Posted on 09/10/2022 9:49:07 AM PDT by Twotone
A new peer-reviewed study found that regular use of ivermectin reduced the risk of dying from COVID-19 by 92%.
The large study was conducted by Flávio A. Cadegiani, MD, MSc, PhD. Cadegiani is a board-certified endocrinologist with a master's degree and doctorate degree in clinical endocrinology.
The peer-reviewed study was published on Wednesday by the online medical journal Cureus. The study was conducted on a strictly controlled population of 88,012 people from the city of Itajaí in Brazil.
Individuals who used ivermectin as prophylaxis or took the medication before being infected by COVID experienced significant reductions in death and hospitalization.
According to the study, those who took ivermectin regularly had a 92% reduction in their COVID death risk compared to non-users and 84% less than irregular users.
"The hospitalization rate was reduced by 100% in regular users compared to both irregular users and non-users," the study stated.
The impressive reduction for regular ivermectin users was evident despite the regular users being at a higher risk for COVID deaths. The regular users were older and had a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes and hypertension than irregular and non-users.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Naw, some other dude was asking about your opinion on something. You hadn’t responded yet so I took some liberty.
Hope you enjoyed the game, although football is certainly not in the common sense 101 syllabus.
We mixed the paste with applesauce. No residual taste at all.
Define late stages
What were the markers if inflammation
I’ll take you at your word as to you have used it on 30 people. If you had that data I would assume a publication forthcoming.
First. The journal. It is not peer-reviewed. Here is the exact statement as to the journal and what it does from the journal website itself: Cureus is a signer of DORA – the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment – and does not promote the use of journal impact factors. We instead use article-level metrics such as reads, downloads and citations. Cureus also encourages all readers to submit an SIQ (Scholarly Impact Quotient) score for each article. SIQ is our unique post-publication rating that assesses article importance and quality by embracing the collective intelligence of the Cureus community-at-large. As such there is no apparent process as to being published and any significant questions on the article are judged by clicks and data generated from open access crowd source funded platform. This is a serious issue with this article.
In terms did the methodology and the study itself. It is only for prophylaxis. It is prospective observational so no blinding no placebo. They played a little fast and loose with exclusions and also excluded those not infected. It is unclear but likely there were a large percentage of asymptomatic immune from infection so there is a question as to the data from that standpoint.
They talk about a chi squared regression plot. It didn’t see it. I may have just missed it but that is important data point. Additionally, there discussion on assignments the variable dose users doesn’t seem all that robust. There are some stretches in this analysis.
Finally the period of analysis did not see a stable disease pattern from the virus and the numbers of cases. The next step would be a RCP doubly blind to see if there is a prophylaxis affect.
As some above on this thread are doing, this study CANNOT be extrapolated to efficacy of acute illness treatment.
You are the biggest quack in America and you have supported Fauxi since the beginning. We followed the Frontline Doctors who have cured thousands with ivermectin. You do realize the CDC is now admitting it works so you may have to change your mind Dr gasbag.
Note you changed cured with used, how Dr Fauxi of you. You have no idea what you are talking about.
We think Ivermectin worked for my husband, who never got COVID. Did not touch my COVID at all, boy was I sick.
Your exact words in post 27 “but it does work well for late stages too”.
So I asked a naturally scientific question in which I accepted that your are actually treating the disease and asked for the data points you are using for late disease. I am further asking what lab testing you have to define it. I am happy to have a factual and data driven conversation. But you respond on who Fauci of me without even bothering to answer the question.
So it appears to me that by your own answer to your own words you are full of crap. It was your words genius. Not mine.
You later state in your own words we have cured 30 people in the late stages some of whom where in the hospital. So of your 30 it appears not all were late stage.
Secondly I asked a simple question. What is late stage. How do you define it in your practice. I know full what what late state really means and my guess is you are equally not quantifying it. How are you testing?
Please instead of insulting me I would love to hear the data points you are using. I would love for you to be correct but clearly by the lack of excitement and urgency by most of the rest of the practice no world your results are either not because of IVM of bear a detailed look at so the word can be spread.
But it appears all you have are insults and innuendo.
Point to single post where I have supported Fauci. And when you site frontline doctors are you speaking of the American Front Line Doctors? A simple yes or no will suffice
By the next morning, I already felt better and by the next day, was, pretty much over it. Had a test done, because I had doctor's appointments coming up and it was Covid.
Ivermectin and the rest of the protocol, seemed to have worked.
You take it with zinc, right?
Cured me and son in 3 hours.
Isn't that like saying it was published in the New York Post and not the New York Times?
The question is whether it legitimately peer-reviewed or not?
-PJ
I have had a cold for a few days and just tested positive for Covid. 64 years old, vaxxed and one booster, on a prophylaxis. I supposed there is nothing they do now. I have some antibiotics squirreled away in case of pneumonia.
Ivermectin is like Glucosomine. It either works or it doesn’t.
If you can get Ivermectin, I’d start taking it. I read that Fenbendazole has similar properties & have started taking it as a prophylactic. The sooner these are used, the better.
Asterisks mine.
The collusion of leftist billionaires to deliberately destroy this country (& everyone in it) is just amazing.
Unreal.
Thx for the ping and links, as always.
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.