South Carolina Ping 
If you'd like to be on or off the South Carolina ping list, just click Private Reply below and drop me a FReepmail.
Posted on 01/04/2023 1:46:52 PM PST by DFG
Don’t these people need to be practicing their next dance moves for YouTube?
The NIH did lots of studies of Ivermectin vs cancers and many I read had very positive results with Ivermectin.
I would love to see a study of how those not vaxxed and given nothing but remdesivir compared to those who got monoclonal antibodies on hospital admission.....
its mind boggling the evil....
My practitioner and I had a conversation about this a year ago. She said several of her colleagues had been “called on the carpet” for prescribing IVM. It was very apparent that she didn’t want to say more.
I have friends who have been given an IVM Rx by their doctor, only to be turned down at the pharmacy.
South Carolina Ping If you'd like to be on or off the South Carolina ping list, just click Private Reply below and drop me a FReepmail.
That’s intriguing. I’d have to look that up. I know Ivermectin is very interesting - everything from how it was discovered and its various methods of actions and uses.
I was referring specifically to NIH/CDC sponsored studies using Ivermectin or HCQ (really the treatment protocol combination of medicine, zinc, vitamin C and an antibiotic) as a treatment for Covid-19 specifically. It seems to me they did everything they possibly could to put the kibosh on the idea that Covid could be treated to reduce severity or longevity of illness and deaths. Maybe it would have worked. Maybe not. We’ll never know for sure because they deliberately refused to study it (and put out a lot of disinformation about it) and that’s the shame of it. As I posted, with 100,000+ people a day getting infected during the peaks it would have been very easy to enroll a large study trial with results very quickly.
I resent the fact that had I come down with COVID, my doctor would not have prescribed Ivermectin, and that he prescribed the COVID vaccine. I only took the original vaccine and booster, and had no adverse reaction, but I don’t like being misled.
In your search bar, put in: nih.gov Ivermectin cancer
These fully discredited “medical professionals” — now also “liars” — banned ivermectin and HCQ because if they didn’t ban them, these therapeutics would be recognized substitutes for the Fauci Flu “vaccines” which, under law, could not then be mandated.
It is there…
nih.gov Ivermectin Covid-19
62% reduction in mortality for severe cases.
Did you read the NIH reports for Ivermectin/COVID-19?
I scanned through one of them that was an aggregation of other studies’ data (country by country), but didn’t see one sponsored by the NIH directly. I’ll check again when I get a little more time. If there is one in particular I should see send me the link or title or something so I can spot it.
One NIH report was of US studies and trials of Ivermectin vs COVID-19.
The report never said the NIH sponsored or paid for such nor would I expect it to.
I only read found reports that were from the NIH using the search method I gave.
Meta-analysis of 15 trials, assessing 2438 participants, found that ivermectin reduced the risk of death by an average of 62% (95% CI 27%–81%) compared with no ivermectin treatment [average RR (aRR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.73; I2 = 49%]; risk of death 2.3% versus 7.8% among hospitalized patients in this analysis, respectively
If I recall correctly though, despite this conclusion, many sources poopooed this meta analysis (or ones like it). There was a study, perhaps not published by NIH, that included an Egyptian study and the Egyptian study apparently skewed the results leading some to conclude the Egyptian study was poorly conducted or tabulated. So the authors went back and censored the Egyptian study data and re-published it. It still showed Ivermectin favorably.
To be clear I am not saying Ivermectin didn't work. My personal leanings are that it probably does work quite well and a protocol involving IVM/HCQ and Zinc and Vit C and an Antiobiotic (to prevent secondary infections since antibiotics don't kill viruses) would have and should have been given a green light especially in the year before any vaccine was available. But nearly the whole of the establishment was aligned against it - and especially so once the vaccines were available. But many doctors who did use it said it worked with great success.
Yet again, there is so much to debate about all of this - how many people were infected but never reported, how many deaths were attributed to Covid but perhaps not even Covid related etc etc that all the data is, in my view, junk. The official stats show about a 1.1% mortality rate but I think that is an untrustworthy figure since it doesn't count infections that went unrecorded and does count deaths which may be unrelated. Which is again the real shame of it all. We could have learned a lot and instead politics trumped science. And not just with Covid but Covid was a doozy.
Do not recall if pubmed was included in the link
Lots of information available, published by our government that the CDC and Talking Heads deny exist.
Still can’t find the one I referenced.
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.