Works well enough for me!
Posted on 03/01/2022 11:02:40 AM PST by Red Badger
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 percent. 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 percent relative risk reduction (roughly 24 percent of 0.25 percent = 0.06 percent benefit) is less than the absolute risk of dying from the vaccine (around 0.2 percent). 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 percent. 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. The vaccine did provide a SMALL incremental benefit if you took both (10 percent lower risk), but it’s a non-starter since the risk-benefit analysis doesn’t support ever using the vaccine. If we want to reduce deaths, ivermectin is the way to go. Avoid the vaccine entirely. There is no way you have a paper like this with 431,000 views and just two comments. This implies that virtually all the comments were counter-narrative and were censored from public view. That in itself is stunning. Note that multidrug protocols that use ivermectin are much better than ivermectin alone. For example, the Fareed Tyson protocol has treated 10,000 people with no deaths, whereas in this study, 1 of the 75 unvaccinated people who got ivermectin died (1.3 percent). Multidrug protocols are clearly the way to go.
Acknowledgment I want to thank Massimaux for highlighting what the study said in his tweet.
Summary It doesn’t get much better than this. A paper published in JAMA showing ivermectin is three times better than the vaccines in preventing death.
Combined with the risk data of the vaccines, it’s clear that if you are given a choice, you’d always choose ivermectin and never choose the vaccine.
Will this paper make a difference? I don’t think so.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ivermectin+dosage+chart+for+humans&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
Works well enough for me!
Is there any proof of that? I did see the article where the new showed a package of IVM - a stock photo during the story on the Queen. Is there any other evidence that you know of?
12mg for most but it is based on body weight. DuckDuckGo for “FLCCC I-MASK+ MAPPS+”
For any other disease, a 70% reduction in death would be a significant outcome. Peer reviewed and published papers would spell it out plainly. So why was this not done here?
Short version: those treated with ivermectin in this study were less-likely to die than those in the control group; however, because of the sample sizes (about 250 in each group) and the magnitude of the effect, the statistical p-value for the effect was less than 0.95, which is the (somewhat arbitrary) value generally accepted as specifying statistical significance. Based on that detail, the authors could say ivermectin was not effective (essentially appealing to a statistical distinction).
However, since ivermectin (properly prescribed) is for all intents and purposes harmless, it’s hard to see why any reasonable person faced with a loved one dealing with serious Covid, should have any hesitation about treating them with ivermectin, since there is some experimental evidence it can be efficacious, even if that evidence (in this study) does not achieve someone’s desired level of statistical significance.
It does not violate “First, do no harm.”...............
[[But no statistical certainty, either.]]
there is a huge meta study which shows ivermectin working all over the world- There is now enough anecdotal evidence as well to support the idea that it very likely will help- but at worst- will do nothing- oh well, if not- at least i will have given it my all to try to combat it by taking ivermectin along with conventional treatment if i end up in hospital- you can bet I’m going in with several doses already in me before i do go-
There is no downside, (only 2 peopel a year actually die from ivermectin- and who knows why? Wrong brand of horse paste taken? Taking too much?), and only an upside IF it shoudl work, and many studies and trials suggest it does- good enoug for me to use it to hedge my bets some-
This was circulated about a week ago. The study was for ivermectin efficacy on disease progression. Substance did it’s usual pretzel logic snd tries to turn this into a comparison with the vaccines. It is invalid as it is not part of the study.
You are correct. The study shows that ivermectin fails to prevent progression of disease. The vaccine angle is SK and sun stack 💩
But you will now be excoriated by those choose not to believe plain English in the conclusion.
Wuhan,,,
What’s That?
The only problem is getting it. I’ve seen it for as much as $200/bottle, that in most parts of the world costs $10 or less.
Supply and Demand..............
do you think it is so high because of the risk? from the government and the professional associations and licensing boards?
Pretty hard to believe all the Real Studies that were known in March 2020 regarding Ivermectin, are actually still valid and being reaffirmed...
NUREMBERG II
Lots of Rope!
Long been known, I mean geez, they cancelled a number of doctors that indicated such a few years back......go figure.
# do you think it is so high because of the risk? from the government and the professional associations and licensing boards?
Partly. Some of it is just profiteering. Frankly, I’m seriously considering asking if one of the guys I work with, who is in India can just buy me a few bottles and ship them to me. I’d pay him twice what he pays, and it would still be reasonable.
# Supply and Demand..............
And massive government interference. This is not the market working at all.
Three salient points:
1) Only 3 ivermectin patients died, compared to 10 control patients.
2) 52 ivermectin patients progressed to severe disease, compared to 43 control patients.
3) Death is objective; “progressing to severe disease” is subjective.
4) For God knows what reason, doctors knew who were on ivermectin and who were not, inviting biases.
On the topic of #3, only 8 control patients were EVER admitted to ICU. Doctors were so reluctant to put control patients on ICU that at a minimum, only doomed control patients were ever sent to ICU, and even then, two died without ever going to ICU. This shows extreme, almost homicidal subjectivity; we’re scoring treatment effectiveness based on doctor’s willingness to escalate treatment, and doctors know who are the control patients, and show an extreme, almost psychopathic refusal to escalate control patients.
VERDIT: Claims that this study SUPPORTS ivermectin are unsupported, but claims by NEJM that this disproves ivermectin’s effectiveness are murderously unfounded.
Silly me... 3a and 3b became 3 and 4, and I left the label, “three salient points.” Yes, I know how to count, evidence notwithstanding.
Makes sense
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.