If you can prove that the NIH and WHO got their treatment guidelines right, you could win $2M

This is the second in a series of articles arguing that obeisance to constrictive evidence-based medicine (EBM) treatment protocols in a pandemic is causing an unnecessary loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

In this article, I will show that the current NIH and WHO treatment guidelines for fluvoxamine and ivermectin don’t fit the evidence at all. A FOR recommendation for both these drugs is a near-perfect fit to all the data. Further, I will show that their recommendations are so indefensible that no respected authorities will be able to come forward to support their recommendations with a credible argument even if I offer a million dollar incentive for them to do so.

I claim that there has been abundant evidence on the table for at least the past 7 months, all in plain sight, that both fluvoxamine and ivermectin when given early at an effective dose are helpful because that hypothesis is a near perfect fit to all the evidence and that the other two alternatives, neutral or harmful, don’t fit the evidence at all. 

To win the $1M prize, all you have to do is to provide a convincing argument to our judges that the NIH or WHO recommendations on fluvoxamine or ivermectin (existing on May 21, 2021 when I am making this offer) are more likely to fit the evidence than recommendations to support the use of both drugs. Or you can simply show how the NIH or WHO recommendations are more likely to save more lives than recommending FOR these drugs. Either method of proof is fine.

Leave a Comment