447 replies to this topic

[Mind]

Prior to the media-created COVID panic, Ivermectin was known as a very safe Nobel prize-winning "wonder" drug with known anti-viral and anti-parasitic effects. Some have speculated it might have anti-cancer effects as well.

 

It has also been proven (peer-reviewed) to prevent or reduce hemagglutination - which is one of the problems associated with COVID. This is probably why so many studies showed at least some positive effects with the administration of Ivermectin in treating COVID symptoms.

 

It is a wonder drug, but even if the positive effects in treating COVID were just related to the placebo effect, why not use it? There is essentially no risk in taking it, plus you get the known side benefits of the drug.

 

Some people think that Ivermectin was explored as a treatment for political or non-scientific reasons. This is not the case. There is actual science behind this wonder drug - decades of research.

 

Yet, what happened during the media-created COVID panic? Anyone who suggested using Ivermectin was ruthlessly attacked. Vein-popping rage continues to this day in some media spaces. The use of this safe wonder drug was actually banned in many parts of the world. I still cannot understand this insane reaction to the use of Ivermectin. 

[Hip]

Ivermectin Only Effective for COVID in Areas Where the Worm Strongyloides Stercoralis is Present

 

This has been mentioned before, but it is worth repeating with a large headline to catch the attention of the ivermectin evangelists.

 

After all the hype about ivermectin, it turns out that ivermectin is only an effective treatment for COVID in areas of the world where the parasitic worm Strongyloides stercoralis is present in the soil.

 

Strongyloides is found in the soil in certain tropical and subtropical areas, such as India, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Brazil and Chile. See this map of Strongyloides prevalence (from this paper). People catch Strongyloides by contact with the soil which contains the worm's larvae.  

 

 

This meta analysis ivermectin study found that ivermectin offered NO benefit against COVID mortality in areas where Strongyloides is absent, such as Europe, Australia, Canada and the US. Ivermectin only has a beneficial effect on COVID mortality in countries where the roundworm Strongyloides stercoralis is in the soil. 

 

 

It seems that if you have Strongyloides living in your body (it usually lives in the intestines), this can complicate COVID infection. Ivermectin efficiently kills this parasite, so prevents the complications, and thus reduces COVID mortality. A single oral dose of around 15 mg of ivermectin is enough to eradicate Strongyloides from the body. Ref: here.

 

It's actually the corticosteroids (dexamethasone) used to treat COVID that are the issue: these steroids help prevent the COVID cytokine storm that damages the lungs, but corticosteroids also weaken immunity, which can allow Strongyloides in the gut to multiply and become disseminated throughout the body.

 

So for any hospitalised COVID patient receiving corticosteroid treatment in countries where Strongyloides stercoralis is endemic, ivermectin is a good treatment to prevent the risk of disseminated Strongyloides. But otherwise, the statistics show ivermectin has no benefit for COVID.

 

So there you have it: the meta analysis showed that ivermectin has no benefit in reducing COVID mortality in countries where Strongyloides is absent.   

 

 

 

Having said that, I know some Western long COVID patients who report benefits from taking ivermectin regularly. This benefit is not related to parasitic worms like Strongyloides, as these long COVID patients report that the benefits cease when they stop taking ivermectin (and a single 15 mg dose is enough to kill parasitic worms once and for all). 

 

I speculate that the benefits for long COVID might derive from the fact that ivermectin boosts antibody levels by mechanism linked to T-cells.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hip]

So it turns out that with respect to ivermectin, all the scientists were right:

 

The Western scientists who said there's no evidence ivermectin is useful for COVID were right, in that in Western nations, ivermectin does not help reduce COVID mortality.

 

And the Indian and Brazilian scientists who found evidence of a beneficial effect in their own countries were right too, in that ivermectin is a good treatment for COVID in countries where Strongyloides is endemic.  

 

 

The only people who were wrong were the cynical general public, who believed that ivermectin was being suppressed by some nefarious forces, who were setting up ivermectin studies that were designed to fail. No, the Western ivermectin studies were done properly, but they did not observe benefits because we do not have much Strongyloides in the West. Not because of nefarious manipulation. A lesson to be learned by the general public: science is not as cynical as you have been made to believe by clickbait conspiracy theory media.  

 

 

Edited by Hip, 04 January 2023 - 06:49 PM.

[Mind]

Ivermectin Only Effective for COVID in Areas Where the Worm Strongyloides Stercoralis is Present

 

This has been mentioned before, but it is worth repeating with a large headline to catch the attention of the ivermectin evangelists.

 

After all the hype about ivermectin, it turns out that ivermectin is only an effective treatment for COVID in areas of the world where the parasitic worm Strongyloides stercoralis is present in the soil.

 

Strongyloides is found in the soil in certain tropical and subtropical areas, such as India, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Brazil and Chile. See this map of Strongyloides prevalence (from this paper). People catch Strongyloides by contact with the soil which contains the worm's larvae.  

 

 

This meta analysis ivermectin study found that ivermectin offered NO benefit against COVID mortality in areas where Strongyloides is absent, such as Europe, Australia, Canada and the US. Ivermectin only has a beneficial effect on COVID mortality in countries where the roundworm Strongyloides stercoralis is in the soil. 

 

 

It seems that if you have Strongyloides living in your body (it usually lives in the intestines), this can complicate COVID infection. Ivermectin efficiently kills this parasite, so prevents the complications, and thus reduces COVID mortality. A single oral dose of around 15 mg of ivermectin is enough to eradicate Strongyloides from the body. Ref: here.

 

It's actually the corticosteroids (dexamethasone) used to treat COVID that are the issue: these steroids help prevent the COVID cytokine storm that damages the lungs, but corticosteroids also weaken immunity, which can allow Strongyloides in the gut to multiply and become disseminated throughout the body.

 

So for any hospitalised COVID patient receiving corticosteroid treatment in countries where Strongyloides stercoralis is endemic, ivermectin is a good treatment to prevent the risk of disseminated Strongyloides. But otherwise, the statistics show ivermectin has no benefit for COVID.

 

So there you have it: the meta analysis showed that ivermectin has no benefit in reducing COVID mortality in countries where Strongyloides is absent.   

 

 

 

Having said that, I know some Western long COVID patients who report benefits from taking ivermectin regularly. This benefit is not related to parasitic worms like Strongyloides, as these long COVID patients report that the benefits cease when they stop taking ivermectin (and a single 15 mg dose is enough to kill parasitic worms once and for all). 

 

I speculate that the benefits for long COVID might derive from the fact that ivermectin boosts antibody levels by mechanism linked to T-cells.

 

This was posted earlier. The worm theory is just that - speculation. There is no peer-reviewed research to back it up. As was discussed earlier, even if that was the sole reason for the benefits of Ivermectin in treating COVID, it would still be worth using it. It is safe, cheap, and has many side benefits. Yet, some "scientists" and public "health" bureaucrats thought that they should go on a scorched-earth rampage against the drug. Just think how many lives could have been saved if a more rational approach was taken.

[zorba990]

Parasites seem to run neck and neck with Covid

[Hip]

The worm theory is just that - speculation. 

 

The paper I posted provided good evidence for the theory. It looked at 12 ivermectin studies, and found that this drug only reduced the risk of COVID death in areas where Strongyloides stercoralis is endemic.

 

Furthermore, the paper found that the higher the prevalence of this parasite in an area, the greater the reduction in death that ivermectin afforded. So that's good evidence for the theory that the benefits of ivermectin come from its potent anti-Strongyloides effect.

 

Ivermectin has potent effects against parasitic worms, which it is intended to treat, but no coronavirus antiviral effects in vivo. 

 

All the people who said it was an antiviral for COVID were completely wrong.

 

So the ivermectin story is a bizarre one: it was tested for COVID because some people (incorrectly) believed it might be antiviral. Then by coincidence, it turns out that ivermectin although not an antiviral, still helps COVID in Strongyloides endemic areas, by its ant-parasitic effects. So its benefits were discovered by chance, as a result of the initial mistake of thinking it might be an antiviral. 

Edited by Hip, 05 January 2023 - 04:18 AM.

[joesixpack]

The paper I posted provided good evidence for the theory. It looked a 12 ivermectin studies, and found that this drug only reduce the risk of COVID death in areas where Strongyloides stercoralis is endemic. Furthermore, the study found that the higher the prevalence of this parasite in an area, the greater the reduction in death that ivermectin afforded. So that's good evidence for the theory that the benefits of ivermectin come from its potent anti-Strongyloides effect.

 

Ivermectin has potent effects against parasitic worms, but no antiviral effects in vivo. 

 

All the people who said it was an antiviral for COVID were completely wrong.

 

OK, whatever you say.

[Daniel Cooper]

The paper I posted provided good evidence for the theory. It looked at 12 ivermectin studies, and found that this drug only reduced the risk of COVID death in areas where Strongyloides stercoralis is endemic.

 

 

But aren't these areas fundamentally different than other areas? In areas where parasitic worms are endemic you're going to have a lot of people that are using ivermectin routinely on a semi-chronic basis. As opposed to where I live where the number of people getting ivermectin on a routine basis pre-covid is about as close to zero as one can image.

 

Perhaps it is the fact that a lot of people in these areas are being essentially pre-treated with ivermectin?

 

Did the study address this fact?

 

 

[Hip]

But aren't these areas fundamentally different than other areas? In areas where parasitic worms are endemic you're going to have a lot of people that are using ivermectin routinely on a semi-chronic basis. As opposed to where I live where the number of people getting ivermectin on a routine basis pre-covid is about as close to zero as one can image.

 

Perhaps it is the fact that a lot of people in these areas are being essentially pre-treated with ivermectin?

 

Did the study address this fact?

 

I don't think people take ivermectin on a regular basis in tropical countries, because people are not constantly being infected with helminth worms. These worms are in the soil, but the seroprevalence of Strongyloides in Indians is only 33%, which shows that it does not readily jump from soil to the body all the time. And this seroprevalence also shows that people do not regularly take ivermectin, otherwise there would not be much seroprevalence at all.

 

Most people who have Strongyloides are asymptomatic, so they will not be aware of having Strongyloides. It's only if it starts causing symptoms that they might seek medical help and get an anti-helminth treatment such as ivermectin or thiabendazole. 

 

Anti-helminth treatments are usually very effective, and a single dose is usually at that is needed to eradicate the worm. This is contrast to bacterial infections, that may require a week of antibiotics, and even then the bacteria are not fully eliminated from the body. 

 

So people are not taking ivermectin all the time.

 

 

 

 

As an aside, some of these parasitic worms living in our guts can be beneficial for health. It is speculated that in places such as Africa, where autoimmune diseases and allergies are less prevalent than in the more hygienic West, this is due to the worms. In places like Africa, much of the population have worms of various sorts in their guts.

 

When they live in your gut, these worms modulate the immune system, and tone down the inflammatory responses that can lead to autoimmune diseases and allergies. In fact, deliberate infection with helminth worms is used as an effective treatment for various chronic diseases. 

 

I know of one chronic fatigue syndrome patient, who was a severe bedbound case, who dramatically improved her health and got back to work by infecting her gut with the hookworm Necator americanus.

 

There are some websites which sell Necator americanus, so it is easy to get hold of this treatment. If you have an autoimmune disease, it is worth looking into. This is known as helminth therapy, if you want to look it up. 

Edited by Hip, 05 January 2023 - 03:32 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

But a sizable segment of the population may currently or recently be undergoing treatment with ivermectin. Is there any data on what percentage of the population might be taking this drug for reasons other than covid at any given moment?

 

That would be the sort of thing I'd want to quantify if I were writing that paper.

 

 

[Hip]

But a sizable segment of the population may currently or recently be undergoing treatment with ivermectin. 

 

I don't know how often ivermectin is given in India, but when it is given, it is just a one-off single dose, because that is usually all that is needed to kill the intestinal helminth parasites. 

 

So as far as I am aware, people would not be on ivermectin for long periods for parasite control. If they have parasites, they will get a single dose.

 

 

 

However, I just discovered that there is a new use for ivermectin being considered, as a malaria prophylactic. This paper says ivermectin doses given one a month during the malaria season can fight the malaria parasite. But I don't know if places like India and Brazil have started using ivermectin as a malaria prophylactic.

[Daniel Cooper]

And btw - just to put my position on ivermectin out there - I don't really have one.

 

When the pandemic hit I procured some ivermectin for injection just because if it did pan out as a treatment at a later point I assumed that I probably wouldn't be able to get it. I put it on the shelf and didn't think about it too much. When I actually got covid back in early August, I never touched it because I just never got that sick. It was like a significant cold that did leave me more tired that usual but I never felt I was in any danger health wise.

 

If I felt like I was moving towards a more serious illness I probably would have tried it because it doesn't seem like a high risk treatment provided that you are using an appropriate dose.

 

 

[Mind]

Interesting to see the FDA run and hide from their anit-ivermectin stance. It was the FDA's over-the-top stern recommendations against IVM that gave ammunition to States and Medical Boards to start threatening doctors and other health practitioners. Now those doctors are suing the federal government - good. I hope they win. A lot of people at the FDA need to be fired. For its part - the government's defense is "technically" we never banned the drug.

 

 

[Daniel Cooper]

Interesting to see the FDA run and hide from their anit-ivermectin stance. It was the FDA's over-the-top stern recommendations against IVM that gave ammunition to States and Medical Boards to start threatening doctors and other health practitioners. Now those doctors are suing the federal government - good. I hope they win. A lot of people at the FDA need to be fired. For its part - the government's defense is "technically" we never banned the drug.

 

The medical establishment - particularly the government medical bureaucracy - really burned down a lot of public trust and goodwill over this pandemic. The politicization that occurred from the very start. The lies and half truths that were told "for the public's own good".

 

I hope if we are so unfortunate as to suffer a similar global health crisis in the future they will remember how this one played out and what the longer term implications for the public's perception of them were. The medical establishment will not soon recover the trust that they so easily burned in the last few years.

 

Yes, there is blame to go around for many parties. But lies and half truths are the oxygen that feed conspiracy theories. Those that would sit back and console themselves that everything that went wrong was all the fault of the ignorant public need to step back and take a good hard look in the mirror.

[Mind]

A bit different Ivermectin study here - Ivermectin administration led to a 72% reduction COVID infections. n=399, conducted in Bulgaria, overseen by a scientific committee from the U.S.

[geo12the]

Ivermectin Only Effective for COVID in Areas Where the Worm Strongyloides Stercoralis is Present

 

This has been mentioned before, but it is worth repeating with a large headline to catch the attention of the ivermectin evangelists.

 

After all the hype about ivermectin, it turns out that ivermectin is only an effective treatment for COVID in areas of the world where the parasitic worm Strongyloides stercoralis is present in the soil.

 

Strongyloides is found in the soil in certain tropical and subtropical areas, such as India, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Brazil and Chile. See this map of Strongyloides prevalence (from this paper). People catch Strongyloides by contact with the soil which contains the worm's larvae.  

 

 

This meta analysis ivermectin study found that ivermectin offered NO benefit against COVID mortality in areas where Strongyloides is absent, such as Europe, Australia, Canada and the US. Ivermectin only has a beneficial effect on COVID mortality in countries where the roundworm Strongyloides stercoralis is in the soil. 

 

 

It seems that if you have Strongyloides living in your body (it usually lives in the intestines), this can complicate COVID infection. Ivermectin efficiently kills this parasite, so prevents the complications, and thus reduces COVID mortality. A single oral dose of around 15 mg of ivermectin is enough to eradicate Strongyloides from the body. Ref: here.

 

It's actually the corticosteroids (dexamethasone) used to treat COVID that are the issue: these steroids help prevent the COVID cytokine storm that damages the lungs, but corticosteroids also weaken immunity, which can allow Strongyloides in the gut to multiply and become disseminated throughout the body.

 

So for any hospitalised COVID patient receiving corticosteroid treatment in countries where Strongyloides stercoralis is endemic, ivermectin is a good treatment to prevent the risk of disseminated Strongyloides. But otherwise, the statistics show ivermectin has no benefit for COVID.

 

So there you have it: the meta analysis showed that ivermectin has no benefit in reducing COVID mortality in countries where Strongyloides is absent.   

 

 

 

Having said that, I know some Western long COVID patients who report benefits from taking ivermectin regularly. This benefit is not related to parasitic worms like Strongyloides, as these long COVID patients report that the benefits cease when they stop taking ivermectin (and a single 15 mg dose is enough to kill parasitic worms once and for all). 

 

I speculate that the benefits for long COVID might derive from the fact that ivermectin boosts antibody levels by mechanism linked to T-cells.

 

I always believed that there was interaction of the reported COVID benefits of Ivermectin and parasites  and I speculated about it here a while ago but I can't find my post because it's difficult to search old posts here. 

[geo12the]

Hot off the press:

 

Ivermectin for COVID-19: The 2022 Update

Manu, Peter MD

 

"The trials published in 2022 were performed in 3 continents (North America, South America and Asia) and involved 2,425 patients treated with ivermectin and 2,368 patients who received placebo. The severity spectrum of COVID-19 infection was wide, and included asymptomatic persons, outpatients and hospitalized patients with mild-to moderate severity, as well as individuals with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonias. None of these trials indicated that ivermectin was better than placebo regarding mortality and frequency of severe presentations of the infection. Ivermectin is not effective and should not be prescribed for acute COVID-19 infection."

 

 

[Mind]

Another bad thing that has come out of the all out war against Ivermectin and any alternative treatments for COVID is that the FDA is now trying to BAN off-label drug prescriptions. A lot of bio-hackers use this avenue to acquire beneficial drugs.

 

For all of those who felt the COVID response was more about control than "public health", they now have more evidence.

[Mind]

Results from the Saive trial are in and a statistically robust positive result for the administration of Ivermectin against COVID was found.

 

This very large trial adds to the long list of positive RCT trials and observational evidence that Ivermectin is efficacious against COVID.

 

As noted earlier in this discussion, even the 2 RCT trials that did not show a statistically relevant result did clearly show a signal of benefit with the use of Ivermectin.

 

None of the trials showed any significant negative effects with the use of Ivermectin. It is an incredibly safe Nobel Prize-winning drug and it has been used for decades.

 

Yet at one point the FDA tried to convince everyone it was literally poison and no one should ever take it. The US media and FDA caused a lot of unnecessary deaths with their unscientific attack on Ivermectin.

[Dorian Grey]

A little heads-UP to some excellent commentary with Bret Weinstein & Dr Pierre Kory, who's promoting his book "The War on Ivermectin".  

 

I'm a hydroxychloroquine guy myself, but I went out & bought the book just because I admire Dr Kory's work (& FLCCC does admit HCQ is likely best for omicron).  

 

The interview has been broken up into 4 parts so far, with perhaps more to come.  

 

Look Here:  https://www.youtube....astClips/videos

 

 

 

 

https://youtu.be/KVkjwnWFBtI

 

----------------

 

The "Fraud in Ivermectin Trial" (last in list here, which for some reason doesn't generate a thumbnail) was impressive, as I didn't know a huge RCT endpoint was altered mid-course to avoid showing benefit, & this sailed to publication in the AMA Journal.  

 

We live in interesting times!  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 05 July 2023 - 05:24 AM.

[Mind]

 

 

----------------

 

The "Fraud in Ivermectin Trial" (last in list here, which for some reason doesn't generate a thumbnail) was impressive, as I didn't know a huge RCT endpoint was altered mid-course to avoid showing benefit, & this sailed to publication in the AMA Journal.  

 

We live in interesting times! 

 

 

As more court case discovery comes to light more FOIA requests are fulfilled, as more COVID "research" is retracted, it should become blindingly obvious that thew US/UK health establishment is unethical and incompetent. Why does anyone believe anything the CDC of the FDA says about COVID or COVID treatments? How many lies does it take before you demand better leadership? Following CDC guidance is a roll of the dice with your life.

 

Even weather research related to the spread of COVID is being retracted. It was shoddy, rushed, and now retracted- just like the mask studies - just like the Pfizer trial for the mRNA injection (well documented).

Edited by Mind, 05 July 2023 - 05:57 PM.

[Hip]

 Why does anyone believe anything the CDC of the FDA says about COVID or COVID treatments? How many lies does it take before you demand better leadership?

 

Complete nonsense. Where is the evidence for this statement?

 

Can you give an example of where health authorities have made a scientific statement about the COVID pandemic that was untrue, in relation to the best knowledge available at the time of the statement? Any example?

 

I don't mean an example where in retrospect, with the hindsight of later-discovered information, something which was believed correct at the time later turned out to be false. 

 

I mean an example where health authorities had solid evidence something was true at the time, and then at the time, told the public it was false, thus deliberately misleading the public.

 

Can you give any example?

Edited by Hip, 05 July 2023 - 07:30 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Complete nonsense. Where is the evidence for this statement?

 

Can you give an example of where health authorities have made a scientific statement about the COVID pandemic that was untrue, in relation to the best knowledge available at the time of the statement? Any example?

 

I don't mean an example where in retrospect, with the hindsight of later-discovered information, something which was believed correct at the time later turned out to be false. 

 

I mean an example where health authorities had solid evidence something was true at the time, and then at the time, told the public it was false, thus deliberately misleading the public.

 

Can you give any example?

 

They justified coercion & mandates for vaccines as the only way to end the pandemic, as they said the vaccines would halt transmission.  They knew all along spread from those in vaccine safety trials to family members had occurred, & thus vaccines were not stopping transmission.  

 

Deceit: "the action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth."  

[Dorian Grey]

Complete nonsense. Where is the evidence for this statement?

 

Can you give an example of where health authorities have made a scientific statement about the COVID pandemic that was untrue, in relation to the best knowledge available at the time of the statement? Any example?

 

I don't mean an example where in retrospect, with the hindsight of later-discovered information, something which was believed correct at the time later turned out to be false. 

 

I mean an example where health authorities had solid evidence something was true at the time, and then at the time, told the public it was false, thus deliberately misleading the public.

 

Can you give any example?

 

They said family practitioners weren't smart enough to know if traditionally safe (sold over the counter in many countries) repurposed drugs might be safe for their patients to try, & therefore, any and all major trials of repurposed drugs would be done only on hospitalized patients.  

 

A  quarter century experience with Tamiflu has taught us time is of the essence, when treating fast moving respiratory viral infections.  The hospitalized trials were designed to fail before the first patient received their med.  

 

When it came time to test Paxlovid, they suddenly re-remembered...  Oh yea, better treat early if we want this to have a chance at working.  

 

Deceit: "the action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth."  

[Dorian Grey]

Complete nonsense. Where is the evidence for this statement?

 

Can you give an example of where health authorities have made a scientific statement about the COVID pandemic that was untrue, in relation to the best knowledge available at the time of the statement? Any example?

 

I don't mean an example where in retrospect, with the hindsight of later-discovered information, something which was believed correct at the time later turned out to be false. 

 

I mean an example where health authorities had solid evidence something was true at the time, and then at the time, told the public it was false, thus deliberately misleading the public.

 

Can you give any example?

 

They had the audacity to proclaim remdesivir a pandemic "game changer", despite the fact it would not prevent hospitalization (as it was only given to hospitalized patients at the time) or death (as it has no effect on mortality when given to hospitalized patients).  

 

We were told we didn't need to fool around with hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonide, anticoagulants, Vitamin-D or Zinc, as we had an effective treatment (remdesivir), that made all other potential therapeutics redundant until proven effective on hospitalized patients, that were already largely beyond help.  

 

Deceit: "the action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth."  

[gamesguru]

Can you give an example of where health authorities have made a scientific statement about the COVID pandemic that was untrue, in relation to the best knowledge available at the time of the statement? Any example?

 

I think there's a tendency sometimes to think black and white, and hold officials to something they said very early on (which they soon after retracted).

 

Here's a video from July 31st, 2021. Almost 2 years ago from this post.

 

He explains in the first two minutes that the vaccine doesn't totally stop infection, although it does reduce the likelihood & severity.

He also explains it doesn't totally stop transmission, although it does reduce the viral load (and likely the transmission rate).

 

[Dorian Grey]

We were all jabbed, boosted, masked and distanced to the MAX when omicron circled the globe in less than 100 days. 

 

Major fail all around, yet some still believe the government interventions had substantial value.  

[Hip]

They justified coercion & mandates for vaccines as the only way to end the pandemic, as they said the vaccines would halt transmission.  They knew all along spread from those in vaccine safety trials to family members had occurred, & thus vaccines were not stopping transmission.  

 

I think you will find that the authorities made no assertions about the COVID vaccines being able to stop transmission. This is because the initial clinical trials never actually tested whether they could reduce transmission. The clinical trials only tested to see whether the vaccines could reduce hospitalisation and death from COVID. 

 

The authorities did however express hope that the vaccines would reduce or prevent transmission. As it turned out, the vaccines were not powerful enough to halt transmission, sadly, but they have been shown to at least reduce transmission. 

 

One study showed that one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine reduces household transmission by up to half.

[Hip]

The hospitalized trials were designed to fail before the first patient received their med. 

 

That is a huge statement you are making: that clinical trials were deliberately and fraudulently set up to show a false result. 

 

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim of this fraudulence?

[Hip]

He explains in the first two minutes that the vaccine doesn't totally stop infection, although it does reduce the likelihood & severity.

 

That is a completely correct statement: the COVID vaccines do not entirely prevent infection, but they do reduce the chances of transmission of the virus, and they due reduce COVID illness severity. 

 

So Anthony Fauci has not said anything incorrect; everything he says is factually correct.