In this podcast with Brett Weinstein (Dark Horse Podcast), Dr. Tess Lawrie defends the groundbreaking meta-analysis study on Ivermectin and its implications.

Tess Lawrie is an MD and PHD, external analyst for the World Health Organization, and an expert in analysis of medical evidence.

7 Responses

  1. Thank you to Tess Lawrie, Pierre Koury and other doctors and researchers who are trying to get Ivermectin approved for use in treatment in covid-19. Also thanks to people like Brett Weinsten who are doing their best to publicize info on ivermectin. It is criminal in my view that this information is being suppressed.

  2. Scientific is not correct word to use. Meta analysis, is as the video states, the best guess of experts.
    Of course, this is necessary when we have poor data on a complex problem. It is often difficult to isolate and control factors and get clear observations in medical research.
    The judgement of experts can be good or poor, but it is not really science.
    To me this is a real problem today, experts calling their opinion “the science”

  3. DOCTORS IN AUSTRALIA ARE TOO SCARED TO PRESCRIBE IVERMECTIN AND ALL PHARMACIES ‘ ARE SUDDENLY OUT OF STOCK.’ MIGHT HAVE TO ASK MY VET TO GIVE ME PRESCRIPTION FOR MY HORSE!!

  4. To date billions of people around the world have been vaccinated so we have more than sufficient data to determine the efficacy and safety of COVID vaccines. The unvaccinated have roughly 1:100 chances of dying from the disease whereas the vaccinated have roughly 1:1,000,000 chances of dying. I know which odds I prefer.

  5. ZIGGY

    Doctors are not authorised to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID in Australia because there are, as yet, no credible or reliable random controlled clinical trials showing its efficacy. Until the evidence changes this is the correct and responsible position to take.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.