I don’t trust “studies” anymore. I’ll take the word of actual doctors who have successfully treated Covid with IVM. There is no honest “science” anymore. It’s all about who is funding the science and what narrative they pay for.
Thanks! I think it's always good to have some level of skepticism even if it is with people who we believe are acting in good faith or are trustworthy. Trust, but verify the information regardless of who is providing it. With that being said, I think there's a lot that is missed from trying to always search for the "gold standard" study. I think there's a lot to say to doctors who are actually treating patients which, ironically, not many doctors can attest to.
If we have learned anything from COVID it's to probably make sure to see who's funding what and how those biases can affect research.
Agree with you 1000%. We have learned a lot about who NOT to trust in the past few years. With "research" we definitely need to follow the money when considering the "findings". Trust but verify EVERYTHING! Best to You!
Yupp, far more people should understand that being vigilant and skeptical is not inherently bad. People should learn to not outsource their intellect to others and know that they are fully capable of assessing information. They just need to learn how to do so!
Unfortunately most people are busy & have a “normalcy bias” so they don’t realize that the way things have always been…. won’t always be the way they are in the future. False sense of security. As you well know it takes time & effort to learn/understand what is really happening. Keep up the great work!
I follow the best science I possibly can--direct observation and experimentation. IVM absolutely worked for me. I'm willing to experiment on myself after due diligence research, but would never demand anyone else do so. Basic human respect. Why can't our goobermint and medical industrial complex have at least that level of humanity?!
My vague impression is that the normal journalism standard is to quote your source, and since the news is never looking at source material (the actual studies), they don't link to / cite them. It's quite infuriating and unforgivable in practice and this would be true even in the era before studies were online! Mobeen's s-bomb is really funny, he was obviously furious at having gaffed. In a way it serves him right for jumping the gun.
It's likely even worse than that. What most likely happens is that one journalist may quote their sources and provide a vague, truncated interview which other journalist outlets latch onto and quote. It's essentially one journalist quoting another journalist quoting a a random doctor they decided to interview. I remember reading a Quilette article a while back from a lawyer who said that journalist would have a list of lawyers to go through just to find a soundbite against Trump. It was a short article but it really pointed out how the media will find anyone to use to prop up their narrative.
Yeah I would argue that he was likely frustrated that he was duped as well. I don't listen to him often but I think he tends to be more critical in his examination. I think this is likely to come up more often but then part of me wonders if this reaction was part of the intent with pushing out such a horrible study.
He's often out of his depth, including his recent review of the DNA integration study - but as he's an MSM-narrative-trusting credential-haver willing to risk discovering he was wrong, he's a valuable resource. I could say the same for Campbell. But both flunked the basic test at work here: *never* trust a study's own authors. If "here's proof!" written on a piece of paper is all it takes to trap the "skeptics" under a cage with a twig holding it up, how sad.
You know, I always work under the assumption that the less you know the less absolute one should be in their assertions.
I think that Dr. Mobeen video on DNA integration is one of his highest viewed, although I did not look at it. The same with Dr. Campbell who has ranked in hundreds of thousands of views on his videos. Part of me likes that they will at least push back, but part of me wonders if they do so for the sake of latching onto this viewership which will provide them money.
It makes me wonder what the meta for Substack will be after things start to die down. I'm concerned that we may be reaching a point where readers may be more intent on finding those who will validate their assumptions or viewpoints more than finding informative newsletters. Now, I certainly don't want people to see this as blowing smoke up our own asses, but I do remember seeing a comment once on someone's Substack stating that people should be careful of dissidents as well, especially if their income depends upon the positions that they take. I think both Dr. Campbell and Dr. Mobeen are trying to navigate this arena in such a manner.
However, it is quite concerning how many people took the study at face value without looking a bit deeper into it.
It might be interesting, as a divergent topic, to look at why Ivermectin and HCQ both seem to work for stopping/lessoning covid from the parasitic standpoint.
I'm certain I read too many Sci Fi novels but it seems to me that, aside from the chemical makup of IVM/HCQ, the target of the drugs are parasitic diseases.
So one thing we have to delineate is a drug's mechanism of action which mostly is derived from its structure. Hydroxychloroquine has many different mechanisms of action (in case you haven't seen this series):
I don't think Ivermectin lessens COVID from a parasitic standpoint. I find the idea of "lessening parasitic infections" to kind of be a misappropriation of concepts and theories. Most people who have pushed the "deworming theory" do so on the basis that many African countries are infected with parasites and are therefore immunocompromised. The argument suggests that deworming them would help improve their immunity. However, that argument does not work when we assume that Americans do not have parasites, as to deworm Africans would only bring them up to American baseline which still doesn't explain why Americans did worse than Africans with COVID.
Well, anyways that was likely a far bigger aside that didn't answer your question! But know that it's not the chemical makeup but the structure of the drug, the target proteins of said parasites, and how the drug interacts with these target proteins that make them a viable antiparasitic agent. I think the best I could do is to probably go over and explain why Ivermectin works as a parasitic. I will be honest and state that I have not heard of HCQ working as an antiparasitic but I may look into it further.
If that doesn't help explain things, would you mind describing what you mean by chemical makeup? That may help with the discussion. Thanks!
I went back and re-read you comments and I think you explained things very well. I tend to think of malaria as being a parasitic type disease that seems to be a large issue in many countries. My understanding is that HCQ is a treatment, perhaps a very effective treatment.
Just to boil it down, and sorry for the rambling: Is Covid a parasitic type disease similar to malaria which is why Ivermectin and HCQ work as a treatment?
I don't think it's a specific enough question that can be answered but I appreciate the replies.
Oh, of course! I'm not sure why I overlooked malaria but yes it is a parasitic infection in some sense!
As for what constitutes a parasitic infection depends on how a parasite is defined. There is a biological aspect where we may examine it from a multicellular perspective, or there is a more pathological aspect where the ability to invade organs may consider it parasitic. The most important thing is to understand where the drug targets. What's most likely happening is that the structure of both Ivermectin and HCQ allow it to target a set of proteins/receptors of SARS-COV2 as well as different proteins/receptors of parasites. For HCQ, its mechanism of action that allows it to target the endolysosomal route of entry into cells may work for both SARS-COV2 and malaria since both require some form of entry into host cells. In that sense, it's HCQ targeting of a cellular pathway utilized by two completely different pathogens that may be providing a therapeutic benefit that appears to overlap when its really the pathways that are similar.
No worries, even with a Biochemistry background I am learning many of these things as well so I'm always concerned that my responses may be more confusing than helpful. I absolutely hope that this content is something that people find informative and helpful. As we "move on" from COVID I am hoping to cover a lot of different topics as well, but I will have to see how far into the future that will be.
When I take my time and read what you write and look up a few key words I generally understand what you write. I do know when I design a system of software that diagrams are very helpful to visualize. Just a thought in terms of how x connects to y and y affects z so to speak.
I wonder how many would find a series on transhumanism to be of interest. Elon Musk, Microsoft, Gates, et al.. Just another thought.. 2 is my limit per day. (-:
Just to further complicate things for you, HCQ is a powerful systemic anti-inflammatory, one reason it's used to treat Lupus. It's also a zinc ionophore. From my unprofessional research, IVM works by blocking chemical pathways that viruses and certain parasites use to invade tissues. Basically, happy coincidence it works against COVID-1984. Like the miraculous range of effects/applications for salicylic acid/aspirin. There's a lot more research on both from the SARS-1 epidemic, but much of it is limited to in vitro or is incomplete bc SARS-1 was allowed to run its course and was over quickly. Of course, FraudXi et al made sure none of those lines of study got funded, but negative ROI mRNA and gain of function got rained on.
I would argue that the propaganda has always been there. The only issue was that social media was never that big until modern times. It's really only now where so many falsehoods could be released and circulate around the world in just a matter of minutes. So ironically people are able to see propaganda in real time even though it can be spread nearly immediately.
It is quite ironic, I wrote a piece a while back that was inspired by a BMJ editorial titled "the end of the pandemic will not be televised" and I've been thinking about that for a while. Only now I would argue that the end of the pandemic will not be televised because there is no space in the media for anything besides war.
Great analysis!
I don’t trust “studies” anymore. I’ll take the word of actual doctors who have successfully treated Covid with IVM. There is no honest “science” anymore. It’s all about who is funding the science and what narrative they pay for.
Thanks! I think it's always good to have some level of skepticism even if it is with people who we believe are acting in good faith or are trustworthy. Trust, but verify the information regardless of who is providing it. With that being said, I think there's a lot that is missed from trying to always search for the "gold standard" study. I think there's a lot to say to doctors who are actually treating patients which, ironically, not many doctors can attest to.
If we have learned anything from COVID it's to probably make sure to see who's funding what and how those biases can affect research.
Agree with you 1000%. We have learned a lot about who NOT to trust in the past few years. With "research" we definitely need to follow the money when considering the "findings". Trust but verify EVERYTHING! Best to You!
Yupp, far more people should understand that being vigilant and skeptical is not inherently bad. People should learn to not outsource their intellect to others and know that they are fully capable of assessing information. They just need to learn how to do so!
Unfortunately most people are busy & have a “normalcy bias” so they don’t realize that the way things have always been…. won’t always be the way they are in the future. False sense of security. As you well know it takes time & effort to learn/understand what is really happening. Keep up the great work!
I follow the best science I possibly can--direct observation and experimentation. IVM absolutely worked for me. I'm willing to experiment on myself after due diligence research, but would never demand anyone else do so. Basic human respect. Why can't our goobermint and medical industrial complex have at least that level of humanity?!
My vague impression is that the normal journalism standard is to quote your source, and since the news is never looking at source material (the actual studies), they don't link to / cite them. It's quite infuriating and unforgivable in practice and this would be true even in the era before studies were online! Mobeen's s-bomb is really funny, he was obviously furious at having gaffed. In a way it serves him right for jumping the gun.
It's likely even worse than that. What most likely happens is that one journalist may quote their sources and provide a vague, truncated interview which other journalist outlets latch onto and quote. It's essentially one journalist quoting another journalist quoting a a random doctor they decided to interview. I remember reading a Quilette article a while back from a lawyer who said that journalist would have a list of lawyers to go through just to find a soundbite against Trump. It was a short article but it really pointed out how the media will find anyone to use to prop up their narrative.
Yeah I would argue that he was likely frustrated that he was duped as well. I don't listen to him often but I think he tends to be more critical in his examination. I think this is likely to come up more often but then part of me wonders if this reaction was part of the intent with pushing out such a horrible study.
He's often out of his depth, including his recent review of the DNA integration study - but as he's an MSM-narrative-trusting credential-haver willing to risk discovering he was wrong, he's a valuable resource. I could say the same for Campbell. But both flunked the basic test at work here: *never* trust a study's own authors. If "here's proof!" written on a piece of paper is all it takes to trap the "skeptics" under a cage with a twig holding it up, how sad.
You know, I always work under the assumption that the less you know the less absolute one should be in their assertions.
I think that Dr. Mobeen video on DNA integration is one of his highest viewed, although I did not look at it. The same with Dr. Campbell who has ranked in hundreds of thousands of views on his videos. Part of me likes that they will at least push back, but part of me wonders if they do so for the sake of latching onto this viewership which will provide them money.
It makes me wonder what the meta for Substack will be after things start to die down. I'm concerned that we may be reaching a point where readers may be more intent on finding those who will validate their assumptions or viewpoints more than finding informative newsletters. Now, I certainly don't want people to see this as blowing smoke up our own asses, but I do remember seeing a comment once on someone's Substack stating that people should be careful of dissidents as well, especially if their income depends upon the positions that they take. I think both Dr. Campbell and Dr. Mobeen are trying to navigate this arena in such a manner.
However, it is quite concerning how many people took the study at face value without looking a bit deeper into it.
Interesting. As usual well done.
It might be interesting, as a divergent topic, to look at why Ivermectin and HCQ both seem to work for stopping/lessoning covid from the parasitic standpoint.
I'm certain I read too many Sci Fi novels but it seems to me that, aside from the chemical makup of IVM/HCQ, the target of the drugs are parasitic diseases.
So one thing we have to delineate is a drug's mechanism of action which mostly is derived from its structure. Hydroxychloroquine has many different mechanisms of action (in case you haven't seen this series):
https://moderndiscontent.substack.com/p/the-hydroxychloroquine-anthology?s=w
I don't think Ivermectin lessens COVID from a parasitic standpoint. I find the idea of "lessening parasitic infections" to kind of be a misappropriation of concepts and theories. Most people who have pushed the "deworming theory" do so on the basis that many African countries are infected with parasites and are therefore immunocompromised. The argument suggests that deworming them would help improve their immunity. However, that argument does not work when we assume that Americans do not have parasites, as to deworm Africans would only bring them up to American baseline which still doesn't explain why Americans did worse than Africans with COVID.
Well, anyways that was likely a far bigger aside that didn't answer your question! But know that it's not the chemical makeup but the structure of the drug, the target proteins of said parasites, and how the drug interacts with these target proteins that make them a viable antiparasitic agent. I think the best I could do is to probably go over and explain why Ivermectin works as a parasitic. I will be honest and state that I have not heard of HCQ working as an antiparasitic but I may look into it further.
If that doesn't help explain things, would you mind describing what you mean by chemical makeup? That may help with the discussion. Thanks!
I went back and re-read you comments and I think you explained things very well. I tend to think of malaria as being a parasitic type disease that seems to be a large issue in many countries. My understanding is that HCQ is a treatment, perhaps a very effective treatment.
Just to boil it down, and sorry for the rambling: Is Covid a parasitic type disease similar to malaria which is why Ivermectin and HCQ work as a treatment?
I don't think it's a specific enough question that can be answered but I appreciate the replies.
Oh, of course! I'm not sure why I overlooked malaria but yes it is a parasitic infection in some sense!
As for what constitutes a parasitic infection depends on how a parasite is defined. There is a biological aspect where we may examine it from a multicellular perspective, or there is a more pathological aspect where the ability to invade organs may consider it parasitic. The most important thing is to understand where the drug targets. What's most likely happening is that the structure of both Ivermectin and HCQ allow it to target a set of proteins/receptors of SARS-COV2 as well as different proteins/receptors of parasites. For HCQ, its mechanism of action that allows it to target the endolysosomal route of entry into cells may work for both SARS-COV2 and malaria since both require some form of entry into host cells. In that sense, it's HCQ targeting of a cellular pathway utilized by two completely different pathogens that may be providing a therapeutic benefit that appears to overlap when its really the pathways that are similar.
Hopefully that provides some more context!
Interesting, I'll have to absorb this a bit, software is my profession, learning the ropes on these types of things you have been writing about.
I like the work you are doing, makes a difference to have content to read based on reality instead of psychosis.. Keep it up
No worries, even with a Biochemistry background I am learning many of these things as well so I'm always concerned that my responses may be more confusing than helpful. I absolutely hope that this content is something that people find informative and helpful. As we "move on" from COVID I am hoping to cover a lot of different topics as well, but I will have to see how far into the future that will be.
When I take my time and read what you write and look up a few key words I generally understand what you write. I do know when I design a system of software that diagrams are very helpful to visualize. Just a thought in terms of how x connects to y and y affects z so to speak.
I wonder how many would find a series on transhumanism to be of interest. Elon Musk, Microsoft, Gates, et al.. Just another thought.. 2 is my limit per day. (-:
Thanks for responding, I'll think about this. Its not the deworming thing that I'm thinking about but let me think and reply in a little bit.
Just to further complicate things for you, HCQ is a powerful systemic anti-inflammatory, one reason it's used to treat Lupus. It's also a zinc ionophore. From my unprofessional research, IVM works by blocking chemical pathways that viruses and certain parasites use to invade tissues. Basically, happy coincidence it works against COVID-1984. Like the miraculous range of effects/applications for salicylic acid/aspirin. There's a lot more research on both from the SARS-1 epidemic, but much of it is limited to in vitro or is incomplete bc SARS-1 was allowed to run its course and was over quickly. Of course, FraudXi et al made sure none of those lines of study got funded, but negative ROI mRNA and gain of function got rained on.
Thanks, I knew about HCQ as a zinc ionophore but never got around to reading about IVM as much, interesting write up: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7505114/
Other studies: https://c19ivermectin.com/
Dr Faust has a lot to answer for but that will never happen, gaslighting is his game.
Thanks
I would argue that the propaganda has always been there. The only issue was that social media was never that big until modern times. It's really only now where so many falsehoods could be released and circulate around the world in just a matter of minutes. So ironically people are able to see propaganda in real time even though it can be spread nearly immediately.
It is quite ironic, I wrote a piece a while back that was inspired by a BMJ editorial titled "the end of the pandemic will not be televised" and I've been thinking about that for a while. Only now I would argue that the end of the pandemic will not be televised because there is no space in the media for anything besides war.
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068094