25 replies to this topic

[brucekeller]

If you're ever in an argument with someone about ivermectin being a horse dewormer and whatnot, finally a supportive peer reviewed study came out that can back up its effectives in early treatment / as a prophylactic.

https://journals.lww...tment_of.7.aspx

 

There's the link if you want to take a look / save it for someone that blanket says it doesn't work and no trials supported it or whatever the MSM brainwashed them to say. Something that's peer reviewed is pretty much gold, but I'm sure they'll somehow disregard it lol. 

[Waver]

Comparing a preventative approach (covid vaccine) versus a reactionary approach (ivermectin)?

Considering the high rate of non-hospitalization related to the covid vaccine and the idea of having to catch the covid infection early enough and then take ivermectin to prevent the same non-hospitalization rate of the already in the body preventative covid vaccine is comparing apples and oranges.

Preventative is way better than Reactionary.

Also with vaccinated people, since the vaccine is already fighting off the virus from the first minute the virus enters the body, this allows a lower transmission rate.

Covid Vaccine > ivermectin

[OEXCHAOS]

Comparing a preventative approach (covid vaccine) versus a reactionary approach (ivermectin)?

Considering the high rate of non-hospitalization related to the covid vaccine and the idea of having to catch the covid infection early enough and then take ivermectin to prevent the same non-hospitalization rate of the already in the body preventative covid vaccine is comparing apples and oranges.

Preventative is way better than Reactionary.

Also with vaccinated people, since the vaccine is already fighting off the virus from the first minute the virus enters the body, this allows a lower transmission rate.

Covid Vaccine > ivermectin

At 210 days, for the over-50 set, the vaccinated are MORE likely to get symptomatic covid than the unvaccinated. The vaccinated are also less likely to develop robust natural immunity after a breakthrough case.

That's a rapidly diminishing benefit that's looking like a serious detriment.

M

[Waver]

The vaccinated are also less likely to develop robust natural immunity after a breakthrough case.

What is the source?

[cycletimer]

If you're ever in an argument with someone about ivermectin being a horse dewormer and whatnot, finally a supportive peer reviewed study came out that can back up its effectives in early treatment / as a prophylactic.

https://journals.lww...tment_of.7.aspx

 

There's the link if you want to take a look / save it for someone that blanket says it doesn't work and no trials supported it or whatever the MSM brainwashed them to say. Something that's peer reviewed is pretty much gold, but I'm sure they'll somehow disregard it lol. 

We keep a vial of injectable ivermectiin on hand in case either of us become symptomatic.   As a prophylactic prevention we take weekly Hydroxycloroquine.  I guarantee you that our methods will outweigh any benefits of that experimental jab.  It will be very interesting what the longer term consequences of the vaccinated are.  Will there be a "die off?"  Will there be other problems like birth defects, much like the Thalidomide generation of children? Only time will tell.

One thing is for sure, the agencies involved are not the be trusted (CDC, WHO, etc.), and neither is Fauci.  

Ronald Reagan said it best:  

 

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[bigtrader]

 

If you're ever in an argument with someone about ivermectin being a horse dewormer and whatnot, finally a supportive peer reviewed study came out that can back up its effectives in early treatment / as a prophylactic.

https://journals.lww...tment_of.7.aspx

 

There's the link if you want to take a look / save it for someone that blanket says it doesn't work and no trials supported it or whatever the MSM brainwashed them to say. Something that's peer reviewed is pretty much gold, but I'm sure they'll somehow disregard it lol. 

 .  I guarantee you that our methods will outweigh any benefits of that experimental jab.   

 

We now have a written guarantee ,  ya ya ya

[Rogerdodger]

American Journal of Therapeutics. .

 

(Obviously just another quack outfit!)

 

Conclusions:
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

[claire]

 

American Journal of Therapeutics. .

 

(Obviously just another quack outfit!)

 

Conclusions:
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

 

 

 

Many rigorously controlled, peer-reviewed studies and clinical trials have failed to find a positive result for ivermectin for treating Covid. The results of these studies have been reported in the most prestigious Journals here and abroad such as The Lancet, JAMA, NEJM and the Journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases, among others. Their conclusions are the same -- that it is not a viable option to treat Covid 19 patients.

 

In general, most of the ivermectin studies that claim a positive benefit are considered low quality and often with potential sources of bias. 

 

It's only the smaller, lower quality trials that have been positive. It may sound impressive to use the American Journal of Therapeutics as a source, but this publication is NOT held in esteem by the scientific community. In fact, it is listed among representatives of "Opportunistic journals" in Clinical Pharmacology. "Predatory journal" is the customary term for these where profit is made through businesses founded to fill a need for a product or service. Many of these journals accept for publication manuscripts with little or no peer review or even outright falsification of data.

 

Yet, headlines from this publication have gone viral as "evidence" that these findings are more significant than numerous comprehensive well designed studies which have opposite findings. Misinformation abounds. 

[OEXCHAOS]

The vaccinated are also less likely to develop robust natural immunity after a breakthrough case.

What is the source?

I'm looking for the study. Having trouble finding it.

 

M

[OEXCHAOS]

 

 

American Journal of Therapeutics. .

 

(Obviously just another quack outfit!)

 

Conclusions:
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

 

 

 

Many rigorously controlled, peer-reviewed studies and clinical trials have failed to find a positive result for ivermectin for treating Covid. The results of these studies have been reported in the most prestigious Journals here and abroad such as The Lancet, JAMA, NEJM and the Journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases, among others. Their conclusions are the same -- that it is not a viable option to treat Covid 19 patients.

 

In general, most of the ivermectin studies that claim a positive benefit are considered low quality and often with potential sources of bias. 

 

It's only the smaller, lower quality trials that have been positive. It may sound impressive to use the American Journal of Therapeutics as a source, but this publication is NOT held in esteem by the scientific community. In fact, it is listed among representatives of "Opportunistic journals" in Clinical Pharmacology. "Predatory journal" is the customary term for these where profit is made through businesses founded to fill a need for a product or service. Many of these journals accept for publication manuscripts with little or no peer review or even outright falsification of data.

 

Yet, headlines from this publication have gone viral as "evidence" that these findings are more significant than numerous comprehensive well designed studies which have opposite findings. Misinformation abounds. 

 

Many? Really?

How about a couple. Lots of RCT's (the gold standard of science) DO.

Here's a link to EVERY study of ivermectin for covid. Read them yourself.

https://c19ivermectin.com/