Can some resident jabbie deboonk this real quick?

Cheers

Wow, this is the nail in the coffin for jabbies. It was over before it even began. Poor jabbies never had a chance

Who cares if it works or not? Covid is bullchit and if you need to be hospitalized from a basic cold you should probably die off anyway.

yes, yes, but can i send money directly to pfizer so their profits are the same as if i vaxxmaxxed? i really worry about them

We are not horsies, silly

imagine being low iq rapey pat who for months went around calling it horse paste cause the tv told him to

Lol, that's about it too. If the answer to the question "how much work did you put into this thought" is "Someone said it and now I repeat it" you are a lazy piece of garbage and ruining this country.

You've got to go easy on NYPat, he lives in a liberal hellhole. He is dependent on daddy government to stay alive, even if it means slowly destroying his immune system and accepting sodomy with open arms. He knows no other way but to obey and submit.

Can confirm it works. Got rid of a ton of worms too.

Slowest deboonking ever. Where are all the resident vaxcucks hiding?

CTers up 50 to zero.

At this point, if the MSM calls it a conspiracy theory it should be taken as fact.

jabbies on suicide watch

lol at trusting biden and fauci

Despite what the conspiracy theorists tell us, there isn't some nefarious ploy to keep us from a miracle cure. There are hundreds of studies which investigate the effectiveness of Ivermectin against Covid. Here is the pubmed search:


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...9&sort=pubdate

Across all the studies, a trend appears. When the studies are more scientifically rigorous with a larger cohort, the effects are less pronounced. That pattern tends to hold true for medicines which actually aren't that effective.


It's true that some of these larger studies notice some weak effects, but none are touting this as some hidden miracle cure. The conspiratards rant that this is some suppressed miracle cure, but all the big pharma companies have studied in clinical trials, you can see the huge amount of peer-reviewed work on it, and AFAIK there are dozens of ongoing trials for it.


I don't know of any large and systematic trial which has a clinically relevant outcome, like mortality, sickness, recovery etc. There are in vitro effects like lowered virus titer in cell culture and stuff, but you wouldn't even look at these if the treatment is effective. Likewise, you wouldn't need more people in a trial with hundreds of participants to figure out effectivness.


Conclusion? Ivermectin has been given a fair and extensive analysis. The effects are weak and mostly clinically irrelevant.



EDIT: Fixed the link.

vaxcels gon cope.

Globohomo doesn't like it because it doesn't line big pharma's pockets.

More like lefties gonna lefty. When their narrative is under threat they always double down, every single time.

So no word on the particular study in the video that shows Ivermectin as a legitimate prophylactic then?

Completely disregarding the 44% reduction in infection?
Ignoring the 64% reduction in covid mortality?





I didn't ask for your opinion on Ivermectin you disingenuous sanctimonious cuck. I asked you to deboonk this particular study.

Imagine all the grandmas that died because their hospital wouldn't allow a practically free drug that actually worked due to political and financial pressure from big pharma.

Prospective, observational trial. Non-randomized. Brazil. Pre-vaccine.

Also.....in Brazil there's a semi-non-joking possibility of reduced hospitalization/mortality rates in an Ivermectin group due to peoples' parasites being cleared out.

I don't know about BigPharma having any influence, I certainly made my own decisions for my patients based on the data/studies I have, and no Pharm Rep or shill ever approached me about it. I do know Youtube channels covering Ivermectin are a moneymaker though.

Ivermectin is the smoking gun in my opinion.

The fact that pre-pandemic:
- it was legal,
- had been used safely over 4 billion times,
- the man who discovered it won the Nobel Peace prize and
- is on the WHO list of essential medicines

and is now a Schedule 4 banned substance in Australia since March 2020 makes it pretty clear that there is some nefarious stuff going on in the world of public health.

It's good to see Dr Campbell talking about it too, he has been a trusted name throughout the pandemic and has changed his mind in real time as the data has come out. He did a video a few months ago on Ivermectin as an early treatment use and said, "Why can't we have both?" (vaccines and early treatment)

And the seriously disturbing thing is Remdesivir is an approved antiviral treatment for covid instead of Ivermectin.

Remdesivir - 26% death rate for people who take it because it is toxic to the body, has shown none of the positive results from studies that Ivermectin has, it has not been shown as safe or effective (precisely the opposite essentially).

The difference is Remdesivir is under patent and sells for $3000/dose, while Ivermectin is not under patent and is $0.14/dose.

Talk about a narrative collapse lol...Bodhy you are fukn clueless mate, don't know what to tell you. Are you a paid shill posting for Big Pharma on here?

Your patients, as in people who already had covid? As in they came to you because they were already infected/ill from covid? This study looks at Ivermectin as a covid preventative and it foundsignificantly reduced COVID-19infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates. Are you suggesting that the study and its findings are illegitimate, and Ivermectin is useless as a covid prophylactic?

Do you think Ivermectin should be illegal then? It is troubling that there were no early treatments for covid, when an antiviral like Ivermectin would more than likely help to treat covid in its' early stages. Even if it didn't help, there is no damage that can be done from taking it.

It doesn't add up that the whole world was studying covid and there was no early treatment plan for 2 years...just stay home and wait until you're sick enough to go to hospital.

FWIW I don't think there is much money to be made shilling Ivermectin when it is off patent and can be mass produced for <$1 per dose.

According to BOLA because the Pfizer CEO himself didn't approach him and tell him to keep Ivermectin on the dl then no media blackout or concerted smearing of potential early treatment or preventative existing drugs took place

Thought this an interesting article on Ivermectin.

"COVID Care Fiasco: The Hill-Lawrie Video"

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...rie_video.html

excerpt:

Let me tell a story. It details probably the most important event in the suppression of the drug Ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19 a medication that had the potential to have saved many lives.

Dr. Teresa Lawrie is an M.D., and the leader of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, UK. Her incredibly tedious job is to statistically evaluate medical studies and provide data to the National Health Service so that clinicians can decide on therapy guidelines. In Britain, she is been referred to as “the conscience of medicine.”

Andrew Hill M.D., Ph.D. is a virologist and from his bio, a senior visiting Research Fellow in the Pharmacology Department at Liverpool University. He is considered an expert on therapy for HIV/AIDS. He is also a consultant to the World Health Organization. He is considered a very powerful voice who can influence medical practice worldwide.

UNITAID is a not-for-profit organization whose website states that it “connects innovators who develop better health products with people who need them the most.” It is been heavily funded by the Gates Foundation.

Apparently, in late 2020, studies began to accumulate looking at the potential of the drug Ivermectin in the treatment of SARS Co-V2. This antiparasitic agent was also known to have antiviral properties. This attracted the attention of both the WHO and Dr. Lawrie’s organization. The WHO contracted with Dr. Hill to evaluate the data, and independently, the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy took on the same task. This involved performing a meta-analysis. This is a process where studies on a topic are collected and are analyzed for their quality. This includes how rigorous was the method, and the potential for bias. The best studies are pooled and the results analyzed. There are very well-established protocols for this.

Both Dr. Hill and Dr. Lawrie completed separate analyses and the results for both were exciting. There seemed to be a real benefit to using Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. Both concluded that the reduction in deaths could be as much as 60 to 85%. Both were comfortable with the quality of their results. According to Dr. Lawrie, they compared notes and together pledged to push hard for the rapid approval of the drug, given the prevailing pandemic.

In January 2021 Dr. Hill was among the scientists who testified in support of Ivermectin the NIH’s COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel. Subsequently, the NIH changed its recommendation from against the use, to neither for or against the use, the same designation given to convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies, both of which have been subsequently used for COVID. Ivermectin continues to carry that recommendation on the current NIH website.

Then something odd happened. Dr. Hill finally released a preprint of his meta-analysis, with all of his data. But the conclusion of the paper questioned the quality of the data and called for more research. This was obviously an opinion severely at odds with his previous stance. Many people, were taken completely by surprise, most prominently Dr. Lawrie. She arranged for a meeting via Zoom. Here is a link to a documentary that describes these events, and includes a video of the actual meeting. It is completely infuriating.

During the meeting, Dr. Hill admits that people from UNITAID had input on his conclusions. You can observe his demeanor and draw your own conclusions.

Dr. Hill’s promise of continued support never materialized. In fact, he ended up withdrawing his meta-analysis due to accusations that one of the included studies was fraudulent. To my knowledge, that has never been proven. Interestingly, because Dr. Lawrie’s paper included more studies, she was able to remove that same questionable data without affecting the outcome significantly.

Another interesting fact: shortly after all this, Dr. Hill’s parent organization, Liverpool University, received a $40 million grant… from UNITAID. This was to set up the “Centre of Excellence for Long-acting Therapeutics” which would appear to be part of Dr. Hill’s department of Pharmacology. Coincidence?.....

Did you read a single thing I posted? Of course not, you've basically got the CT starter kit here: A shill accusation, "Need to wake up bruh" mentality. Now you just need tinfoil hat and a bowl of chicken nuggets.


I posted dozens and dozens of far more rigorous and well-designed studies showing there just isn't something there. Or, at most, a marginal effect which is not worth the risk of adverse effects. See, the anti-vax crowd have consistently offered up cool stories; poor studies with bad methodology, from obscure parts of the world in predatory journals. I showed this for two other anti-vax papers too. It raises red flags when we keep getting offered these junk science studies and Youtube videos from fringe ideologues; Robert Malone is an example.


There's no conspiracy here. It has significant risks to consider and whilst adverse effects aren't common, if you give it enough people you'll get a problem. Plus, it's an important drug for other reasons and we'd divert it away from those who need it, and that's unethical.

We've got a history of studying HCQ as an anti-viral, it simply doesn't work. This is why I recommend not doing conspiratorial thinking, because you keep looking for simple answers to complex problems. They also make you paranoid and hateful of others who are just trying to find the best answers in this mess too.

You didn't look at the study or watch the video, did you. You just went into your typical ramblings about chit that isn't even relevant to the topic at hand.

Again, this particular study found Ivermectin to be an effective covid prophylactic. There's no "diverting it away from those who need it" either, it's extremely cheap to make and plentiful, you disingenuous degenerate.

If you're going to participate in this thread, respond to this particular study and tell me why it and its findings are illegitimate. That's right, you can't.

This is my opinion on it after doing some admittedly light reading. It's not some supressedCUREfor COVID. Can definitely see it from the persepective of treating certain symptoms that reduce hospitalisation rates, but that's it. The public availbity of it seems to be the issue; people just loading themselves up with it because "it works for COVID" and completely ignoring dosages, contraindictions, etc

It works in studies that use it as an early treatment. It doesn't work if you're already so far gone you are already hospitalised. So Fauci funded studies of it on hospitalised patients and then declared it shouldn't be used for early treatment.

Sounds like your light reading consisted of that viral hoax about the Oklahoma hospital that couldn't treat all their gunshot victims because of all the Ivermectin overdoses.

Correct. And this study went one step further and had people use it strictly as a preventative where it was found to be significantly effective at reducing infection, hospitalization and mortality rates.

When you try and explain the difference to our resident vaxcucks you're met with crickets or more incessant ramblings that completely ignore the point.