Steve Kirsch, the founder of Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, spoke with former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson and Dr. Pierre Kory of Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) about Twitter censorship and other Covid controversies, including the Covid “vaccines” and Ivermectin as a treatment for the illness.
One of the most critical parts of the debate, apart from the discussions on the various ‘vaccines,’ involved the use of Ivermectin as an early treatment. We learn that the approved (under emergency use act) drug by Pfizer, Paxlovid, has the same action as Ivermectin which has been essentially forbidden for Covid. In fact, Ivermectin has a stronger action against viruses than Paxlovid does by the same mechanism.
Despite the voluminous scientific evidence of ivermectin’s efficacy in treating Covid, Berenson has denied or ignored that evidence of ivermectin’s effectiveness. Meanwhile, Alex supports the trial data for Pfizer’s drug, Paxlovid. But the action it uses is the same as Ivermectin, and in multiple peer-reviewed studies, Ivermectin even works better than Paxlovid by the same mechanism. Furthermore, Ivermectin also has other pharmacodynamics beyond Paxlovid’s specific method of action.
Berenson also compared advocates of Ivermectin to advocates of the vaccine, essentially saying both have attached themselves to a drug based on feelings and not evidence.
But there’s a critical difference. “Look what the agencies are advocating for,” said Dr. Kory. He asked Berenson, “Do you think we’re in a state of regulatory capture of the health agencies?”
Alex responded, “Oh ya! Absolutely!”
Pierre built on that belief. “So that’s exactly what I want to base my point on. Instead of saying the advocates for the vaccines and the advocates for your ivermectin are similar, I would say, what’s similar is what the agencies want.”
Dr. Kory continued:
So look at what their arguments are, they want vaccines in every arm. And they want at all costs to prevent ivermectin from reaching anyone.
So I think that’s the same side of the argurment – because my opinion is everything you’ve seen every piece of BS. I think crimes and fraud have been committed in the championing of these vaccines – ignoring data, ignoring natural immunity, all the chicanery that these agencies have pulled. And when they said don’t test the vaccinated don’t test for antibodies before vaccine – they’re trying to increase the amount of harm.
So all of that horrific that horror show that they did. When you look at what they did to ivermectin, that’s the spot – that’s the part that I would be suspicious of. And so that’s what I think is two things that you should be skeptical what’s coming from the top?
Dr. Kory also mentioned his personal and extensive clinical experience treating his patients with ivermectin:
Not only [did] the early data show, like a signal, we hadn’t seen around anything, but I was starting to treat patients. And I was like, ‘Wow!’
I mean, I would have patients super sick; four, five, six days, – then within 12 to 24 hours, they were turning around.
Kory took aim at Berenson’s skepticism and belief that only esteemed, randomized control trials should be considered. He explained the three main scientific falsehoods on this topic:
First, the hegemony of randomized control trials (RCT) is that randomized and observational studies lead to different conclusions:
Every time you have like a promising study that shows this or that, everyone says, ‘Ah! We need to do a big RCT to prove it.’
There are half a dozen reviews that have looked over decades of trials. When you compare collections of observational and randomized, they reach the exact same conclusion on average throughout the history of evidence-based medicine.
Yet, we’re in a modern health system, where nothing is proven until a high-impact journal with a highly-funded, which is supposedly high-quality study that’s the arbiter of truth. And I will tell you, that’s false…..
You’re essentially looking to capture journals who now control that’s what gets used ….this church of RCT fundamentalism is killing science.
Secondly, high-quality trials lead to different conclusions than low-quality trials:
Again, not true. High-quality and low-quality are actually separated by grading scales, which academics have come up with bias and all this stuff — concealment randomization, allocation, and when you actually look at high-quality, low-quality trials studying the same thing, if you look at collections of them, they reach the same conclusions, yet we dismiss all the low-quality.
The final falsehood is when they pick one trial in a high-impact journal, ignoring the fact that the highest form of medical evidence is meta-analyses:
It’s when you group all the data together, and when you do that, you show statistically significant improvements in mortality, hospitalization, time to viral clearance.
Any individual trial will show one thing, but you want to look at the average of all the data, and when you do that, I’m going to tell you, Alex, in my study of therapeutics, I’ve never seen a more proven drug than ivermectin.
Right now, we have 88 controlled trials involving 132,000 patients, and when you look at meta-analyses, no matter how you slice it and dice it, it’s so profoundly positive [for ivermectin]. And yet I sit, I’ve listened to all of these kinds of narratives, and I just feel like it’s this selective Look at a couple of trials, and then you ignore a massive evidence base, and I think that’s what leads people astray.
Watch Dr. Pierre Kory and Alex Berenson’s portion of the debate on Ivermectin: