Ivermectin
- Thread starter Yorkfox
- Start date
Club_B00k_Crutchless
Registered
Can someone remind me, why do we need peer-reviewed scientific studies rather than believing what Todd tells us on Bitchute? Criticise the source if you like, but they are just reporting what someone has discovered.
amp.theguardian.com
Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns | Medical research | The Guardian
The preprint endorsing ivermectin as a coronavirus therapy has been widely cited, but independent researchers find glaring discrepancies in the data
amp.theguardian.com
Last edited:
F
Foxgolfer
Guest
I listen to our fanastic scientists in the U.K. not politicians or drivel on social media . Properly researched data driven and peer reviewed publications .
Sadly the twat in charge of us doesn’t . We are hurtling into a disaster here and no one seems to give a fuck
bnet
Roofer
total BSCan someone remind me, why do we need peer-reviewed scientific studies rather than believing what Todd tells us on Bitchute? Criticise the source if you like, but they are just reporting what someone has discovered.
Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns | Medical research | The Guardian
The preprint endorsing ivermectin as a coronavirus therapy has been widely cited, but independent researchers find glaring discrepancies in the data
Club_B00k_Crutchless
Registered
I thought it wasn't far off wrong, now it's got your professional approval I'm even more convinced.
F
Foxgolfer
Guest
You are beyond belief
Seriously . What level of bed wetting stupidity makes you think some no mark on an obscure website is more likely to be right than the world leading scientists at our World respected medical research Universities ? I just don’t get it . Radicalisation on your level is beyond my experience and I’ve worked for years in the field .
I’ve met ISIS converts with more rationality .
Get help ffs
Yorkfox
Roofer
So Mexico, India and vast swathes of South America haven't had vast reductions in covid cases and hospitalisation since they started using it. True or falseCan someone remind me, why do we need peer-reviewed scientific studies rather than believing what Todd tells us on Bitchute? Criticise the source if you like, but they are just reporting what someone has discovered.
Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns | Medical research | The Guardian
The preprint endorsing ivermectin as a coronavirus therapy has been widely cited, but independent researchers find glaring discrepancies in the data
AFCDorset
Roofer
Or the evidence given by Dr McCullough in the US about the effectiveness of Ivermectin and HCQ+ therapies.
These have been known about since the spring of 2020, yet information on their effectiveness has been withheld and in many cases simply censored. All to promote the vaccine.
These have been known about since the spring of 2020, yet information on their effectiveness has been withheld and in many cases simply censored. All to promote the vaccine.
Club_B00k_Crutchless
Registered
Small samples sizes, inconclusive trials, still not recommend by WHO , you know, them that spend billions on research.
mac
369
Open AccessArticle
Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon
Abstract
Objective: This study was designed to determine the efficacy of ivermectin, an FDA-approved drug, in producing clinical benefits and decreasing the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 among asymptomatic subjects that tested positive for this virus in Lebanon. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 100 asymptomatic Lebanese subjects that have tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Fifty patients received standard preventive treatment, mainly supplements, and the experimental group received a single dose (according to body weight) of ivermectin, in addition to the same supplements the control group received. Results: There was no significant difference (p = 0.06) between Ct-values of the two groups before the regimen was started (day zero), indicating that subjects in both groups had similar viral loads. At 72 h after the regimen started, the increase in Ct-values was dramatically higher in the ivermectin than in the control group. In the ivermectin group, Ct increased from 15.13 ± 2.07 (day zero) to 30.14 ± 6.22 (day three; mean ± SD), compared to the control group, where the Ct values increased only from 14.20 ± 2.48 (day zero) to 18.96 ± 3.26 (day three; mean ± SD). Moreover, more subjects in the control group developed clinical symptoms. Three individuals (6%) required hospitalization, compared to the ivermectin group (0%). Conclusion: Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to be further cemented
Yorkfox
Roofer
Made the Wall St Journal last week:
Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?
archive.ph
archive.ph
AFCDorset
Roofer
Using Ivermectin as a prophylaxis is not considered to be the most effective use, that is probably HCQ+ territory.
It's advocates believe it to be most effective when used (in combination with other drugs) as a treatment for symptomatic patients in the early stages of infection, where it is shown to be very effective at limiting the progress and the severity of the disease and reducing hospitalisations.
Reports to this effect are quite rare, peer review papers rarer still. There is some evidence that there is censorship in place, main stream media prefer to stay with the pro-vaccine narrative, so it is left to 'alternate' news outlets to publish details of these treatments but such outlets are easily dismissed as unreliable or worse.
This ties in with the WSJ article mentioned above which is pretty guarded and understated, presumably to get it published. There is no doubt in my mind the authorities are suppressing effective 'conventional' treatments in favour of an experimental vaccine.
The vaccine is so important to their plans that it is now very close to being made compulsory and all opposition to its use is being quashed, why is that?
It's advocates believe it to be most effective when used (in combination with other drugs) as a treatment for symptomatic patients in the early stages of infection, where it is shown to be very effective at limiting the progress and the severity of the disease and reducing hospitalisations.
Reports to this effect are quite rare, peer review papers rarer still. There is some evidence that there is censorship in place, main stream media prefer to stay with the pro-vaccine narrative, so it is left to 'alternate' news outlets to publish details of these treatments but such outlets are easily dismissed as unreliable or worse.
This ties in with the WSJ article mentioned above which is pretty guarded and understated, presumably to get it published. There is no doubt in my mind the authorities are suppressing effective 'conventional' treatments in favour of an experimental vaccine.
The vaccine is so important to their plans that it is now very close to being made compulsory and all opposition to its use is being quashed, why is that?
