A Wisconsin physician who has been pushing unproven treatments for Covid-19 has lost a paper on a hospital protocol his group says radically reduced deaths from the infection after one of the facilities cited in the study said the data were incorrect.
Pierre Kory, whose titles have included medical director of the Trauma and Life Support Center Critical Care Service and chief associate professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, has become a key figure in the controversy over the use of ivermectin — the deworming agent that proponents insist can treat Covid-19 despite a lack of evidence that it does.
In late December 2020, Kory — who rails on Twitter about unfair and incompetent journals — and another ivermectin advocate, Paul Marik, of Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and several other authors published a paper in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine on a group they’d created called the Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. Per the article:
The panel collaboratively reviewed the emerging clinical, radiographic, and pathological reports of COVID-19 while initiating multiple discussions among a wide clinical network of front-line clinical ICU experts from initial outbreak areas in China, Italy, and New York. Based on the shared early impressions of “what was working and what wasn’t working,” the increasing medical journal publications and the rapidly accumulating personal clinical experiences with COVID-19 patients, a treatment protocol was created for the hospitalized patients based on the core therapies of methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, heparin and co-interventions (MATH+).
Kory’s group reported that patients treated with the MATH+ protocol — about which he testified to the U.S. Senate in May 2020 — were roughly 75% less likely to die of their infection than those who received other forms of care. (Medscape reported that Kory said the regimen was amended to include ivermectin after the researchers submitted their paper to the JICM.)
Those conclusions met with skepticism, as Medscape reported, less about the potential for effectiveness than the aggressiveness of the authors’ claims. Those doubts now appear to have been well founded. The new MATH+, it seems, doesn’t add up.
According to the retraction notice:
At the request of the Journal Editor and the Publisher, the following article has been retracted.
Kory P, Meduri GU, Iglesias J, Varon J, & Marik PE. Clinical and Scientific Rationale for the “MATH+” Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19. J Intensive Care Med. 2021:36;135-156. 10.1177/0885066620973585
The article has been retracted after the journal received notice from Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia (“Sentara”) raising concerns about the accuracy of COVID-19 hospital mortality data reported in the article pertaining to Sentara. Sentara’s notice included the following statements:
‘The data from Sentara Norfolk General Hospital were presented in Table 2, which lists in-hospital or 28-day mortality rates at the 2 MATH+ centers as compared to 10 published single-center and multicenter reports. The mortality rate among 191 patients at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital as of July 20, 2020 was reported as 6.1%, as compared to mortality rates reported in the literature ranging from 15.6% to 32%. The authors state that these data “provide supportive clinical evidence for the physiologic rationale and efficacy of the MATH+ treatment protocol.”‘
‘The data from Sentara Norfolk General Hospital that [are] reported in this paper are inaccurate. The paper briefly states the methods as: “Available hospital outcome data for COVID-19 patients treated at these 2 hospitals as of July 20,2020 are provided in Table 2 including comparison to the published hospital mortality rates from multiple COVID-19 publications across the United States and the world.”‘
‘We have conducted a careful review of our data for patients with COVID-19 from March 22, 2020 to July 20, 2020, which shows that among the 191 patients referenced in Table 2 that the mortality rate was 10.5%, rather than 6.1%. In addition, of those 191 patients, only 73 patients (38.2%) received at least 1 of the 4 MATH+ therapies, and their mortality rate was 24.7%. Only 25 of 191 patients (13.1%) received all 4 MATH+ therapies, and their mortality rate was 28%.’
‘Apparently […] census and mortality counts from hospital reports [were used] to calculate a mortality rate, but in so doing counted some patients in the denominator but not in the numerator because they died after July 20, 2020, the reported end date of the study. This would be an incorrect calculation of a hospital mortality rate, but might explain the incorrect number of 6.1% in Table 2. Using this incorrect mortality rate to compare with the published reports and claim a “75% absolute risk reduction” is thus an incorrect conclusion regardless of which mortality rate is used.’
Given the above concerns that are material to the article’s findings, the article has been retracted.
Kory, who had a paper on ivermectin removed from Frontiers in Pharmacology earlier this year, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The newly retracted article is the 190th retraction of a COVID-19 paper, according to our count.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution by PayPal or by Square, or a monthly tax-deductible donation by Paypal to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.
Very interesting. However, what are incompetent jouranls ?
Typo fixed, thanks.
“The results show that we’re recommending a treatment that increases patient mortality.”
“We need to change the results, then.”
Doesn’t he and/or his hospital have some liability over this? Or is it just oops, we looked at the data wrong?
The hospital didn’t write the paper, and notified the publisher, how would they be liable?
The article has been retracted after the journal received notice from Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia (“Sentara”) raising concerns about the accuracy of COVID-19 hospital mortality data reported in the article pertaining to Sentara
The hospital provided the numbers. He is a doctor on an ICU and doesn’t do statistics himself, he treats patients that are critically ill. The numbers were given to him and even after those numbers he delivers a 50% drop into the overall success of other treatment in the same hospital. The numbers with MATH+ in that study didn’t add up because according to his statements there are so many patients brought to his care way too late. They have said time and time and time again that it is critical to start treatment early when it comes to COVID – and in fact when it comes to any life threatening disease.
He has filed a lawsuit against the hospital that has 20% death rate. And when compared to a similar hospital using MATH+ exclusively the rates are 20% to ~8%. Marik told all this in the FLCCC Weekly Update Nov. 10, 2021.
They are trying to ban all treatment that doesn’t make money and the success of all these doctors around the world whether it is Uttar Pradesh, Bangladesh or Japan, it is a threat to the system that is now making hundreds of billions on the situation, and as the 10th booster is in, we have then been counting trillions.
And what do the doctors using medicine that have run out of patent have got to win, if it wasn’t for the patient’s life?
“because they died after July 20, 2020, the reported end date of the study.”
Ok, so the study numbers were correct unless you count people dying into infinity, because we all eventually die.
Who are you quoting?
Is that what has been done? LOL. Or some might change the definitions of words or change the website or change the Constitution or change your employment status or change whatever.
In the age of information there is no information. More over there is demonstrative lack of discussion, reasonably suspicious or completely fake information and outrageous censorship.
I’m still wrapping my head around the fact that Germany said eighty percent of their reported Covid deaths weren’t. That a person could be hit by a bus but if tested positive for asymptomatic Covid he’s a Covid death- hospital collects $30K each. My mom’s doctor said he’s been called two weeks after death to change the death certificate to Covid. Who are you going to trust? And the Great Barrington report (is that the name?). Really who you trust? At least FLCCC always said we won’t vaccine our way out of Covid. Seems they were right and the government is beating a dead horse.
“he’s a Covid death- hospital collects $30K each”
[citation required]
Yes, the FLCC has been amazingly consistent. If only they had been right.
As the science has evolved over the 24 months, they have stayed on their path, never letting anything get in their way.
Fun fact – Germany doesn’t use $$s. And the $ sign isn’t part of the German keyboard… (before you ask, I don’t use a German keyboard on this computer).
Another fact, German hospitals never collected any extra Euros for a covid death. They did get money from the state though – to keep ICU beds open for potential covid patients so that capacities were available. The German gov keeps a thumb on health expenses by dictating cost guidelines. You can get one week of ICU care for that kind of money.
Another fun fact is the very strict German privacy law – if your mom is in Germany no doctor would every say such a thing to one patient about another patient. For one, because of said privacy laws which are taken very seriously in Germany and two, Germans are just not that gossipy. Never mind that in Germany your mom’s family doctor would also not be part of a hospital. So why would anyone request he, a non-hospital doctor, change a death certificate if no one can benefit…
Last fun fact – traffic related deaths in Germany are less than 3k per year. So hardly a dent in the death stats. And most 82 year olds with co-morbidities don’t participate that much in traffic anymore… the average age of covid related deaths.
“Those doubts now appear to have been well founded” is a bit too presumptuous.
Let’s see why this data set was fumbled – or at least what is provided as an explanation.
And if the remaining data stands as is.
For now the right thing is to retract and seek to understand what has happened.
So I guess that they can blame the chief medical officer of the hospital? They wrote that he (or she) gave them the data.
Interesting that the paper is cited as a review, not a research paper (or as a clinical trial), but they don’t cite another publication as the source of their data (table 2). Is that common?
It’s called Covering your own Behind. Watch everyone involved lie, backstab, and ruin innocent lives of employees with less statue or not of prominent statue get blamed. All those involved need to Take accountability of your actions. In the end you will get respect. Being a human is about making mistakes.
I just wonder if Joseph Varon or Jordan Asher got consent from their patients for this clinical trial? Aren’t they all about ‘informed consent’?
Nice summary rebuttal. You have apparently followed the flccc closely as have I. The FLCCC.net is working counter to the captured narrative of the masses but truth, integrity & honesty are always stronger than fiction in the end.
Some deworming agent!
“Ivermectin: enigmatic multifaceted ‘wonder’ drug continues to surprise and exceed expectations.” 15th February 2017.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ja201711#citeas
I tend to regard Ivermectin as a defunding agent. It’s apparently cheap, safe and effective. What greater crime is there?
Citing a 2017 paper that has nothing to do with Covid-19 is pointless.
I tend to regard ivermectin as an effective antiparasitic drug whose purported benefits in antiviral therapy are massively overshadowed by negative evidence, unjustified hype and fraud.
Then why are the drugs that Pfizer and Merck developing using, essentially the same mechanism of action? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufy2AweXRkc&t=37s
Because you don’t understand mechanism of action.
Protease inhibitor = protease inhibitor.
The difference is that ivermectin is also an ace2 inhibitor and a non steroidal anti inflammatory.
Because they aren’t using the same mechanism. Why watch youtube when you can read the science? For example,
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02783-1, and
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/how-does-mercks-covid-19-pill-compare-pfizers-2021-11-05/
These drugs aren’t antihelminthics.
“These drugs aren’t antihelminthics”
Neither is IVM, exclusively. Its use as an anti-parasitic has nothing to do with its use to treat covid, and the theorized mechanism of action upon covid has nothing to do with its action upon parasitic infections. Furthermore, I dont know who’s claiming that such a thing is the case. IVM acts directly upon the parasites to paralyze and kill them, its effects on the host are of an entirely different nature and have many means of prohibiting viral function.
The video doesn’t support your claim – it makes a weaker claim – in that it doesn’t say anything about the other Merck drug (Molnupiravir rather than ivermectin).
Molnupiravir and Paxclovid have different mechanisms of action. Molnupiravir is a prodrug for a nucleotide analog that on incorporation in viral DNA results in hypermutation of the viral genome with a consequence that all the viral proteins become non-functional and thereby stopping viral replication. Paxclovid is an antagonist for a viral protease – by binding to the protease it disables it, and prevented the maturation of other viral proteins and thereby disruption the virus replication cycle.
Ivermectin’s antihelminthic action is a result of its interaction with glutamate-gated chloride channels. It hasn’t been demonstrated that ivermectin is efficacious against COVID-19 (in general the relevant research is flawed or worse), and no mechanism of action has been identified. A score of more mechanisms have been proposed for ivermectin, including acting as a protease inhibitor. The video you link to ignores that in silico and in vitro results don’t always translate to in vivo activity. (It also makes cites to claims that ivermectin has several different mechanisms of action.) By failing to demonstrate in vivo efficacy he has failed to demonstrate his headline claim.
And why are the drugs Pfizer and Merck not subject to long term studies and rushed to market??
What else do you want to see?
As for why the handling has been faster, it must be related to the pandemic…
Because the vaccines are not working as advertised (anyone want to comment on ADE?), and other treatments are desperately needed.
“(anyone want to comment on ADE?)”
You go first.
Thank you, Eric, for missing several points.
The 2017 paper citing Ivermectin – a Nobel winning award for its discoverer – mentioned its wide-ranging successful use for those suffering from various parasitic diseases in tropical climes. The fact that the Retraction Watch article doesn’t mention such astoundingly successful therapeutic human uses but only mentions it as a ‘horse dewormer,’ I find racist and worse.
I am profoundly disturbed to see no mention that Ivermectin has been classified as one of only three of the most important drugs in history.
So, now let’s consider Ivermectin and CV-19.
Let’s consider Uttar Pradash – a state of 240 million. They have just declared they are free from CV-19 after treating with Ivermectin (unlike Kerala – one time darling of conventional treatments – now suffering the after-effects).
Let’s consider Indonesia – a land of 277 million. In July, they were suffering soaring infections and deaths but began treatment with Ivermectin. Since then, cases have plummeted to become insignificant.
Let’s consider Japan. A nation of 126 million. If you remember, this cautious country had to reject the Moderna vaccines because of the presence of ‘exotic particles’. So instead, they turned to Ivermectin and within weeks had flattened their curve and are now thriving.
But let’s end on a hilarious note. Both Pfizer and Merck seem to have produced – how shall we phrase it – ‘Ivermectin tribute products.’ As far as being safe, cheap and effective – as per Ivermectin’s global reputation and long term usage – I’m not sure. Although being rushed through regulatory processes, I’ve read that we can’t be totally sure of their safety (it always takes time), may well be effective but their most important attribute, they certainly won’t be cheap! Thus, the most important aspect of this ‘pandemic’ can be maintained – the transfer of wealth from the poorest in society to the wealthiest.
Do you have any reason to believe that the retracted paper by Kory et al. was in fact valid, and should not have been retracted? If not, then this is all pointless jibberjabber,
If IVM worked against COVID-19, why do people keep making up positive results for it?
So, let’s look at Uttar Pradesh, which started handing out ivermectin LAST YEAR, and somehow did not manage to stop the COVID19 waves coming after that hand-out. Notably also the state with one of the least trustworthy health stats (seroprevalence suggests it missed 99 out of every 100 infections, and the death recording in the state is abysmal), but where reasonable death statistics are available, it suggests massive excess mortality during the COVID waves, much, much larger than the supposed COVID deaths (which require a positive test, and since UP missed so many infections…a lot of deaths were missed).
Or take Indonesia, where they introduced all kind of interventions, but the fact that a company was considering to distribute ivermectin to at most a few million people in the coming months, this magically explained how COVID case load dropped before there even was any distribution of said ivermectin!
The same magic of ivermectin apparently worked in Japan: one doctor makes an appeal to the government to allow ivermectin use, even just to try (a repetition of his appeal early in 2021), no ivermectin is actually used, but the virus, scared as it is of ivermectin, decides to jump the ship and leave Japan…
“COVID case load dropped before there even was any distribution of said ivermectin!” The ivermectin had been adjuvated with thiotimoline.
Hello Marco!
Thank you for responding and with such stimulating views. Perhaps I can reciprocate.
I’m not claiming the following are anywhere near definitive but I believe these sketches offer lots of material for further investigation and discussion.
Personally, I’d love to see medical experts from Uttar Pradesh, Indonesia and Japan investigate and discuss our various approaches (I am UK based – similar to the US) and perhaps even visit. Wouldn’t that be grand?
Uttar Pradesh
https://wp.me/p2hcGV-17lW
Indonesia
https://wp.me/p2hcGV-17fr
Japan
https://shar.es/aWlASQ
Japan and Northern Europe
https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/en/news-page/world/japan-drops-vax-rollout-goes-to-ivermectin-ends-covid-almost-overnight
I am afraid, Zarayna, that these “sketches” you provide suggest you have fallen for lots of misinformation. Somewhat hilariously, the very first link actually illustrates what I pointed out. It claims that UP “Reported No Covid-19 Cases in 24 Hours After Implementing Ivermectin Protocol”. It then adds a quote from The Dialogue…and fails to note that “Last August” was in 2020, not 2021. In other words, all that ivermectin, and it did nothing to prevent the March/April 2021 wave, and most definitely did not result in zero cases after 24 hrs after implementing an ivermectin protocol.
You may want to develop a better BS detector.
So then Marco, what exactly happened in Uttar Pradesh that brought down the cases to practically nothing? Was it social distancing? Mask wearing? Vaccinations? What was it please do tell us!
” …but only mentions it as a ‘horse dewormer,’ I find racist and worse.”
Because they are race horses?
Maybe the fact that the overwhelming majority of the hundreds of millions of humans benefited by ivermectin are poor, non-white people in Africa, Asia, and South America has something to do with the focusing on its benefit to horses rather than to humans by those trying to denigrate it.
I think that the key word in your post is ‘maybe’. But I would expect these ‘great men of science’ to have something more that ‘maybe’, ‘could be’ or ‘we think so’. Isn’t that what this ‘research’ is supposed to show – that the ‘alternative’ protocols work better? That the rest of the scientific word is wrong?
Why are you still talking about weak correlations, that have no actual data? What benefits have the people of southern America seen from this ‘wonder drug’? Do you see Peru or Brazil as successes in their fight against Covid-19?
“Horse de-wormer” we do understand is meant as a prejudicial slur and its in ‘HeartGuard’ my husky’s medication but not in a human dose and with inappropriate fillers etc.. However, the word is out, if one mentions in a soft whisper the word IVM, then no doubt someone will turn and shout, “Oh you mean the horse de-wormer.” LOL make that clear they are vaccinated and waiting for their booster don’t mention anything else or their bubble might break.
Your claims are simply bogus. This is your quote: “They (Japan) turned to Ivermectin and within weeks had flattened their curve and are now thriving.”
The actual Claim: “Japan has pulled the vaccines and substituted ivermectin — and in one month, wiped COVID out in that country.”
It’s pure nonsense. I will not bother will the other countries you name. Check out the AP fact check. It is an accurate summary of the bogus information you are posting:
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-079183409501
Boom.
The crime is that it is not produced by the covid BigPharm cabal who seem to have a strangle-hold on most of the public policy folks in Western governments. But look at the new “wonder “ drug by Pfizer, a covid pill that has roughly the same efficacy rate as ivermectin (the approved human drug that has been given to millions around the world for decades). It’s also about the $$$$ for these companies. You want to see some retractions, let’s see the clinical data from Pfizer/Modena/JJ please.
How do you account for the accepted use of Dexametasone and Budesonide as cheap, safer and effecttive treatments for COVID-19?
Dexametasone and Budesonide do not treat COVID-19 if you do not know. They are used in the management of the COVID-19 patient to suppress the bodies autoimmune response. I guess it the concept may be difficult to understand.
Do you understand your own words???
If you manage a patient, try to suppress
Autoimmune response, and eventually the patient recovers, isn’t it part of a treatment??? Hahaha, look at you!🤣🤣🤣
So instead, they turned to Ivermectin and within weeks had flattened their curve and are now thriving.
Cool story, bro.
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/scicheck-japan-continues-to-use-vaccines-not-ivermectin-to-fight-covid-19/
Thank you for your contribution, Smut.
The information you offer may well be absolutely accurate.
But two aspects thrust themselves forward (1) we all bow and curtsy to power so I understand the reality – big pharma, one of the most powerful industries on the planet, always claims victory for its products over all else. Who is going to disagree let alone probe deeper? (2) Much mirth from the subject of ‘fact-checkers.’ Experience suggests that, as with most aspects of life, the funder provides the acceptable answers. In other words, it would be foolish to take their words at face value as they must be respectful to those who sustain them.
Wishing you well.
But you seem to imply that we should take Kory’s word for it?
Please fact check the fact checkers, and who funds them (BigPharm). They are pretty quiet when CDC states in a recent twitter that masks reduce covid transmission by 80% (better than jabs?). Ridiculous! A bit of double standard.
The article is pretty inconclusive as the gov officials are in tight contractual arrangements with BigPharm. Regardless, of official recognition in many nations, Ivermectin is prescribed everywhere because over 70 RCT conclusive studies (internationally) demonstrate efficacy when used on the outset of symptoms (with effectively minimal side-effects).
As we all know the jabs are only effective in the short-term, naturally many are turning to evidence based re-purposed and safe treatments (vaxed or not). The jab is not the panacea, and more and more data indicates that they are equally unsafe with myriad adverse reactions. You cannot wipe-out an RNA disease with a vaccine alone. They are endemic by nature, the seasonal flu by example.
The public officials are full of hubris and don’t want to admit they are wrong about the jabs, Ivermectin, and conflict of interest between the governments and BigPharm. More to follow…..
“Please fact check the fact checkers, and who funds them (BigPharm)”
[citation needed]
Rinderpest is an RNA virus disease that was wiped out by vaccination programs.
Poliomyelitis is an RNA virus disease which is in sight of being wiped out by vaccinations programs.
A combination of public health measures (aimed at COVID-19) and vaccination may have wiped out one of the two strains of influenza B.
Thanks for the comment. Regarding rinderpest, we are talking about human RNA viruses as the article and comments imply. But yes, there is a RNA vaccine for cows (and ivermectin horse medicine for horses). You are absolutely right on the polio vaccine. As for influenza strains, the jury is still deliberating as you know.
We manage the flu and I believe we will need to do the same with Covid-19, and early treatment, like ivermectin, helps decrease the viral replication and inflammation stages. The currently available vaccines are extremely short-term treatments, 6 months at best, according the CDC/FDA. We need durability and safety in the long-term, and the ugly adverse reactions from the new vaccine tech are accumulating especially in younger cohorts (with no legal recourse). I have read that Moderna, for example, is restricted under thirty in most of the Scandinavian countries because of unacceptable myocarditis rates and other cardiac issues.
It is becoming increasingly clear that early treatment rather than current vaccinations alone will bring about a tolerable immunity and lower hospital admissions. . Ivermectin, a 30-year old re-purposed medicine (we know it is safe after decades of data) has shown viral reduction in studies with SARS-1, MERS, Dengue Fever, in addition to the myriad RCT mentioned. It is absolutely useful in helping people avoiding hospitalization for COVID-19 without adverse effects. Until something better comes along, I refuse to wait at home doing nothing until my %SpO2 goes below 90%. Monoclonal treatment is very effective too but not available everywhere (and expensive) although that might become the game changer.
Regardless of prior immunity (vaxxed or natural) the hospital data demonstrate the need for additional early treatments (UK, Ireland, Israel, the U.S. ….). Please look into it. I recommend the research of Doctors/clinical researchers Robert Malone and Peter McCullough, among others, and the covid Tech Reports from the UK.
Will – Why settle for ‘early treatment, like ivermectin’, why not a drug that actually works?
Hello David, which drug do you recommend? There are numerous protocols and “cocktails” that have been tested with ivermectin since April 2020. Check out this compendium:
https://c19ivermectin.com/
All studies on Ivermectin through 16 Nov 21.
Yes. He is an expert researcher. We can’t assume that the hospital is right just because of the polemic around Covid, BigPharm, and public intervention. He will submit a rebuttal to this retraction which will be of interest.
Great, I can’t wait to see the letter – should be very interesting.
I guess that we can’t assume the hospital’s right, just because they said that he was wrong. But they can’t very smart – if they aren’t listening to him.
Have you seen anything about the clinical trial this is based on?
Factcheckers or facebook memes? Whom to believe? A difficult choice, I know.
I would trust a fact-checker on Facebook who refuted the claim that the Earth is flat or that George Washington didn’t own slaves. Beyond that, I wouldn’t put much credence in their “corrections” unless they provided good references to back them up.
What if they cite Kory et. all.?
Did Brazil ever stop covid-19 with ivermectin? They literally gave everyone the horse medicine 🧐 😁
And ozone gas in the ass.
The combination of anonymity with the characterization of ivermectin as “the horse medicine” should have been enough to get your comment rejected by the editors.
I investigated the disparity between the retraction statement (“6.1% morality”) and the original paper (“average 5.1% mortality” – https://web.archive.org/web/20210214031401/http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0885066620973585) and I noticed that average was across two hospitals – Sentara and United Memorial Medical Center (Kory’s employer at the time I believe). The 6.1% figure claim is from Senatra. UMMC should do its own investigation.
The problems with the paper were noted (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/942995#vp_1) very soon after publication. After all the “results” section is all of a single paragraph (the bulk of the paper is reasoning, speculation and cherry-picking about treatment protocols, some of which harks back to Marik’s previous penchant for vitamins (i.e. the “HAT protocol for sepsis” – hydrocortisone + vit C + vit B).
Note that as of right now this paper is still prominently used on the FLCCC website to justify the MASK+ protocol.
A current statement of one of the authors, Dr. Paul Marik of Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia, to some of the questions regarding hospital data in Sentara can be heard in the following talk:
https://odysee.com/@FrontlineCovid19CriticalCareAlliance:c/FLCCC-WEBINAR-111021_FINAL:4
One statement by Dr. Marik on 28-day-mortality vs. final mortality is made at 42:55 minutes into the talk and at 46:50 minutes a question on “comparative in hospital data” is raised and commented on.
Obviously, Dr. Marik is no longer allowed to use his MATH+ protocol in Sentara and has now filed a lawsuit against Sentara, because he feels he cannot give the needed treatment to patients anymore.
[Marik] has now filed a lawsuit against Sentara, because he feels he cannot give the needed treatment to patients anymore.
Some barmpot feels he should be allowed to waltz into a hospital and dose patients with a random drug combination he pulled out of his butt that appears to increase mortality, and is suing when the hospital says Nope. Good luck with that.
Harold Shipman wasn’t allowed to give patients his preferred treatment either.
If you were to end up in the ICU, who would you hope was in charge of your treatment? The doctors or the hospital administrators and bureaucrats?
As a physician that both does research and dissects other physicians’ research (I am a reviewer for a reputable journal), there are more bad papers published than good ones, period. The reason is that most physicians do not understand anything about methodology or statistics. Peter Kory isn’t unique in that.
When the Lancet Surgisphere paper came out claiming that data from 167 hospitals throughout the world demonstrated that hydroxychloroquine was deadly, a colleague emailed the link. By 3 AM, after examining all their data, it was patently obvious the data was fake. I wrote a letter to the editor of Lancet with a cc to my colleague who sent me the link. I have a lovely letter from the Lancet editorial staff thanking me for assiduously looking at the data and being one of a number of scientists who recognized the fraud. The paper was retracted. The truth is, the vast majority of what has been published around Covid is utter clap-trap regardless of which side of the political fence one is on. There just aren’t enough hours in the day to go after all the bad papers.
I propose, maybe tongue in cheek, maybe not, a protocol to reduce the number of junk papers being published. Namely, that for every paper you wish to publish, you must accompany it with a review of another prior paper in that journal family, in a related field, either rebutting or supporting it. Suddenly “peer review” will take on a new meaning. The worst papers will fall first, of course, but even getting rid of all the low hanging fruit is better than what we have now. However, more than that, a web of trust can be built from the connections being made by these reviews. It’s entirely predictable that cliques will form. Which might help you find more low-hanging fruit…
Anyway, thanks for your comment, Dr. Joy, there’s a lot of noise here, and your post was pure signal.
“the controversy over the use of ivermectin — the deworming agent that proponents insist can treat Covid-19 despite a lack of evidence that it does.”
If that statement in the article is true, then over 60 studies must ALL be wrong. And field studies on the success of ivermectin in India, Indonesia, Africa, and many other undeveloped nations, ALL be ignored.
In addition, Japan medical authorities have approved the use of ivermectin, although I have not seen any feedback yet.
This particular study may have problems, but the author of the article obviously has bias, and a closed mind to all available ivermectin data and information.
Hello, and goodbye, Retraction Watch.
I prefer authors with facts, data and logic.
Smart people/
Not those stating personal opinions.
Especially wrong personal opinions.
“In addition, Japan medical authorities have approved the use of ivermectin, although I have not seen any feedback yet.”
followed by
“I prefer authors with facts, data and logic.”
is quite funny, since the Japanese medical authorities have NOT approved the use of ivermectin.
This debate doesn’t have any conclusion or an objective opinion.
Indeed there are no completed trial studies or sufficient evidence that ivermectin can be prescribed against COVID-19 and I’m wondering why there is not a completed study by now and nobody is interested in completing one. Censorship, corruption, big Pharma control that empowers the western governments to use coercion to the extortion of their citizens until everyone is vaccinated?
The only ivermectin complete study was an animal model performed by the Pasteur Institute that makes sense to me that with consent can be experimented on humans as well especially that nobody had severe adverse effects including death using it as prescribed.
Hope we can agree that makes sense to have the right to try ivermectin as early treatment and at the same time participate in an organized trial. Is that allowed? Why not?
It’s not a secret anymore that these COVID-19 vaccines won’t stop the pandemic. The data all over the world shows the contrary, the vaccines actually spread the virus faster and of course the cases of breakthroughs and deaths are more on the vaccinated people per 100K – look it up yourself at UK data. Besides there is a risk of severe adverse effects with each doze taken probably each 5-6 months. Also the immune system will be highly dependent on this specific antibodies and weakened to fight other diseases.
It takes sometimes to get informed with real proof but if you do your homework you’ll find out eventually.
The censorship and coercing people using inhuman methods to extortion creates fear and does more harm than good . Where is the logic here?
Why not transparency, education and preventive and early treatment.
In almost 2 years there is not a cheap portable and precise COVID-19 test to prove that you are not infected, but there is a safe vaccine that protects you – are you that naive?
How many know that you have very minimum chances of dying from COVID-19 if your vitamin D level is around 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/l)
Hope the humanity won’t be so tragically affected for so long with this masquerade from which some profit immensely. Stay safe – GOD bless!
“I’m wondering why there is not a completed study by now and nobody is interested in completing one.”
Then you’ll be pleased to hear that a major trial called PRINCIPLE has been underway for some time at Oxford. It is investigating ivermectin and favipiravir.
“the cases of breakthroughs and deaths are more on the vaccinated people per 100K – look it up yourself at UK data.”
I have, and that isn’t correct. The UK data shows that, according to the Office of National Statistics “Vaccination reduced the risk of testing positive during both the Alpha and Delta period” and “Two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech or Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine are estimated to be 96% and 92% effective against hospitalisation with the Delta variant, respectively”. PHE surveillance showed that “Vaccine effectiveness against mortality with 2 doses of the Pfizer vaccine is around 95 to 99% and with 2 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine around 75 to 99% (week 26 Vaccine Surveillance Report).”
You feel that you are entitled to a cheap and precise treatment for a new virus, discovered less than 30 months ago? Not impressed by a vaccine developed in record time?
Another question – why would you spend more money in a trial for a drug that hasn’t really passed any of the other test? Why would the result be any different this time (most of the time it’s fraud or failure)?
That is a thought provoking comment, well thought out and well stated. That the virus has so divided people is astonishing.
Why the dreadful fights over ivemectin and hcq? Both, if I understand it correctly, are listed on the international or UN list of essential medicines. Then some anecdotal stories of doctors having success using them off label for corona arise. Which, normally, would be fantastic news! But, no, the backlash against the two drugs is unnaturally off the charts. And the so called “right to try” goes in the trash (along with many rights, but that’s off the topic.)
This from your comment is extremely thought provoking:
“In almost 2 years there is not a cheap portable and precise COVID-19 test to prove that you are not infected, but there is a safe vaccine that protects you – are you that naive?”
The right to try this ivermectin could potentially save lives. And if it could, and that it poses no health risk alone should be elevatiing the status of ivermectin. Instead there are those who not only deny the right to try but then go the other direction and refer to an age old well respected medicine as ‘horse paste’ or ‘livestock dewormer’ demeaning its users and barring its use. This is positively Medieval Catholic Church versus Galileo stuff.
How would the following be as a King Solomon resolution? If you should, God forbid, catch corona virus, and you do NOT think ivermectin works, then don’t take it. Leave those who have seen people respond to the treatment free to try it and, it will do no harm, it maybe will save a life.
Ole! When your doctor sends you home to isolate without treatment, what do you have to lose (except for around a $100.00 bucks for a five-day protocol of ivermectin). With the high death risk in hospitals due to intubation, I will take 16.5 mg of Ivermectin per day (if I get Covid again (lucky the first time, and fortunate if the my immunity remains durable). Not worried in the least about side effects with Ivermectin because unlike the myriad novel treatments essentially being forced on citizens of “free” democracies, 40 years of safety data satisfies my cost/benefit assessment.
https://c19ivermectin.com/
First, why are you citing someone else’s comment against me?
Second – As for ivermectin and HCQ – the anecdotes are great and are great rationale for conducting clinical trials. But as for the trials – they don’t seem to give us any good news. I am interested in how people cling to something that doesn’t have any evidence. You have the right to take what ever you want, but you don’t have the right to say that it works without evidence. Is that too much to ask? Seems pretty elementary to me. Ivermectin is a great drug, just probably not for COVID-19. Does that make me anti-ivermectin?
It’s not a backlash against one drug or another – it’s a response to a way of conducting science based on ‘beliefs’. You deserve your own set of beliefs – you don’t get your own reality. You want to get ivermectin approved? You think IVM is an effective treatment, for COVID-19? Conduct a trial that shows this effect. Why has this been so hard to do? Either the people conducting the trials don’t know what they are doing – or the drug(s) don’t work. But in spite of this, you still believe. Why? Don’t you think you deserve better?
“You have the right to take what ever you want, …”
Vast number of pharmacies prohibit dispense of IVM.
IVM is being denied to all but the most persistent and clever in obtaining access to a prescribing physician and a dispensing pharmacy.
In response to “but you don’t have the right to say that it works without evidence. Is that too much to ask? Seems pretty elementary to me. “…
The reason people are making claims about IVM efficacy is because they are presently denied it. What you fail to see is that these claims are a petition to be allowed access to IVM.
“It looks promising! Let us have the option to try it!”
See? You deny access, hound/ridicule those who lobby for access, and then wave your hand dismissively, saying “Try it”.
Question 1: Why wouldn’t the FDA issue an EUA for IVM to get it rolling in clinical review as an available option with a well established safety profile?
Question 2: Do you think that if IVM were as obtainable as Regeneron (an EUA) that there would be a controversy surrounding IVM? You know, like the controversy over Vitamin D?
What are you talking about – people want to take IVM because they are told they can’t? It’s that simple? If we made it hard to get the vaccine, would people want it as well? Just a cry out for help?
Do you think that these ‘protocols’ have any validity’, or should we all just take Kory’s word for it?
I am a G.P. in Canada. I live in a place where the vaccination rate has been impressive, and our COVID numbers are low.
I have approximately 600 patients that I follow, and about 98% are vaccinated against COVID. Not a single patient has had a serious reaction to the vaccine, apart from a sore arm/headache/malaise for a few days. After that, their immune system does what it is supposed to; make antibodies against the COVID spike protein, so they have a fighting chance. And if they do test positive after the vaccination (I haven’t had any, but it can happen; the very old, on chemo for cancer, have a kidney transplant etc., their immune system may not make an adequate antibody response to the vaccine), their immune system would have a head-start on attacking the virus. I do have about 15 antivaxxer dumb patients; a 38-year-old woman (otherwise nice lady) caught the Delta 3 weeks ago. According to her parents (also my patients; whole family upset at her stupidity) she caught the virus and sounds extremely sick when they talk to her on the phone. Not hospitalized, and she likely won’t die. Not sure yet whether she will be one of those unlucky COVID long-haulers. Who the hell would want to take that chance, when she almost certainly would not have been that sick if only she had the vaccine?
Anytime I read about a so-called expert who says “gov officials are in tight contractual arrangements with BigPharm.”… I immediately recognize that they are a bad-actor anti-vaxxer idiot whose opinion is suspect. Or a Russian internet troll trying to fool people. You don’t fool me. Look at the real-world data; how many unvaccinated are dying from COVID? The unvaccinated are 10 times more likely to get sick from COVID, and 11 times more likely to die from it.
Anyone who mentions “Big Pharma” in their arguments vis-a-vis the vaccine discussion, proves they are a conspiracy-dumbass, and not a serious scientist/researcher.
Please everyone, get the vaccine, so we all can get back to normal life.
“The unvaccinated are 10 times more likely to get sick from COVID, and 11 times more likely to die from it.”
I refuse to believe you are a physician. You seem to lack understanding of what the infection rate is, and what the risks are. You even imply that only those sick of preexisting conditions could possibly contract Delta while vaccinated, complete absurdity.
Oww really!!! Can you give me actual data
From a certain hospital, vaccinated vs. unvaccinated… words are just words!
Anyone can make any claim! But provide us real data. Those Hospital records are not sensitive and are available as case reference. And lets compare notes!
You’re one doctor giving your opinion, whoopee. There is Kory, Zelenko in NY, Syed Haider in NC and many others who have amazing success with IVM, HCQ …. What about their real world data? And almost 13k doctors and scientists worldwide who have signed the Rome Declaration. They all can’t be lying or making it up. So what if there is not a trial, if it works it works. The standard for vaccines/drugs is 7-10 years until approval to see the effects over time. Yet the so called covid vax approved in far less time. No one knows the long term effects of the mRNA jab when it has never been used before in humans. Pfizer paid 2.6b fine in 2009. FDA in USA recently put their strongest warning on Xeljanz. Heavily advertised, especially on television. Approved and in use but now causing heart attacks, cancer and death.
What a shame that none of those doctors seem to be able to run a competent clinical trial.
I just can’t understand how these ‘amazing’ treatments don’t do what they claim. Should be so easy to clear up. But only if they can do the MATH+
Mike7, which Rome declaration are you referring to? The one that I am familiar with, https://global-health-summit.europa.eu/rome-declaration_en, lauds the development and use of COVID vaccines, but says nothing about the use of IVM, HCQ or of other treatments that have now been shown to be ineffective against COVID.
“And almost 13k doctors and scientists worldwide who have signed the Rome Declaration. They all can’t be lying or making it up”
In the absence of further information about this ‘Rome Declaration’, it only requires one person to lie or make things up.
Rome Summit
https://globalcovidsummit.org/news/welcome-to-the-global-covid-summit
Over 10,000 physicians and medical scientists worldwide have signed the “Rome Declaration” to alert citizens about the deadly consequences of Covid-19 policy makers’ and medical authorities’ unprecedented behavior; behavior such as denying patient access to lifesaving early treatments, disrupting the sacred, physician-patient relationship and suppressing open scientific discussion for profits and power.
“Disrupting the sacred, physician-patient relationship” is a term of art that translates as “Reducing the opportunities for grifters to defraud their griftees”.
Oh, yes! That other ‘Declaration’ titled ‘Physicians Declaration Global Covid Summit – Rome Italy’ and whose co-signers include Pierre Kory, the subject of the present RW post whose flawed work had been retracted. Yeah, that one …