447 replies to this topic

[DanCG]

 

How come you are no longer talking about what you believe is the amazing life saving effects of ivermectin in India?

 

Is that because studies in India have shown that ivermectin has little or no effect on COVID?

First, look at the date on this link: September 26, 2021. This old news.

 

From the first post in this forum, we know that some jurisdictions in India endorsed Ivermectin, and some did not. So, it is not surprising that some authoritative body in India at that time would publicly state reasons why they oppose the use of Ivermectin to treat Covid. Similar con and pro documents have been published around the world before and after this one.

 

From the linked article: “Recommending that Ivermectin be dropped from the clinical guidance, experts cited 13 systematic reviews of which “7/13 showed mortality benefit, 4/13 no mortality benefit, 2/13 inconclusive/unclear.””

 

So, there is no claim of any new results from Ivermectin use in India. There is no claim that any of the studies reviewed pertain to data gathered in India at all. They just looked at systematic reviews that existed at the time. i.e., the same data everyone else has looked at with ongoing controversy. Even then, the majority showed a mortality benefit. The logical conclusion from the 7/4/2 breakdown is at worst, inconclusive.

 

The article goes on, apparently recognizing that readers might wonder why the 4 negative and 2 inconclusive studies should outweigh the 7 positive results: “Additionally, there was a high risk of bias in many of the studies, particularly with the ones showing mortality benefit, as the level of certainty is low in them.” It is not clear whether “the studies” refers to the 13 systematic reviews, or the studies that were reviewed therein. Since we do not have access to the original report, we have no idea which studies were deemed to have a high risk of bias, or why. Systematic reviewers have tools to detect risk of bias, but different reviewers still can reach opposite conclusions about particular studies. It seems that a determination of risk of bias can itself carry a risk of bias.

 

We do know that at least one influential systematic review had its conclusions altered by powerful moneyed interests opposed to ivermectin. This was discussed at length in a series of posts in the “COVID treatments debate forum: here, here here and here.

[Hip]

So, there is no claim of any new results from Ivermectin use in India. There is no claim that any of the studies reviewed pertain to data gathered in India at all. They just looked at systematic reviews that existed at the time. i.e., the same data everyone else has looked at with ongoing controversy. Even then, the majority showed a mortality benefit. The logical conclusion from the 7/4/2 breakdown is at worst, inconclusive.

 

The article goes on, apparently recognizing that readers might wonder why the 4 negative and 2 inconclusive studies should outweigh the 7 positive results: “Additionally, there was a high risk of bias in many of the studies, particularly with the ones showing mortality benefit, as the level of certainty is low in them.” It is not clear whether “the studies” refers to the 13 systematic reviews, or the studies that were reviewed therein. Since we do not have access to the original report, we have no idea which studies were deemed to have a high risk of bias, or why. Systematic reviewers have tools to detect risk of bias, but different reviewers still can reach opposite conclusions about particular studies. It seems that a determination of risk of bias can itself carry a risk of bias.

 

We do know that at least one influential systematic review had its conclusions altered by powerful moneyed interests opposed to ivermectin. This was discussed at length in a series of posts in the “COVID treatments debate forum: here, here here and here.

 

There may not be any new studies, but it takes time for existing studies to be thoroughly read and scrutinized, and the study authors contacted where necessary to answer queries.

 

We know that many ivermectin studies, especially the notoriously fraudulent Egyptian one, were allowed to stand for many months without scrutiny.

 

It was only when independent researchers took the time to examine these ivermectin studies in depth that the fake and fraudulent data was found, and the shortcomings in the methodology were uncovered. 

 

Of course the FLCCC, that group of doctors promoting ivermectin for COVID, never did one iota of work to review the studies that they are hyping; none of the errors and frauds found in the ivermectin studies were uncovered by FLCCC.

 

 

 

So there may not be any new studies, but reviews of existing studies take time, and I would guess that once India conducted these reviews, they concluded that ivermectin is not the great life saver that so many uncritical people had touted.

[lancebr]

Ivermectin administration is associated with lower gastrointestinal complications and greater ventilator-free days in ventilated patients with COVID-19: A propensity score analysis

 

 

https://www.scienced...341321X21003603

[Gal220]

Large Brazilian study finds the same improvement as others - when will the lies stop and how many have suffered slow deaths in hospital isolation as a result?

While being exploited with Remdesivir for maximum profits no less, does the US have the most abusive health agencies?

 

 

Another Japanese study concluding soon.

Edited by Gal220, 07 January 2022 - 06:38 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

It will be interesting to see what that Japanese study says. They are a significant 1st world country and that is a good sized study. That result should carry some weight.

 

Unfortunately the study period doesn't end till March and presumably it will take a month or two at least to publish the results. By that time it may be irrelevant, or mostly so.  I think (or  at least have some hope) that Omicron may be the end stages of this pandemic. If so, at least we may get an interesting retrospective verdict on ivermectin.

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 07 January 2022 - 11:07 PM.

[Mind]

Dr. Lawrie thinks millions of lives could have been saved if not for the irrational unscientific (some say political) suppression of information about ivermectin.

[Mind]

Project Veritas has released a trove of military documents indicating that Ivermectin is very effective against coronavirus infection.

 

Some are asking DARPA to confirm or deny these docs (no word yet). It would be odd if the docs are fake, considering Project Veritas' track record is spotless. All of their past reports have been confirmed - 100%. When they have been challenged in court, they have never lost.

[Gal220]

Detailed protocol - Link

 

Recent book - Link

[Mind]

This might be the same study posted earlier, but it was a large study in Brazil confirming substantial benefits from taking Ivermectin.

 

Not a silver bullet for COVID, but benefits none-the-less, as dozens of studies have shown.

 

Considering the substantial benefits, Ivermectin's safety profile, and value price, the scorched-earth rejection of the drug by the CDC, FDA, NIH, etc... is a real black mark in medical history. The censorship of the topic by Google, Twitter, CNN, ABC, Facebook, and others probably led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

 

 

[Mind]

Some of the back-story behind the scorched-earth blackout of Ivermectin as a COVID treatment.

 

Dr Lawrie claims Dr. Hill was forced  - by the WHO - to write a conclusion to his Ivermectin meta-study that dismissed the positive benefits.

[Mind]

Telehealth network of doctors claim near 100% success rate with early treatment of COVID.

 

Sounds great, but I would like to see a real accounting of their patient records. Were all the cases followed-up? Is there a strong selection bias?

[DougClean]

OAN One America News replayed the Sen.Johnson hearings yesterday.. With like 20 doctors on the pannel

I watched the whole thing (5 hours) bottom line...

 

Omicron is now basically a cold gives you a runny nose ( think we had it last weekend)

 

Vaxed people are getting sicker than non vaxed.. Most of the time.

 

Most all of the DR agree that at this point NO ONE SHOULD BE GETTING VAXED the side effects are worse than Omicron.

 

Only 1,000 cases a day of delta were reported last week.

Ivermectin and hydroxy both work very well and steroids should be used after 7 days.

 

Most hospitals are still not treating people correctly and are still using Remdesver. and I quote

 

We could have saved 500,000 people if we would have treated people correctly.

 

Don't take my word for it....

I think they are replaying it again tonight 1-27-2022

 

 

[Mind]

Japanese research indicates Ivermectin shows antiviral activity against coronavirus variants. Not a bombshell really. This has been known for a while - still denied by US Media, of course.

[syr_]

NO ONE SHOULD BE GETTING VAXED the side effects are worse than Omicron.

I hardly doubt 36h of fever were worse than whatever effect Omicron could have had on me.

[bladedmind]

The Brazilian study is now journal-published.  

 

By the way the program was for prophylaxis, NOT treatment.   The prophylaxis results are, quoting from a good journalist account https://rescue.subst...-is-fiercer-now

 

The study found a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate in favor of the group that took ivermectin (3.5% versus 8.2%).

In cases where a participating citizen of Itajaí became ill with COVID-19, they were recommended not to use ivermectin or any other medication in early outpatient treatment. Of those who did become infected, two equal-sized, highly matched groups (one that used ivermectin as a prophylaxis and one that did not) were compared. The regular use of preventative ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (0.8% versus 2.6%), and a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (1.6% versus 3.3%).

 

If you think the effect is weak, recall that the program applied ivermectin only as a prophylactic.  Kory, in a 1/19/2022 webinar to be linked below, opines that stronger results would ensue by continuing ivermectin as a treatment.  

 

Journal article:  Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching

 

The prophylactic regimen was:

The dose and frequency of ivermectin treatment was 0.2 mg/kg/day; i.e., giving one 6 mg tablet for every 30 kg for two consecutive days every 15 days.

Results: Of the 223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered for the study, a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis: 113,845 (71.3%) regular ivermectin users and 45,716 (23.3%) non-users. Of these, 4,311 ivermectin users were infected, among which 4,197 were from the city of Itajaí (3.7% infection rate), and 3,034 non-users (from Itajaí) were infected (6.6% infection rate), with a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.53-0.58; p < 0.0001). Using PSM, two cohorts of 3,034 subjects suffering from COVID-19 infection were compared. The regular use of ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (25 [0.8%] versus 79 [2.6%] among ivermectin non-users; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.49; p < 0.0001). When adjusted for residual variables, reduction in mortality rate was 70% (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.46; p < 0.0001). There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (44 versus 99 hospitalizations among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63; p < 0.0001). After adjustment for residual variables, reduction in hospitalization rate was 67% (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 023-0.66; p < 0.0001).

 

Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

 

Next, Dorian Grey was thrilled that FLCCC added hydroxychloquine to its protocols for Omicron.   Here, Dr. Pierre Kory says that he now treats Omicron with a combo of HCQ and IVM, and for higher risk patients the addition of fluvoxamine.  That's it.  For Omicron he does not have to use second-line agents, whereas for Delta he did in a big way.    Starts at 26:00.

 

https://odysee.com/@...be9fb58ada5725a

 

That's a huge relief for me.  I've painstakingly assembled a suite of Covid-19 meds because my health system is FDA-approved-only (go home and die) treatments.   I was willing to take the risk, but worried about the unpredictable effects of polypharmacy without medical supervisionn. 

 

Finally, Kory is not big on the only monoclonal suited for Omicron, which he says is backed only by a pharmaceutical press release. 

 

For the haters, compare the strength of the Brazil study to the strengths of the studies pushing remdesivir, molnupiravir, and child vaccination. 

Edited by bladedmind, 06 February 2022 - 11:10 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

I am indeed giddy about hydroxychloroquine's resurrection from the grave.  The battle fatigue over the chloroquine wars took its toll in 2020 & when ivermectin came along, it seemed everyone was ready to jump ship to the new option & surrender to HCQ defeat.  

 

As I watched FLCCC promote ever increasing doses & frequency of IVM, I wondered if they might have thrown a baby out with the bathwater.  Now their protocol actually lists HCQ as "Preferred for Omicron".  

 

https://covid19criti...col-ENGLISH.pdf

 

The (HCQ) skepticism Dr Kory speaks of in the FLCCC group comes from Dr Marik, who opined his issue with HCQ was that much of the drug was taken up by red blood cells during the first few days of therapy, and by the time tissue levels reached therapeutic levels, the viral replication phase of disease was likely past its peak.  

 

I AGREE!  

 

You really do need to have the drug on-hand and take it at the first sign of illness for maximum effectiveness.  Even better...  Load up your red cells with prophylaxis when virus is surging in your area.  200mg a couple of times a week is all it takes.  Then, if you fall ill, up your dosage to therapeutic levels (400mg/day + zinc), and you'll get good antiviral tissue levels within a day or so of symptom onset.  

 

I actually followed this protocol myself, & the wife & I came through our Omicron adventure without any morbidity, despite our 65+ age.  

[bladedmind]

And I followed Dorian Grey's lead, taking HCQ prophylaxis (although at a lower dose).   I regularly go to yoga, weight room, etc., but no omicron yet.  

[Daniel Cooper]

And I followed Dorian Grey's lead, taking HCQ prophylaxis (although at a lower dose).   I regularly go to yoga, weight room, etc., but no omicron yet.  

 

Honestly, at this point the omicron variant has become so less severe that I don't think I would take any drug prophylactically. Every drug does after all have side effects. Even the relatively safe ones like HCQ. 

 

I now know more people that have had covid since Christmas - the vast majority of which certainly got the omicron variant - than I knew people that got covid in the 18 prior months of the pandemic. I don't know even one that has been hospitalized, much less died.

 

Contrast that with the 6 people that I knew more or less first hand that died from the previous strains.

 

This is the natural progression of all viral pandemics - the virus should mutate and become more transmissible and less lethal. Every prior viral pandemic in human history has done this and there's no reason this should not be the case with covid.

 

Covid is now both endemic and far less severe. It will likely continue to drift into less severe variants as time goes forward.

 

Time to declare the pandemic over and move on.  Keeping people living in fear when the danger is so significantly diminished is a cruelty.

[bladedmind]

Let me offer an amendment.  Mandates are no longer justified.  Beyond that, people can decide for themselves.  I’m 72 with a comorbidity, there is such a thing as long covid, there is a chance that a new variant can emerge.  Thus, I choose prophylaxis for now.  In that same webinar at 43:00, Kory said about prophylaxis, just “ride out the omircon wave” for another six weeks, and if you see that infection incidence goes way down (from real data and personal experience, ignore newspapers and tv), then discontinue prophylaxis.  Sounds good to me.  And should a menacing variant emerge on the horizon (data, not CNN), then resume. 

[Daniel Cooper]

Let me offer an amendment.  Mandates are no longer justified.  Beyond that, people can decide for themselves.  I’m 72 with a comorbidity, there is such a thing as long covid, there is a chance that a new variant can emerge.  Thus, I choose prophylaxis for now.  In that same webinar at 43:00, Kory said about prophylaxis, just “ride out the omircon wave” for another six weeks, and if you see that infection incidence goes way down (from real data and personal experience, ignore newspapers and tv), then discontinue prophylaxis.  Sounds good to me.  And should a menacing variant emerge on the horizon (data, not CNN), then resume. 

 

I always go with "people can decide for themselves". No argument there. And if you've got comorbidities and age against you then the prophylactic ivermectin might make sense.

 

But we all are going to have to decide what our "exit strategy" is at some point.  At what point do we individually say the pandemic is over and it's time to get on with our lives?

 

The government seems to be reluctant to make that declaration. I recently heard a school board member from some place in CA that was talking about the need to get 2 year olds used to wearing masks so it becomes second nature when they are 3, 4, and 5. Clearly that guy has no plans on declaring the end of the pandemic anytime soon. 

 

I have associates that I feel pretty confident will be wearing masks two years from now no matter what the prevailing conditions are.

 

I'm not saying that the government should declare the end of the pandemic today. But that day is approaching and someone should be making plans for that to happen. 

 

The US federal government seems to be of two minds about this - they like the enhanced control over people and the economy the pandemic has handed them, but they understand that the never ending pandemic is likely to harm them in the upcoming elections. So their rhetoric has taken on a certain schizophrenic tone to it.   

 

Keeping everyone locked down and afraid isn't healthy for individual people and it's not healthy for society as a whole. This pandemic, like all pandemics before it, must end at some point.

[geo12the]

New Ivermectin study here.

[geo12the]

Not sure if it has mentioned here before but an interesting paper from last year here. At the end there is a section titled "Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews" that is definitely worth a read. It discusses FLCCC and ivmmeta.com, two sources frequently cited by folks here:

 

"In this context, two groups are especially worth a mention, the Front Line COVID‐19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) group, which were, to some extent, founded and supported by the same scientists. Both groups and individual group associates conducted various systematic reviews and meta‐analyses, all with conclusions strongly in favour of the effectiveness of ivermectin for treatment and prevention of COVID‐19 (BIRD 2021; Bryant 2021; Kory 2021). Additionally, there is an online and regularly updated analysis of published and emerging trials available (ivmmeta.com), postulating a strong beneficial effect of ivermectin for people with COVID‐19. The website does not provide authorship details, though states the FLCCC and BIRD as its resources. Hill and colleagues published another large systematic review in favour of ivermectin (Hill 2021). Main findings of the reviews and disagreements to our findings are briefly summarized in the following paragraphs."

 

"The website ivmmeta.com provides several meta‐analyses of pooled effects including up to 60 studies. This website shows pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients, and decision‐makers (Garegnani 2021). The analyses are misleading and have several limitations. As described for the other reviews, several ineligible interventions and comparators were pooled. Additionally, different outcomes were pooled and reported as percentage improvement with ivermectin studied in RCTs ranging from 40% improvement when used as late treatment to 83% improvement when used as prophylaxis. However, there is no full prospective protocol available describing the relevant review methodology, and there is no assessment of the risk of bias or the certainty of evidence."

Edited by geo12the, 20 February 2022 - 07:07 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post #171

 

"New Ivermectin study here."

 

The cited study is one that I consider to be of the "garbage" and/or  "designed to fail" variety.

 

The study used "oral ivermectin, 0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days, plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249)". (my emphasis)

 

The dosage recommended by the FLCCC Alliance is as follows:

 

"Ivermectin2: 0.4–0.6 mg/kg per dose (take with or after a meal) — one dose daily, take for 5 days or until
recovered. Use upper dose if: 1) in regions with aggressive variants (e.g. Delta); 2) treatment started on or
after day 5 of symptoms or in pulmonary phase; or 3) multiple comorbidities/risk factors.
and/or Hydroxychloroquine (preferred for Omicron): 200 mg PO twice daily; take for 5 days or until recov-
ered."

 

The study asserts that: "The mean (SD) duration of symptoms at enrollment was 5.1 (1.3) days.". Thus, the dosage used by the study for some fraction of the participants, 0.4 mg/kg body weight, is less than the recommended 0.6 mg/kg for treatment on, or after, day 5 that they should have received (see above FLCCC quote)--i.e., the study, at this point, falls into the "designed to fail" category. The effect of not using correct dosing is unknown, and, therefore, valid conclusions can't be drawn.

 

In addition, the study used participants with "comorbidities"--which comorbidities the authors didn't specify. WTF? (garbage category study)

 

The study conclusion asserts: "The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19."--that is a claim which lies well beyond the scope of their study--the study explicitly states "and comorbidities"--not just those participants "with COVID-19".

 

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 20 February 2022 - 10:58 PM.

[geo12the]

Re: post #171

 

"New Ivermectin study here."

 

The cited study is one that I consider to be of the "garbage" and/or  "designed to fail" variety.

 

The study used "oral ivermectin, 0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days, plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249)". (my emphasis)

 

The dosage recommended by the FLCCC Alliance is as follows:

 

"Ivermectin2: 0.4–0.6 mg/kg per dose (take with or after a meal) — one dose daily, take for 5 days or until
recovered. Use upper dose if: 1) in regions with aggressive variants (e.g. Delta); 2) treatment started on or
after day 5 of symptoms or in pulmonary phase; or 3) multiple comorbidities/risk factors.
and/or Hydroxychloroquine (preferred for Omicron): 200 mg PO twice daily; take for 5 days or until recov-
ered."

 

The study asserts that: "The mean (SD) duration of symptoms at enrollment was 5.1 (1.3) days.". Thus, the dosage used by the study for some fraction of the participants , 0.4 mg/kg body weight, is less than the recommended 0.6 mg/kg for treatment on, or after, day 5 (see above FLCCC quote)--i.e., the study, at this point, falls into the "designed to fail" category. The effect of not using correct dosing is unknown, and, therefore, valid conclusions can't be drawn.

 

In addition, the study used participants with "comorbidities"--which comorbidities the authors didn't specify. WTF? (garbage category study)

 

The study conclusion asserts: "The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19."--that is a claim which lies well beyond the scope of their study--the study explicitly states "and comorbidities"--not just those participants "with COVID-19".

 

I am agnostic about Ivermectin. I have defended it to friends who dismissed it as "horse medicine". I don't pick sides with medical treatments. It's not a football game. I am for whatever works. But I don't agree with your opinion that the study is "designed to fail". The stuff either works or not!!! 0.4 is not that different than 0.6 AND anyway 0.4 is the lower end of what IS recommended by FLCCC. I am highly skeptical that the 0.2 mg/kg extra would magically make it work. 

[joesixpack]

I am agnostic about Ivermectin. I have defended it to friends who dismissed it as "horse medicine". I don't pick sides with medical treatments. It's not a football game. I am for whatever works. But I don't agree with your opinion that the study is "designed to fail". The stuff either works or not!!! 0.4 is not that different than 0.6 AND anyway 0.4 is the lower end of what IS recommended by FLCCC. I am highly skeptical that the 0.2 mg/kg extra would magically make it work. 

 

I do think the dosage matters. The drug was administered after 5 days of symptoms instead of immediately after the onset of symptoms. That is why the study was set up to fail. In addition, it was not given with zinc which is an important part of there protocol. Ivermectin and HDCQ act as ionophores for zinc. (They aid in the absorption of zinc by cells.) It is also supposed to be given with a Z pack. None of the failed studies ever administer Ivermectin according to the published protocol.

 

But that being said, the study authors claim they did not see any difference in Ivermectin group, and the non ivermectin group. They did not conclude that Ivermectin caused any problems either. So why not provide it if the patient wants it?

 

It is interesting that 52% of the total test group were fully vaccinated, yet were still sick with Covid 19, but the Authors did not conclude that the vaccine was ineffective.

[geo12the]

I do think the dosage matters. The drug was administered after 5 days of symptoms instead of immediately after the onset of symptoms. That is why the study was set up to fail. In addition, it was not given with zinc which is an important part of there protocol. Ivermectin and HDCQ act as ionophores for zinc. (They aid in the absorption of zinc by cells.) It is also supposed to be given with a Z pack. None of the failed studies ever administer Ivermectin according to the published protocol.

I am skeptical that combining it with azithromycin and/or zinc will magically make it work but I am willing to be convinced by well controlled studies. But one problem is you can't always change the goal posts ie: "designed to fail because it failed and wasn't conducted how I think it should have been". The vaccine data which I always post here shows the vaccines are saving lives and keeping people out of the hospital and importantly keeping people from dying. There is no such data for Ivermectin. I wish people would stop rooting for medical treatments to work or fail like it was a football game and you have to root for your team. Look at the data.

Edited by geo12the, 02 March 2022 - 11:19 PM.

[Hip]

It is interesting that 52% of the total test group were fully vaccinated, yet were still sick with Covid 19, but the Authors did not conclude that the vaccine was ineffective.

 

Wow, it never ceases to amaze me how people on this forum are incapable of understanding basic science. This simple fact that even if a vaccine reduces cases by a factor of 20, you will still get some vaccinated people getting sick.

Edited by Hip, 03 March 2022 - 06:27 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

SHAZAM!

 

Dr (MD/PhD) Tess Lawrie · Director, The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy drops H-Bomb on Dr Andrew Hill for wussing out on his support for ivermectin he had intended to bring to the WHO, after multi-million Unitaid gift to Hill's Liverpool University.  See her open Letter to Andrew Hill here: 

 

https://www.oraclefi...tertoandrewhill

 

Gotta love the zoom call, where Dr Hill sheepishly wiggles & worms as Dr Lawrie asks him WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED, and he admits he was influenced by Unitaid.  Looks like a teenage kid who's been caught with his pants down; avoiding eye contact, & sliding down and over in his chair as if he's trying to slip out of frame.  PRICELESS!  

 

Dr Marik & Kory provide cameo appearances to rub his nose in the mess he has made.  

 

We live in interesting times!  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 06 March 2022 - 07:10 AM.

[AgeVivo]

Personal case suggesting quite stringly, even if N=1, that ivermectin works :

 

 

Following the Mexican population-wide test that divided covid-related mortality by 3 or 4 I took 6 mg ivermectin after a doubt of any potential sorethroat. I also took vitamin C (1g) and vitamin D (1000 UI first, then I switched to 3000 UI) and zinc (about 20 or 30 mg depending on times).

 

In September 2021 my family and neighbors had covid but not me. I didn't. I know that I did not have covid prior to June 2021, based on antibody testings when getting injected in July, and I tested myself every week in September, and didn't have any symptom either, so it looks like I escaped covid. I was the only one to take this stack (my familly and neighbors let me do but had preferred not to bet on preventive treatments)

 

In January 2022, due to pass-limitations and personal will NOT to support these too-much business-oriented decisions (low-cost treatments strongly discarded, restaurants and transports opened to vaccinated contaminant persons but not to non-vaccinated covid-free persons, etc.), I decided to get omicron instead of having a third dose. I had meals everyday with ill friends in close rooms but I couldn't - possibly because of my stack. I stopped my stack and one week later, while continuing such lunches, I had omicron.

Edited by AgeVivo, 06 March 2022 - 07:24 PM.

[AgeVivo]

Most people abandonned the scientific analysis of hydroxychloroquine +azythromcyine + zinc ("the treatment", below) given how long it was.

Having started I continued, and I think it works as I indicate a few lines below. Probably in the same magnitude as ivermectin.

 

Would it not have been discarded by pharma, I think we would have reduced covid-related deaths by more than two, given the same evolution of covid (delta, omicron). However it is difficult to guess if it would have led to the same evolution of covid of course (the large use of poorly effective vaccines probably accelerated the selection for vaccine-resistant variants in human covid-waves, and perhaps we would still be having delta-like waves; however, waves could have been much less of an issue in terms of dealth-toll and impacts on society: more like common flu)

 

 

The reason for why I think it works is the results from 30k patients hospitalized for covid in 2021 and 2022 in a large hospital (in Marseilles, south of France, very experimented and heavily controlled due on tensions related to HCQ, so it seems extremely unlikely to me that any fraud arises here). Most patients had the treatment among other important care, and they had 5 times less deaths than the patients who "only" had the other important care. Source: (the study limited to 2020 patients is published: https://rcm.imrpress...2-3-1063.shtml)

The comparison was done by fine age groups so this is not a matter of different ages, all were in the same hospital with the same definitions of measures/threshold of disease. The numbers are much greater than in other studies. The only caveat is that the control group was not at all randomized: it is a mix of patients who did not want the treatment (based on the propaganda) or prefered to be part of a natural control group (to serve science) or could not for health reasons. However i) this non-random-control-bias could not explain the mortality ratio of 5 (smoking is the greatest factor in actuarial sciences and shows a mortality factor of 2 maximum) ii) mortality was overall very low in the treatment group and low in the control group (it is like extending the lifespan of long-lived mice: if the control group has a long lifespan and the treatment has very long lifespans it is difficult to argue).

 

 

This said, I guess the hope of those who developped vaccines was that vaccines would do an even greater job that ivermectin, hcq or other treatments. The hope of pharma and investors were/are to develop a new area of health and longevity with the mRNA technology in the future. I was a bit "shocked" by the rejection of ivermectin and hcq and I think that there should be a major project to adjust pharma-incentives to incentivize the reuse of old drugs (it should essentially be a US project, based on the worldwide weight of US-pharma and related overall investors' weight on society) but in the grand scheme of things, it is difficult to fully draw "black or white" lessons.

 

I am indeed giddy about hydroxychloroquine's resurrection from the grave.  The battle fatigue over the chloroquine wars took its toll in 2020 & when ivermectin came along, it seemed everyone was ready to jump ship to the new option & surrender to HCQ defeat.  

 

As I watched FLCCC promote ever increasing doses & frequency of IVM, I wondered if they might have thrown a baby out with the bathwater.  Now their protocol actually lists HCQ as "Preferred for Omicron".  

 

https://covid19criti...col-ENGLISH.pdf

 

The (HCQ) skepticism Dr Kory speaks of in the FLCCC group comes from Dr Marik, who opined his issue with HCQ was that much of the drug was taken up by red blood cells during the first few days of therapy, and by the time tissue levels reached therapeutic levels, the viral replication phase of disease was likely past its peak.  

 

I AGREE!  

 

You really do need to have the drug on-hand and take it at the first sign of illness for maximum effectiveness.  Even better...  Load up your red cells with prophylaxis when virus is surging in your area.  200mg a couple of times a week is all it takes.  Then, if you fall ill, up your dosage to therapeutic levels (400mg/day + zinc), and you'll get good antiviral tissue levels within a day or so of symptom onset.  

 

I actually followed this protocol myself, & the wife & I came through our Omicron adventure without any morbidity, despite our 65+ age.  

 

Edited by AgeVivo, 06 March 2022 - 08:29 PM.