain of function research. Fauci did. Trump didn't lie about lab origins. Fauci did. Trump didn't lie about epidemiologists. Fauci did.

When you pay for illegal gain of function research, it makes a difference so that no one does it again - if nothing else. To use your analogy - you find out what caused the fire to make sure it doesn't happen again.

What you don't do is make the arsonist the fire chief.

Trump was talking out of his butt. He didn't know. He was looking for someone to blame as he always has. Remember I was alive in January 2020. I remember what took place and what he said. He almost died from the virus himself. Fauci didn't and was in the same room at the same time. Outcomes speak for themselves.

You don't look for cause and blame while the fire is raging. You try to put it out. Remind me not to get involved with you in a task. You'd be running around pointing fingers instead of something practical.

[dneal]

Trump, Trump, Trump...

This isn't about Trump. You've started plenty of threads, so feel free to decry him there.

This is about Collins, Fauci and the NIH; and the lies.

The emails speak for themselves.

[kazoolaw]

Better darn well know the cause of the fire to know what will put it out and what will make it worse. Like water on a magnesium fire:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AZhO98hjXqI

[Chuck Naill]

:crazy:

[manoeuver]

I'll repost this in case you didn't see and read. https://twitter.com/JodiOrth/status/1327771329555292162?s=20

No way to blame this on Fauci or anyone else. People did it to themselves, pure and simple.

If you contract the disease and die, it isn't Fauci's fault. It is your own fault.

On behalf of all of us who lost family members despite doing everything we were told, Fuck You, Chuck.

[Chuck Naill]

I'll repost this in case you didn't see and read. https://twitter.com/JodiOrth/status/1327771329555292162?s=20

No way to blame this on Fauci or anyone else. People did it to themselves, pure and simple.

If you contract the disease and die, it isn't Fauci's fault. It is your own fault.

On behalf of all of us who lost family members despite doing everything we were told, Fuck You, Chuck.

It wasn't anyone's fault and that is the focus of the thread as @dneal wants to blame Fauci.

Who hasn't lost someone near and dear. It is what happens when 800k die. I lost a fellow co-worker last week. It is why I have consistently advocated vaccine, masks, and distancing. So if you want to be angry with someone, it ain't me.

[dneal]

Why are you defending this Chuck?

Let's assume for a moment that the virus didn't come from a lab. Fauci still funded the research. Lab leaks happen (frequently, actually). What kind of idiot would play around with a corona virus - or more specifically pay for the Chinese to play around with a corona virus? breaking the law to do it??!!?? when we know (clearly, now) what a novel corona virus can do to the human population?

You're the guy who loves to cite the total deaths. 800k here in the States. But you don't care that the NIH and NIAID directors funded gain of function research on a corona virus and lied about it?

Are you that desperate to "win" a debate? To not be wrong? You don't want an investigation? WTF is wrong with you?

[Chuck Naill]

Not trying to win anything @dneal. I’m just enjoying the exchange.

The information you’re posting is neither verifiable or fully vetted as you suggest. There is no objective voice from anyone.

Yes, I understand Tucker Carlson, Rand Paul, and other people of that stripe are chirping, but no conclusions have been made as to the virus’s origin.

Blaming 800k deaths and demeaning the use of masking and other measures, as you have done for 2 years, more looks like a man looking for self gratification than providing something of value.

[dneal]

Neither verifiable nor vetted? This is becoming a common dismissal tactic from you. They came out from a FOIA.

Pick your media bias chart. The Hill is credible, and is center with a slightly right lean (depending on the chart). Here are two: ad fontas media chart (https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Media-Bias-Chart-7.0_January-2021-Licensed-Copy.pdf) or all sides media bias chart (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart)

Now listen to Ryan Grim from The Hill report.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD0i_YxPATc

Yeah, you're going to cry about YouTube. So here is stuff for you to read instead.

Eco Health submission to DARPA from 2018. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21066966-defuse-proposal) Read what they wanted to do.

Emails reveal how Fauci, head of NIH colluded to try to smear experts - Daily Mail via MSN (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/emails-reveal-how-fauci-head-of-nih-colluded-to-try-to-smear-experts/ar-AARX837)

Here is the oversight letter and copies of Fauci's emails about the likely lab leak (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21177759-house-oversight-letter-and-email-transcriptions)

Yeah, it's all Tucker Carlson pushing "unverified" info. You lie again Chuck. You dodge and dismiss again. You're so partisan and full of blue kook-aid (spelling intentional) you have no idea what's going on in the world. Your echo-chamber is locked up tight.

[Chuck Naill]

I've read those or similar. I cannot verify from any one with respected expertise that would agree.

Nothing conclusive as to the origin of the virus. I read both theories for some time.

I don't dodge, but I do not believe something because of anything you might find evidence without doing my own research. You've just cried wolf too often. I've just caught you too many times.

[dneal]

Denial and lies. Just like Fauci. Pathetic.

[Chuck Naill]

LOL! Okay!!:deadhorse:

So if you don't or can't confirm what @dneal thinks to be true, you're pathetic. Well, I am pathetic, I guess.

[dneal]

The emails are right there, Chuck. Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci conspiring.

Do you think there should be an investigation?

[Chuck Naill]

Why are you asking me, a pathetic liar, anything anymore? Ask @tsherbs.

Not all the emails and some were redacted meaning we don't have access to all. Plus, changes to funding occurred in 2014. Yes, there is more to know and learn. My problem is the history that developed between Fauci and the former President which leads me to think all this is pay back from the usual suspects.

When someone who is not politically motivated that actually studies this stuff say Fauci did something, then I will listen.

For me, there is no reason to do what you did and blame Fauci for deaths. I also do not consider masks of no use. Maybe I was lucky, but I attended a function where 8 staff members tested positive and I didn't. The difference was masks and distance.

Also, I have repeated posted the Twitter nurses testimony. Folks are in denial and are paying for it.

And those who choose not to vaccinate take up the beds in area hospitals presently.

I just find your posts unbalanced and self-gratifying (confirmation biased). but I am not trying to convince you of anything @dneal. It is your life and your choice what to do and believe. We are just talking, okay?

[dneal]

Why were the emails redacted, Chuck?

EcoHealth wanted DARPA to fund bat corona virus research in China. DARPA said no, it's illegal gain of function.

Fauci funded it. He said he didn't, until he got caught. He said it wasn't gain of function, and the NIH changed the definition on their website. Then the DARPA rejection for illegal gain of function came out.

Completely coincidentally, the world got a bat corona virus that began in China.

Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci are on record conspiring to misinform about all sorts of things. "Fringe" epidemiologists, lab leak "conspiracy theories", etc... They're documented liars. Everyone (except you, apparently) can see that.

Go ask your Twitter nurse about that, when you're not busy deflecting with hospital beds and vaccinations. You are in denial and folks are paying for it. 800k in the U.S. so far.

My "unbalanced" posts don't devolve into "lol's", emoticons and (ultimately) gibberish that no one can understand.

[Chuck Naill]

If I could agree with you I would. I have no motivation to support Fauci and make up conspiracies, but you have been at odds with vaccines, masking, and distancing for two years. That's just dumb, but maybe you are isolated inside your house. I wasn't and had to do whatever I could to not test positive because I needed a pay check and to prevent transmitting to others.

Your disrespect toward the ICU nurse is emblematic of your overall attitude. So, listen to Fox News and anyone that makes you feel that you are correct. At least you said your wife got the vaccine, so you may be protected despite of yourself.

[dneal]

If I could agree with you I would. I have no motivation to support Fauci and make up conspiracies, but you have been at odds with vaccines, masking, and distancing for two years. That's just dumb, but maybe you are isolated inside your house. I wasn't and had to do whatever I could to not test positive because I needed a pay check and to prevent transmitting to others.

I have been skeptical of this vaccine, because the development and testing was accelerated and we do not know the long-term risks. I am not anti-vax, and I think people should be free to choose. I think older and/or at-risk folks probably will do better if vaccinated.

My reasons for my personal choices are none of your business. You are not my doctor, and you are not a medical expert. You are a pharma rep - the last person I would be taking medical advice from.

Now it is clear that the vaccine does not do what it was initially claimed to do. Now it is clear that we cannot trust the NIH.

I have been at odds with the insane and ever changing policies. Don't wear a mask. Wear a mask. Wear two masks. Wear a mask outside? Wear a mask from the door to your table at a restaurant? Socially distance for an airborne virus that is pumped through an HVAC system? We're two years into "Two weeks to flatten the curve".

You got vaccinated because you needed a paycheck and to prevent transmitting to others. So your self-interest and ignorance of the fact that vaccines do not prevent you from transmitting is illuminating.


Your disrespect toward the ICU nurse is emblematic of your overall attitude. So, listen to Fox News and anyone that makes you feel that you are correct. At least you said your wife got the vaccine, so you may be protected despite of yourself.

You scoff YouTube in general, but are happy to share Twitter posts from an ICU nurse that confirms your bias, and you think it's emblematic of my overall attitude? It has nothing to do with Collins and Fauci conspiring, and the damage to their credibility and the credibility of the NIH.

Then, you exemplify your bias, projection and lies. My links don't come from Fox, but you continually use "listen to Fox News..." as an excuse. Then you post CNN articles as rebuttals to scientific articles. That's how ridiculous you are. So no, you are the one who only listens to anyone that makes you feel you are correct. CNN, Fauci, Twitter nurses, etc... Your "lol's", emoticons, trolls, insults, deflections, and other projections are emblematic of your overall attitude.

I listen to actual epidemiologists (which Fauci is not, by the way). I listen to Ph.D.'s in biology. I listen to doctors who have successfully treated COVID. I listen to all sorts of potentially credible people. I compare that to journal articles and studies. I compare that to CDC data. I assess it all in the aggregate. I've shared some here, and you've just dismissed true experts as "YouTube misinformation". Jay Bhattacharya, is an actual epidemiologist (which Fauci is not, by the way). Martin Kulldorf is an epidemiologist (which Fauci is not, by the way). I listen to Nobel laureate virologists (which Fauci is not, by the way).

My wife's vaccination status "protecting me despite myself" is just more of your snideness. If you were informed, you would know (as mentioned earlier) that vaccination does little to prevent transmission. It the case of Omicron, it does little to nothing. We're all going to get it. I'm ok with that, and you're terrified of it.

[Chuck Naill]

It is always the same pathology with you @dneal.

Have I ever encouraged you to get a vaccine? I just said don't ignore the wisdom and expect an ICU bed, but we found out you would. Oh hell yes. :)

The ICU nurse is a voice crying in the wilderness. Take it or leave it, but you cannot discount her experience.

Fauci and other scientists and healthcare workers are just an easy scapegoat for you to make you feel okay with your decisions. Just know that if you get sick, it's them that will try to save your ass.

[dneal]

More deflection.

Chuck, you should spend some time examining your own pathology instead of projecting on others.

You don't get to decide who gets an ICU bed. Just more of your tired and overused rhetoric.

The ICU nurse has nothing to do with Collins, Fauci or the NIH. Just more of your tired and overused rhetoric.

Fauci and others are not a scapegoat. They've been using others as scapegoats. Fauci isn't a practicing physician. He's a bureaucrat. He certainly won't be the one trying to save my ass. My decisions come from credible experts who haven't been exposed for lying. Fauci isn't an epidemiologist, by the way.

[Chuck Naill]

He is a practicing physician.

The ICU nurse is important because of the damage that was done with folks listening to the wrong people and not taking the virus serious. It is relevant because you blamed Fauci with 800K deaths.

[Chuck Naill]

How odd, the highest infection rates in states correlate to the lowest vaccination rates. Who would have thunk? Must be the Fauci Factor. Perhaps he's sending in bats from China.

[Chuck Naill]

Other voices heard, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/fauci-smear-campaign.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AACEIPuonUktbfqYhkSVUaACbIRp8ppwCNhL3UxbE1nDr1JS2N QDdNyaIVH42EsQ_rVJZUWuESjX6dVcMTd_gmXuBzxetSeBwwRV L3_Mfd3ZlVf3hw9I69UyZm1s6RGO80rjWyM2fmcu4jnvf3pR-JMRmcU6Td03AmIgZlo4I0Ng35nCxVmdqWV7J9ydJ83vw-B5hlRTlmZCeCvvPgChUWK8zRJ1iHqVFwA7cFLGmVyd2M6LsAcx FQCUbHTB5852U-6tBfObAHLeDZA9Rw8H5T2POqKn2DNjY&smid=url-share

[dneal]

Three posts in a row. Chuck's triggered.

We've already been through the "practicing physician" thing. I showed you his bio from the NIH when he was made director of NIAID. He got his degree, did his residency, and been with NIAID ever since.

More ICU nurse stuff which still isn't relevant. I didn't blame Fauci for 800k deaths. I suggested the possibility of his responsibility, if it turns out the virus is from a lab leak he funded. Maybe an investigation could determine that? It's called "reasonable suspicion".

Infection rates in various states and China have nothing to do with the thread. More of your adding things that are irrelevant to "prove" some irrelevant point.

"Other voices", and a NYT article. Surprise. Liberal NYT rushes to Fauci's defense. Note they don't dispute the validity of the email, just the opinions of "top doctors". And you cry about Tucker and Fox. I don't cite either, but you continually cite CNN and NYT. Who has the confirmation bias? Who is searching for stuff to shore up their opinion?

Let's look at the letter HERE (http://www.ezekielemanuel.com/academic-policy/all-academic-writing/2022/01/13/letter-of-support-for-anthony-fauci)

Just a bunch of "Fauci's a great guy" lip-service stuff. I wonder if they are relying on NIH funding for anything? Just a thought... What they don't address (like you, Chuck) is the subject of this thread. Collins and Fauci conspiring to hide their funding of bat corona research, lab leak possibility, and smearing of leading epidemiologists.


Letter of Support for Anthony Fauci
A statement from the scientific and public health communities to the American public in support of Dr. Anthony Fauci

Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the USA with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed. And importantly, he has given his advice with humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support.

Scientists can and do express dissenting viewpoints, but a right to an opinion does not mean the opinion is right. We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.

Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response.

We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics. It is a distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises.

[Chuck Naill]

He sees patients. That's what a practicing physician does...LOL!! Did you think it meant something else?

Your medical knowledge is next to kindergarten. You advocated Ivermectin and didn't know what dosages, adverse events, or contraindications yet it should be employed in your opinion.

Yet, if Tucker and Rand think Fauci is a fool, you fall all over yourself to post.

[dneal]

He’s a bureaucrat.

You haven’t done anything but scoff at ivermectin. “Cattle wormer”, you called a Nobel prize winning drug. You said it wasn’t an antiviral, and I showed you the study of many antiviral uses.

No, I’m not a doctor; so I haven’t advocated dosage. I’ll let my doctor do that for me. But that’s just another deflection on whether or not it is effective against Covid. Deflection. It’s all you do.

And lastly, you summon ghosts of Tucker again. Looks like you’re the only one who is watching him, since you seem to know what he says.

I posted the documents, and the not-Tucker reporting. You post CNN and NYT fluff pieces. Blue kook-aid to gulp while you hide out in your echo chamber.

[Chuck Naill]

He sees patients. Ivermectin has not been studied in clinical trials to determine efficacy in treating Covid-19 virus is what I said.

All the stuff you posted is from similar sources as Tucker. Anyone who thinks otherwise can validate.

[dneal]

He is not the attending physician, and he doesn't have a practice. He's a bureaucrat - an SES level bureaucrat. He doesn't have time for anything other than "making a round" with the practicing physician. It's as dumb as arguing a General is a "fighting man", because he visits the actual fighting men.

I have shown you many studies that indicate ivermectin treats COVID. "Clinical trials"? Not in the sense of testing drugs you sell so you don't get sued later, but certainly there is clinical data. What happened to your fire-fighting analogy? Not useful anymore?

And what you said was "Cattle wormer", with a bunch of "lol's" and emoticons.

"Similar sources" as Tucker? Good luck demonstrating that lie. MSN? Daily Mail? Yes, please validate. Better yet: "Cite the post". That usually has you running away and hiding.

Have you derailed yet another thread to your satisfaction now? Isn't it time for you to go pray at the altar of CNN? I think Fauci is on giving another sermon about masks or something.

[Chuck Naill]

He sees patients. He is an infectious disease doctor. It is what they do. They consult. No one makes rounds anymore except hospitalists and consultants, in general.

No clinical trials or FDA approval, period.

[dneal]

You're like a monkey on a football field, who has torn down the goal posts and is running around in circles. I just call out what yard line you're on, until you move on to the next.

Bless your heart.

So back on topic:

Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci conspired to discredit three leading epidemiologists. Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci conspired to label a likely lab-leak possibility a "conspiracy theory". You don't have to believe me. You just have to read their emails, which were first obtained by the not-Tucker and not-conservative BuzzFeed and WashPost.

Anthony Fauci lied about funding bat corona virus research. Anthony Fauci lied about "gain of function", through semantics.

Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci, at a minimum, destroyed their own credibility and by extension the credibility of their organizations.

[Chuck Naill]

Ignorance is bliss. :)

[dneal]

Ignorance is bliss. :)

That would explain your blissfulness, bless your heart.

[TSherbs]

spam?

[Chip]

Hemp oil, ivermectin, and the laying on of hands.

:fans:

[dneal]

Speaking of ivermectin, two new studies have been published regarding the efficacy of ivermectin.

The first (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221009887#) looks at reduction of mortality when comparing Remdesivir to Ivermectin as treatment.


Conclusion: Ivermectin use was associated with decreased mortality in patients with COVID-19 compared to remdesivir. To our knowledge, this is the largest association study of patients with COVID-19, mortality and ivermectin. Further double-blinded placebo-controlled RCTs with large samples are required for definite conclusion. In the future, if more publications are published with the similar result to the current analyses, the certainty of evidence will increase.

The second was a Brazilian study (https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching) with a population of 150k+. A small dose of ivermectin was given for two consecutive days every two weeks. Infections (compared to those who didn't take ivermectin as a prophylactic) were less than half (3.7% v 8.2%). Hospitalization rate was 1.6% v 3.3%, and mortality was 0.8% v 2.6%.

This is not surprising. Ivermectin was already showed that it was better at inhibiting 3CL protease than Remdesivir or other new antivirals (3CLPro), and better at blocking spike protein binding locations. (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/35784-Interesting-Video?p=343043&viewfull=1#post343043)

Brazil has investigated ivermectin anti-viral properties against Dengue, Zika, etc... and ivermectin has been positively correlated with effectiveness against other viruses.

So why has everyone been so critical of even looking into ivermectin? I dunno. Might have something to do with it being out of patent and costing pennies per dose, where things that don't work as well (Remdesivir) are several hundred dollars.

For those that don't lie about watching YouTube videos, here's John Campbell explaining the two papers.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfyOihhAD4A

[Chip]

Here's a recent paper from the evil government conspiracy. Note that they are examining it as a treatment for severe cases, rather than as a preventative measure.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/

More from the criminal conspiracy.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Just released full data this week

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

[Chip]

Ivermectin Does Not Reduce Risk of Covid Hospitalization, Large Study Finds

“At some point it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” one expert said.

By Carl Zimmer
March 30, 2022

The anti-parasitic drug ivermectin, which has surged in popularity as an alternative treatment for Covid-19 despite a lack of strong research to back it up, showed no sign of alleviating the disease, according to results of a large clinical trial published on Wednesday.

The study, which compared more than 1,300 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo, effectively ruled out the drug as a treatment for Covid, the study’s authors said.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” said Dr. David Boulware, an infectious-disease expert at the University of Minnesota.

The researchers shared a summary of these results in August during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health, but the full data set had not been published until now in The New England Journal of Medicine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/health/covid-ivermectin-hospitalization.html?referringSource=articleShare

[Chuck Naill]

Ivermectin Does Not Reduce Risk of Covid Hospitalization, Large Study Finds

“At some point it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” one expert said.

By Carl Zimmer
March 30, 2022

The anti-parasitic drug ivermectin, which has surged in popularity as an alternative treatment for Covid-19 despite a lack of strong research to back it up, showed no sign of alleviating the disease, according to results of a large clinical trial published on Wednesday.

The study, which compared more than 1,300 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo, effectively ruled out the drug as a treatment for Covid, the study’s authors said.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” said Dr. David Boulware, an infectious-disease expert at the University of Minnesota.

The researchers shared a summary of these results in August during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health, but the full data set had not been published until now in The New England Journal of Medicine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/health/covid-ivermectin-hospitalization.html?referringSource=articleShare

Two thoughts, one is how many have died because of poor information regarding ivermectin, and, those that want to believe in it's efficacy will not be swayed by this study. Apparently 600k have died in Brazil, second only to the US.

[dneal]

One study showing effectiveness is not conclusive, and neither is one study not showing effectiveness.

You partisan morons have politicized medicine. Well done.

[724Seney]

One study showing effectiveness is not conclusive, and neither is one study not showing effectiveness.

You partisan morons have politicized medicine. Well done.

The irony is one cannot even begin to imagine how many bogus, totally ineffective........ and potentially dangerous medications Chuck has tried to peddle over the years!
For someone who has made a fortune visiting doctors offices & hospitals, with donuts and other bribes, preaching his newest miracle drug, his horror over the ivermectin matter is just another example of how well these bozos have perfected the art of hypocrisy.

[Chuck Naill]

More from Timothy Snyder:
"Trump was unlike other breakers in that he seemed to have no ideology. His objection to institutions was that they might constrain him personally. He intended to break the system to serve himself — and this is partly why he has failed. Trump is a charismatic politician and inspires devotion not only among voters but among a surprising number of lawmakers, but he has no vision that is greater than himself or what his admirers project upon him. In this respect his pre-fascism fell short of fascism: His vision never went further than a mirror. He arrived at a truly big lie not from any view of the world but from the reality that he might lose something.

Yet Trump never prepared a decisive blow. He lacked the support of the military, some of whose leaders he had alienated. (No true fascist would have made the mistake he did there, which was to openly love foreign dictators; supporters convinced that the enemy was at home might not mind, but those sworn to protect from enemies abroad did.) Trump’s secret police force, the men carrying out snatch operations in Portland, was violent but also small and ludicrous. Social media proved to be a blunt weapon: Trump could announce his intentions on Twitter, and white supremacists could plan their invasion of the Capitol on Facebook or Gab. But the president, for all his lawsuits and entreaties and threats to public officials, could not engineer a situation that ended with the right people doing the wrong thing. Trump could make some voters believe that he had won the 2020 election, but he was unable to bring institutions along with his big lie. And he could bring his supporters to Washington and send them on a rampage in the Capitol, but none appeared to have any very clear idea of how this was to work or what their presence would accomplish. It is hard to think of a comparable insurrectionary moment, when a building of great significance was seized, that involved so much milling around."

https://verbasparsa.org/2021/01/11/the-american-abyss-by-timothy-snyder/

[dneal]

And again we see Chuck introduce his favorite demagogue. He’s unable to follow the topic of the NIH conspiring to control narratives because it doesn’t comport with the world view he’s been told to have.

[724Seney]

Two thoughts, one is how many have died because of poor information regarding ivermectin, and, those that want to believe in it's efficacy will not be swayed by this study. Apparently 600k have died in Brazil, second only to the US.

Not anywhere near the number of people who have died because of the poor, misleading information you spread about about opioids as you made your shameless spiels at every doctors office and lounge you could find your way into??
Have you no shame man?? You obsess about the bad things done by your slave owning ancestors..... and advocate for reparations for something which occurred more than 150 years ago...... yet, all the while completely ignore what YOU, yourself have done. You want reparations?? Start paying back all the people, still living and still suffering, who's lives YOU ruined!!

[dneal]

*Ouch* That’s gonna leave a mark.

[Chuck Naill]

Two thoughts, one is how many have died because of poor information regarding ivermectin, and, those that want to believe in it's efficacy will not be swayed by this study. Apparently 600k have died in Brazil, second only to the US.

Not anywhere near the number of people who have died because of the poor, misleading information you spread about about opioids as you made your shameless spiels at every doctors office and lounge you could find your way into??
Have you no shame man?? You obsess about the bad things done by your slave owning ancestors..... and advocate for reparations for something which occurred more than 150 years ago...... yet, all the while completely ignore what YOU, yourself have done. You want reparations?? Start paying back all the people, still living and still suffering, who's lives YOU ruined!!

Our company was involved in Type 2 diabetes research including a novel basal insulin. Other disease states including infectious disease (antibiotics), allergy, circulatory, cardiology (hypertension), IBD, and post operative DVT, plus several dermatological agents.

Fortunately, I never had to be involved in pain management. but thank you for your concern. I was put on an opioid once after surgery and declined to take it. As you might know, opioid induced constipation is a common adverse event.

I was able to make a career change in 2010 and worked for end of life agencies. This heightened my experiences in health care. I was also a volunteer with NAS babies in the NICU (300 hours pre pandemic). So, I had a very wonderful and satisfying career. No regrets. I will never forget in the 1980's a neonatologist saying the drug I was promoting saved a baby's life. Working with faculty in teaching hospitals was also a highlight. My personal doctor was someone I met as a rep. I never sold anything off label, in fact it would have been illegal, with severe repercussions legally.

I have signed up to continue my volunteer work, but the pandemic is delaying that opportunity.

I hope this sets the record straight and that you find another way to engage where you support your conspiracies (of what voters would do now) with evidence rather than reducing yourself to a name caller. :) However, I am not at all hopeful.

[dneal]

Ever the hypocrite, Chuck's views on name-calling and insults depends on whether or not he's the recipient.

[TSherbs]

One study showing effectiveness is not conclusive, and neither is one study not showing effectiveness.

You partisan morons have politicized medicine. Well done.

The irony is one cannot even begin to imagine how many bogus, totally ineffective........ and potentially dangerous medications Chuck has tried to peddle over the years!
For someone who has made a fortune visiting doctors offices & hospitals, with donuts and other bribes, preaching his newest miracle drug, his horror over the ivermectin matter is just another example of how well these bozos have perfected the art of hypocrisy.

Seney, you're off the rails.

[724Seney]

Ever the hypocrite, Chuck's views on name-calling and insults depends on whether or not he's the recipient.

Amen.

And, ever the bald faced liar. Just within the categories of drugs he admits to shamelessly peddling to any doctor or hospital who would let him in the door, there are several which are infamous for being either 1) Egregiously over-priced in spite of no therapeutic advantage or 2) Just plain ineffective. He daily, knowingly, relied upon bogus studies, non-evidence based studies as the basis for the "talking points" he was scripted to use for his shameless pitches.

These patients and families all suffered far more from Chuck's conscious misinformation / misdirection than did those who may have taken Ivermectin at a time when the world was searching for something.... anything.... to combat a fatal disease with (at the time) no known effective means of treatment.

[724Seney]

One study showing effectiveness is not conclusive, and neither is one study not showing effectiveness.

You partisan morons have politicized medicine. Well done.

The irony is one cannot even begin to imagine how many bogus, totally ineffective........ and potentially dangerous medications Chuck has tried to peddle over the years!
For someone who has made a fortune visiting doctors offices & hospitals, with donuts and other bribes, preaching his newest miracle drug, his horror over the ivermectin matter is just another example of how well these bozos have perfected the art of hypocrisy.

Seney, you're off the rails.

I'm just getting started Teddy.
You fools are every bit as guilty of spreading misinformation as are the many people you find fit to demonize.
How many peaceful, law abiding, tax paying, working, spiritual families have you totally disrupted by poisoning their kids brains with the total poppy cock you feel compelled to promote?

[Chip]

"The researchers shared a summary of these results in August during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health, but the full data set had not been published until now in The New England Journal of Medicine."

Pretty reputable sources, right? Genuine, peer-reviewed studies. (You do know how to click a link?) Why do you persist in saying that I'm peddling nonsense?

Better than Fox News and the batshit fringe supplement-peddling websites you come up with.

[724Seney]

"The researchers shared a summary of these results in August during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health, but the full data set had not been published until now in The New England Journal of Medicine."

Pretty reputable sources, right? Genuine, peer-reviewed studies. (You do know how to click a link?) Why do you persist in saying that I'm peddling nonsense?

Better than Fox News and the batshit fringe supplement-peddling websites you come up with.

Apparently all you learned at Stanford was how to spit on door knobs but that is not surprising given your sub K-6 level of reading comprehension.

I never, ever, anywhere questioned the information contained within the NEJM; the conversation was centered upon the topic of misinformation and its use (or, misuse).

Further, the purpose had nothing to do with Ivermectin, it was to highlight the hypocrisy of you and the other two stooges. All three of you scream bloody murder when you think someone is employing misinformation in order to make a point; yet, you are unable to compose a post without the use of misinformation yourselves. And, as I pointed out, you are all quite adept at using misinformation in order to achieve your own personal goals and gains.

Apparently, in spite of your august and scholarly Stanford post graduate work on practical applications of modern scatology, you have been unable to do anything other than sling it.

[Chuck Naill]

Ivermectin as a reliable prevention for COVID has been debunked, and Pierre Kory caught the virus. So, their baseless claim that 100K could have been saved is imaginary.

[724Seney]

Ivermectin as a reliable prevention for COVID has been debunked, and Pierre Kory caught the virus. So, their baseless claim that 100K could have been saved is imaginary.

Yet another swing and a miss!
The topic is misinformation Chuck, not Invermectin!!

[Chuck Naill]

At some point you need to admit you bet on the wrong horse. 😉

[dneal]

Biden, Fauci, Walensky, etc... all said that you wouldn't get the virus if you got the vaccine. Fauci said it was really good against variants.

68744

Chuck dutifully followed their marching orders - and got the virus anyway.

Did Pierre Kory say you wouldn't catch the virus if you took ivermectin? He didn't die, so it must have worked, right? That was Chuck's excuse when he got COVID.


At some point you need to admit you bet on the wrong horse. 😉

Will you do the same, Chuck?

[Bold2013]

At some point you need to admit you bet on the wrong horse. 😉

Only when you admit you voted for the wrong donkey (pun intended)

[Chuck Naill]

At some point you need to admit you bet on the wrong horse. 😉

Only when you admit you voted for the wrong donkey (pun intended)

Had John Kasich or Mitt Romney been running, I would have voted for them!

[Chuck Naill]

Who would have thought???!
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/study-finds-ivermectin-horse-drug-071103424.html

Oh yeah, everyone who used evidenced based information ……

[TSherbs]

At some point you need to admit you bet on the wrong horse. 😉

Only when you admit you voted for the wrong donkey (pun intended)

Had John Kasich or Mitt Romney been running, I would have voted for them!
I was on board with John McCain, until he started kowtowing to the religious right. Then he went weird, and lost my support. But there were a lot of things I supported about him, and I admired his service record and history.

[Chuck Naill]

At some point you need to admit you bet on the wrong horse. 😉

Only when you admit you voted for the wrong donkey (pun intended)

Had John Kasich or Mitt Romney been running, I would have voted for them!
I was on board with John McCain, until he started kowtowing to the religious right. Then he went weird, and lost my support. But there were a lot of things I supported about him, and I admired his service record and history.

McCain died in 2018. My point was, I would have voted for a Republican had one been running in 2020.

[TSherbs]

Yes, I know. I'd vote for a dead McCain over a living Trump tho.

[Chuck Naill]

Yes, I know. I'd vote for a dead McCain over a living Trump tho.

I was never a fan, but his shameful comments regarding any POW was all I needed to vote for Clinton and then Biden. YMMV as always.

[Chip]

While I seldom agreed with McCain, he did represent his views with integrity. Unlike the present RW crop, who are motivated by hate, greed, racism, lies, and a devouring lust for power.

[Chuck Naill]

Regarding Robert Malone MD

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/03/technology/robert-malone-covid.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC EIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DJDm4 ZiPgYCIiG_EPKarskfdw50i6HAdpINLgpSbl5yfFeMwptVwys6 NOiqagyHh8U-8i1T39kmNXER6w5-jvnKWOwIuskmLHk-h7cbmP1XKfcgWkrdw5kvZBkfA6u0SMPw_2VEfVnmYUrhYdXDZh 4RzoHYimKveC5SEktfYXbMWyPr1U-SOpbWjrMnNOD6rhmcA1aCl3OSXMX8n9roZoHe4tRZPCjWkZmLM nugrwRCXhqKJOrBfAyR4vUkLZsud3duA7Y6ZuxHEz5ipZxyypd r-Y&smid=url-share

[dneal]

TDS must also mean Truth Deflection Syndrome...

Regarding Robert Malone MD:

The National Academy of Sciences.

https://www.pnas.org/content/86/16/6077

Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection
R W Malone, P L Felgner, and I M Verma

We have developed an efficient and reproducible method for RNA transfection, using a synthetic cationic lipid, N-[1-(2,3-dioleyloxy)propyl]-N,N,N-trimethylammonium chloride (DOTMA), incorporated into a liposome (lipofectin). Transfection of 10 ng to 5 micrograms of Photinus pyralis luciferase mRNA synthesized in vitro into NIH 3T3 mouse cells yields a linear response of luciferase activity. The procedure can be used to efficiently transfect RNA into human, rat, mouse, Xenopus, and Drosophila cells. Using the RNA/lipofectin transfection procedure, we have analyzed the role of capping and beta-globin 5' and 3' untranslated sequences on the translation efficiency of luciferase RNA synthesized in vitro. Following transfection of NIH 3T3 cells, capped mRNAs with beta-globin untranslated sequences produced at least 1000-fold more luciferase protein than mRNAs lacking these elements.

Robert Malone, the lead in conjunction with Felgner and Verma; developed RNA transfection using lipids. That's what all the COVID mRNA vaccines use. The other technique is using a modified adenovirus.

There it is, but the unsupported statements and accusations will continue. Worse, it is just a way to ignore one more actual scientist because they do not follow the approved narrative.

You wouldn't have mRNA vaccines without Dr. Malone, Felgner and Verma inventing a way to keep the mRNA viable.

[Chuck Naill]

Wrong about Trump, Ivermectin, and now Malone.....

How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history? :)

[dneal]

You tell me Chuck. The NIH are documented liars. Masks don't work after all. You got covid after getting the shot. They funded gain of function research in Wuhan. They conspired to keep all that a secret. We'll know more when they comply with the court order to release documents.

All you have is blithe assertions without substance, and another pathetic attempt to deflect from the topic and your crumbling narrative. :)

[Chuck Naill]

Consistently a believer and repeater of falsehood.

[724Seney]

Consistently a believer and repeater of falsehood.

Could it really be???
Our woke but clueless friend has finally developed a sense of self awareness??
Way to go Chuck!!

[dneal]

Who would have thought???!
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/study-finds-ivermectin-horse-drug-071103424.html

Oh yeah, everyone who used evidenced based information ……

So about that study that "proves" ivermectin doesn't work... Here's the study link (https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869?articleTools=true), since some people think news articles and opinion pieces are scientific publications.

Turns out that there are a few problems. Well, quite a few actually.



Delayed >6 months. The paper was delayed over 6 months with no explanation. The companion fluvoxamine arm, completed at the same time, was published Aug 23, 2021.
No response to data request.Authors have not responded to a request for the data (requests can be sent to thetogethertrial@gmail.com, let us know the outcome).
Incorrect conclusion. The conclusion states that ivermectin "did not result in a lower incidence of [hospitalization] or of [ER observation >6hr]". This is incorrect, hospitalization was 17% lower (just not statistically significant).
Two different death counts. Table 3 shows 21 and 24 deaths, while Table S6 shows 20 and 25 [twitter.com (C)]. In Table 3, death and grade 5 events show the same 21/24 numbers, but different effect sizes, with 0.81 being closer to the 20/25 counts and the previously reported number. This is consistent with one death being moved between arms after manuscript generation, but not updated in Table S6 or the Table 3 AE RR. This cannot be explained by the safety population excluding patients with zero doses because the AE control deaths are higher.
Trial was not blind. Ivermectin/placebo blinding was done by assigning a letter to each group that was only known to the pharmacist. If a patient received a 3-dose treatment, investigators immediately know that the patient is more likely to be in the treatment group than the control group, because 3-dose placebo was relatively rare. If a patient received non-3-day treatment, investigators immediately know that the patient is not an ivermectin treatment patient. Moreover, by observing the frequency of allocations, investigators can easily determine which letter corresponds to active ivermectin 3-day treatment, thereby removing all blinding. Note that we only know about this blinding failure because the journal required the authors to restrict to the 3-day placebo group. Also note that it would have been trivial to avoid if desired.
Reportedly terminated for futility although futility threshold not reached. Authors report futility thresholds of 20%, 40% and 60%, the trial was reportedly terminated due to futility, however all published probabilities are >60% (ITT 79.4%) [twitter.com (D)]. Additionally, the fluvoxamine arm did not have the higher 60% threshold, only using 40%. Note the DSMC was not independent as below.
Conflicting target enrollment. There are conflicting target enrollment numbers. The protocol showed 800 patients per arm as of Mar 21, 2021 (after the trial started) [static1.squarespace.com, twitter.com (E)], the co-principal investigator reported 800 per arm in an interview published June 14, 2021 [halifaxexaminer.ca], and the protocol changed to 681 on June 22 [static1.squarespace.com (B)]. The fluvoxamine arm which started two months earlier was terminated at the same time, and was terminated due to superiority [Reis (B)] after 741/756 patients. For 800 patients per arm, the trial would have been terminated at 85% enrollment, however the protocol specifies interim analyses at 25%, 50%, and 75% [twitter.com (F)]. Note that Gamma was declining significantly around the termination point, which likely favors improved efficacy if the trial continued, given the late treatment and dosage used.
Funding conflict. The paper does not include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or Unitaid as funders, however the Mar 25, 2021 protocol shows the Gates Foundation [static1.squarespace.com], and the web site shows Unitaid [togethertrial.com].
Unequal randomization, confounding by time. The trial reports 1:1:1:1 randomization, however independent analysis shows much higher enrollment in the ivermectin treatment arm towards the start of the trial [c19ivermectin.com, longhaulwiki.com], introducing potentially significant confounding by time due to changes in variants, SOC, hospital utilization, etc.
Missing time from onset patients show statistically significant efficacy. For the known time since onset subgroups, both groups show worse results than the overall results [twitter.com (G)], with the missing 317 patients showing significant efficacy RR 0.51, p = 0.02 (compared to 1.00 and 1.14 for known patients).
Unknown onset patients were enrolled, subgroup results opposite of previous trials. After imputation, the percentage of patients in the late treatment subgroup went from 46% to 56%. 87% of the unknown patients were predicted to be in the late group. This is reasonable and expected — patients that do not recall when the onset was are more likely to have had onset further in the past. What is not clear is how these patients could be enrolled in the trial, how many of these patients had onset >7 days, how this very late 317 patient subgroup could show much greater efficacy as above, and why authors did not report this result, analyze this in greater detail, or recommend further research.
Side effect profile consistent with many treatment patients not receiving authentic ivermectin and/or control patients receiving ivermectin. The side effects (e.g., gastrointestinal side effects were lower in the ivermectin arm) suggest that many ivermectin patients may not have received authentic ivermectin, or that placebo patients may have taken ivermectin. For comparison, there was a 3.6 times greater incidence of diarrhea in the treatment arm in [Lim].
A local Brazilian investigator reports that, at the time of the trial, there was only one likely placebo manufacturer, and they reportedly did not receive a request to produce identical placebo tablets. They also report that compounded ivermectin in Brazil is considered unreliable.
Ivermectin use widespread in the community. Recent ivermectin use was not in the exclusion criteria. Ivermectin was available OTC, was recommended by the government for COVID-19, and had nine times higher sales [twitter.com (H)]. Authors claim they ensured patients did not use ivermectin via "extensive screening", but do not explain why this was not an exclusion criterion, or how this unwritten exclusion was ensured even though there is extensive missing data related to written exclusion criteria. Similar unwritten exclusions were not mentioned for other arms [twitter.com (I)], a primary investigator previously stated such an exclusion should not be an issue [twitter.com (J)], and it is not mentioned in the interview sheets [osf.io]. After publication, a co-principal investigator reportedly wrote that "even if some patients did access IVM, the fact that it is blinded should still maintain balance", which is incorrect, placebo patients taking ivermectin are expected to improve, treatment patients that already having significant tissue distributions may have positive, neutral, or negative responses to additional treatment.
Patient counts do not match previously released enrollment graph. Authors claim the 679 ivermectin patients were all from on or after March 23, 2021, however independent analysis [c19ivermectin.com, longhaulwiki.com] of the previously released enrollment graph (contained in this presentation [dcricollab.dcri.duke.edu]) shows only 636 patients assigned to 3-dose ivermectin (78 were assigned to 1-dose, and there was a two-week gap). Similarly, the paper reports 679 placebo patients, however the analysis shows only 559 assigned during the same period. Note that the numbers in this analysis exactly match for fluvoxamine.
Per-protocol population different to the contemporary fluvoxamine arm. Table 2 per-protocol numbers show 92% per-protocol patients for ivermectin and only 42% for control. This appears to be a post-hoc change selecting only 3-day placebo patients, while similar selection does not appear to have been done for the companion fluvoxamine trial (showing 74% and 82% per-protocol patients for fluvoxamine and control) [Reis (B)].
Time of onset, required for inclusion, missing for 317 patients. For the companion fluvoxamine arm, 24% of patients had an unknown time from onset, including 179 of the control patients [Reis (B)]. In this trial, 0 patients have an unspecified time from onset in Table 1, due to imputation. However, Figure 2 reveals that the time from onset is unknown for 317 patients, similar to the fluvoxamine paper. However, time from onset is required for the inclusion criteria. According to Figure 2, age and BMI also show missing values.
Conflicting comorbidity counts. The companion fluvoxamine arm ran from Jan 20 to Aug 5, 2021, while this trial ran from March 23 to Aug 6, 2021 — most control patients should be shared, with an additional 10% for fluvoxamine from the earlier start. The fluvoxamine control arm shows 16/756 control patients with asthma. The ivermectin control arm has a subset of these patients (679), but shows a much higher prevalence of asthma (60 patients). It does not appear to be possible for both of these to be correct. There are similar issues with other comorbidities [Reis (B)]. Figure 2 shows 282 in the ivermectin arm with cardiovascular disease, which is greater than the sum of every comorbidity in Table 1, even if there was no overlap between comorbidities.
Screening to treatment delay. Table 2, schedule of study activities, shows treatment administration one day after screening, baseline, and randomization in the original protocol [drive.google.com], indicating an additional day delay in already late treatment for most patients. The protocol attached to this paper has changed, now stating that the treatment should be administered on the same day of randomization, however there is no explanation of when this change was made, how this change was implemented (there are many tasks in the screening and baseline visits), and no reporting for how many patients received treatment on the same day. The form for the first treatment visit asks if there were clinical events including >6hr ER visits since the baseline visit, which would not be possible if this visit was immediately after randomization. Time of first treatment was recorded [osf.io], but no information has been reported.
Mean delay. The reported mean number of days from symptoms to randomization likely only includes known onset patients and therefore is likely to significantly underestimate the actual average, in addition to not including the time between randomization and treatment.
Viral load not reported. The protocol has change in viral load as an outcome, however only viral clearance is reported, and without any details (for example, using a high Ct value would have limited relevance).
Incorrect dose reporting, many patients at higher risk due to BMI may have received lower per kg doses, and show lower efficacy. The paper reports 400μg/kg for 3 days, however the protocol indicates that this was only up to 90kg, meaning that the dose received for higher-risk high BMI patients was even further reduced from dosage which is already far below clinician recommendations for the dominant variant [twitter.com (K)]. 50% of patients had BMI ≥30. Much greater efficacy was seen in the low BMI subgroup (RR 0.77 vs 0.98).
Plasma concentration below known effective value. [Krolewiecki] show an antiviral effect only with plasma concentrations above 160ng/mL. Figure S5 shows that the authors expected the mean concentration to be well below this level [twitter.com (L)]. Dosage requirements are likely to vary significantly depending on many factors including the variant encountered, time of administration, mode of administration, patient genetics, concomitant medications, SOC, and the distribution of the infection in different tissues. However, the dose used is far below what is recommended by clinicians for post-infection treatment with the Gamma variant — about 2.5 - 6.5x lower, depending on the recommendation and which estimate of fasting/fed administration is used.
Primary outcome easy to game, selected after ivermectin one dose arm. The subjective "emergency room visit for >6 hours" criterion shows higher risk (RR 1.16), while hospitalization is lower (RR 0.84 in the appendix or RR 0.83 in the paper). The primary outcome results were set on March 21, 2021, after the single dose ivermectin arm. Given the known public biases of some investigators, this may have been specifically chosen to reduce efficacy. Authors claim that the 6hr threshold did not include waiting time, however the emergency visit form has no mention of waiting time, only recording presentation and discharge times [osf.io].
Including contraindicated chronic kidney disease patients. "Stage IV chronic kidney disease or on dialysis" was an inclusion criterion, however ivermectin is contraindicated with kidney disease [Arise, en.wikipedia.org, Nunes] (not always recognized, and may be less critical with very low dose use for other conditions). Only 7 CKD patients were enrolled.
Antigen test requirement. The protocol indicates that patients with a negative test may be included if they become positive a few days later, potentially resulting in a long unreported delay between randomization and treatment, depending on how investigators interpreted the protocol. The requirement for a positive antigen test excludes the possibility of early treatment in many cases - tests have very high false negative rates in the early stages of infection, and symptoms may appear before the test becomes positive.
Missing analysis. Authors do not provide time from onset analysis for either mortality or hospitalization, only the combined measure including the ER visits where anomalous results are seen.
Missing PP, mITT mortality, hospitalization results. Authors do not provide per-protocol or mITT results for mortality or hospitalization. Per-protocol mortality results were provided for the companion fluvoxamine trial.
Missing outcomes. Many outcomes specified in the protocol appear to be missing, including the co-primary outcome of COVID-19 mortality (only all-cause mortality is provided, specific AE details not provided), time to clinical failure, days with respiratory symptoms, mortality due to pulmonary complications, cardiovascular mortality, COVID-19 symptom scale assessment, WHO clinical worsening scale assessment, and 14 day mortality.
Missing age information. According to Figure 2, 98 patients are missing age information [twitter.com (M)].
Mid-trial protocol changes. There were several mid-trial protocol changes on July 5, 2021 [clinicaltrials.gov (B)]. The number of patients for viral load analysis was reduced, only for the ivermectin arm. All-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory death outcomes were deleted. Exclusions were modified to allow enrolling patients vaccinated within the last 14 days. Inclusion criteria were modified to allow enrolling healthy young people — the criterion "fever >38C at baseline" was added, allowing enrollment independent of increased risk.
Vaccine status unclear. The trial appears to have switched to allowing vaccinated patients at some point, however details of any change, and results by vaccination status are not reported [twitter.com (N)].
Large change in results from previously released data. The published results are very different from the previously released results, for example 100/679 vs. 86/677 for the primary outcome ivermectin events. The mortality RR changed from 0.82 to [0.88/0.81/0.80] for [Table 2/Table 2 AE/Table S6].
Statistical analysis plan dated after trial start. The statistical analysis plan appears to be dated after the trial started [twitter.com (O)].
Per-protocol placebo results very different. The 3-dose placebo appears to have been much more effective [twitter.com (P)].
Imputation protocol violation. The protocol specifies multiple imputation with up to 20% of missing data, however imputation was done with time from symptom onset, which has >23% missing data [twitter.com (Q)].
Two different per-protocol counts. Figure 1 shows 228 per-protocol for the control arm, while Table 2 shows 288.
Possibly the largest financial conflict of interest of any trial to date. Disclosed conflicts of interest include: Pfizer, Merck, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Australian Government, Rainwater Charitable Foundation, Fast Grants, Medicines Development for Global Health, Novaquest, Regeneron, Astrazeneca, Daichi Sankyo, Commonwealth Science and Research Organization, and Card Research. Many conflicts of interest appear unreported. For example, Unitaid is a sponsor [Harper, togethertrial.com].
Analysis done by a company that receives payment from and works closely with Pfizer. All analyses were done by Cytel. Cytel is a statistical modelling company that helps pharmaceutical companies get approval — they work very closely with Pfizer [cytel.com]. Cytel's software and services are used by the top 30 pharmaceutical companies [cytel.com (B)].

There's more, but apparently it's 8000 characters over the 20,000 limited per post.

[kazoolaw]

Consistently a believer and repeater of falsehood.
Chuck has taken the first step: admitting he has a problem.

[Chip]

I didn't think he was referring to himself.

Just noticed that Lara Logan is whining about getting the boot from Fox "News" for comparing Dr. Fauci to the Nazi torturer Josef Mengele.

Have they grown a spine, or is it all the lost sponsors owing to their garbage and lies?

[Chuck Naill]

Fox is getting found out.

[kazoolaw]

[QUOTE=Chip;361431]I didn't think he was referring to himself. /QUOTE]

That would be a shame if he wasn't.

[Chuck Naill]

Or it would be fortuitous.

[Chip]

https://i.imgur.com/qAnBByx.jpg