Lone cyclist deliberately holds up People's Convoy as it continues to disrupt traffic in Washington D.C. demanding end to all COVID rules and removal of BLM mural on road leading to White House
@QMS
When you help Marshall for a protest parade one of the things you need to do is slow down the front of the march and speed up the tail. Keep everyone slow, and cohesively together. This bicyclist did an excellent job of keeping the front slowed down. Kudos.
Lone cyclist deliberately holds up People's Convoy as it continues to disrupt traffic in Washington D.C. demanding end to all COVID rules and removal of BLM mural on road leading to White House
@wouldsman
On the day that Trump was elected I helped Marshall a protest parade. We had a break away group that kept going way to fast. They would get a block or two ahead of us. The problem became that when we hit downtown at rush hour that snarled up traffic too much. By the time the main group arrived some traffic had been held for 15 minutes because the cops would go out and shut down intersections before we got there. Or even ahead of the break away group. This created dangerous situations for us with increasingly hostile traffic. We wanted to disrupt for 10- 15 minutes but not 30.
#1 When you help Marshall for a protest parade one of the things you need to do is slow down the front of the march and speed up the tail. Keep everyone slow, and cohesively together. This bicyclist did an excellent job of keeping the front slowed down. Kudos.
One from Malaysia of around 500 people that found Ivemectin ineffective in preventing progression to severe disease in high risk adults... "Malaysian trial finds no difference in progression to severe disease over standard of care."
And, a trial in Brazil involving about 1400 people ... A group of researchers evaluating the effect of repurposed drugs against COVID-19 found that oral antiparasitic medication ivermectin did not improve patient outcomes in the largest trial of its kind to date, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
Ivermectin marketed by Merck (NYSE:MRK) as Stromectol for parasitic infestations sparked controversy during the pandemic prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue warnings against its excessive use.
“There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful,” said Edward Mills, a lead investigator of the trial and a professor of health sciences at Canada’s McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.
The findings have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal, and on Friday, Dr. Mills is scheduled to present the data at an event sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.The latest trial conducted in Brazil involved 1,358 adults with COVID-19 symptoms. All study participants were at risk of developing the severe form of the disease with a history of pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or lung disease. Half of them received Ivermectin pills for three days, and the other half received a placebo.
Dr. Mills and the team looked at their hospitalizations rates within 28 days. In addition, they gathered data on how fast the patients cleared the virus, how soon their symptoms improved, whether they were in hospital or were relying on ventilators for less time, and the differences in death rates.
For accuracy, they analyzed data in three different ways, and in each scenario, ivermectin was found to have no impact on the improvement of patient outcomes.
@Fishtroller 02
Your med page link goes to the JAMA study that shows Ivermectin cut death by around 70%. I think we have looked that study over several times here at The Dose. Thanks for reposting it. It is such a great example of how a study can publish a headline that does not match its actually data.
One from Malaysia of around 500 people that found Ivemectin ineffective in preventing progression to severe disease in high risk adults... "Malaysian trial finds no difference in progression to severe disease over standard of care."
And, a trial in Brazil involving about 1400 people ... A group of researchers evaluating the effect of repurposed drugs against COVID-19 found that oral antiparasitic medication ivermectin did not improve patient outcomes in the largest trial of its kind to date, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
Ivermectin marketed by Merck (NYSE:MRK) as Stromectol for parasitic infestations sparked controversy during the pandemic prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue warnings against its excessive use.
“There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful,” said Edward Mills, a lead investigator of the trial and a professor of health sciences at Canada’s McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.
The findings have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal, and on Friday, Dr. Mills is scheduled to present the data at an event sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.The latest trial conducted in Brazil involved 1,358 adults with COVID-19 symptoms. All study participants were at risk of developing the severe form of the disease with a history of pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or lung disease. Half of them received Ivermectin pills for three days, and the other half received a placebo.
Dr. Mills and the team looked at their hospitalizations rates within 28 days. In addition, they gathered data on how fast the patients cleared the virus, how soon their symptoms improved, whether they were in hospital or were relying on ventilators for less time, and the differences in death rates.
For accuracy, they analyzed data in three different ways, and in each scenario, ivermectin was found to have no impact on the improvement of patient outcomes.
Summary Findings 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.Feb 18, 2022
#4 Your med page link goes to the JAMA study that shows Ivermectin cut death by around 70%. I think we have looked that study over several times here at The Dose. Thanks for reposting it. It is such a great example of how a study can publish a headline that does not match its actually data.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Summary Findings 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.Feb 18, 2022
The McMaster study which was part of the TOGETHER Trial was funded by Bill Gates. I have already debunked several of your previous posts several months ago pertaining to this very same study. This McMaster study was designed to fail. Only three minimum doses of ivermectin were given to people who were already compromised and had previously contracted COVID.
https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/5-117
27/01/2021
A multi-center, adaptive, randomized, platform trial to evaluate the effect of repurposed medicines in outpatients with early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and high-risk for complications: the TOGETHER master trial protocol [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
Eligibility criteria
The inclusion criteria are:
1. Patients 18 years and over with the ability to provide free and informed consent.
2. Patients presenting to an outpatient care setting with an acute clinical condition compatible with COVID-19 and symptoms beginning within 07 days from the randomization date.
3. Patients over 18 years and with at least ONE of the following criteria:
a) Age ≥ 50 years (does not need any other risk criteria)
b) Diabetes mellitus requiring oral medication or insulin
c) Systemic arterial hypertension requiring at least 1 oral medication for treatment
d) Known cardiovascular diseases (heart failure, congenital heart disease, valve disease, coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathies being treated, clinically manifested heart disease and with clinical repercussion)
e) Symptomatic lung disease and / or being treated (emphysema, fibrosing diseases)
f) Symptomatic asthma patients requiring chronic use of agents to control symptoms
g) Obesity, defined as BMI> 30 kg / m2 (weight and height information provided by the patient)
h) Transplant patients
i) Patient with stage IV chronic kidney disease or on dialysis
j) Immunosuppressed patients / using corticosteroid therapy (equivalent to a maximum of 10 mg of prednisone per day) and / or immunosuppressive therapy
k) Patients with a history of cancer in the last 5 years or undergoing current cancer treatment
l) Patients with documented fever at screening (>38°C)
m) Patients with at least one of the following symptoms: cough, dyspnea, pleuritic chest pain AND/OR myalgias with limited daily activities (to a maximum of 25% of enrollment)
Why are you continuing to beat this dead horse, over and over and over again?
One from Malaysia of around 500 people that found Ivemectin ineffective in preventing progression to severe disease in high risk adults... "Malaysian trial finds no difference in progression to severe disease over standard of care."
And, a trial in Brazil involving about 1400 people ... A group of researchers evaluating the effect of repurposed drugs against COVID-19 found that oral antiparasitic medication ivermectin did not improve patient outcomes in the largest trial of its kind to date, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
Ivermectin marketed by Merck (NYSE:MRK) as Stromectol for parasitic infestations sparked controversy during the pandemic prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue warnings against its excessive use.
“There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful,” said Edward Mills, a lead investigator of the trial and a professor of health sciences at Canada’s McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.
The findings have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal, and on Friday, Dr. Mills is scheduled to present the data at an event sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.The latest trial conducted in Brazil involved 1,358 adults with COVID-19 symptoms. All study participants were at risk of developing the severe form of the disease with a history of pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or lung disease. Half of them received Ivermectin pills for three days, and the other half received a placebo.
Dr. Mills and the team looked at their hospitalizations rates within 28 days. In addition, they gathered data on how fast the patients cleared the virus, how soon their symptoms improved, whether they were in hospital or were relying on ventilators for less time, and the differences in death rates.
For accuracy, they analyzed data in three different ways, and in each scenario, ivermectin was found to have no impact on the improvement of patient outcomes.
In a stunning admission, virologist Dr. Andrew Hill acknowledged in a zoom call that publication of his study could lead to the deaths of at least a half million people.
In defending his reversal on the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19, he discussed his “difficult situation” and said, “I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance.”
The incident is recounted in Robert Kennedy Jr’s New York Times Bestseller, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the global war on Democracy and Public Health.
...
“Dr. Lawrie knew that to make its ivermectin determination, WHO would rely on Hill’s study and another study from McMaster University known as the “Together Trial.” McMaster was hopelessly and irredeemably conflicted. NIH gave McMaster $1,081,541 in 2020 and 2021.61 A separate group of McMaster University scientists was, at that time, engaged in developing their own COVID vaccine—an effort that would never pay dividends if WHO recommended ivermectin as Standard of Care. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was funding the massive “Together Trial” testing ivermectin, HCQ, and other potential drugs against COVID, in Brazil and other locations. Critics accused Gates and the McMaster researchers of designing that study to make ivermectin fail.”
In other words, the McMaster researchers, just like Andrew Hill, knew that a positive appraisal of ivermectin would cost their university millions of dollars.
...
One from Malaysia of around 500 people that found Ivemectin ineffective in preventing progression to severe disease in high risk adults... "Malaysian trial finds no difference in progression to severe disease over standard of care."
And, a trial in Brazil involving about 1400 people ... A group of researchers evaluating the effect of repurposed drugs against COVID-19 found that oral antiparasitic medication ivermectin did not improve patient outcomes in the largest trial of its kind to date, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
Ivermectin marketed by Merck (NYSE:MRK) as Stromectol for parasitic infestations sparked controversy during the pandemic prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue warnings against its excessive use.
“There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful,” said Edward Mills, a lead investigator of the trial and a professor of health sciences at Canada’s McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.
The findings have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal, and on Friday, Dr. Mills is scheduled to present the data at an event sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.The latest trial conducted in Brazil involved 1,358 adults with COVID-19 symptoms. All study participants were at risk of developing the severe form of the disease with a history of pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or lung disease. Half of them received Ivermectin pills for three days, and the other half received a placebo.
Dr. Mills and the team looked at their hospitalizations rates within 28 days. In addition, they gathered data on how fast the patients cleared the virus, how soon their symptoms improved, whether they were in hospital or were relying on ventilators for less time, and the differences in death rates.
For accuracy, they analyzed data in three different ways, and in each scenario, ivermectin was found to have no impact on the improvement of patient outcomes.
In a stunning admission, virologist Dr. Andrew Hill acknowledged in a zoom call that publication of his study could lead to the deaths of at least a half million people.
In defending his reversal on the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19, he discussed his “difficult situation” and said, “I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance.”
The incident is recounted in Robert Kennedy Jr’s New York Times Bestseller, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the global war on Democracy and Public Health.
...
“Dr. Lawrie knew that to make its ivermectin determination, WHO would rely on Hill’s study and another study from McMaster University known as the “Together Trial.” McMaster was hopelessly and irredeemably conflicted. NIH gave McMaster $1,081,541 in 2020 and 2021.61 A separate group of McMaster University scientists was, at that time, engaged in developing their own COVID vaccine—an effort that would never pay dividends if WHO recommended ivermectin as Standard of Care. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was funding the massive “Together Trial” testing ivermectin, HCQ, and other potential drugs against COVID, in Brazil and other locations. Critics accused Gates and the McMaster researchers of designing that study to make ivermectin fail.”
In other words, the McMaster researchers, just like Andrew Hill, knew that a positive appraisal of ivermectin would cost their university millions of dollars.
...
@innatimm
to be as efficacious as ivermectin (or HCQ) so it wasn't deemed to be a great threat. There were over 60 studies at the time showing ivermectin was favourable. Fluvoxamine was an anti-depressant and was not tolerated by 20%. There were very few studies which showed only moderate effectiveness for fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID at the time.
Hydroxychloroquine was also removed from this study before ivermectin. That was another study that was set up to fail. They used it only in late stages of COVID at small doses without the concurrent zinc.
I originally won an argument against Alligator Ed who said HCQ was efficacious by using this very study. I was not a believer in ivermectin or HCQ at first. Since his death I've come to learn he was correct and I was wrong. I regret his passing without my mea culpa that I was originally fooled by this study.
@CB
If their goal was to sink ivermectin (and apparently hydroxychloroquine as well), why would they show that there was a repurposed drug that had an effect?
#4.3.1
to be as efficacious as ivermectin (or HCQ) so it wasn't deemed to be a great threat. There were over 60 studies at the time showing ivermectin was favourable. Fluvoxamine was an anti-depressant and was not tolerated by 20%. There were very few studies which showed only moderate effectiveness for fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID at the time.
Hydroxychloroquine was also removed from this study before ivermectin. That was another study that was set up to fail. They used it only in late stages of COVID at small doses without the concurrent zinc.
I originally won an argument against Alligator Ed who said HCQ was efficacious by using this very study. I was not a believer in ivermectin or HCQ at first. Since his death I've come to learn he was correct and I was wrong. I regret his passing without my mea culpa that I was originally fooled by this study.
@innatimm
were minimal (it is ONLY an anti-inflammatory) unlike that for ivermectin (anti-viral, anti-inflammatory). No one would use fluvoxamine to treat COVID in the real world. There are better anti-inflammatory medications.
Three randomized trials have studied the use of fluvoxamine for the treatment of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19. In STOP COVID, a contactless, double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted in the United States among nonhospitalized adults with mild COVID-19 diagnosed within 7 days of symptom onset, fluvoxamine (100 mg up to 3 times daily for 15 days) reduced clinical deterioration at Day 15.3 Clinical deterioration was defined as shortness of breath plus oxygen saturation (SpO2) 700 participants in the United States and Canada, was stopped for futility by a data safety monitoring board after lower than expected case rates and treatment effect were observed.4
...
Compared with those in the placebo arm, participants who received fluvoxamine were less adherent to therapy and discontinued therapy due to intolerance more often.
...
Dr. John Campbell discusses how ivermectin works in the following:
#4.3.1.1
If their goal was to sink ivermectin (and apparently hydroxychloroquine as well), why would they show that there was a repurposed drug that had an effect?
claiming you have "debunked" anything and everything that is not in line with them. You are often wrong, but you also often "win" the debate by snowing others with piles of "information" that would take a long time to go through and verify. People just sigh and give up. So I thought I'd return the favor as a parting gift to you.
John Campbell has served us well educationally in many ways, but he has gotten himself in hot water when it comes to Ivermectin a couple of times.
For those who wish to expand their information on this topic ....
Dr. John Campbell created a video in which he claims to have demonstrated that Ivermectin has the same pharmacodynamic modality of action as the new Pfizer antiviral PF-07321332, which inhibits the 3CL main protease of SARS-Cov-2. In this video I address Dr. Campbell's misunderstandings and show that the biochemical mechanism he claims is not well supported by data, that his interpretations are based on misundertandings of the literature, and that --- even if ivermectin inhibits the 3CL protease exactly as he describes in biochemical assays --- Ivermectin cannot achieve the corresponding pharmacodynamic effect because the highest possible concentration in the human body is several orders of magnitude too low.
Dr. Campbell's basic misunderstandings of the biochemistry, as well as his evident failure to grasp the differences between a biochemical effect and a pharmacodynamic effect, are consequential in a pandemic because of his enormous influence on this platform.
#4.3.1.1.1
were minimal (it is ONLY an anti-inflammatory) unlike that for ivermectin (anti-viral, anti-inflammatory). No one would use fluvoxamine to treat COVID in the real world. There are better anti-inflammatory medications.
Three randomized trials have studied the use of fluvoxamine for the treatment of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19. In STOP COVID, a contactless, double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted in the United States among nonhospitalized adults with mild COVID-19 diagnosed within 7 days of symptom onset, fluvoxamine (100 mg up to 3 times daily for 15 days) reduced clinical deterioration at Day 15.3 Clinical deterioration was defined as shortness of breath plus oxygen saturation (SpO2) 700 participants in the United States and Canada, was stopped for futility by a data safety monitoring board after lower than expected case rates and treatment effect were observed.4
...
Compared with those in the placebo arm, participants who received fluvoxamine were less adherent to therapy and discontinued therapy due to intolerance more often.
...
Dr. John Campbell discusses how ivermectin works in the following:
@Fishtroller 02
on a particular esoteric aspect of how ivermectin functions (he did get the majority correct) but you cannot counter it's overwhelming efficacy shown by 81 studies world wide.
https://c19ivermectin.com/ 153 ivermectin COVID-19 studies, 104 peer reviewed, 81 comparing treatment and control groups. Recently added: Bitterman, Albariqi, Harper, Lawrie, Soto, Efimenko, Thairu. Ivermectin has been officially adopted for early treatment in all or part of 22 countries (39 including non-government medical organizations).
Why are you so adamant ivermectin doesn't work when all the data shows otherwise? You don't have to take it. You can rely on the 'vaccines' that neither prevent infection nor transmission and whose efficacy wanes within several months. I'm looking forward to the safety data the manufacturers have been forced to reveal in the coming 8 months (instead of their requested 75 years). It's not looking good at present.
claiming you have "debunked" anything and everything that is not in line with them. You are often wrong, but you also often "win" the debate by snowing others with piles of "information" that would take a long time to go through and verify. People just sigh and give up. So I thought I'd return the favor as a parting gift to you.
John Campbell has served us well educationally in many ways, but he has gotten himself in hot water when it comes to Ivermectin a couple of times.
For those who wish to expand their information on this topic ....
Dr. John Campbell created a video in which he claims to have demonstrated that Ivermectin has the same pharmacodynamic modality of action as the new Pfizer antiviral PF-07321332, which inhibits the 3CL main protease of SARS-Cov-2. In this video I address Dr. Campbell's misunderstandings and show that the biochemical mechanism he claims is not well supported by data, that his interpretations are based on misundertandings of the literature, and that --- even if ivermectin inhibits the 3CL protease exactly as he describes in biochemical assays --- Ivermectin cannot achieve the corresponding pharmacodynamic effect because the highest possible concentration in the human body is several orders of magnitude too low.
Dr. Campbell's basic misunderstandings of the biochemistry, as well as his evident failure to grasp the differences between a biochemical effect and a pharmacodynamic effect, are consequential in a pandemic because of his enormous influence on this platform.
It’s what she said a few days ago so she will be back in a day or two to reply to you. It’s interesting tho that she just ignores all the other studies that shows that ivermectin actually does work and keeps posting ones that are setup to fail. Plus she keeps ignoring what Dr. Hill originally told the WHO about it before he took the bribe from Gates. That information has been posted here numerous times. Too much information means I don’t want to read it.
Pfizer has released lots of information already and it shows that they knew that their mRNA shot was both dangerous and deadly. 1,200 people died in the first few months after its release and they posted 8 pages of adverse effects that they were seeing. Not counting the people who died or were injured during the trial that didn’t include testing on animals. Vaers is now reporting over 1 million injuries and over 25,000 deaths. But sure it’s ivermectin that is deadly even though it’s one of the safest drugs ever made according to the FDA and there are 81 trials that proves it works.
The veterinarian CEO is saying that people need a 4th jab even though information from Israel shows that it doesn’t work and that it might make people more susceptible to getting infected with omicron. Scotland says that close to 90% infected with it have been jabbed while the unjabbed are not.
#4.3.1.1.1.1.1
on a particular esoteric aspect of how ivermectin functions (he did get the majority correct) but you cannot counter it's overwhelming efficacy shown by 81 studies world wide.
https://c19ivermectin.com/ 153 ivermectin COVID-19 studies, 104 peer reviewed, 81 comparing treatment and control groups. Recently added: Bitterman, Albariqi, Harper, Lawrie, Soto, Efimenko, Thairu. Ivermectin has been officially adopted for early treatment in all or part of 22 countries (39 including non-government medical organizations).
Why are you so adamant ivermectin doesn't work when all the data shows otherwise? You don't have to take it. You can rely on the 'vaccines' that neither prevent infection nor transmission and whose efficacy wanes within several months. I'm looking forward to the safety data the manufacturers have been forced to reveal in the coming 8 months (instead of their requested 75 years). It's not looking good at present.
up
3 users have voted.
—
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
I want to provide counter information to the stuff you are claiming every day. You and CB just like to constantly jump on all my posts together. I don't know why, but it's certainly predictable. And when you do, it's just the same old stuff from the same old discredited sources. For example... you just posted some claims here about Ivermectin and Pfizer and deaths from vaccines etc. etc. that are just plainly false and have been demonstrated to be so for quite awhile now.
You are trying to scare people out of being vaccinated and so are the obviously powerful groups behind those front groups that provide the misleading and false information. Plus your numbers keep changing all the time. First it was 1 million people who died from the vaccines. Now it's 25,000.
You keep trying to discredit those who have decided that the vaccines overall have saved a lot of lives and kept a lot of people out of the hospital, and those who agree that Ivermectin is a great drug for treating parasites and other related health problems, but has not been shown in legitimate research to either prevent or lessen the effects of Covid 19. I'd ask you what your goal is here, but I really don't intend to further the conversation.
It’s what she said a few days ago so she will be back in a day or two to reply to you. It’s interesting tho that she just ignores all the other studies that shows that ivermectin actually does work and keeps posting ones that are setup to fail. Plus she keeps ignoring what Dr. Hill originally told the WHO about it before he took the bribe from Gates. That information has been posted here numerous times. Too much information means I don’t want to read it.
Pfizer has released lots of information already and it shows that they knew that their mRNA shot was both dangerous and deadly. 1,200 people died in the first few months after its release and they posted 8 pages of adverse effects that they were seeing. Not counting the people who died or were injured during the trial that didn’t include testing on animals. Vaers is now reporting over 1 million injuries and over 25,000 deaths. But sure it’s ivermectin that is deadly even though it’s one of the safest drugs ever made according to the FDA and there are 81 trials that proves it works.
The veterinarian CEO is saying that people need a 4th jab even though information from Israel shows that it doesn’t work and that it might make people more susceptible to getting infected with omicron. Scotland says that close to 90% infected with it have been jabbed while the unjabbed are not.
#4.3.1.1.1.1.1
on a particular esoteric aspect of how ivermectin functions (he did get the majority correct) but you cannot counter it's overwhelming efficacy shown by 81 studies world wide.
https://c19ivermectin.com/ 153 ivermectin COVID-19 studies, 104 peer reviewed, 81 comparing treatment and control groups. Recently added: Bitterman, Albariqi, Harper, Lawrie, Soto, Efimenko, Thairu. Ivermectin has been officially adopted for early treatment in all or part of 22 countries (39 including non-government medical organizations).
Why are you so adamant ivermectin doesn't work when all the data shows otherwise? You don't have to take it. You can rely on the 'vaccines' that neither prevent infection nor transmission and whose efficacy wanes within several months. I'm looking forward to the safety data the manufacturers have been forced to reveal in the coming 8 months (instead of their requested 75 years). It's not looking good at present.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Anonymous researchers are always a good clue on that. This is why I don't read your stuff in full.
#4.3.1.1.1.1.1
on a particular esoteric aspect of how ivermectin functions (he did get the majority correct) but you cannot counter it's overwhelming efficacy shown by 81 studies world wide.
https://c19ivermectin.com/ 153 ivermectin COVID-19 studies, 104 peer reviewed, 81 comparing treatment and control groups. Recently added: Bitterman, Albariqi, Harper, Lawrie, Soto, Efimenko, Thairu. Ivermectin has been officially adopted for early treatment in all or part of 22 countries (39 including non-government medical organizations).
Why are you so adamant ivermectin doesn't work when all the data shows otherwise? You don't have to take it. You can rely on the 'vaccines' that neither prevent infection nor transmission and whose efficacy wanes within several months. I'm looking forward to the safety data the manufacturers have been forced to reveal in the coming 8 months (instead of their requested 75 years). It's not looking good at present.
up
1 user has voted.
—
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
@CB
Regardless of the effectiveness of these drugs, if your premise is true, I find it odd that they found and published that there exists a drug that can be repurposed for COVID-19. Let's assume you are correct, these researchers are in the pocket of Bill Gates and are out to bury the effectiveness of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. How do you explain their preference for fluvoxamine? Why single that out as effective? What could be their motivation?
#4.3.1.1.1
were minimal (it is ONLY an anti-inflammatory) unlike that for ivermectin (anti-viral, anti-inflammatory). No one would use fluvoxamine to treat COVID in the real world. There are better anti-inflammatory medications.
Three randomized trials have studied the use of fluvoxamine for the treatment of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19. In STOP COVID, a contactless, double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted in the United States among nonhospitalized adults with mild COVID-19 diagnosed within 7 days of symptom onset, fluvoxamine (100 mg up to 3 times daily for 15 days) reduced clinical deterioration at Day 15.3 Clinical deterioration was defined as shortness of breath plus oxygen saturation (SpO2) 700 participants in the United States and Canada, was stopped for futility by a data safety monitoring board after lower than expected case rates and treatment effect were observed.4
...
Compared with those in the placebo arm, participants who received fluvoxamine were less adherent to therapy and discontinued therapy due to intolerance more often.
...
Dr. John Campbell discusses how ivermectin works in the following:
would be useful for people to take. And Pfizer itself has it on its website that it is recommended for Covid. Plus the site CB goes to all the trials showing that it does.
Andrew Hill was tasked by the world health organization to see if it would be helpful and he originally told them that it does. Then he was bribed by the Gates foundation and he went back on it. Tess Lowry video’d the conversation about his betrayal which has been posted here lots of times and can be found by a simple search.
It’s easy to continue to say it doesn’t work if you don’t look at the information that shows otherwise. But if people don’t want to take no one is forcing them to.
#4.3.1.1.1.1
Regardless of the effectiveness of these drugs, if your premise is true, I find it odd that they found and published that there exists a drug that can be repurposed for COVID-19. Let's assume you are correct, these researchers are in the pocket of Bill Gates and are out to bury the effectiveness of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. How do you explain their preference for fluvoxamine? Why single that out as effective? What could be their motivation?
up
2 users have voted.
—
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
@innatimm
Keep in mind these particular studies were financed by the very people that were developing and pushing these 'vaccines'. The drugs they ended up 'approving' had very limited efficacy. The ones they didn't, like ivermectin and HCQ, had the potential to be so effective in treating COVID it would have endangered them getting the necessary EUA. Keep in mind that these 'vaccines' are still "unapproved medical products".
An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. Taking into consideration input from the FDA, manufacturers decide whether and when to submit an EUA request to FDA.
#4.3.1.1.1.1
Regardless of the effectiveness of these drugs, if your premise is true, I find it odd that they found and published that there exists a drug that can be repurposed for COVID-19. Let's assume you are correct, these researchers are in the pocket of Bill Gates and are out to bury the effectiveness of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. How do you explain their preference for fluvoxamine? Why single that out as effective? What could be their motivation?
@CB
So FLuvoxamine is thrown out there to keep people off their scent, as it were. How many people are in on this game?
#4.3.1.1.1.1.2
Keep in mind these particular studies were financed by the very people that were developing and pushing these 'vaccines'. The drugs they ended up 'approving' had very limited efficacy. The ones they didn't, like ivermectin and HCQ, had the potential to be so effective in treating COVID it would have endangered them getting the necessary EUA. Keep in mind that these 'vaccines' are still "unapproved medical products".
An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. Taking into consideration input from the FDA, manufacturers decide whether and when to submit an EUA request to FDA.
@innatimm
I suggest you read Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s new book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health.
The majority of studies by independent researchers have all shown ivermectin to be extremely efficacious - especially if treatment is commenced early.
In June, five weeks after health officials in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state, launched an aggressive program to fight COVID and the Delta variant, new cases dropped by a staggering 97.1 percent.
... With only 5% of Uttar Pradesh’s 230 million people vaccinated, early treatment home kits wiped out an outbreak of COVID-19 dropping cases by 99% in three weeks.
What was in the home kits? Tylenol, Vitamin C, Multivitamin, Zinc, Vitamin D3, Ivermectin 12 mg [10 tablets], Doxycycline 100 mg [10 tablets].
The home kits cost less than $3 per person and brought the number of active cases to below 200. This is remarkable considering the province had more than 310,000 active cases during the peak of its COVID outbreak.
In comparison, one course of Remdisivir cost $3,100 and is the standard of care in many U.S. hospital systems even though the WHO has recommended against its use and meta-analysis studies have shown that it is ineffective against COVID-19.
Deaths per million:
USA 2,990
India 368
#4.3.1.1.1.1.2.2
So FLuvoxamine is thrown out there to keep people off their scent, as it were. How many people are in on this game?
It may surprise you to learn that the world’s pharmaceutical industry has arguably the dirtiest underbelly of all economic sectors in the world today, so totally riddled with crime and corruption that it probably cannot be fixed. As one measure, in the past few decades Big Pharma has created a toll of deaths and injuries exceeding that of all the world’s arms manufacturers combined. Astonishing claims, but heavily documented and easily proven, as you will see. The pharma companies are only one part of what we might term an enormous international crime ring that includes UN agencies.
This news hasn’t reached wide public awareness because the world’s mainstream media are owned by very close friends of these drug lords and, while much of the information on the litany of crimes is not exactly heavily censored, the exposures are treated dispassionately and gently in the media as unrelated one-off events, instead of as parts of a pattern of astonishing psycho-pathology that has existed for decades. Worse, the heart-breaking litany of resulting human misery is almost completely suppressed and thus unknown.
….
To my mind, it is the FDA that should be sued in these instances since it carries the ultimate responsibility for public safety in food and drugs, but appears to have abandoned virtually all that responsibility to the pharma companies in spite of the knowledge that they almost always lie, frequently fabricate their test data, and almost always bury the truth of side effects for as long as possible. When faced with a situation where a potential 5% of patients might suffer death or debilitating injury, the FDA’s responsibility is to remove a drug from the market, but its loyalties to the pharma industry outweigh those to the general public. Even if a medication were so vital for some illnesses that its use justified the serious risks, it is unconscionable to permit off-label applications that unnecessarily expose millions of otherwise healthy individuals to totally unnecessary and severe risks. And if the FDA isn’t policing these concerns, of what use is it?
This article is just as important reading as Kennedy’s book. Our government and regulatory agencies have taken huge amounts of money to let big pharma get away with putting dangerous drugs on the market and fooling doctors into thinking that they are safe. Almost every medical school, journal, etc takes money from them and posts what they tell them to post. Doctors then rely on journals for drug safety not knowing that they have been captured. The opioid epidemic alone should have told us that they can get away with murder. When deaths get too high they get their hands slapped and pay small fines but get to keep doing everything over and over and no one goes to jail.
Of course it’s not just big pharma that gets away with things because all corporations have captured our government. Look at how much money they recently threw at congress to keep drug prices high. Biden reversed Trump’s capping insulin at $35/month. People are dying because they can’t afford it.
up
5 users have voted.
—
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Comments
How to plug up the DC beltway with a bicycle
Lone cyclist deliberately holds up People's Convoy as it continues to disrupt traffic in Washington D.C. demanding end to all COVID rules and removal of BLM mural on road leading to White House
It's organic, man.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10632987/Peoples-Convoy-making-...
@QMS When you help Marshall
When you help Marshall for a protest parade one of the things you need to do is slow down the front of the march and speed up the tail. Keep everyone slow, and cohesively together. This bicyclist did an excellent job of keeping the front slowed down. Kudos.
@wouldsman On the day that Trump
On the day that Trump was elected I helped Marshall a protest parade. We had a break away group that kept going way to fast. They would get a block or two ahead of us. The problem became that when we hit downtown at rush hour that snarled up traffic too much. By the time the main group arrived some traffic had been held for 15 minutes because the cops would go out and shut down intersections before we got there. Or even ahead of the break away group. This created dangerous situations for us with increasingly hostile traffic. We wanted to disrupt for 10- 15 minutes but not 30.
more Vitamin D confirmation
https://c19vitamind.com/cavd.html
A meta study...
and one more on IVM and HCQ
800,000 Lives Could Have Been Saved with Ivermectin and HCQ – Dr. Pierre Kory
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
COVID Secrets
Two new studies on Ivermectin out recently.
One from Malaysia of around 500 people that found Ivemectin ineffective in preventing progression to severe disease in high risk adults... "Malaysian trial finds no difference in progression to severe disease over standard of care."
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/97287
And, a trial in Brazil involving about 1400 people ... A group of researchers evaluating the effect of repurposed drugs against COVID-19 found that oral antiparasitic medication ivermectin did not improve patient outcomes in the largest trial of its kind to date, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
Ivermectin marketed by Merck (NYSE:MRK) as Stromectol for parasitic infestations sparked controversy during the pandemic prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue warnings against its excessive use.
“There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful,” said Edward Mills, a lead investigator of the trial and a professor of health sciences at Canada’s McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.
The findings have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal, and on Friday, Dr. Mills is scheduled to present the data at an event sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.The latest trial conducted in Brazil involved 1,358 adults with COVID-19 symptoms. All study participants were at risk of developing the severe form of the disease with a history of pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or lung disease. Half of them received Ivermectin pills for three days, and the other half received a placebo.
Dr. Mills and the team looked at their hospitalizations rates within 28 days. In addition, they gathered data on how fast the patients cleared the virus, how soon their symptoms improved, whether they were in hospital or were relying on ventilators for less time, and the differences in death rates.
For accuracy, they analyzed data in three different ways, and in each scenario, ivermectin was found to have no impact on the improvement of patient outcomes.
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3815030-ivermectin-had-no-clinical-benefit...
The Activ 6 study which looks at ivermectin, Fluvoxamine and Fluticasone is still underway.....https://activ6study.org/
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
@Fishtroller 02 Your med page link goes
Your med page link goes to the JAMA study that shows Ivermectin cut death by around 70%. I think we have looked that study over several times here at The Dose. Thanks for reposting it. It is such a great example of how a study can publish a headline that does not match its actually data.
I don't know why that occurred, but a simple search
on the Malaysian study brings it up in several places...https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35179551/
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/ivermectin-does-not-prevent-se...
https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2022/02/772787/malaysias-study-ineffe...
Summary Findings 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.Feb 18, 2022
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
The Malaysian study was designed to fail
right from it's inception: "Malaysian trial finds no difference in progression to severe disease over standard of care."
You have already touted the Malaysian study
on ivermectin TWICE on this site and this study was debunked:
Let's have a look at one of your studies
Decided to take the time replying to the questions
The McMaster study which was part of the TOGETHER Trial was funded by Bill Gates. I have already debunked several of your previous posts several months ago pertaining to this very same study. This McMaster study was designed to fail. Only three minimum doses of ivermectin were given to people who were already compromised and had previously contracted COVID.
Why are you continuing to beat this dead horse, over and over and over again?
McMaster study used to trash ivermectin study
To refresh your memory:
Kind of a head scratcher.....
If their study was designed to fail, why would they find another repurposed drug effective then?
https://www.togethertrial.com/flv
Fluvoxamine did not prove
to be as efficacious as ivermectin (or HCQ) so it wasn't deemed to be a great threat. There were over 60 studies at the time showing ivermectin was favourable. Fluvoxamine was an anti-depressant and was not tolerated by 20%. There were very few studies which showed only moderate effectiveness for fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID at the time.
Hydroxychloroquine was also removed from this study before ivermectin. That was another study that was set up to fail. They used it only in late stages of COVID at small doses without the concurrent zinc.
I originally won an argument against Alligator Ed who said HCQ was efficacious by using this very study. I was not a believer in ivermectin or HCQ at first. Since his death I've come to learn he was correct and I was wrong. I regret his passing without my mea culpa that I was originally fooled by this study.
But....
If their goal was to sink ivermectin (and apparently hydroxychloroquine as well), why would they show that there was a repurposed drug that had an effect?
The effects of fluvoxamine
were minimal (it is ONLY an anti-inflammatory) unlike that for ivermectin (anti-viral, anti-inflammatory). No one would use fluvoxamine to treat COVID in the real world. There are better anti-inflammatory medications.
Dr. John Campbell discusses how ivermectin works in the following:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKa3EZqofNo]
You are so determined to cement your views here by
claiming you have "debunked" anything and everything that is not in line with them. You are often wrong, but you also often "win" the debate by snowing others with piles of "information" that would take a long time to go through and verify. People just sigh and give up. So I thought I'd return the favor as a parting gift to you.
John Campbell has served us well educationally in many ways, but he has gotten himself in hot water when it comes to Ivermectin a couple of times.
For those who wish to expand their information on this topic ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H95VCYLBh-A
Biotech and Bioinformatics with Prof Greg
3.73K subscribers
Buy me a coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/GregTK
My gear: https://higheredutech.com/gear/
Dr. John Campbell created a video in which he claims to have demonstrated that Ivermectin has the same pharmacodynamic modality of action as the new Pfizer antiviral PF-07321332, which inhibits the 3CL main protease of SARS-Cov-2. In this video I address Dr. Campbell's misunderstandings and show that the biochemical mechanism he claims is not well supported by data, that his interpretations are based on misundertandings of the literature, and that --- even if ivermectin inhibits the 3CL protease exactly as he describes in biochemical assays --- Ivermectin cannot achieve the corresponding pharmacodynamic effect because the highest possible concentration in the human body is several orders of magnitude too low.
Dr. Campbell's basic misunderstandings of the biochemistry, as well as his evident failure to grasp the differences between a biochemical effect and a pharmacodynamic effect, are consequential in a pandemic because of his enormous influence on this platform.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
You can pick holes in Dr. Campbell's explanation
on a particular esoteric aspect of how ivermectin functions (he did get the majority correct) but you cannot counter it's overwhelming efficacy shown by 81 studies world wide.
Why are you so adamant ivermectin doesn't work when all the data shows otherwise? You don't have to take it. You can rely on the 'vaccines' that neither prevent infection nor transmission and whose efficacy wanes within several months. I'm looking forward to the safety data the manufacturers have been forced to reveal in the coming 8 months (instead of their requested 75 years). It's not looking good at present.
She just wants to have a conversation with us
It’s what she said a few days ago so she will be back in a day or two to reply to you. It’s interesting tho that she just ignores all the other studies that shows that ivermectin actually does work and keeps posting ones that are setup to fail. Plus she keeps ignoring what Dr. Hill originally told the WHO about it before he took the bribe from Gates. That information has been posted here numerous times. Too much information means I don’t want to read it.
Pfizer has released lots of information already and it shows that they knew that their mRNA shot was both dangerous and deadly. 1,200 people died in the first few months after its release and they posted 8 pages of adverse effects that they were seeing. Not counting the people who died or were injured during the trial that didn’t include testing on animals. Vaers is now reporting over 1 million injuries and over 25,000 deaths. But sure it’s ivermectin that is deadly even though it’s one of the safest drugs ever made according to the FDA and there are 81 trials that proves it works.
The veterinarian CEO is saying that people need a 4th jab even though information from Israel shows that it doesn’t work and that it might make people more susceptible to getting infected with omicron. Scotland says that close to 90% infected with it have been jabbed while the unjabbed are not.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Actually I don't really want to start a conversation with you
Or CB.
I want to provide counter information to the stuff you are claiming every day. You and CB just like to constantly jump on all my posts together. I don't know why, but it's certainly predictable. And when you do, it's just the same old stuff from the same old discredited sources. For example... you just posted some claims here about Ivermectin and Pfizer and deaths from vaccines etc. etc. that are just plainly false and have been demonstrated to be so for quite awhile now.
You are trying to scare people out of being vaccinated and so are the obviously powerful groups behind those front groups that provide the misleading and false information. Plus your numbers keep changing all the time. First it was 1 million people who died from the vaccines. Now it's 25,000.
You keep trying to discredit those who have decided that the vaccines overall have saved a lot of lives and kept a lot of people out of the hospital, and those who agree that Ivermectin is a great drug for treating parasites and other related health problems, but has not been shown in legitimate research to either prevent or lessen the effects of Covid 19. I'd ask you what your goal is here, but I really don't intend to further the conversation.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
c19ivermectin.com is a bad site.
Anonymous researchers are always a good clue on that. This is why I don't read your stuff in full.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Regardless...
Regardless of the effectiveness of these drugs, if your premise is true, I find it odd that they found and published that there exists a drug that can be repurposed for COVID-19. Let's assume you are correct, these researchers are in the pocket of Bill Gates and are out to bury the effectiveness of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. How do you explain their preference for fluvoxamine? Why single that out as effective? What could be their motivation?
During the SARS 1 outbreak they said that ivermectin
would be useful for people to take. And Pfizer itself has it on its website that it is recommended for Covid. Plus the site CB goes to all the trials showing that it does.
Andrew Hill was tasked by the world health organization to see if it would be helpful and he originally told them that it does. Then he was bribed by the Gates foundation and he went back on it. Tess Lowry video’d the conversation about his betrayal which has been posted here lots of times and can be found by a simple search.
It’s easy to continue to say it doesn’t work if you don’t look at the information that shows otherwise. But if people don’t want to take no one is forcing them to.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
They were playing a game
Keep in mind these particular studies were financed by the very people that were developing and pushing these 'vaccines'. The drugs they ended up 'approving' had very limited efficacy. The ones they didn't, like ivermectin and HCQ, had the potential to be so effective in treating COVID it would have endangered them getting the necessary EUA. Keep in mind that these 'vaccines' are still "unapproved medical products".
A red herring?
So FLuvoxamine is thrown out there to keep people off their scent, as it were. How many people are in on this game?
For the definitive answer to that
I suggest you read Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s new book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health.
The majority of studies by independent researchers have all shown ivermectin to be extremely efficacious - especially if treatment is commenced early.
Deaths per million:
USA 2,990
India 368
The whole world, apparently.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Very damning article on big pharma
This article is just as important reading as Kennedy’s book. Our government and regulatory agencies have taken huge amounts of money to let big pharma get away with putting dangerous drugs on the market and fooling doctors into thinking that they are safe. Almost every medical school, journal, etc takes money from them and posts what they tell them to post. Doctors then rely on journals for drug safety not knowing that they have been captured. The opioid epidemic alone should have told us that they can get away with murder. When deaths get too high they get their hands slapped and pay small fines but get to keep doing everything over and over and no one goes to jail.
Of course it’s not just big pharma that gets away with things because all corporations have captured our government. Look at how much money they recently threw at congress to keep drug prices high. Biden reversed Trump’s capping insulin at $35/month. People are dying because they can’t afford it.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
COVID Secrets Episode 7