Posted on 02/23/2022 12:41:53 PM PST by ransomnote
Whoops! How embarrassing! The CDC gave you bad advice. If you want to survive COVID, you should use the drug they said to avoid, and avoid the drug they said to use.
Remember that “horse dewormer” that the FDA, CDC, NIH, CNN, and Sanjay Gupta all told you not to use? A new paper recently published in the Journal of the AMA (JAMA) shows that Ivermectin works way better than the COVID vaccine in keeping you from dying from COVID.
This was an open-label randomized trial done in Malaysia with around 250 patients in each arm. One arm got IVM + standard of care, the other arm got the standard of care.
Of course, JAMA never would have published this if they thought that people would actually look at the data. The abstract says: “The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.” You are supposed to read the abstract and believe that ivermectin has no effect.
In fact, that’s exactly what people do even when you tell them expressly to ignore that:
Do not fall for it. Read the paper if you want the truth. If you want to be misled, just read the abstract.
Pierre Kory did a brilliant takedown of the paper on his substack. I won’t repeat that here. Instead, I’ll just summarize the data for you; the hidden gems in the paper that you are never supposed to notice.
The data
The lower the p-value, the more significant the result is. A Chi-squared test was used. Data came from the JAMA paper appendix.
Interpretation of the data
So there are five takeaways from the study:
Vaccine efficacy in the real world is quite small. If you got vaccinated, it reduced your chance of death by just 24%. However, the study did NOT look at the all-cause mortality of the vaccine (it only enrolled people who survived the vaccine), so the tiny absolute risk reduction you get from a 24% relative risk reduction (roughly 24% of .25% =.06% benefit) is less than the absolute risk of dying from the vaccine (around .2%). See Incriminating Evidence for details on this.
If you were not vaccinated (which you shouldn’t be), ivermectin reduced your chance of death by 72%. So it was 3 times more effective than the vaccine. But the risk of ivermectin is negligible so the risk-benefit ratio is extremely favorable. Ivermectin has a 3X effect size (benefit) and is more than 100,000X less risky with respect to death risk, killing nobody (compared to over 200,000 people from the vaccine). So it’s the clear choice. It’s the only rational choice.
MORE AT LINK: New JAMA paper show Ivermectin blows the COVID vaccines out of the water (substack.com)
PING
*
Imagine that……
A government agency behaves normally
JAMA sounds a lot like MAGA. They must be right-wing extremists./s
In before the Vax Cultists.
It was just a short time ago that LSM was blasting this study out as news that EyeFurMuckTon didn’t work
...so tired of the shot being called a vaccine. It seems to just get worse by the day.
Time to get my 4th shot ;p
Yet people still will. Unreal.
There’s only one way to try this, oh never mind. Been there did it, so did the wife. Only thing I really notice now. Apples and carrots always look good. 🤔
My wife and I just cured it with IVM and went very well. No vax.
They can get away with the statement that “The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19” because given the relatively small sample size in the study the magnitude of the beneficial effects of ivermectin was insufficient to provide an effect at the 95% confidence level normally required to make a firm conclusion in such studies.
Nonetheless, the study does indicate a clear potential benefit to using ivermectin, and given that the drug is almost entirely harmless if properly prescribed, the absence of results reaching a particular (basically arbitrary) level of statistical credibility should hardly be a reason to prohibit its use.
Review
I agree, just pointing out how utterly evil and dishonest science and research is today. ALL of it is only as good as the highest bidder or biggest government threat.
Should add I think the small sample size was chosen to guarantee a failed result because of the very requirement of 95% statistical modeling required.
I would not be at all surprised if you were exactly correct in that assessment.
Surprise "A government agency behaves abnormally"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.