The viral “84% cancer benefit” ivermectin study is a test of whether Team Reality holds ourselves to the scientific standards we’ve spent six years demanding.
Given the absence of RCTs, those of us with cancer (I have lung cancer) face a difficult choice. I have other medical issues that made surgery too risky. Chemotherapy or immunotherapy were never discussed. Radiation was the only remaining option. We caught it very early, so I decided to try a hybrid of protocols based on survivors like Joe Tippins and Jane McClelland, along with several alternative practitioners who publish on-line. The Independent Medical Alliance has also been a source of information for me. I had been taking ivermectin, ordered in bulk from India, since Covid. Other aspects included repurposed drugs, targeted supplements and dietary changes. The short version: it hasn't been successful. I have little choice left but to seek radiation therapy. I believe there are individuals who have succeeded with these methods, but every individual is different, and cancer is a complicated, insidious, and resourceful beast. I would never try to convince someone with cancer to completely ignore their regular MDs. I read about The Wellness Company debacle elsewhere, and the whole thing made me furious. They give alternative practitioners a bad name. Not all of them are selling snake oil. Thanks for digging into this and explaining it.
💯 FM! I agree. If I had a loved one with cancer I would try all these things too. My article doesn’t take on these interventions themselves. It takes on what we say about them and call “results.” Godspeed and healing vibes!
Honestly I think they were trying to do a study they could do easily. Without having to engage with the system to find a control group and partner investigators who have patients who could be a matched control or something. And they don’t have access to people’s records on their telehealth platform to confirm baseline and follow up status. And their customers want the drugs, not to be randomized to placebo. Any other study design might not have happened at all bc it would require engaging with the system for patients. But in my view, no study is better than this one 😭
The reason why the study can be hypothesis generating is because the 84% CBR was much higher than the CBR observed in historical controls using only standard of care (which also included some surgeries where tumor was shrinked due to being removed).A critical appraisal should focus more carefully on the available historical controls and see whether the contrast is sufficiently large for a compelling argument. During 2020, similar critiques were made against Risch's seminal paper re using hydroxychloroquine for early treatment of high risk patients. Likewise, Zelenko's results were sidelined despite very high contrast between his outcomes and historical controls.
No. These were all kinds of cancers in all stages. Presumably. Since it was just self reported. We have no idea what the benefit of standard treatment is in each one of these types of cancers in each of the stages. The selection bias is significant. The loss to follow up analysis was a joke. Surgery alone could be the entire “tumor shrinkage” in patients who got shrinkage. We’ve learned literally nothing here.
Given the absence of RCTs, those of us with cancer (I have lung cancer) face a difficult choice. I have other medical issues that made surgery too risky. Chemotherapy or immunotherapy were never discussed. Radiation was the only remaining option. We caught it very early, so I decided to try a hybrid of protocols based on survivors like Joe Tippins and Jane McClelland, along with several alternative practitioners who publish on-line. The Independent Medical Alliance has also been a source of information for me. I had been taking ivermectin, ordered in bulk from India, since Covid. Other aspects included repurposed drugs, targeted supplements and dietary changes. The short version: it hasn't been successful. I have little choice left but to seek radiation therapy. I believe there are individuals who have succeeded with these methods, but every individual is different, and cancer is a complicated, insidious, and resourceful beast. I would never try to convince someone with cancer to completely ignore their regular MDs. I read about The Wellness Company debacle elsewhere, and the whole thing made me furious. They give alternative practitioners a bad name. Not all of them are selling snake oil. Thanks for digging into this and explaining it.
💯 FM! I agree. If I had a loved one with cancer I would try all these things too. My article doesn’t take on these interventions themselves. It takes on what we say about them and call “results.” Godspeed and healing vibes!
Is there a point at which rising notoriety makes one forget about standards? I'm perturbed as to how this could have happened. 🤔
Honestly I think they were trying to do a study they could do easily. Without having to engage with the system to find a control group and partner investigators who have patients who could be a matched control or something. And they don’t have access to people’s records on their telehealth platform to confirm baseline and follow up status. And their customers want the drugs, not to be randomized to placebo. Any other study design might not have happened at all bc it would require engaging with the system for patients. But in my view, no study is better than this one 😭
That makes complete sense.
The reason why the study can be hypothesis generating is because the 84% CBR was much higher than the CBR observed in historical controls using only standard of care (which also included some surgeries where tumor was shrinked due to being removed).A critical appraisal should focus more carefully on the available historical controls and see whether the contrast is sufficiently large for a compelling argument. During 2020, similar critiques were made against Risch's seminal paper re using hydroxychloroquine for early treatment of high risk patients. Likewise, Zelenko's results were sidelined despite very high contrast between his outcomes and historical controls.
No. These were all kinds of cancers in all stages. Presumably. Since it was just self reported. We have no idea what the benefit of standard treatment is in each one of these types of cancers in each of the stages. The selection bias is significant. The loss to follow up analysis was a joke. Surgery alone could be the entire “tumor shrinkage” in patients who got shrinkage. We’ve learned literally nothing here.