Defending ivermectin against critics, Dr. Pierre Kory imagines himself delivering a classic movie put-down in Woody Allen’s Annie Hall.

How does Dr. Pierre Kory, the highly published former University of Wisconsin-Madison medical school professor who saved countless lives from COVID-19 and became key discoverer and global prophet of ivermectin, handle being called a science kook and fraud by The New York Times? With no chance of correction or appeal to the editors?

How does this passionate New York City-born liberal like it when he reads The Washington Post headline: “How the right’s ivermectin conspiracy theories led to people buying horse dewormer.” In other words, how does he handle all the horse-#&%@ that has been piled on ivermectin the past couple weeks?

He doesn’t like it. He loves it. “Bring it on!” Kory often tells his 120,000 Twitter followers. Nobody ever debates Kory. Here’s why: Kory’s technical round knockout of Dr. Garegnani.

So he was delighted when Florida newspaper publisher Matt Walsh asked him to respond to a ferocious critic of the newspaper’s ivermectin coverage, a critic with real credentials—a University of Michigan professor—in a Q&A debate. “I’ve never had more fun than answering these questions,” Kory says. “It was like shooting fish in a barrel.”

It was so much fun Kory pictured himself in Woody Allen’s movie Annie Hall. In a classic scene in film history, Kory imagines himself the philosopher Marshall McLuan coming to Allen’s defense in an argument with a professor. “It’s a great scene,” Kory says. “Check it out.”

But first read the Q&A cage match between Kory and Professor emeritus Stephen Cooper, and judge for yourself. (It’s one of several Kory answers to critics you may have missed, see here, Kory Answers Critics.)

Professor Cooper: Ivermectin argument is abomination and drivel

Your article pushing ivermectin as a “cure” or “preventive” or whatever for COVID was an abomination.
There has been a large increase in calls to the Poison Control Line from people taking that compound. It is not approved and has not been shown to be effective against viruses, in particular against COVID-19 or its variants.
You did a disservice to the community for writing that drivel, which will hurt more than help. Vaccines should be promoted as the only proven way to stop this pandemic.
I hope that soon you will publish an article retracting your views on ivermectin and set the record straight.

— Stephen Cooper, emeritus professor, microbiology/immunology, University of

Dr. Pierre Kory responds: 63 positive studies exceed most approved drugs

The most easily quantifiable way to describe the indefensible lack of “approval” for ivermectin in COVID-19 is to note the actual amount of supportive clinical trials evidence in COVID-19, both randomized (31) and observational (32), including more than 26,000 patients with the near majority of all studies finding at least some important benefit with treatment.

Then compare that evidence to the average amount of evidence relied upon to formulate the treatment guidelines of the Infectious Disease Society of America:

In a 2010 review of 65 of its most recent guidelines, the IDSA found that 50% of guideline recommendations were made without any trials evidence in support and were termed “expert opinion only.”

Another 31% of guideline recommendations were based solely on observational studies, while only 16% of all recommendations were based on at least one randomized controlled trial.

In other words, the number of legitimate clinical trials for ivermectin have been far superior to those for the IDSA’s treatment guidelines.

Furthermore, ivermectin was approved for the treatment of scabies by the World Health Organization based only on 10 randomized controlled trials, including 852 patients. Despite the fact that these trials found ivermectin inferior to the cream it was being tested against, it still won approval due to its low cost and ease of administration.

We cannot recall the last pandemic of scabies that cratered health care systems and societies across the world. Yet the WHO was able to arrive at such a bold recommendation without the pressure of a pandemic, given it was based on such a seemingly small evidence base.

We also emphasize that the NIH Guidelines for COVID-19 have multiple strength levels of recommendation available to them, from weak/“consider” to making use near mandatory. The public should demand from the IDSA and NIH credible explanations for this monstrous anomaly of not arriving at even a weak recommendation for ivermectin, one of the safest, inexpensive and widely available medicines known to man.

What you are witnessing is just the most absurd example of a decadeslong war on re-purposed (aka “non-profitable”) medicines.

Finally, no credible physician or journalist recommends that people self-prescribe with veterinary forms of ivermectin. Experts, such as the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, have been working tirelessly for months to persuade the public health agencies to provide more specific guidance to physicians on using ivermectin to treat patients with COVID-19.

The increasing calls to poison control centers are a direct result of their failure to provide such guidance and education to U.S. citizens.

Share RESCUE with Michael Capuzzo

Subscribe now

RESCUE with Michael Capuzzo

Pierre Kory Responds to Critics, Hollywood…