Fraud is almost always preceded by a motive which, if successful, gives the fraudulent party a benefit; and generally weighed against the risk of being caught.
A positive Ivermectin study provides the fraudulent researcher with:
1. $0 as the drug is generic
2. Character assassination, slander, defunding of research, firing from position.
I am waiting to hear someone provide even the slightest motivation for submitting a fraudulent positive Ivermectin paper - you still get 1 and 2, plus your a fraud.
On the other hand, the vaccine cartel would pay handsomely for both negative and “obviously fraudulent” studies as both are used to discredit the single most efficacious drug for treatment of any ailment, in the history of evidence based medicine.
Centuries of precedent proves motive is fundamental to any accusation of fraud or crime.
And I don’t think “a completely unrelated evil band of 1000’s of Doctors and Researches with impeccable records, hell bent on preventing the benevolent vaccine-cartels from cashing in on society” cuts it.
You nailed it. The people I tend to argue against see their analysis as data-driven. I don't dispute this. It's just that I tend to see my analysis as incentive-driven. After all, it was people who put out the data, and if we don't understand the provenance of our data, we are driven insane.
Excellent points. Since applying inconsistent levels of scrutiny and rigor is the standard rhetorical approach of issue partisans like GidMK, I'm much more interested in hearing about *conflicts of interest*.
To that end, serving as an aggressive Defender of the Moneyed Interests as these academic no-names have done is a career accelerant while advocating against the Moneyed Interests is career suicide.
That's interesting. Funny that my pre-covid bias here would be that the claims against Roundup are unfounded or overblown. Now I need to assume the worst.
To steelman the case for fraud of some sort; you might argue that researcher are simply conditioned through decades of training to be relentless paper-acceptance-maximizers, of a ferocity that would put paperclip-maximizers to shame. Its nothing specific to IVM or its incentives; but furiously copy-pasting data around between excel sheets without a data trail until a significant result comes out is just what they do.
I think there is significant truth to that model and I would expect a good double digit percentage of any 'peer reviewed' studies to be the product of that process; but it is of course a very general point that is no more or less true for IVM than say, aspirin.
It is indeed the emergence of a signal from 1000s of completely independent researchers, working across the globe, which guards against the groupthink or commercial incentives that so easily capture many other controversies driven by a few large studies.
Almost all of the large-scale ivermectin RCTs were obviously DESIGNED TO FAIL by doing most or all of the following:
1. enrolling low-risk patients who didn’t need ivermectin to begin with
2. delaying the ivermectin until almost a week after symptoms started
3. not giving the ivermectin with food to optimize absorption
4. not combining the ivermectin with other agents that are usually used in conjunction with it (even Paxlovid, which reduced COVID deaths from 13 to 0 in its RCT, is a COMBINATION drug)
5. stopping the ivermectin after just 3 days or so of treatment
After all this, of course those large-scale ($$$) RCTs conveniently found "no significant effect” of ivermectin. But even though many RCTs were designed to fail, the average effect in all published RCTs was that ivermectin prevented about 1 in 3 COVID deaths: https://c19ivm.org/meta.html#fig_fprd.
So actually, yes, the ivermectin literature IS particularly fraudulent: it is full of RCTs that were deliberately set up to generate negative results.
Ivermectin4sale.uk ,It's a great company to buy from! They sent a tracking number with your order to follow along. Got my package in about 2-1/2 weeks and couldn't be happier!! It's a honest reputable company and would order again from them. 😊
You inadvertently missed a big one - all LOW dose, or in the case of one large scale RCT, they capped the dose/kg of an already low dose resulting in the most at risk (obese) receiving a lesser-than-low dose
Thanks for following up on this. My rule of thumb is that you should be surprised if a good 50% of peer reviewed studies in any field are horse excrement. Usually not outright fraud, but the most common failure mode is just failing to ask relevant questions in the first place.
These low double digit figures indeed are nothing shocking; and good to see that contrasted against established metrics in the field. That is probably the reason our twitter fraud vigilantes never went ahead and published their much hyped findings.
For a humanistic-hippocratic medicine, or more generally, INTERVENTION, against any crisis, demand 5 AND-connected properties:
cheap, safe, effective, available, TRANSPARENT.
Transparent meaning protected from structural and normal corruption by open and hidden interventions intersecting. Opening up study data is only one step.
Protecting researchers from villains approaching them and threatening them or bribing them another aspect.
Only for DE, IVM for Humans costs 140€ per 24mg for one day!
You can not buy it though, only Rx, and your insurance pays.
But I have not found a single physician describing it for covid.
Vet docs are ordered on loss of license to directly order the stuff to the animals.
Compare with cattle, "paying" 30€/5g in Ireland, having available brands that solve in pure glycerine (prebiotic, and definetely more benevolent to biome than poysorbate or TiO2 in some tablets) ;))
So my conclusion in this pandemic: ok, Horses are better off than humans.
If I seem to be human, I will be slaughtered by slow acting poisons and denied simplest treatings.
Also, if I'm old and in some elderly people's home, I will be confronted with CoV dragged in by someone sent home from hospital while still avtively shedding (vaccinated on day 10 shed 5x more than unvaccinated), and be given so much sedatives that I can neither cough nor turn over.
Also, people will take all the broken pathogens away from me by masks, so I can not built-up pre-immunity, and will succumb if the thing gets on me. (Thus masks were so important: cost:benefit 100:1 , as they can not prevent infections from droplets, as one smuggles through and one carries infectious dose.;)
Problem is our customs: they fish out packages if we want to order somewhere abroad, and Ireland prevented ANY orders of IVM to other EU countries, interesting in an EU trading union.
Also, EU took HCQ from marked as early as Nov. 2019. Gulp this.
What a wise crystall ball predicting the future that a pandemic can not be molken when HCQ or IVM is around. The greek treated with HCQ anyways, had no problem with CoV, but had to be vaccinated anyways: totalitarian systems make no excemptions.
Only later, HCQ has shown to curb waves and reduce death rates by FACTOR 10 in the combined effect, where IVM shows FACTOR 14.
Also, S@nofi took lnthal from marked, as early as 3.2019, as chromolynium acid inhaled to lungs is not only antiviral (clogging the Chlorine channel of the spike) but also prevents cytokine storm quite effective. In Sep. 2019, the last aerosol dispensers went out from international pharmacies.
(Use a nasal spray in compressed air nebuliser. For membrane systems, it is too viscuous. Use also Azelastine or CPM. Hyalurone, Panthenole.
Now the same happens to inhalatives.
Under all those "scarceties" of medicine, the efficient, and generally "healing" ones could hide, and I suspect that we shall concentrate on very essential ones and produce them locally in a distributed fashion, we could place distributed production from scratch on some essential medicines.
Meanwhile, as we now know that ALL inorganic antiseptics can be inhaled and dissolve even spike-knit and to our enzyme system un-dissolveable (micro) clots, it makes sense the EU is striving to forbid CIO2 and sends out Hungary to test this out. Poor Prof. Nozticzius.
Still, as it is the mosts efficient systemically, it is the least inhalable (only 5ppm(aq)).
Others are better inhaleable: we inhaled 800ppm NaHClO, 0.1-2%H2O2 (pH=6.5, bufffer to "taste just neutral" by sodium bicarbonate 0.5%), 0.1-3% PVP-I.
Probably, one should look at the "useage protocol" of NO generators at all the ICU respirators, everyone has one here, but were they running? Can Covid pertain if a systemic dose of NO dissolves blood clots?
Also, all inorganic antiseptics are softly immune system soothing.
Is there a case to be made that BigPharma or similar vested interests may actually have COMMISSIONED fake/zombie/fraudulent trials in order to false flag or discredit repurposed drugs and medicines?
Ah "science". You exaggerating mistress of misdirection.
Maybe I am too simple to partake in this discussion, but wouldn't the obvious solution be to attempt a replication of these studies - any of them - given IVM itself is mostly benign? I can only imagine there is a host of willing volunteers, and double blinding should remove the placebo contrarian variable, I would have thought?
Ironically, many of the SAME people who countered any positive mention of Ivermectin w/character assassination swallowed pandemic policy uncritically. Just saw the usual suspects supporting Sam Harris' contention about Brett Weinstein: To whit, even IF he ends up being right about Ivermectin he was wrong.
Despite my embrace of data, I think it's interesting to look at other reasons why people might support Ivermectin. Here's my tentative list on why they should NOT be dismissed as eejits:
-Ivermectin has proven remarkably safe relative to countless other drugs
-Placebo effect has a valid role in treatment [see below]
-There were no other options for most people who showed up in emergency rooms &
were told to come back AFTER they were really sick.
-Even after alternative treatments were available, many had no access
-Countries w/no access to the vaccine/expensive treatments were desperate
-Really smart & ethical scientists supported Ivermectin despite only HUGE downsides for
them
-These same individuals generally displayed greater epistemic humility than their
detractors & have been more correct than their detractors on multiple pandemic fronts
-They begged for data that was often withheld
-They seldom engaged in hyperbole or character attacks [unless responding to an attack]
-Doctors who obviously care for their patients [no reason to think otherwise] reported
Ivermectin’s success in hundreds of patients. Could they be wrong? Of course. But they would
hardly be in a class by themselves.
-People like Fauci have been caught in lies
-The CDC/FDA have been caught in bad science [ex: failures to stratify risk & fear porn]
-Studies showing a lack of efficacy in Ivermectin often used a different protocol than recommended by pro-Ivermectin docs.
-The CDC was clearly dishonest in implying that Ivermectin was solely a horse/cow med despite
knowing that human applications began in 1987
-HUGE downsides to those promoting it; HUGE upsides to Big Pharma & pharma-controlled
media in dismissing it. Motives matter.
-A # of data-approved treatments failed [ex: ventilators/remdesivr]
-Prediction is THE test of insight but most pandemic protocols ignored tradeoffs & dismissed
concerns; the negative tradeoffs WERE knowable by anyone w/a clue about human nature &
the ability to predict [see Phil Tetlock’s 10 commandments of forecasters].
-Ivermectin supporters were ridiculed/condemned BEFORE RCTs were done [possibly as a
reaction to Trump]; indicates bias & bad faith.
-Ivermectin studies were treated w/far greater demands for rigor than OTHER studies. This was obvious to ALL. Consider the Replication Crisis.
I first heard of ivermectin and HCQ in early summer 2020, and I have personal experience of both working for 6 people I have recommended them to. Even the IVM horse paste worked with no side effects for 2 people back in 2020 with the one tube notch per 50 lbs of bodyweight dosage. The other 4 were able to procure IVM and HCQ in pill form either on their own or through my advice. Obviously, the sooner you take them, the better, but the shit works.
Everyone has heard of Paxlovid by now, but most don't know it is a PROTEASE inhibitor with an HIV suppressor medication called ritonavir. The "REBOUNDS" are happening on Paxlovid because it is weighted toward the ritonavir component which merely suppresses the virus rather than stopping its replication with the protease inhibitor component which is synthesized and doesn't seem to work nearly as well as IVM and HCQ.
Guess what substances also act as PROTEASE inhibitors? IVM, HCQ, and Quercetin
Hell, even ACE-2 uptake disruptors such as nicotine and famotidine (heartburn meds) were found to have benefit. IVM is great because it's a protease inhibitor + ACE-2 uptake disruptor.
Yes, ivermectin is the one drug where the evidence needs to be bomb-proof. Never mind that the pandemic was constantly used to justify decisions without strong evidence. Huh.
Even mainstream-adjacent-types like Vinay Prasad point out that it makes no sense to embrace masks but reject ivermectin. There are probably hundreds of approved drugs with flimsier evidence...
I find this so frustrating. Why are so many "studies" published with such questions of validity? I'm sure if we follow the money that question will be answered.
There is a huge issue with "fake" studies being published in science journals. There seems to be a mentality that peer-reviewed is this gold standard free from fraud process but it is not the same as verified, validated, or replicated.
Any RCT paper cannot ignore the thousands of patients who have been treated successfully with an IVM regimen. Treatment is not just one medication - it is a plan combining many different treatments in a protocol. A RCT does not mirror what happens in real medicine , when real doctors are on the line with the lives of their patients. As Dr John Littel said , thousands and thousands odf patients is not anecdotal evidence. I remember a doctor having success with a high fat - low card diets in his practice said about the science still pushed by varioue Heart associations - I am successfully treating patients , the science needs to catch up with me. When doctors having success with IVM are stopped from being doctors, told to give Remdesivir instead of IVM, IVM being banned, RCTs coming out that IVM does not work - we have the biggest proof that it does work in an early treatment program - If it does not work why bother , why make war on good old ivermectin. Doctors who treat patients , know how important is to listen to patients - for us - what works , is not a RCT but knowing that in the real world of medicine patients have made a successful revovery . It sickens me that lay people have to remind doctors , professors what medicine should really be. All I hear from some it how the vax are problematic, masks don't work , Pax does not work - so for sure that don't know what works because they are not being challenged , they are not in the trenches - Your work is appreciated , a work of courage, caring and taking a moral stance against evil
I wouldn't blame you or many other people that now feel inclined to do the opposite of what certain bodies/associations say but you still need to do your own research and not just rely on a few overly confident con-man style 'MD's. They are out there unfortunately. High fat low carb diets are not new and their long term negative effects on arteries & heart are well established.
There's a writeup here: https://c19ivm.org/activ6ivm.html - long list of issues but start of treatment median 6 days after initial symptoms was enough on its own for me, the trial was designed to fail.
Thanks, for me the Doctors in the trenches treating Covid successfully tells the real story. As Dr John Littel says , treating thousands of patients is not anecdotal . The science has to catch up with the real doctors who are doing real medicine.
Fraud is almost always preceded by a motive which, if successful, gives the fraudulent party a benefit; and generally weighed against the risk of being caught.
A positive Ivermectin study provides the fraudulent researcher with:
1. $0 as the drug is generic
2. Character assassination, slander, defunding of research, firing from position.
I am waiting to hear someone provide even the slightest motivation for submitting a fraudulent positive Ivermectin paper - you still get 1 and 2, plus your a fraud.
On the other hand, the vaccine cartel would pay handsomely for both negative and “obviously fraudulent” studies as both are used to discredit the single most efficacious drug for treatment of any ailment, in the history of evidence based medicine.
Centuries of precedent proves motive is fundamental to any accusation of fraud or crime.
And I don’t think “a completely unrelated evil band of 1000’s of Doctors and Researches with impeccable records, hell bent on preventing the benevolent vaccine-cartels from cashing in on society” cuts it.
You nailed it. The people I tend to argue against see their analysis as data-driven. I don't dispute this. It's just that I tend to see my analysis as incentive-driven. After all, it was people who put out the data, and if we don't understand the provenance of our data, we are driven insane.
Excellent points. Since applying inconsistent levels of scrutiny and rigor is the standard rhetorical approach of issue partisans like GidMK, I'm much more interested in hearing about *conflicts of interest*.
To that end, serving as an aggressive Defender of the Moneyed Interests as these academic no-names have done is a career accelerant while advocating against the Moneyed Interests is career suicide.
Look into Gideon defending glyphosate before the pandemic...
That's interesting. Funny that my pre-covid bias here would be that the claims against Roundup are unfounded or overblown. Now I need to assume the worst.
Right there with you on that. Sad but true.
To steelman the case for fraud of some sort; you might argue that researcher are simply conditioned through decades of training to be relentless paper-acceptance-maximizers, of a ferocity that would put paperclip-maximizers to shame. Its nothing specific to IVM or its incentives; but furiously copy-pasting data around between excel sheets without a data trail until a significant result comes out is just what they do.
I think there is significant truth to that model and I would expect a good double digit percentage of any 'peer reviewed' studies to be the product of that process; but it is of course a very general point that is no more or less true for IVM than say, aspirin.
It is indeed the emergence of a signal from 1000s of completely independent researchers, working across the globe, which guards against the groupthink or commercial incentives that so easily capture many other controversies driven by a few large studies.
Almost all of the large-scale ivermectin RCTs were obviously DESIGNED TO FAIL by doing most or all of the following:
1. enrolling low-risk patients who didn’t need ivermectin to begin with
2. delaying the ivermectin until almost a week after symptoms started
3. not giving the ivermectin with food to optimize absorption
4. not combining the ivermectin with other agents that are usually used in conjunction with it (even Paxlovid, which reduced COVID deaths from 13 to 0 in its RCT, is a COMBINATION drug)
5. stopping the ivermectin after just 3 days or so of treatment
After all this, of course those large-scale ($$$) RCTs conveniently found "no significant effect” of ivermectin. But even though many RCTs were designed to fail, the average effect in all published RCTs was that ivermectin prevented about 1 in 3 COVID deaths: https://c19ivm.org/meta.html#fig_fprd.
So actually, yes, the ivermectin literature IS particularly fraudulent: it is full of RCTs that were deliberately set up to generate negative results.
Where can I buy ivermectin without script. in past I bought from buyivermectin.us but now They are not available.
Ivermectin4sale.uk ,It's a great company to buy from! They sent a tracking number with your order to follow along. Got my package in about 2-1/2 weeks and couldn't be happier!! It's a honest reputable company and would order again from them. 😊
I Don't have PayPal. PayPal is only option to pay.
Thank you Smith
Welcome
You inadvertently missed a big one - all LOW dose, or in the case of one large scale RCT, they capped the dose/kg of an already low dose resulting in the most at risk (obese) receiving a lesser-than-low dose
Thanks for following up on this. My rule of thumb is that you should be surprised if a good 50% of peer reviewed studies in any field are horse excrement. Usually not outright fraud, but the most common failure mode is just failing to ask relevant questions in the first place.
These low double digit figures indeed are nothing shocking; and good to see that contrasted against established metrics in the field. That is probably the reason our twitter fraud vigilantes never went ahead and published their much hyped findings.
Maybe the fact that so many studies are bad is a feature? It allowed the establishment to cherry-pick?
I love that these guys are getting hoisted on the petard of the base rate fallacy for assuming 5 out of 30 papers is alarming.
What's the fallacy where you have your conclusion ready before you know the facts?
Ivermectin is cheap, safe and effective.
Covid mRNA vaccines are unsafe, expensive and ineffective.
The motivation to discredit IVM is clear.
For a humanistic-hippocratic medicine, or more generally, INTERVENTION, against any crisis, demand 5 AND-connected properties:
cheap, safe, effective, available, TRANSPARENT.
Transparent meaning protected from structural and normal corruption by open and hidden interventions intersecting. Opening up study data is only one step.
Protecting researchers from villains approaching them and threatening them or bribing them another aspect.
Only for DE, IVM for Humans costs 140€ per 24mg for one day!
You can not buy it though, only Rx, and your insurance pays.
But I have not found a single physician describing it for covid.
Vet docs are ordered on loss of license to directly order the stuff to the animals.
Compare with cattle, "paying" 30€/5g in Ireland, having available brands that solve in pure glycerine (prebiotic, and definetely more benevolent to biome than poysorbate or TiO2 in some tablets) ;))
So my conclusion in this pandemic: ok, Horses are better off than humans.
If I seem to be human, I will be slaughtered by slow acting poisons and denied simplest treatings.
Also, if I'm old and in some elderly people's home, I will be confronted with CoV dragged in by someone sent home from hospital while still avtively shedding (vaccinated on day 10 shed 5x more than unvaccinated), and be given so much sedatives that I can neither cough nor turn over.
Also, people will take all the broken pathogens away from me by masks, so I can not built-up pre-immunity, and will succumb if the thing gets on me. (Thus masks were so important: cost:benefit 100:1 , as they can not prevent infections from droplets, as one smuggles through and one carries infectious dose.;)
Problem is our customs: they fish out packages if we want to order somewhere abroad, and Ireland prevented ANY orders of IVM to other EU countries, interesting in an EU trading union.
Also, EU took HCQ from marked as early as Nov. 2019. Gulp this.
What a wise crystall ball predicting the future that a pandemic can not be molken when HCQ or IVM is around. The greek treated with HCQ anyways, had no problem with CoV, but had to be vaccinated anyways: totalitarian systems make no excemptions.
Only later, HCQ has shown to curb waves and reduce death rates by FACTOR 10 in the combined effect, where IVM shows FACTOR 14.
Also, S@nofi took lnthal from marked, as early as 3.2019, as chromolynium acid inhaled to lungs is not only antiviral (clogging the Chlorine channel of the spike) but also prevents cytokine storm quite effective. In Sep. 2019, the last aerosol dispensers went out from international pharmacies.
(Use a nasal spray in compressed air nebuliser. For membrane systems, it is too viscuous. Use also Azelastine or CPM. Hyalurone, Panthenole.
Now the same happens to inhalatives.
Under all those "scarceties" of medicine, the efficient, and generally "healing" ones could hide, and I suspect that we shall concentrate on very essential ones and produce them locally in a distributed fashion, we could place distributed production from scratch on some essential medicines.
Meanwhile, as we now know that ALL inorganic antiseptics can be inhaled and dissolve even spike-knit and to our enzyme system un-dissolveable (micro) clots, it makes sense the EU is striving to forbid CIO2 and sends out Hungary to test this out. Poor Prof. Nozticzius.
Still, as it is the mosts efficient systemically, it is the least inhalable (only 5ppm(aq)).
Others are better inhaleable: we inhaled 800ppm NaHClO, 0.1-2%H2O2 (pH=6.5, bufffer to "taste just neutral" by sodium bicarbonate 0.5%), 0.1-3% PVP-I.
Probably, one should look at the "useage protocol" of NO generators at all the ICU respirators, everyone has one here, but were they running? Can Covid pertain if a systemic dose of NO dissolves blood clots?
Also, all inorganic antiseptics are softly immune system soothing.
Is there a case to be made that BigPharma or similar vested interests may actually have COMMISSIONED fake/zombie/fraudulent trials in order to false flag or discredit repurposed drugs and medicines?
Now THAT would really be telling.
See Andrew Hill / Tess Lawrie / unitaid.
Big tech has ben quite cooperative but scrubbing that story from its search results, but you can still find it with a little effort.
"The ivermectin literature is full of fraud"
where full = 17% of studies.
Ah "science". You exaggerating mistress of misdirection.
Maybe I am too simple to partake in this discussion, but wouldn't the obvious solution be to attempt a replication of these studies - any of them - given IVM itself is mostly benign? I can only imagine there is a host of willing volunteers, and double blinding should remove the placebo contrarian variable, I would have thought?
Ironically, many of the SAME people who countered any positive mention of Ivermectin w/character assassination swallowed pandemic policy uncritically. Just saw the usual suspects supporting Sam Harris' contention about Brett Weinstein: To whit, even IF he ends up being right about Ivermectin he was wrong.
Despite my embrace of data, I think it's interesting to look at other reasons why people might support Ivermectin. Here's my tentative list on why they should NOT be dismissed as eejits:
-Ivermectin has proven remarkably safe relative to countless other drugs
-Placebo effect has a valid role in treatment [see below]
-There were no other options for most people who showed up in emergency rooms &
were told to come back AFTER they were really sick.
-Even after alternative treatments were available, many had no access
-Countries w/no access to the vaccine/expensive treatments were desperate
-Really smart & ethical scientists supported Ivermectin despite only HUGE downsides for
them
-These same individuals generally displayed greater epistemic humility than their
detractors & have been more correct than their detractors on multiple pandemic fronts
-They begged for data that was often withheld
-They seldom engaged in hyperbole or character attacks [unless responding to an attack]
-Doctors who obviously care for their patients [no reason to think otherwise] reported
Ivermectin’s success in hundreds of patients. Could they be wrong? Of course. But they would
hardly be in a class by themselves.
-People like Fauci have been caught in lies
-The CDC/FDA have been caught in bad science [ex: failures to stratify risk & fear porn]
-Studies showing a lack of efficacy in Ivermectin often used a different protocol than recommended by pro-Ivermectin docs.
-The CDC was clearly dishonest in implying that Ivermectin was solely a horse/cow med despite
knowing that human applications began in 1987
-HUGE downsides to those promoting it; HUGE upsides to Big Pharma & pharma-controlled
media in dismissing it. Motives matter.
-A # of data-approved treatments failed [ex: ventilators/remdesivr]
-Prediction is THE test of insight but most pandemic protocols ignored tradeoffs & dismissed
concerns; the negative tradeoffs WERE knowable by anyone w/a clue about human nature &
the ability to predict [see Phil Tetlock’s 10 commandments of forecasters].
-Ivermectin supporters were ridiculed/condemned BEFORE RCTs were done [possibly as a
reaction to Trump]; indicates bias & bad faith.
-Ivermectin studies were treated w/far greater demands for rigor than OTHER studies. This was obvious to ALL. Consider the Replication Crisis.
The Power of the Placebo Effect
https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect
Ten Commandments for Aspiring Superforecasters
https://fs.blog/2015/12/ten-commandments-for-superforecasters/
I first heard of ivermectin and HCQ in early summer 2020, and I have personal experience of both working for 6 people I have recommended them to. Even the IVM horse paste worked with no side effects for 2 people back in 2020 with the one tube notch per 50 lbs of bodyweight dosage. The other 4 were able to procure IVM and HCQ in pill form either on their own or through my advice. Obviously, the sooner you take them, the better, but the shit works.
Everyone has heard of Paxlovid by now, but most don't know it is a PROTEASE inhibitor with an HIV suppressor medication called ritonavir. The "REBOUNDS" are happening on Paxlovid because it is weighted toward the ritonavir component which merely suppresses the virus rather than stopping its replication with the protease inhibitor component which is synthesized and doesn't seem to work nearly as well as IVM and HCQ.
Guess what substances also act as PROTEASE inhibitors? IVM, HCQ, and Quercetin
Hell, even ACE-2 uptake disruptors such as nicotine and famotidine (heartburn meds) were found to have benefit. IVM is great because it's a protease inhibitor + ACE-2 uptake disruptor.
Yes, ivermectin is the one drug where the evidence needs to be bomb-proof. Never mind that the pandemic was constantly used to justify decisions without strong evidence. Huh.
Even mainstream-adjacent-types like Vinay Prasad point out that it makes no sense to embrace masks but reject ivermectin. There are probably hundreds of approved drugs with flimsier evidence...
BTW, does anyone know how ivermectin tastes?
But does it need to be bomb-proof? At correct dosages, what's the worst harm that can happen?
I would bet that if official deliberations ever see the light of day, the reason to trash ivermectin was its potential to reduce vaccine uptake.
I'm not a betting man but I would put money on it.
I think that’s what norstadt is saying. Both are relatively low risk interventions.
Why the double standard?
Ivermectin is effective so I recommend this site buy ivermectin www.buy-ivermectin-suppliers.com
I find this so frustrating. Why are so many "studies" published with such questions of validity? I'm sure if we follow the money that question will be answered.
Because publishing is an end in itself: impact factor, funding, PC results. More important than science per se for a researcher's career, tenure, etc.
There is a huge issue with "fake" studies being published in science journals. There seems to be a mentality that peer-reviewed is this gold standard free from fraud process but it is not the same as verified, validated, or replicated.
Any RCT paper cannot ignore the thousands of patients who have been treated successfully with an IVM regimen. Treatment is not just one medication - it is a plan combining many different treatments in a protocol. A RCT does not mirror what happens in real medicine , when real doctors are on the line with the lives of their patients. As Dr John Littel said , thousands and thousands odf patients is not anecdotal evidence. I remember a doctor having success with a high fat - low card diets in his practice said about the science still pushed by varioue Heart associations - I am successfully treating patients , the science needs to catch up with me. When doctors having success with IVM are stopped from being doctors, told to give Remdesivir instead of IVM, IVM being banned, RCTs coming out that IVM does not work - we have the biggest proof that it does work in an early treatment program - If it does not work why bother , why make war on good old ivermectin. Doctors who treat patients , know how important is to listen to patients - for us - what works , is not a RCT but knowing that in the real world of medicine patients have made a successful revovery . It sickens me that lay people have to remind doctors , professors what medicine should really be. All I hear from some it how the vax are problematic, masks don't work , Pax does not work - so for sure that don't know what works because they are not being challenged , they are not in the trenches - Your work is appreciated , a work of courage, caring and taking a moral stance against evil
I wouldn't blame you or many other people that now feel inclined to do the opposite of what certain bodies/associations say but you still need to do your own research and not just rely on a few overly confident con-man style 'MD's. They are out there unfortunately. High fat low carb diets are not new and their long term negative effects on arteries & heart are well established.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827 - Has this paper been checked by you or others who have no interest in one day getting a job with Big Pharma
I need to write up my analysis on this. If you look into the archive, you'll see my interview with a patient from this specific trial.
There's a writeup here: https://c19ivm.org/activ6ivm.html - long list of issues but start of treatment median 6 days after initial symptoms was enough on its own for me, the trial was designed to fail.
Thanks, for me the Doctors in the trenches treating Covid successfully tells the real story. As Dr John Littel says , treating thousands of patients is not anecdotal . The science has to catch up with the real doctors who are doing real medicine.
Fraud by big business becomes ever more common under unfettered Crapitalism