but if you dare say ivermectin does not work the posse of pious harpies and Q followers will attack viciously…
It’s damning how far they will go to keep people from safe, effective medications like Ivermectin. They will do ANYTHING to force people to die, even though countries across the world are discovering it works.
All they had to do is get someone disreputable to run a silly, shoddy trial and pull the WHOLE THING down, withholding Ivermectin from those who need it.
It’s a drug trial version of shilling. This is disgusting.
You don’t say.
Don’t care. Even removing Elgazzar, which they’ve already done, makes little difference in the meta study. Big Media depends on Big Pharma and lies for them. Big Pharma isn’t interested in an off-patent cheap therapeutic becoming known.
Like how objective they are, as they gloat about the failure of a drug supported by “right wing” figures....yeah...that was the goal. Trash the study, and with it, ‘right wing figures’...
“The efficacy of a drug being promoted by rightwing figures worldwide for treating Covid-19 is in serious doubt after a major study suggesting the treatment is effective against the virus was withdrawn due to “ethical concerns”…”
This was a setup to spike the chances of the public being given access to this drug.
Total crock of s**t. Like the evidence of the masses of saved live should be ignored. Hell...Delhi, India was practically saved from annihilation from the way they reported it AND even filed a lawsuit against the W.H.O. Chief Scientist for her role in restricting its distribution saying shes responsible for one count of murder for every life that would have been saved.
It smells of a Big Pharma orchestated set up. Americas front line doctors, who work in the trenches every day know the drug saves lives. These so called studies are cooked up trash. Recall the great Lancet fiasco of a few month ago.
“Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns”
Interesting how something they denied ever existed - a ‘huge study’ on Ivermectin, was withdrawn.
All that I EVER HEARD was that there was only small studies, and that a large-scale study was needed. Now a ‘huge study’ appears out of nowhere, only to be withdrawn? Say what?
And why did they wait until now to withdraw the article, it’s been 8 FULL MONTHS since it was out...with all the vax-bro’s here and elsewhere, if it was so obviously bogus, what took them so long?
Something funny...
ethical concerns = big pharma cannot make enough money off the drug
The Guardian is a solid source on FR but Conservative blogs are not. Ivermectin is hated by the libs since it is cheap.
I’ve got a novel idea - let individuals choose which treatment they want.
The efficacy of a drug being promoted by rightwing figures worldwide for treating Covid-19 is in serious doubt after a major study suggesting the treatment is effective against the virus was withdrawn due to “ethical concerns”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Damning details starting with the first sentence...Not sure exactly who the right-wing figures are...but Dr. Kory is the most well-known, strongest proponent.
So first sentence of the “article” is not only incorrect but it shows the bias. Dr. Kory a practicing PHYSICIAN who is “promoting” Ivermectin because he has found IT WORKS ON HIS PATIENTS has stated he is a liberal and a Democrat. He stated this on the Dark Horse Podcast, Brett Weinstein, creator of the podcast and a PhD Evolutionary Biologist, is a liberal as well. Weinstein taught at Evergreen State College in Washington ~ one of the most liberal until he got into trouble for taking a “color-blind to race” stance which offended the nascent BLM movement on that campus.
Billions of dollars on the line, I suspect a setup so the study would fail...In fact, a couple weeks ago, I read something on FR about there being concerns about this very thing.
Sounds a lot like the Hydroxychloroquine smear—Yet Zelenko is nominated to receive a Nobel prize for his work using it in treatment of COVID.
OK I will try to read more of the article, but after the first sentence’s faux pas, it is not easy.
I saw Ivermectin on the shelves at Tractor Supply Center.
Oops.
Well there’s always 86,000,000 mgs. of vitamin D3 every day until you turn into cheese…….
They are very humid prepossessing homo sapiens with full sized aortic pumps... and hey, I really mean it, too.
-PJ
Ethical concerns????
From the people pushing an experimental mRNA treatment that has historically never been proved to be safe?
Seems like he's not very accurate in that, looking at https://ivmmeta.com/ as supplied by @FreedomPoster.
Note that his site already REMOVED Elgazzar from the meta-analysis.
Nice attempt at a hit job. Fail.
•Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 74% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.26 [0.16-0.43] and 0.15 [0.08-0.25]), with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis, restriction to peer-reviewed studies, and restriction to Randomized Controlled Trials. •64% and 96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.36 [0.15-0.85] and 0.04 [0.00-0.59]). Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.
Studies Prophylaxis Early treatment Late treatment Patients Authors
All studies 60 85% [75‑92%] 74% [57‑84%] 43% [26‑56%] 21,849 573
With exclusions 50 88% [75‑94%] 76% [66‑83%] 49% [28‑64%] 17,448 512
Peer-reviewed 38 88% [70‑95%] 75% [59‑84%] 42% [19‑58%] 11,464 401
Randomized Controlled Trials 30 84% [25‑96%] 67% [54‑76%] 29% [3‑48%] 5,217 357
Mortality results 23 96% [41‑100%] 64% [15‑85%] 58% [34‑73%] 10,808 235
Percentage improvement with ivermectin treatment
•The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 60 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 193 billion (p = 0.0000000000052).