…..or does it?
I have to admit that prior to my awakening experience over the past two years, it never really occurred to me the extent to which research is manipulated. Perhaps this period of COVID is an anomaly with the ‘natural’ origin science, bogus research about hydroxychloroquine and the fudging of numbers of ‘unvaccinated’ hospitalizations?? Regardless of the past, I know that I will review future studies and news stories through a lens of skepticism.
Ivermectin is not a ‘silver bullet’. It works best when combined with multiple nutraceuticals (including Zinc and Vitamin D), Aspirin (to help reduce coagulation) and an antibiotic. COVID is not treated with a ‘one-hit’ wonder drug. Every doctor treating people and keeping them alive has been screaming that this is a complex disease that needs to be hit with a multi-drug therapy. Just as a dentist would never tell you that a daily fluoride treatment is your only way to prevent cavities. Tooth decay is also a complex disease and is why we spend time discussing the multiple ways to keep your teeth healthy.
This JAMA study resembles yet another suboptimal research article done in such a way to try to disprove the benefits of Ivermectin. It was severely underpowered, meaning they had a small number of participants. There were 249 patients being treated with Ivermectin and 241 patients served as the control who were all hospitalized with COVID but had not been labeled severe enough to go to the ICU. They also did not use Ivermectin in the fashion that is recommended by all of the brave doctors who have had success with treatment. The researchers findings were:
In this open-label randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with COVID-19 in Malaysia, a 5-day course of oral ivermectin administered during the first week of illness did not reduce the risk of developing severe disease compared with standard of care alone.
I am sure mainstream media is running WILD with this study. Even those in alternate media sources are covering the above headline but they fail to look deeper into the actual results of the study.
Alex Berenson ran this:
Which on the surface does NOT look impressive for Ivermectin. But how many people died in the Ivermectin arm verses the control? Remember, this study was only using the ‘standard of care’ and Ivermectin, none of the other critical items that doctors like George Fareed and Bryan Tyson have been using to keep their 10,000 patients alive.
If you dive deeper into the results of the study, you can see some numbers like this:
It’s important to recognize here that the study participants had been experiencing symptoms for FIVE days by the time they were enrolled in the study. This is an important point to consider, given the primary outcome of the study was “the proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease.” As those of you who have been following the FLCCC know, early treatment (within the first ONE OR TWO DAYS of symptom onset) is critical to slow virus replication and impeded progression to severe disease.
Another good breakdown of this study, looks at how well the vaccine prevented death verses Ivermectin. This one done by a researcher who looked past the headlines:
The take away message is that often studies are manipulated and reported in such a way to support the bias of the researchers (confirmation bias). This is why independent, respectful analysis is critical as we discuss saving people’s lives. My question to JAMA and others, if Ivermectin doesn’t work then why is our CDC and the WHO so actively trying to restrict its use and the discussion of its possible benefits?? Why not let people experiment with a cheap, repurposed drug with decades worth of known safety profiles?
Project Veritas broke this story a couple of weeks ago: documents released by a Department of Defense whistleblower, highlight that our government new that these repurposed drugs have benefit.
No one stands to gain ANY financial benefit from using a cheap, widely available, safe drug. But there are billions of dollars worth of profit to be had in ‘vaccines’ and novel therapeutics. Short answer: FOLLOW THE MONEY!
It was very disappointing to see Alex Berenson not do the deeper investigation to find out the truth.