I’d guess ivermectin was so successful, they are trying to figure out ways of gaming the results to reduce the overall effectiveness or render it “inconclusive”.
Although ivermectin is likely highly safe and effective, publishing honest results will likely result in great problems about past government lies and censorship. I expect them to never publish honest results.
That's why they changed the inclusion criteria to anyone over 18. The results mid-trial were so good they went into a panic trying to do everything they can to make the trial underpowered.
If results had been to ANY extent negative or even neutral regarding Ivermectin effectiveness, we would not be still waiting. On the contrary, media outlets the world over would be celebrating more "Science" showing how dumb the non-believers of "The Science" were for using Ivermectin.
Firstly, when released, the associated media around it will triumphantly declare “yet another nail in the ivermectin coffin”.
The study will declare no benefit whatsoever to ivermectin and will likely show a trend towards a higher incidence of long covid (or generally worse outcomes) at the 1 year mark in the IVM arm.
However, detailed analysis of the results will show a trend towards significant benefit in those who received IVM early, had closer to 400mcq/kg and who had comorbifities. Such that if only this group was studied, the first dose given in 5 days (like molnupivavir) and the dose was actually at least 400mcg/kg for everybody, not capped at 84kg, then in all likelihood the benefit would have been clearly significant.
I terms of the 1 year follow up, they will somehow concoct a control group out of thin air to compare and try to infer that the IVM group do worse. When analysed, this control group will be laughably flawed and full of confounders such as to be utterly meaningless.
I’ll also speculate they won’t respond to questions to the author nor release their independent patient data.
I’ll modify my prediction slightly: the press release will say “No only does Ivermectin not work against Covid, patients do worse in the long run”
And of course, a deep dive into the stats will show the opposite on both fronts.
Either way, the study has no chance of finding a positive result given the mg/kg dosing was capped at 84kg. A colossal waste of time and money by Oxford
Thank you. A useful compendium to the PRINCIPLE shananigans. Since they ditched HCQ, a paper has been recently released showing a positive effect from HCQ and AZM. The point of many of the treatments used by alternative doctors was their synergistic effect. This is missing from the protocol. I see many deficiencies in the protocol, most of which have been addressed by the author.
I ordered 48-mg per day, for 5-days of IVM and I weigh 75-kg. This was based on the 0.6 mg/kg dosage. I've never used it. Was I just lucky, or was my prophylactic use of nasal sprays, nigella sativa oil, vitamins, zinc and quecetin the trick? In fact, I don't know of any unvaccinted person who has gone to hospital for Covid. Most used one, or more of these suppliments. Many are in the late 60's.
So what could be the motive in failing to publish?:
No one cares anymore, or
Funding has dried up, or
The results are damning for the opponents of IVM, or
There are so many holes in the trial protocol that they will be shot down.
PRINCIPLE was awarded the 2022 ‘Trial of the Year’ by the Thames Valley and South Midlands Clinical Research Network for its innovative use of primary care data and settings whilst working at pace and scale.
Well that figures. When I contracted Covid, I woke up at 5 am feeling horrible. Waited to start IVM until I ate something with fat around 10am or so. That night's sleep was very restful and the next day I was fine. I continued my dose at 0.4 mg/Kg (30 mg) for 11 days total. I was cautious to hold off normal exercise/walking for about a week. But I really felt like getting out for a walk that second day. That's my N=1 study, :-). Annecdote. Also it was in March 2023 so not one of the more serious SC2 strains.
“You will, of course, be able to find the results on our website as soon as they become available"
As soon as our "INVISIBLE HANDCUFF CAPTORS" give us the key for the unlock of semi-manipulated cherry picked test result findings! Whew, we really had to overreach on this topic.
Did the trial protocol specify how Ivermectin was administered? Specifically with a fatty meal or not? My concern is that if they administered it as instructed for parasites, then they gave it on an empty stomach which would drop effectivess significantly for antiviral purposes. That would be a clue that it was designed to fail.
Yes it was on an empty stomach. The dosage is in the story, standard dosing but capped at 30mg...
"Tablets to be taken as one dose each day for 3 days at 300 g/kg body weight (weight range below) up to maximum of 30 mg tablets can be taken with water but no food should be taken two hours before or after administration, as the influence of food on absorption is not known."
Another captured or pressured organization that increases the public distrust of its institutions. It may very well be that the distrust is well founded and exposure would mean the end of these entities, thus they keep it from happening. If IVM was/is shown to be affective, as all the evidence indicates, the implications would be that the medical industrial complex knew it worked and realized that there fleecing of government and people would surely be exposed. It will happen.
These clowns have no credibility with me. I have long concluded that ivermectin (along with other meds) had a very respectable response in treating patients during the alpha and delta phases, at a time when so many deplorable government agencies strongly discouraged the use of any early treatment- unforgivable.
NO ONE died FROM covid. They died from many reasons, incentivized neglect the most common. But, In short, they use an individuals NARCISSISM to control. Forget the hundreds of MILLIONS of children who have 'gone missing' or died from Communist fentanyl poisoning, It's all about YOU. Narcisstic individuals were the ones to suck this up the Kool-Aid it always was.
Applied Behavioral Scientist | Patrick Fagan | BIG PICTURE INTERVIEW
I’d guess ivermectin was so successful, they are trying to figure out ways of gaming the results to reduce the overall effectiveness or render it “inconclusive”.
Although ivermectin is likely highly safe and effective, publishing honest results will likely result in great problems about past government lies and censorship. I expect them to never publish honest results.
Or state the trial was underpowered, therefore, futile.
That's why they changed the inclusion criteria to anyone over 18. The results mid-trial were so good they went into a panic trying to do everything they can to make the trial underpowered.
If results had been to ANY extent negative or even neutral regarding Ivermectin effectiveness, we would not be still waiting. On the contrary, media outlets the world over would be celebrating more "Science" showing how dumb the non-believers of "The Science" were for using Ivermectin.
I think I already know the results of the trial.
Firstly, when released, the associated media around it will triumphantly declare “yet another nail in the ivermectin coffin”.
The study will declare no benefit whatsoever to ivermectin and will likely show a trend towards a higher incidence of long covid (or generally worse outcomes) at the 1 year mark in the IVM arm.
However, detailed analysis of the results will show a trend towards significant benefit in those who received IVM early, had closer to 400mcq/kg and who had comorbifities. Such that if only this group was studied, the first dose given in 5 days (like molnupivavir) and the dose was actually at least 400mcg/kg for everybody, not capped at 84kg, then in all likelihood the benefit would have been clearly significant.
I terms of the 1 year follow up, they will somehow concoct a control group out of thin air to compare and try to infer that the IVM group do worse. When analysed, this control group will be laughably flawed and full of confounders such as to be utterly meaningless.
I’ll also speculate they won’t respond to questions to the author nor release their independent patient data.
Keep this post for posterity and see how I do!
I’ll modify my prediction slightly: the press release will say “No only does Ivermectin not work against Covid, patients do worse in the long run”
And of course, a deep dive into the stats will show the opposite on both fronts.
Either way, the study has no chance of finding a positive result given the mg/kg dosing was capped at 84kg. A colossal waste of time and money by Oxford
Yes that's really the most depressing aspect of all of this. Waste of time is really the best description.
Thank you. A useful compendium to the PRINCIPLE shananigans. Since they ditched HCQ, a paper has been recently released showing a positive effect from HCQ and AZM. The point of many of the treatments used by alternative doctors was their synergistic effect. This is missing from the protocol. I see many deficiencies in the protocol, most of which have been addressed by the author.
I ordered 48-mg per day, for 5-days of IVM and I weigh 75-kg. This was based on the 0.6 mg/kg dosage. I've never used it. Was I just lucky, or was my prophylactic use of nasal sprays, nigella sativa oil, vitamins, zinc and quecetin the trick? In fact, I don't know of any unvaccinted person who has gone to hospital for Covid. Most used one, or more of these suppliments. Many are in the late 60's.
So what could be the motive in failing to publish?:
No one cares anymore, or
Funding has dried up, or
The results are damning for the opponents of IVM, or
There are so many holes in the trial protocol that they will be shot down.
Take your pick.
With such a colorful trial history I am half surprised they didnt win any 'trial of the year awards' yet.
Don't be!:
PRINCIPLE was awarded the 2022 ‘Trial of the Year’ by the Thames Valley and South Midlands Clinical Research Network for its innovative use of primary care data and settings whilst working at pace and scale.
https://www.principletrial.org/news/reflecting-on-panoramic-and-principle-three-years-into-the-covid-19-pandemic
Haha I stand corrected.
Kaboom and Doom like to follow each other around.
Many of us know what the foot drag is all about. (Pssstt it's everywhere COV 19 exists)
What does a year study do for a drug that works within the first 4 days from onset of symptoms...
...I keep Ivermectin in my GO bag and have only felt the need once to go beyond 5 days due to improving symptoms
Well that figures. When I contracted Covid, I woke up at 5 am feeling horrible. Waited to start IVM until I ate something with fat around 10am or so. That night's sleep was very restful and the next day I was fine. I continued my dose at 0.4 mg/Kg (30 mg) for 11 days total. I was cautious to hold off normal exercise/walking for about a week. But I really felt like getting out for a walk that second day. That's my N=1 study, :-). Annecdote. Also it was in March 2023 so not one of the more serious SC2 strains.
“You will, of course, be able to find the results on our website as soon as they become available"
As soon as our "INVISIBLE HANDCUFF CAPTORS" give us the key for the unlock of semi-manipulated cherry picked test result findings! Whew, we really had to overreach on this topic.
Medical malfeceance.
To ignore early treating doctors' successful experience in this trial is inexcusable.
Did the trial protocol specify how Ivermectin was administered? Specifically with a fatty meal or not? My concern is that if they administered it as instructed for parasites, then they gave it on an empty stomach which would drop effectivess significantly for antiviral purposes. That would be a clue that it was designed to fail.
Yes it was on an empty stomach. The dosage is in the story, standard dosing but capped at 30mg...
"Tablets to be taken as one dose each day for 3 days at 300 g/kg body weight (weight range below) up to maximum of 30 mg tablets can be taken with water but no food should be taken two hours before or after administration, as the influence of food on absorption is not known."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YZHU2ydVoDflElPDL9Y7VinKMFuIT6ZN/view?usp=sharing
Another captured or pressured organization that increases the public distrust of its institutions. It may very well be that the distrust is well founded and exposure would mean the end of these entities, thus they keep it from happening. If IVM was/is shown to be affective, as all the evidence indicates, the implications would be that the medical industrial complex knew it worked and realized that there fleecing of government and people would surely be exposed. It will happen.
Sound is like they were intentionally trying to screw up the trial said that they would have to throw out the data.
These clowns have no credibility with me. I have long concluded that ivermectin (along with other meds) had a very respectable response in treating patients during the alpha and delta phases, at a time when so many deplorable government agencies strongly discouraged the use of any early treatment- unforgivable.
They can keep their results hidden and stuff it.
NO ONE died FROM covid. They died from many reasons, incentivized neglect the most common. But, In short, they use an individuals NARCISSISM to control. Forget the hundreds of MILLIONS of children who have 'gone missing' or died from Communist fentanyl poisoning, It's all about YOU. Narcisstic individuals were the ones to suck this up the Kool-Aid it always was.
Applied Behavioral Scientist | Patrick Fagan | BIG PICTURE INTERVIEW
https://rumble.com/v3x6aw1-applied-behavioural-scientist-patrick-fagan-big-picture-interview-series.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&ep=2
What investigation is that? Do you have any link?