I am a big, long time fan of Bret Weinstein, was impressed by the stoicism and apparent knowledge of Malone, and alarmed at the extreme claims Kirsch made. I've been following the ivermectin story over the past month or so, listening also to Dr John Campbell's seemingly sober and impartial analysis. I'd reached the point where I believed there was financially motivated suppression of ivermectin research, believed that it likely had generic antiviral properties (via "blocking" the ACE2 receptor), believed that adverse reactions to mRNA vaccines were under-reported and were likely caused via the human cell generated spike protein circulating in the body, that the particularly serious adverse reactions could be plausibly explained by accidental intravenous injection of the vaccine, and that Dr Tess Lawrie's BIRD group meta-analysis and Dr Pierre Kory's meta-analysis were being unfairly rejected by top journals. I find Bret's evolutionary argumentation compelling and I don't have a background in biology let alone virology. I imagine I'm not alone in coming to that position.
I became increasingly skeptical once Goa dropped ivermectin from its home kits (after being touted as an ivermectin success story). Then I came across an interview by The Halifax Examiner with the leader of the TOGETHER trial on repurposed drugs for covid treatment in Canada, Dr Edward Mills. In it he dampens enthusiasm for ivermectin's efficacy, its still part of their ongoing trial but he, without naming him, criticizes the intensity of Kory's invermectin advocacy:
"That particular group who authored that article [Kory's meta-analysis in The American Journal of Therapeutics] have a well understood agenda promoting ivermectin, and no amount of evidence is likely to change their mind — whether that be favorable or negative evidence — I don’t think it’s going to change their mind. So one of the problems with the ivermectin topic is that the advocate groups around ivermectin have overcalled the importance of this drug. You can’t go around promoting a drug, calling it a miracle drug that will end the pandemic, when you don’t even have a good clinical trial to support it, and that’s exactly what they did. If indeed this drug has a treatment effect — and I am very optimistic that it will — it will just be one component of the interventions that we need. It’s not going to end the pandemic. And that’s illustrated in India at the moment where Goa did recommend ivermectin, and just over the last few days it was recommended that it actually should stop being used."
This opened cracks in my confidence in the various narratives supported by Bret around covid and ivermectin, I started reading the comments to his recent tweets looking at the pushback he receives and so came across Dr David Gorski, whose blog posts on ScienceBasedMedicine.org systematically debunk the claims made around ivermectin, the toxicity of the spike protein (the one generated in human cells after mrna vaccination, not sure what the technical term is to distinguish it from the spike protein from sars-cov-2) and the lab leak hypothesis. I don't think its settled, but to me the criticisms made my Gorski are robust and would be of interest to people trying to reason about these issues for themselves. (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-take-2/). I'd also be interested if people are aware of good faith counter-arguments to Gorski's counter-arguments.
As I mentioned in my post, blog posts by David Gorski systematically address most of the issues you've highlighted ( https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-take-2/ )
Ivermectin:
"The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2:" this paper is explicitly critiqued, not least the sensational claim of a 1 in 23 trillion chance of the positive effect being random. (this isn't how statistical analysis works, apparently...)
There's also criticism of the Bryant and Lawrie paper.
On twitter recently Malone has acknowledged his mistake having been presented with evidence of dosing analysis by Pfizer ( https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1406555309200531458 )
The key paper that shows cytotoxicty from the spike protein is with regards to the spike protein found in sars-cov-2, according to Gorski and the papers he cites the s-protein created via the mrna vaccines is modified to attach to cells in the muscle rather than freely circulating. (Its since been found that there are circulating levels of spike protein post mrna vaccine but in extremely small quantities, far lower than you'd get via an infection, and that the clearance of the protein is as expected for the proper functioning of the vaccine. ( https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/15/the-novavax-vaccine-data-and-spike-proteins-in-general ) )
The Japanese biodistribution data is also debunked, the study is in rats, the percentage build up in the ovaries is exceptionally small and studies have been completed looking specifically at ovarian function post mrna vaccine with no issues found. The Japanese data is at the center of Byram Bridle's claims, which is systematically debunked here https://byrambridle.com/ .
I'm also unware of any info on ADE.
I've been vaccinated with one dose of Pfizer with no side effects. I'm waiting on the imminent CDC emergency panel on myocarditis to gauge whether it makes any sense getting a second dose.
There's a lot of talk about the molnupiravir being invested in (a Merck product I believe) and concerns about an Alzheimer's drug that the FDA have recently approved despite apparently scant evidence and evidence of toxicity.