Ivermectin: Pros vs Cons. Dr. Luis Garegnani and Dr. Pierre Kory Debate The Issue

Dr. Luis Garegnani from Argentia wrote an opinion piece on Ivermectin not having enough evidence behind it in BMJ Journals. Dr. Pierre Kory of the FLCCC disagrees. Both doctors debate this issue with Dr. Erin Stair as the moderator.

About Luis Garegnani:
Luis Garegnani is a Professor of Research methods and evidence-based medicine at Instituto Universitario del Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires.
He is also a Physical Therapist from Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA), specializing in Respiratory Critical Care and Mechanical Ventilation. He is a Research Fellow at Instituto Universitario del Hospital Italiano Cochrane Associate Centre since 2018 and currently an Associate Editor for the peer-reviewed BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine Journal.

See Article Written by Dr. Louis Garegnani | https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

About Pierre Kory:
Founding member of the FLCCC Alliance and co-author of the MATH+ and I-MASK+ Prophylaxis and Treatment Protocols for Covid-19

FLCCC Website | https://covid19criticalcare.com/

Responses

  1. Thanks to TSN for producing this debate. I’d like to see someone of Dr. Kory’s eloquence on the other side. I’m sure Dr. Kory would still “win”, because evidence is on his side, but it was a bit difficult to understand professor Garegnani. Of course his English is better than my Spanish, so kudos for debating in his non-native language.

  2. Next time destroy the naysayers on their own ground.

    They like to use that JAMA study https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389 to argue the impact is questionable. Let them and let them get deep into it (this will expose their bias to everyone). Ask them if they consider that study robust enough or if there are any limitations? If they admit the limitations then ask them why study with such limitations is enough to question ivermectin’s impact when the limitations of the study make it obvious the impact would be hidden.

    If they dont admit the limitations, you just won on their ground.

    Ask them if they consider that study robust enough with 400 participants (200 per group) ? Ask them how many persons in the ivermectin group required hospitilization? (The answer is one.)

    Now, the point of that study is not that ivermectin had bad results but that the results were just as good in the placebo group, hence the study concludes “The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19”. Why they got such results? Let’s look at the age of the participants – 28.7 to 49.2yo (If this study proved anything? It’s that, for younger people, it’s just the flu bro.) The obvious bias in the design of that study is that they tested people who are NOT AT RISK. Slamdunk and then you quote from that very study:

    “This study has several limitations. First, the study was not conducted or completed according to the original design, and the original primary outcome to detect the ability of ivermectin to prevent clinical deterioration was changed 6 weeks into the trial. In the study population, the incidence of clinical deterioration was below 3%, making the original planned analysis futile.”

    and more importantly

    “However, the relatively young and healthy study population rarely developed complications, rendering the study underpowered to detect such effects.”

    1. I stand corrected.

      “Ask them how many persons in the ivermectin group required hospitilization? (The answer is one.)”

      This is not true. At the end of the study, 2 patients in the ivermectin group were still hospitilized and 1 patient in the placebo group died.

  3. Dr. Kory should not have to play wack-a-mole with these spurious objections. The Argentine should ask himself what the alternatives are: wait for the pharmaceutical companies to get around to making and distributing enough doses for the Global South? How long will that take? How much will it cost? What about the risk/reward trade-offs of the vaccines? Ivermectin, at worst, is harmless. At best, all of the evidence adduced by Doctors Kory and Lawrie is true. There is no downside. Vaccines are part of the solution depending on the patient profile, but not the only solution.

  4. What every happened to Clinical evidence?! I remember in my surgical training one of our older attending was quizzing us during M&M’s. He presented a case and simply asked what would you do first? After many clinical tests/imaging and other diagnostic testing was suggested he irately yelled “No! , you first need to examine the patient…touch their skin, look in their eyes – observe….we have lost that as is very obviously evidenced by the pushback against Ivermectin. Doctors on the front lines are seeing consistent improvement with this treatment and there is no other viable option at all. The NIH, CDC, etc are compromised.