Oh please. The Elgazzar paper, by itself, accounted for …

Comment on Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories by Sean Pitman.

Oh please. The Elgazzar paper, by itself, accounted for 15.5% of the effect of the meta-analysis paper. Remove that and you basically remove the statistical significance of your meta-analysis paper.

Of the other papers used in the meta-analysis, many relied on small sample sizes or were not randomized or well-controlled. And in 2020, an observational study of the drug was withdrawn after scientists raised concerns about it and a few other papers using data by the company Surgisphere that investigated a range of repurposed drugs against COVID-19. “We’ve seen a pattern of people releasing information that’s not reliable,” says Hill. “It’s hard enough to do work on COVID and treatment without people distorting databases.” (Link).

“I personally have lost all faith in the results of [ivermectin] trials published to date,” says Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia who helped Lawrence to analyze the Elgazzar paper. “It’s not yet possible to assess whether ivermectin works against COVID-19 because the data currently available are not of sufficiently high quality,” he says, adding that he is reading other ivermectin papers in his spare time, looking for signs of fraud or other problems. (Link)

Chaccour and others studying ivermectin say that proof of whether the drug is effective against COVID-19 rests on a handful of large, ongoing studies, including a trial in Brazil with more than 3,500 participants. By the end of 2021, says Zoni, around 33,000 people will have participated in some kind of ivermectin trial. (Link)

And, another recent meta-analysis study by Roman et al., which did not include the Elgazzar study, showed no beneficial effect. (Link)

That’s the reason why larger double-blinded placebo-controlled trials are seen as more reliable, generally speaking, compared to meta-analysis papers – which is why the preliminary results from the large “Together Trial”, and even the smaller Lopez-Medina trial, seem far more convincing to me.

Now, if you want to keep going after possible conspiracies, fine, but that’s not good evidence in support of ivermectin as a useful therapy against COVID-19.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
Fetal cell lines, originally produced decades ago, were used in the testing of the mRNA vaccines – as they were in the testing of Tylenol, Motrin, Robitussin, Aspirin, Sudafed, Tums, Lidocaine, and a host of other modern medications that most people use on a semiregular basis (Link).


Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
I see no evidence that the published ingredient lists for the mRNA vaccines are not transparent and factual. There just is no credible evidence for “graphene” in these vaccines and fetal cell lines simply aren’t necessary to produce these types of vaccines.


Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
The hospitalization/death rate is far less for the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated (Link). Note, in this line, that those states with the lowest vaccination rates have the highest death rates per capita:

As far as natural immunity gain via a prior COVID-19 infection, it can actually be superior to the immunity gained via full vaccination. However, natural immunity is less predictable. Up to a third of people who were previously infected by COVID-19 don’t develop antibodies against it (Link). However, if one can demonstrate an adequate level of antibodies against COVID-19 it seems reasonable to me that such people should be considered to have adequate immunity.

As far as the immunity generated by vaccination, the type of immunity generated would not be so effective at preventing a mucosal nasopharyngeal infection since the types of antibodies produced (IgG and IgM) would preferentially be blood-based rather than tissue-based (IgA) type of immunity (Link). Because of this, naturally derived immunity might have an additional advantage in this regard as well.


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Pastor Doug Hardt: Vaccines, Liberty and the Bible
A term promoted by Dr. Robert Malone? – borrowed from Mattias Desmet? – attempting to make parallels with Nazi Germany and the rise of Hitler in the 1930s? where millions of people have been “hypnotized” into believing mainstream ideas about COVID-19, including steps to combat it such as testing and vaccination? Yes, I’ve heard of it. What nonsense (Link).

Just because you’re swimming against the crowd, just because you’re in the minority, doesn’t mean that you’re right. Occasionally, the consensus opinion of medical scientists, experts in their fields of study, who have devoted their lives to studying such things as pandemics and vaccines, is actually right.


Pastor Doug Hardt: Vaccines, Liberty and the Bible
I think he’s seriously mistaken regarding pretty much all of his major points (Link).


Pastor Doug Hardt: Vaccines, Liberty and the Bible
Oh, I have, but this “Religious Liberty Weekend” was full of misinformation and outright falsehoods regarding COVID-19 and the vaccines against it – which I’ve discussed in this forum in some detail already.

The talk of Conrad Vine, which you directly link to here, doesn’t make sense to me. He’s discussing a GC position on vaccines published in 2015 – well before the current pandemic began. His claim that the GC ADCOM exceeded its authority by releasing a position statement on immunization in 2015 just doesn’t fly for a number of reasons. I particularly agree with David Hamstra where he addressed Vine’s argument on liberty of conscience regarding vaccines:

As far as I can tell, Dr. Vine’s line of reasoning that makes every health choice a matter for claims of conscience makes every potential choice into a matter for a claim of conscience, for which domain of human activity does the Holy Spirit not want to guide? And if every choice deserves protection for conscience’s sake, then no choices can be given protection for conscience’s sake because sinful human beings would become ungovernable. (Link)

In short, I think one’s personal liberty of conscience ends where the nose of someone else begins. I see this as the very basis of reasonable civil governments and the enforcement of reasonable civil laws – ordained by God Himself (Link). So, unless you’re living on an island, by all means, the civil laws of the land, which Paul claims has Divine Authority to set up civil laws that may in fact restrict individual liberties for the good of society as a whole, should be obeyed unless they directly violate a clear command of God to the contrary. No such Divine command exists regarding vaccines – which I see as nothing short of a gift of God to combat diseases that have long plagued humanity with endless suffering and death – having historically killed off billions of people in this world. Thanks to vaccines, many of these diseases have either been completely eliminated or significantly reduced.


Natural vs. Vaccine-derived Immunity
I’m biased here since I’m a physician myself. While I personally do not favor vaccine mandates for the general public since I think that they are largely counterproductive, I personally feel that medical providers are in a different category and that medical providers (like doctors and nurses and nursing home workers) should be required to be vaccinated since they deal directly with those who are sick and most vulnerable to serious infection. Timely boosters should also be required for medical personnel since boosters have clearly been shown to improve immunity after 6 months since the previous vaccine was given.

As far as “Long-COVID”, it is a real risk following a COVID-19 infection, but isn’t a risk following vaccination. The vaccines have not been associated with the symptoms of Long-COVID since vaccines are not based on the use of a live virus that invades the entire body. In fact, there are some research studies that suggest that many Long-COVID cases are likely related to persistent COVID-19 infections (Link). This is probably why many of those who have Long-COVID improve following vaccination.


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
Ouch! 😉