Who's here is still not cucked by the vaccine?

MrClean1

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
70
Funny how the media demonized Joe Rogan when he said he took Ivermectin aka "horse dewormer"...

Meanwhile the Queen is taking it (FYI stromectol is Ivermectin)

The queen is not taking it. Do you just post this crap for fun?

An Australian television news report about Queen Elizabeth’s COVID-19 infection included footage showing a package of Ivermectin due to an “editing error,” the Nine Network told Reuters. The clip caused social media users online to assume the monarch was using the drug, when details of her treatment have not been disclosed.
 

disfiguredyoungman

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
2,564
Every man's destiny should be to die on the battlefield.

There is a war taking place between good and evil.

This realm is inverted and perverted.

Have I the testicles to back up my feelings with actions?

The chronological nano's will soon tell..............
Sounds like Mishima.
 

MrClean1

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
70
"details of her treatment have not been disclosed" So how do you know she's not taking it? Lol, why did they randomly show footage of Stromectol. Just to troll?
There is absolutely no way the queens Dr. is treating her with a medication that lacks any significant results for covid. I don't care if you take it but don't run to the ER when you can't breath and take up space. Please stay at home and continue your treatment.
 

debyne

Established Member
Reaction score
212
There is absolutely no way the queens Dr. is treating her with a medication that lacks any significant results for covid. I don't care if you take it but don't run to the ER when you can't breath and take up space. Please stay at home and continue your treatment.
Agree with Pigeon. Stop spreading misinformation and hate.
 

MrClean1

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
70
The study that is being discussed in the video commenced in early 2020, which means that all the statements that were made about the study were made prior to that time. It is well known and documented in the scientific community that in vitro efficacy will not always, and in fact often does not, translate to in vivo efficacy. For this reason a randomized controlled trial with adequate power to detect a statistical difference between treatment groups is obviously necessary. Until the results of that trial are available, no respectable institution or practitioner would prescribe an unproven treatment when well researched, efficacious and safe alternatives are available. Especially to someone as important (and elderly) as the Queen of England.

It is incorrect to say that ivermectin comes with no side effects. Patients in South America were given ivermectin as a treatment for covid out of desperation due to lack of other alternative treatments. Patients did experience side effects and in fact documented hepatitis that lead to even organ transplant. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8050401/

4.35 billion people have been safely and effectively vaccinated against covid with scientifically documented reduction in deaths and significant illness. There are no documented cases of patients who were critically ill and/or in the ICU experiencing a benefit from ivermectin treatment, or in fact of patients avoiding hospitalization by using ivermectin. Comparatively speaking, even when the ivermectin study discussed in the video is completed only 9,000 patients will have been enrolled, not all of which will have received ivermectin. Again, no respectable medical institution or medical provider would prioritize ivermectin with not only the lack of evidence available today but in fact some evidence that it is not efficacious and could be deleterious. Additionally, no certain dose has been established. This is just not how medical professionals operate in the real world.
 

debyne

Established Member
Reaction score
212
The study that is being discussed in the video commenced in early 2020, which means that all the statements that were made about the study were made prior to that time. It is well known and documented in the scientific community that in vitro efficacy will not always, and in fact often does not, translate to in vivo efficacy. For this reason a randomized controlled trial with adequate power to detect a statistical difference between treatment groups is obviously necessary. Until the results of that trial are available, no respectable institution or practitioner would prescribe an unproven treatment when well researched, efficacious and safe alternatives are available. Especially to someone as important (and elderly) as the Queen of England.

It is incorrect to say that ivermectin comes with no side effects. Patients in South America were given ivermectin as a treatment for covid out of desperation due to lack of other alternative treatments. Patients did experience side effects and in fact documented hepatitis that lead to even organ transplant. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8050401/

4.35 billion people have been safely and effectively vaccinated against covid with scientifically documented reduction in deaths and significant illness. There are no documented cases of patients who were critically ill and/or in the ICU experiencing a benefit from ivermectin treatment, or in fact of patients avoiding hospitalization by using ivermectin. Comparatively speaking, even when the ivermectin study discussed in the video is completed only 9,000 patients will have been enrolled, not all of which will have received ivermectin. Again, no respectable medical institution or medical provider would prioritize ivermectin with not only the lack of evidence available today but in fact some evidence that it is not efficacious and could be deleterious. Additionally, no certain dose has been established. This is just not how medical professionals operate in the real world.
What's the death rate of Ivermectin vs Covid vaccines?

The large RCTs you're talking about are millions of dollars. Big pharma isn't going to pay for an expensive RCT for a safe, effective generic that could destroy their gravy train. So who is going to pony up? Frontline docs? You?

Meanwhile, there are dozens of smaller RCTs that have shown, via meta analysis, a clear signal that Ivermectin is effective against SARS.
ivmmeta.com

Additionally, there are epidemiological studies of entire countries and provinces that show a clear signal that Ivermectin is effective. Look at Uttar Pradesh.

While you sit around waiting for biased, expensive RCTs funded by big pharma or big health agencies who have zero desire to keep us healthy using cheap generics, you go participate in a science experiment with these clot shots and I'll go listen to the real frontline doctors who see great success every day with safe generics that have been around for years.
 
Last edited:

MrClean1

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
70
What's the death rate of Ivermectin vs Covid vaccines?

The large RCTs you're talking about are millions of dollars. Big pharma isn't going to pay for an expensive RCT for a safe, effective generic that could destroy their gravy train. So who is going to pony up? Frontline docs? You?

Meanwhile, there are dozens of smaller RCTs that have shown, via meta analysis, a clear signal that Ivermectin is effective against SARS.
ivmmeta.com

Additionally, there are epidemiological studies of entire countries and provinces that show a clear signal that Ivermectin is effective. Look at Uttar Pradesh.

While you sit around waiting for biased, expensive RCTs funded by big pharma or big health agencies who have zero desire to keep us healthy using cheap generics, you go participate in a science experiment with these clot shots and I'll go listen to the real frontline doctors who see great success every day with safe generics that have been around for years.
What's the death rate of Ivermectin vs Covid vaccines?

The large RCTs you're talking about are millions of dollars. Big pharma isn't going to pay for an expensive RCT for a safe, effective generic that could destroy their gravy train. So who is going to pony up? Frontline docs? You?

Meanwhile, there are dozens of smaller RCTs that have shown, via meta analysis, a clear signal that Ivermectin is effective against SARS.
ivmmeta.com

Additionally, there are epidemiological studies of entire countries and provinces that show a clear signal that Ivermectin is effective. Look at Uttar Pradesh.

While you sit around waiting for biased, expensive RCTs funded by big pharma or big health agencies who have zero desire to keep us healthy using cheap generics, you go participate in a science experiment with these clot shots and I'll go listen to the real frontline doctors who see great success every day with safe generics that have been around for years.
Please provide the epidemiological studies of entire countries you are referring to. I would love to read and respond.
 

MrClean1

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
70
Who is that guy doing the math? This is one of the worst studies I have ever read. Also the author's got paid by the manufacturer.
 

BurningCoals

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
1,161
Man I got this f*****g disease now, not pleasant. Tho not life threatening or anything phew
 

MrClean1

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
70
Wtf are you talking about... "the manufacturer"? You do know there's no money to be made with Ivermectin right? You can get it as a generic prescription.

Stop making a fool out of yourself.

That guy is an actual doctor unlike you. And yet another retarded claim "the author got paid by the manufacturer", show the proof...oh wait, we already know you're talking out of your ***.

Also why are you mad more and more evidence is coming out Ivermectin works?



Abstract​


Background: Ivermectin has demonstrated different mechanisms of action that potentially protect from both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and COVID-19-related comorbidities. Based on the studies suggesting efficacy in prophylaxis combined with the known safety profile of ivermectin, a citywide prevention program using ivermectin for COVID-19 was implemented in Itajaí, a southern city in Brazil in the state of Santa Catarina. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of regular ivermectin use on subsequent COVID-19 infection and mortality rates.

Materials and methods: We analyzed data from a prospective, observational study of the citywide COVID-19 prevention with ivermectin program, which was conducted between July 2020 and December 2020 in Itajaí, Brazil. Study design, institutional review board approval, and analysis of registry data occurred after completion of the program. The program consisted of inviting the entire population of Itajaí to a medical visit to enroll in the program and to compile baseline, personal, demographic, and medical information. In the absence of contraindications, ivermectin was offered as an optional treatment to be taken for two consecutive days every 15 days at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day. In cases where a participating citizen of Itajaí became ill with COVID-19, they were recommended not to use ivermectin or any other medication in early outpatient treatment. Clinical outcomes of infection, hospitalization, and death were automatically reported and entered into the registry in real time. Study analysis consisted of comparing ivermectin users with non-users using cohorts of infected patients propensity score-matched by age, sex, and comorbidities. COVID-19 infection and mortality rates were analyzed with and without the use of propensity score matching (PSM).
Results: Of the 223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered for the study, a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis: 113,845 (71.3%) regular ivermectin users and 45,716 (23.3%) non-users. Of these, 4,311 ivermectin users were infected, among which 4,197 were from the city of Itajaí (3.7% infection rate), and 3,034 non-users (from Itajaí) were infected (6.6% infection rate), with a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.53-0.58; p < 0.0001). Using PSM, two cohorts of 3,034 subjects suffering from COVID-19 infection were compared. The regular use of ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (25 [0.8%] versus 79 [2.6%] among ivermectin non-users; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.49; p < 0.0001). When adjusted for residual variables, reduction in mortality rate was 70% (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.46; p < 0.0001). There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (44 versus 99 hospitalizations among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63; p < 0.0001). After adjustment for residual variables, reduction in hospitalization rate was 67% (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 023-0.66; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.


Purpose​

To evaluate the difference in mortality of patients treated with ivermectin vs patients treated with remdesivir with COVID-19 in United States using TriNetX Research network, a federated EMR network of over 44 healthcare organizations and 68 million patients from US, from 2009-2021.

Methods & Materials​

We retrospectively identified adults (≥18 years) with a recorded COVID-19 infection between January 1, 2020 and July 11, 2021. We compared those with recorded use of ivermectin, but not remdesivir, against those with recorded use of remdesivir, but not ivermectin. We controlled for the following demographics, comorbidities, and treatments that may affect COVID-19 survival outcomes: age, gender, race, ethnicity, nicotine use diabetes mellitus, obesity, chronic lower respiratory disease, ischemic heart diseases, tocilizumab, glucocorticoids, or ventilator use. We measured association with mortality as the primary outcome, with significance assessed at p<0.05.

Results​

There were a total of 1,761,060 possible COVID-19 patients based on ICD-10 diagnostic terms and confirmatory lab results. Prior to controlling, our analysis yielded 41,608 patients who had COVID-19 resulting in two unique cohorts that were treated with either ivermectin (1,072) or remdesivir (40,536). Within the ivermectin cohort, average age was 51.9 + 17.8 years, 43% were male, 60% had glucocorticoids and 1% required ventilator support. In the remdesivir cohort, average age was 62.0 + 16.0 years, 54% were male, 64% had glucocorticoids and 2% required ventilator support. After using propensity score matching and adjusting for potential confounders, ivermectin was associated with reduced mortality vs remdesivir (OR 0.308, 95% CI (0.198,0.479)),Risk Difference -5.224%, CI (-7.079%,-3.369%), p <0.0001.

Conclusion​

Ivermectin use was associated with decreased mortality in patients with COVID-19 compared to remdesivir. To our knowledge, this is the largest association study of patients with COVID-19, mortality and ivermectin. Further double-blinded placebo-controlled RCTs with large samples are required for definite conclusion. In the future, if more publications are published with the similar result to the current analyses, the certainty of evidence will increase.
The Author's admitted they got paid. If you knew how to read instead of copying and pasting crap you would know that.
 

MrClean1

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
70
From the version released by the authors prior to print: Dr Lucy Kerr received funding from Vitamedic, that manufactures ivermectin, unrelated to this study. Dr. Flavio A. Cadegiani was contracted by Vitamedic for consulting services unrelated to this study, and donated the full budget for COVID-19 patient care and research. Any income from pharmaceutical companies received by authors is considered a potential bias, since it can result in the author feeling obligated to produce positive results.

Also quoted by the authors in the publication itself: "However, the present results do not provide sufficient support for the hypothesis that ivermectin could be an alternative to COVID-19 vaccines."

Expert analysis of the study:
Dr. Nikolas Wada, an epidemiologist with the Novel Coronavirus Research Compendium at Johns Hopkins, raised concerns about the study's uncertainty over who was "truly taking ivermectin and vice versa" and poor control for factors that may predispose someone to catch COVID-19, among other issues. "My primary takeaway," Wada said, "is that this paper adds nearly nothing to the knowledge base regarding ivermectin and COVID-19, and certainly does not prove its effectiveness as a prophylaxis."

Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist and Ph.D candidate in Australia who often writes about COVID-19, said the research lacks critical information about the study’s participants, including how many Itajaí residents were already taking ivermectin before the program began and how many continued to take the full doses of the drug as prescribed. "This sort of epidemiological study is very prone to biases resulting from characteristics that are inherently different between the intervention and control groups," Meyerowitz-Katz said. "There is essentially no information on how many people in either the intervention or control group actually took ivermectin, which is a fairly important consideration if that's what the authors were trying to investigate."
 
Top