https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/cnn-vs-ivermectin?utm_source=url
PING
Ping!
I’m confused; just the other day I think this same study was cited as evidence that Ivermectin ISN’T effective against Covid. I’m seen studies mentioned on both sides of this question, but I thought this one gave a thumbs-down.
Facts are irrelevant to liberals, even when they’re hit over the head with them. Which doesn’t sound like a bad idea when you think about it.
It was on a Tuesday, he prescribed 4 medications, including the two mentioned above.
I was back at work the following Monday, albeit weaker than normal.
At the time, I had co-morbidities of 65+, Type 2, and overweight. I've gained back half of the lost weight, my BMI is down to 26%, and I'm aiming to stay between 170-175.
I wouldn’t believe anything coming from the Comedian News Network.
Read the original study and weep!!!!
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362
It’s all about MONEY. Big Pharma charges the government a fortune for every injection. Big pharma pays off politicians and lobbyists to push their jab. Whereas a tablet of Ivermectin is cheap.
I noticed the same thing when they were trying to debunk hydroxy. Phony studies where they juiced the results. And even when they admitted that there were positive results, they never ever included zinc in the treatment.
Small study done prior to the SA variant.
I want to see how Ivermectin does against Omnicron.
I believe in Ivermectin, but this article is bull. The JAMA study referred to is deeply flawed (not at all blind), but those on Ivermectin performed slightly worse than those NOT on it. 21.6% of the patients on Ivermectin required more severe intervention, compared to 17% of the control group.
THAT SAID,
the fact that those who progressed to more severe intervention were more likely to survive if they had been in the ivermectin group suggests that the adverse outcome may show bias on the part of the researchers.
This study definitely should never have been published in JAMA. The fact that researchers hang their hat on the possibility of bias doesn’t mean that it’s OK to publish an obscenely flawed study.
This is completely twisted and picked-over view of the study.
You are helping no one with this silliness. The overall point is, from 490 patients TOTAL, there is hardly any difference between Ivermectin and “non-treated”.
This is what it ACTUALLY SAYS:
“Results Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).”
This was printed in your “substack” but only a couple things were brought out - your 4 vs 10 and 3 vs 10.
Seeing THOSE numbers I thought this was a very weak study, with only maybe 20 patients. BUT, I find it’s just part of many more patients.
The proof is that about the same (some more for Ivermectin) rates of “severe” disease in the hospital.
Your tiny numbers actually are mostly proof of what many of us said all along: THIS IS A MINOR DISEASE as far as death (and even “hospitalization”). Heck, the 490 are ALREADY classified as “co-morbid”! 14 out of 490 is what? 3%. Out of “co-morbid” patients. Big deal!
The entire PREMISE that this disease is so awful should be shot down. Forget vaxes and alternatives, mostly YOU’LL BE JUST FINE.
But please don’t do ridiculous things with data - it makes your side look stupid at best and duplicitous at worst.
Clearly Ivermectin showed positive effect, 3 vs 10 deaths is a huge benefit.
~~~~
Ivermectin is especially beneficial if you are one of the seven people who would have died without ivermectin.
JAMA, Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
How many hospital administrators and doctors will read beyond the headline!
I don’t care about THIS study, good or bad.
The PROOF is out there! EVERYWHERE!
It cannot be denied that Ivermectin WORKS!
So all these clowns should just give up. The FACTS are KNOWN!
I just received my 100 tablets, 12 mg each, today!
14 days from order to my mailbox. $80 + $30 shipping = total of $110 from Singapore. NO PRESCIPTION. Paid with PayPal.
I shouldn’t need it (got it for the wife). I take Quercetin + zinc, D3, C, and many other supplements. I also have on hand the Xlear Nasal Spray.
Xlear Nasal Spray COVID-19: Studies Conclude Xlear KILLS SARS-COV-2 AND EFFECTIVE AGAINST NEW VARIANTS...
https://www.aestheticsadvisor.com/2021/09/xlear-nasal-spray-covid-19-study.html
The collaborative study concludes: “Because there are no risk factors in using the X/GSE combination therapy, and [Xlear] nasal spray is over the counter available without prescription, and [Xlear] allows for comfortable long term mask wearing, adoption of this preventive anti-viral therapy should be encouraged.”
bkmk