"I Don't Know Of A Bigger Story In The World" Right Now Than Ivermectin: NYTimes Best-Selling Author

Discussion in 'Health and Fitness' started by Daal, May 27, 2021.

  1. Daal


    "The scientific evidence was overwhelming, he said. The data from twenty-seven studies, sixteen of them randomized controlled trials, demonstrated, with highly statistically significant, overwhelmingly positive, consistent, and reproducible rates, that people who got sick with COVID-19 were far more likely to quickly get better at home when they took Ivermectin"



    In the new world of medicine, the COVID world, he says, “Only big randomized controlled trials by big pharma/ big academic medical centers are accepted by big journals, while others are rejected,” while only studies in big journals are accepted by big public health agencies for drug recommendations, and only drugs recommended by big public health agencies “escape media/social media censorship.” “is leaves you with a system where the only thing that’s considered to have sufficient evidence or proven efficacy is essentially a big new pharmaceutical drug,” he adds. “If it doesn’t come from the mountaintop, it doesn’t exist,” Kory says. “e people on the ground, we cannot do any more science that’s considered credible. We’re discredited as controversial and as promoting unproven therapies and our Facebook groups are shut down, Twitter accounts are locked, YouTube videos are removed and demonetized. It’s really almost totalitarian what’s happening when we’re just well-meaning scientists trying to do the right thing by our patients.
  2. Daal


    Here is the scientific evidence mentioned

    The fact that millions died because they were prevented from having this information is beyond tragic, its criminal
  3. Pekelo


    I have to agree with Daal, there are news about Covid effective treatments that just never took off, and the majority of people never heard of. And when the standard treatment was : "go home and drink lots of fluids", then pretty much anything is better as long as it doesn't cause harm.

  4. Daal


    No I wouldn't say it. The study you linked provided evidence that IM does indeed work
    "Similarly, the random effect model revealed that adding ivermectin led to significant clinical improvement compared to usual therapy (OR=1.98, 95% CI: 1.11 to 3.53, P=0.02). However, this should be inferred cautiously as the quality of evidence is very low"

    They did add that disclaimer however, the sample size they used on the study added up to 629. Meanwhile, the sources I provided have an total patient count of more 18,000. So it looks like the meta analysis was just lazy and didnt include enough studies. Whether they did that on purpose remains to be seen but the low quality comment should refer more to their work than anything else

    With regards to the other two links, they argue basically from the point of view of 'the government told people not to use it, we need to trust the government', which in face of the statistical evidence presented and the fact that corruption exists should put a pause to that line of thinking. I'm familiar enough with statistics and clinical trials enough to make my own decisions, I dont need the government to tell me what to do
  5. Daal


  6. Daal


    These stats are just amazing


    This is a smoking gun type evidence of the biases in the system
  7. Daal



    Another meta analisys show that Ivermectin is effective at reducing deaths of Covid19

    "We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection."

    "Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion."

    "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. "