Back in January I wrote an article about four randomized controlled trials of ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19 that had at that time released their results to the public. Each of those four trials had promising results, but each was also too small individually to show any meaningful impact on the hard outcomes we really care about, like death. When I meta-analyzed them together however, the results suddenly appeared very impressive. Here’s what that meta-analysis looked like: It showed a massive 78% reduction in mortality in patients treated with covid-19. Mortality is the hardest of hard end points, which means it’s the hardest for researchers to manipulate and therefore the least open to bias. Either someone’s dead, or they’re alive. End of story.You would have thought that this strong overall signal of benefit in the midst of a pandemic would have mobilized the powers that be to arrange multiple large randomized trials to confirm these results as quickly as possible, and that the major medical journals would be falling over each other to be the first to publish these studies.That hasn’t happened.Rather the opposite, in fact. South Africa has even gone so far as to ban doctors from using ivermectin on covid-19 patients. And as far as I can tell, most of the discussion about ivermectin in mainstream media (and in the medical press) has centred not around its relative merits, but more around how its proponents are clearly deluded tin foil hat wearing crazies who are using social media to manipulate the masses.In spite of this, trial results have continued to appear. That means we should now be able to conclude with even greater certainty whether or not ivermectin is effective against covid-19. Since there are so many of these trials popping up now, I’ve decided to limit the discussion here only to the ones I’ve been able to find that had at least 150 participants, and that compared ivermectin to placebo (although I’ll add even the smaller trials I’ve found in to the updated meta-analysis at the end).As before, it appears that rich western countries have very little interest in studying ivermectin as a treatment for covid. The three new trials that had at least 150 participants and compared ivermectin with placebo were conducted in Colombia, Iran, and Argentina. We’ll go through each in turn. ...What we see is a 62% reduction in the relative risk of dying among covid patients treated with ivermectin. That would mean that ivermectin prevents roughly three out of five covid deaths. The reduction is statistically significant (p-value 0,004). In other words, the weight of evidence supporting ivermectin continues to pile up. It is now far stronger than the evidence that led to widespred use of remdesivir earlier in the pandemic, and the effect is much larger and more important (remdesivir was only ever shown to marginally decrease length of hospital stay, it was never shown to have any effect on risk of dying).I understand why pharmaceutical companies don’t like ivermectin. It’s a cheap generic drug. Even Merck, the company that invented ivermectin, is doing it’s best to destroy the drug’s reputation at the moment. This can only be explained by the fact that Merck is currently developing two expensive new covid drugs, and doesn’t want an off-patent drug, which it can no longer make any profit from, competing with them.The only reason I can think to understand why the broader medical establishment, however, is still so anti-ivermectin is that these studies have all been done outside the rich west. Apparently doctors and scientists outside North America and Western Europe can’t be trusted, unless they’re saying things that are in line with our pre-conceived notions.
« First « Previous Comments 527 - 566 of 568 Next » Last » Search
How's this going to happen when the government was cooperating with them?I thought we could force the government to reform, I thought shame would work, but the only way we'll get justice will be revolution and street justice, unfortunately.
How's this going to happen when the government was cooperating with them?
How's this going to happen when the government was cooperating with them?I thought we could force the government to reform, I thought shame would work, but the only way we'll get justice will be revolution and street justice, unfortunately.Think about an abusive relationship such as a domestic kind. The abuser gets confused then upset as far as the victim not fully complying. Such as the victim questions the abuser's authority. The abuser lashes out and beats the victim. Think of the movie Sleeping With The Enemy. The husband in that movie was that much of a sociopath and psychopath that every amount of manipulation and abuse seemed natural or second nature for him.That is what you are up against as far as collective abusers. .
We all model other people based off from ourselves. I can understand psychopaths, but only abstractly.
We all model other people based off from ourselves. I can understand psychopaths, but only abstractly.Its not hard to understand this behavior without modeling after ourselves. Read about their manipulative behavior and lack of empathy. Its all about winning by any means necessary. And they do feel, and they do care; its just that they only care about themselves, and their family as well as close-circle of friends. And if they work for the government, then they have a cult mindset as far as affection of the agency, whereas the "needs of the agency or service" trumps everything else including the Constitution. .
Stop thinking of them as "people like you" - they aren't.
Stop thinking of them as "people like you" - they aren't.You are again wrong as far as saying I think of them as people like me. I loath them because are hardly like me as far as values and character.
Logic and rigid thinking beyond your own concepts and beliefs is BASIC in science. I've over-ridden my own biases many times, to my benefit. It's a way of thinking, and Tyson has abandoned it.
"I have recently seen Neil deGrasse Tyson tell me that gender is a spectrum. He's a FUCKING SCIENTIST. Logic and rigid thinking beyond your own concepts and beliefs is BASIC in science. I've over-ridden my own biases many times, to my benefit. It's a way of thinking, and Tyson has abandoned it."
The FDA does not really have the power to control what doctors can prescribe.
On a different but hugely consequential note, and related to the long-running outlandish mendacity of the US government, an attorney for the Federal Drug Administration told a federal appeals court in Louisiana hearing a lawsuit last week that the agency actually had no policy against the use of ivermectin for Covid-19.FDA was not regulating the off-label use of drugs These statements are not regulations they have no legal consequences they don’t prohibit doctors from prescribing Ivermectin to treat COVID or for any other purpose. Quite to the contrary there are three instances I’d like to point the court to in the record that show that FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID.” How true is that? The FDA coerced Blue Cross and other insurers to warn doctors not to prescribe ivermectin for Covid-19, and likewise the Federation of State Medical Boards and National Association of Boards of Pharmacy to not fill doctor’s prescriptions for ivermectin for Covid-19 patients, despite the fact that it was among the best, most effective, and safest treatments for the disease. The FDA put out public service announcements telling Americans not to take ivermectin. The net effect was that state medical boards persecuted doctors for prescribing the drug (e.g., Maine Medical Board’s persecution of Dr, Meryl Nass). Also that hundreds of thousands of Covid-19 patients were denied early treatment, many of whom died. We all know why the FDA pretended that ivermectin was not allowed to be used. Because it would have removed the Emergency Use Authorization that designated mRNA shots as the sole response to Covid, and it would have obviated the pharma companies’ liability shield for anything that went wrong. Of course, the whole damn thing went wrong and millions are now paying the price. Is this the beginning of the unwind of a colossal crime by those Rich Men North of Richmond against the people of this land?
Hey, does this invalidate the Pfizer EUA which let them murder people by vaxx with no liability at all?
Hey, does this invalidate the Pfizer EUA which let them murder people by vaxx with no liability at all?It doesn't approve Ivermectin as a treatment, it just allows doctors to prescribe it off-label. They never said it works, and if you ask the FDA, I'm certain they will say it doesn't work.So, the EUA can still be used.
no one did any studies on the efficacy of ivermectin
That's why I asked if the FDA cited or recognized any studies. If we remember, no one did any studies on the efficacy of ivermectin. They simply ignored it. Insidious.
GNLWhat do you mean? Tons of studies were done with very good results. Want to see them?
"That's why I asked if the FDA cited or recognized any studies. If we remember, no one did any studies on the efficacy of ivermectin. They simply ignored it. Insidious."
"That's why I asked if the FDA cited or recognized any studies. If we remember, no one did any studies on the efficacy of ivermectin. They simply ignored it. Insidious." Who cares if the FDA cited or recognizes any medical studies proving that Ivermectin and HCQ cure Covid? There are over 500 medical studies that prove that these medications work against Covid.and
"Not to be a twat (and I know I am), but all the studies need to be referenced, and linked to. Summaries are easily faked, our government and media do it all the time."
All these studies are listed and referenced.Here https://c19hcq.org/ andHere https://c19ivm.org/
Were the studies not done by "accepted" authorities?
Well, I stand corrected. Were the studies not done by "accepted" authorities? Are things that corrupt that lawsuits can't be waged?
The three major tools of our corrupt system are propaganda, cancel culture, and lawfare.
The three major tools of our corrupt system are propaganda, cancel culture, and lawfare.Yep, which may in time leave the citizens with the cartridge box.
Of all the vicious lies spun around the Covid-19 operation, among the most damaging was the campaign to demonize ivermectin, a Nobel Prize-winning true wonder-drug, among the safest known pharmaceuticals ever, effective against disease-causing parasites and also a potent anti-viral agent — which was exactly why the CDC and FDA turned on it. It very effectively subdued Covid-19 infections. That is, it worked. And because of that, these agencies had to pretend that it was worthless and harmful, to protect the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the fabulous mRNA vaccines that didn’t work and ended up harming, disabling, and killing many people. Any treatment that proved effective would have invalidated the EUA and negated the liability shield that came with the EUA, protecting the vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits. A week ago, in a lawsuit brought by three doctors against the FDA for its Covid-19 restrictions, DOJ lawyer Ashley Honold told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in Louisiana that “FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat Covid.” Really? After three years of bad-mouthing the drug in public service announcements — horse and cow de-wormer, not for humans! — and telling national boards of physicians not to use it, and telling the national organization of pharmacists not to fill prescriptions for it… which resulted in many states officially forbidding its use … which led to gross injustices such as the State of Maine Medical Board’s obtuse and insane persecution of bio-warfare expert and epidemiologist Dr. Meryl Nass (for which Dr. Nass is now suing them) … and to many other state boards revoking the licenses of doctors…. Days after that howler by DOJ lawyer Honold, the FDA honchos in DC walked back what she told the court, saying, “… it has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19, nor has the agency stated that it is safe or effective for that use.” The agency then invoked its battery of fake excuses for that ruling: studies are inconclusive, blah, blah, which is just more bullshit, you understand, because the bottom line is the same as ever: the FDA will not surrender the EUA and its various protections for the Covid vaccines. And it will employ any official lie to support that position.It also happened that going back to the 2019 debut of Covid-19, Dr. Anthony Fauci, then-head of the NIAID and Francis Collins then-head of the NIH — two related agencies that funded and supported coronavirus gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology — received many millions of dollars in “royalties” for their part in developing mRNA vaccines against the Covid-19 pathogen that they had priorly developed (the total dollar figure rumored to be above $300-million). See how that worked? If you are among that segment of the population that has not lost its mind, you might realize that the public health authorities have no authority. They lied outrageously about everything connected with Covid-19. And when they were caught lying, they just lied some more in the vain attempt to cover up their previous lies. And so, it would be foolish to regard anything they say from now on — without a complete house-cleaning of agency personnel, plus some earnest prosecutions — as worth listening to and following. Authority, you see, is granted only to those who are trustworthy. Yes, it’s really that simple. If an authority lies about everything, and is caught doing it, then it is rendered invalid. Now, it happens that the US public health agencies, huge and costly as they are, make up only one part of the even larger and costlier US government, which has been busy surrendering the authority of all its other parts for years now, to the point that the whole enterprise is untrustworthy and in need of a severe housecleaning. Traditionally, elections are the mechanism for cleaning that house, but our elections have lost their authority, too? Really? How so? Because the untrustworthy officials in charge of them employ dubious systems for gathering the vote: mail-in balloting that invites fraud and hackable vote-counting machines that are connected to the Internet. The defects of these things are so obvious they can hardly be ignored. And the remedy is obvious and simple, too: paper ballots hand-counted in small precincts of manageable size, all done on one day, which we call Election Day (and which should be a national holiday, so more working people can get to the polls). Somehow, though, we are unable to avail that remedy, probably because the untrustworthy people in charge would lose their jobs and the power they enjoy in a truly fair election. So, they conclude, let’s not have that. It’s even looking like the untrustworthy public health authorities are ramping up yet a new, fresh Covid-19 scare for the fall, in order to reinforce the special mail-in voting scheme that’s working so nicely (for them), and to disorder the minds of the public so they’ll be too frightened to notice that all the other parts of the government are failing in virtually all their duties to the people of this land. Bring on some new Covid variants and the lovely new booster vax that’ll work so well (not). Go ahead, we should say, I dare you. We won’t be fooled again.
A preprint paper showing ivermectin’s effectiveness against COVID-19 in Peru convinced a group of doctors that widespread ivermectin distribution could end the pandemic in October 2020Because the paper wasn’t yet peer-reviewed, it was brushed off; ivermectin for COVID-19 was vilified, as were those who dared to prescribe itNow, the study has been peer-reviewed and published in Cureus, vindicating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19Not only did ivermectin work against COVID-19, it was remarkably effective, resulting in a 74% reduction in excess deaths in the 10 Peru states where it was used most intensivelyThere was a 14-fold reduction in nationwide excess deaths when ivermectin was readily available and then a 13-fold increase in excess deaths in the two months after ivermectin use was restricted
A federal appeals court Friday revived a lawsuit by three doctors who say the Food and Drug Administration overstepped its authority in a campaign against treating COVID-19 with the anti-parasite drug ivermectin. ...But the ruling said the campaign — which at times featured the slogan “You are not a horse!” — too often left out that the drug is sometimes prescribed for humans.The doctors can proceed with their lawsuit contending that the FDA's campaign exceeded the agency's authority under federal law, the ruling said.“FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise—but not to endorse, denounce, or advise,” Judge Don Willett wrote for a panel that also included Jennifer Walker Elrod and Edith Brown Clement. “The Doctors have plausibly alleged that FDA’s Posts fell on the wrong side of the line between telling about and telling to.”
"In the USA pharmacists, by refusing to fill Ivermectin prescriptions, are practicing medicine without a license..."
So there is a world-famous toxicologist named Jacques Descotes, and he's French. And two years ago, he was commissioned to do a scoping review of the entire data on the safety of Ivermectin in its history. And his conclusion after doing this comprehensive review is that he does not believe that there has been one single case of anyone dying from an Ivermectin overdose.
« First « Previous Comments 527 - 566 of 568 Next » Last » Search