This thread was deleted by a volunteer moderator. I certainly don't want a thread this big deleted so I've restored. THat being said, this thread has served it's purpose. I've closed it to new posts.
We have a new 2024 vaccine thread here. New people don't need to try to wade through 20,000 posts to figure out what is going on.
It's insane. There have been 3 or 4 large clinical trials showing no benefit for IVM. The acolytes still pretend like the handful of non-fraudulent smaller, poor quality, earlier studies somehow supersede this new data?
If it's not too much to ask, could you post a link to a couple of these studies? I'll read them.
The NIH Covid Treatment Guidelines document has a summary page (or more) on every treatment that has been reviewed. Each has a list of supporting references.
The invermectin article includes a summary table of the studies they've looked at with links to each study report here:
CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky admitted health officials relied too heavily on vaccines as a “cure-all” of sorts for COVID + said vaccine makers didn’t warn the agency that the vaccines would be less effective against potential variants.https://t.co/QCBwcURqpr
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) March 8, 2022
(Reuters) - The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 966,575 deaths from COVID-19 on Friday after it corrected the data earlier this week, which reduced the death tallies in all age-groups, including children.
The health agency, in a statement to Reuters, said it made adjustments to its COVID Data Tracker's mortality data on March 14 because its algorithm was accidentally counting deaths that were not COVID-19-related.
The adjustment resulted in removal of 72,277 deaths previously reported across 26 states, including 416 pediatric deaths, CDC said.
The reduction cut the CDC's estimate of deaths in children by 24% to 1,341 as of March 18.
The health agency, in a statement to Reuters, said it made adjustments to its COVID Data Tracker's mortality data on March 14 because its algorithm was accidentally counting deaths that were not COVID-19-related. The adjustme...
Dr. Jane Ruby said Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky is now trying to cover up her lies. According to the physician and author, the CDC is among the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) c...
Attorney Thomas Renz, who publicized data from the Department of Defense showing a significant rise in serious illness and injury in military personnel following the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines in 2021, has issued a special...
If it's not too much to ask, could you post a link to a couple of these studies? I'll read them.
The NIH Covid Treatment Guidelines document has a summary page (or more) on every treatment that has been reviewed. Each has a list of supporting references.
The invermectin article includes a summary table of the studies they've looked at with links to each study report here:
Thanks. I looked at the seven studies just on this page. I noticed this comment about the table.
The Panel has reviewed other clinical studies of IVM for the treatment of COVID-19.1-25 However, those studies have limitations that make them less definitive and informative than the studies discussed below. The studies summarized below are the randomized controlled trials that have had the greatest impact on the Panel’s recommendations.
Thus, these are seven VERY important studies.
The FLCCC protocol prescribes Ivermectin at first diagnosis for 5 days or recovery.
All but one study failed to meet this simple criteria. I'll address it last. First, here are the problems, in my opinion, with these six studies.
26. Only 2 doses
28. Control used HCQ!
29. Only 2 doses. Curiously, there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but they weren't considered significant. Not sure why. I didn't read the rest.
30. Only 1 dose
31. One 3 doses and only after hospitalization.
32. Only 1 dose
Not a single one of these studies looked at a protocol that doctors in the field claim show success.
That leaves study 27. It continued IVM for 5 days and then stopped and tracked subjects to resolution. I don't understand why this study is even included. Whether symptoms resolve in 10 days (IVM) or 12 days (placebo) is irrelevant. Who cares if fever continues an extra couple of days! What about hospitalization? What about deaths? This was a young healthy population so you would expect these numbers to be low and they were... but puzzling
As best I can tell, the results were...
IVM
Hospitalizations: 4
Deaths: 0
Placebo
Hospitalizations: 7
Deaths: 1
In the one study that used something reasonably close to the FLCCC protocol, IVM produced 43% fewer hospitalizations and reduced deaths by 100%.
Can you see why I'm skeptical? The "best" studies come woefully short of testing a protocol that doctors on the front line have observed to work.
I take great pleasure when good is winning and repulsive liars are sent home fumbling for words, skirting around simple questions, and plain getting embarrassed.
Ah yes it's pretty obvious to anyone capable of critical thinking and paying attention that Fauci will suddenly announce he's "retired" when the heat in the kitchen gets real hot on him and his self serving time in the limelight. He fails to take accountability. He will run and hide. His time is certainly limited.
Here is your post where you linked some bag article.I proved all the players played in this years tournament,unless the Aussie open organisers made up their results.
Just for when Unkle Carmine decides to be a man and make an appearance again.
After being disappointed in the seven studies used by the panel to reject IVM, I went back and reread this...
The Panel has reviewed other clinical studies of IVM for the treatment of COVID-19.1-25 However, those studies have limitations that make them less definitive and informative than the studies discussed below.
So I decided to look at those other 25 studies. So far, I've looked at 15 of the 25. How in the world did they make the cut to even be in front of this panel? Some used a single dose. Some were observational. The only "trend" I saw cumulatively was that if you were in the IVM group, you had less risk of dying, but there were so few deaths it wasn't definitive.
Surely, there are more than 7 good studies on IVM! Here's the list.
Can someone who is pro-IVM give a study that supports it? The McGill study by Mill would be a good anti-IVM if it had actually given IVM to subjects for more than three days.
For those who wonder why I've been harping on FIVE days or until recovery, I'd like to share this story.
Albert Alexander cut himself while shaving and developed blood poisoning. The illness didn't respond to medications and finally progressed to the point that nothing could be done. Albert was declared terminal.
But a rogue doctor urged the hospital to allow him to try an experimental drug. In 24 hours, Albert's fever had started down. He continued to improve, but his doctor ran out of the experimental drug on day five. The infection resurged and Albert died one month later.
If the drug had been IVM, a panel of "experts" would have declared that it didn't work.
Fortunately, Albert's doctor saw that the problem wasn't that the drug failed, it was that the drug wasn't continued until recovery.
The date was 1937. The rogue doctor was Howard Florey. The drug was penicillin.
----
The morale is that you have to determine dosage and protocols. FLCCC doctors have determined the likely dosage and protocol... 5 days or until recovery. Why isn't this being tested?
More good news about the high effectiveness of the MRNA vaccines, although there is some detail that shows the vaccines do wear off.
As omicron became the dominant variant, the vaccine was 79 percent effective in preventing ventilation or death for people who received the initial series of two doses. The benefit was even greater for people who received a booster shot: During that same time period, the vaccine was 94 percent effective for those people.
...
Unvaccinated people in January were 21 times more likely to die than people who got a booster shot
While protection against mild illness waned over time, the mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech provided a robust shield against the worst outcomes.
The "vaccines" have been available since December 2020. At that time, if you were told that in March 2022, 15 months later, the pharmaceutical companies would announce that a FOURTH dose would be required, what would you have thought ?
A fourth dose may be needed to protect against severe illness among certain groups, such as older adults, though it's still too early to tell, scientists say.
