Covid Treatments Besides Vaccines

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

“People Need Held Accountable for What They Did”



There have now been 90 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies from 963 scientists in 27 countries that show an 83%, 62%, and 39% improvement for prophylaxis, early, and late treatment respectively in COVID patients.

Screen-Shot-2022-09-03-at-11.45.12-AM-scaled.jpg


“178 ivermectin COVID-19 studies, 127 peer-reviewed, 90 comparing treatment and control groups. Ivermectin has been officially adopted for early treatment in all or part of 22 countries (38 including non-government medical organizations),” according to the COVID-19 treatment studies tracker website.

Screen-Shot-2022-09-03-at-11.51.23-AM-scaled.jpg


On Saturday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA-R) responded to a tweet by former UFC/MMA fighter Jake Shields about an Ivermectin study used on 88,012 people with a 92% reduction in death. This study was published on the NIH website.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
💊 You may have seen articles this weekend about a new peer-reviewed study of over 80,000 patients taking Ivermectin in Brazil, published in Cureus, titled “Regular Use of Ivermectin as Prophylaxis for COVID-19 Led Up to a 92% Reduction in COVID-19 Mortality Rate in a Dose-Response Manner: Results of a Prospective Observational Study of a Strictly Controlled Population of 88,012 Subjects.”

In short, and unsurprisingly, the researchers found a blockbuster NINETY-TWO PERCENT reduction in mortality from covid in the group taking Ivermectin as opposed to the group not taking the drug.

What you may not have heard is that they are now going after the lead researcher on the study, Flavio Cadegiani. Brazilian police indicted the scientist for “crimes against humanity,” for conducting a 2021 study on a chloroquine-like drug in the Amazon. Ironically, they alleged Flavio failed to get full informed consent from his patients.

I know. The irony. You can’t make this stuff up.

The charges are that 200 of Flavio’s 600 study patents died during the study, which sounds pretty awful. But Flavio defends that outcome, pointing out that at the time, hospitals in the Amazon were experiencing 50% covid mortality. So Flavio says his study actually showed a benefit. And he says his study was pre-approved by government agencies before he began.

It can’t possibly be that they are weaponizing law enforcement against the researcher because he wrote about Ivermectin. That would be bonkers. Be serious.


 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Second looks: Peer-reviewed research questions mask study, finds hydroxychloroquine benefit



But Biden's statement also makes it easier for his administration to quietly distance itself from mask mandates, whose scientific basis continues to fall under methodological scrutiny.

The so-called Bangladesh mask study, widely touted in the media as the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) to show small but meaningful protection at least from surgical masks, is the subject of a new peer-reviewed "re-analysis" in the Springer Nature journal Trials.

Lead author Ben Recht, a University of California Berkeley machine-learning professor, expanded on his methodological criticisms of the study last year with Carnegie Mellon University mathematician Wesley Pedgen, who has also scrutinized mask research, and University of Pittsburgh computational biologist Maria Chikina.

"Since high impact publications often lead to changes in social behaviors and government policies, they need to be carefully vetted," they wrote, referring to the December paper in Science led by Yale economist Jason Abaluck, based on a cluster RCT of 600 Bangladeshi villages.

Social media giants and the federal public health establishment were already protecting mask mandates from scientific challenge when Abaluck's preprint came out in September 2021.

At the same time it was coordinating with the feds to remove purported misinformation, Twitter locked then-Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff out of his account for a month for saying elderly people had died because of false claims by public health officials that masks would protect them. Then-National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins put Kulldorff on a quasi-blacklist of "fringe epidemiologists" the prior autumn.





"We find that staff behavior in both unblinded and supposedly blinded steps caused large and statistically significant imbalances in population sizes," the Trials paper said of Abaluck's team.

Neither the preprint nor the peer-reviewed paper from the Bangladesh study included the "raw numbers" from the trial, though Abaluck posted them after initial media coverage, showing "the primary outcome [symptomatic seropositives] differed by a total of just 20 cases between the treatment and control arms" in a study population of 300,000, Recht and the others wrote.

"In particular, the difference in rates is constituted by denominator differences, and thus is similar in magnitude (10% vs 9%) to the population imbalance which arose through the interaction of staff bias and random chance (156,938 and 170,497 individuals enrolled in control and treatment respectively)," the paper says.

It notes that Abaluck's team already conceded the study had "substantial post-randomization ascertainment bias" due to staff who were "tasked with both enrolling households and providing masks in the treatment villages and hence were aware whether they were surveying a treatment or control village." But this bias could only "account for 25% of the difference in size between treatment and control," suggesting "some unintentional unblinding" as well.

"The purpose of randomized control trials is to establish a causal link between interventions and outcomes," notes the Trials paper. "However, causal implications are diminished in the presence of unblinding, ascertainment bias, and bias-susceptible endpoints. Unfortunately, in the Bangladesh mask trial we [find] evidence of all of the above."

University of California San Francisco epidemiologist Vinay Prasad, who previously wrote his own review of mask-research literature, called the reanalysis "provocative" in his newsletter. The Bangladesh study "falls apart," he concluded.

"If participants could see a big truck or boxes in intervention villages, but not see that in control villages, they may be more likely to enroll," he wrote. "In fact, 9% more likely!"

A person who enrolls in the trial because "they are getting something for free" may be "slightly less likely to properly report COVID symptoms (perhaps they report less or differently) and less likely to follow through with testing," Prasad said. "Assuming these people are just a little different, can cause the entire trial results to tip."






 

herb749

Well-Known Member

Second looks: Peer-reviewed research questions mask study, finds hydroxychloroquine benefit



But Biden's statement also makes it easier for his administration to quietly distance itself from mask mandates, whose scientific basis continues to fall under methodological scrutiny.

The so-called Bangladesh mask study, widely touted in the media as the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) to show small but meaningful protection at least from surgical masks, is the subject of a new peer-reviewed "re-analysis" in the Springer Nature journal Trials.

Lead author Ben Recht, a University of California Berkeley machine-learning professor, expanded on his methodological criticisms of the study last year with Carnegie Mellon University mathematician Wesley Pedgen, who has also scrutinized mask research, and University of Pittsburgh computational biologist Maria Chikina.

"Since high impact publications often lead to changes in social behaviors and government policies, they need to be carefully vetted," they wrote, referring to the December paper in Science led by Yale economist Jason Abaluck, based on a cluster RCT of 600 Bangladeshi villages.

Social media giants and the federal public health establishment were already protecting mask mandates from scientific challenge when Abaluck's preprint came out in September 2021.

At the same time it was coordinating with the feds to remove purported misinformation, Twitter locked then-Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff out of his account for a month for saying elderly people had died because of false claims by public health officials that masks would protect them. Then-National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins put Kulldorff on a quasi-blacklist of "fringe epidemiologists" the prior autumn.





"We find that staff behavior in both unblinded and supposedly blinded steps caused large and statistically significant imbalances in population sizes," the Trials paper said of Abaluck's team.

Neither the preprint nor the peer-reviewed paper from the Bangladesh study included the "raw numbers" from the trial, though Abaluck posted them after initial media coverage, showing "the primary outcome [symptomatic seropositives] differed by a total of just 20 cases between the treatment and control arms" in a study population of 300,000, Recht and the others wrote.

"In particular, the difference in rates is constituted by denominator differences, and thus is similar in magnitude (10% vs 9%) to the population imbalance which arose through the interaction of staff bias and random chance (156,938 and 170,497 individuals enrolled in control and treatment respectively)," the paper says.

It notes that Abaluck's team already conceded the study had "substantial post-randomization ascertainment bias" due to staff who were "tasked with both enrolling households and providing masks in the treatment villages and hence were aware whether they were surveying a treatment or control village." But this bias could only "account for 25% of the difference in size between treatment and control," suggesting "some unintentional unblinding" as well.

"The purpose of randomized control trials is to establish a causal link between interventions and outcomes," notes the Trials paper. "However, causal implications are diminished in the presence of unblinding, ascertainment bias, and bias-susceptible endpoints. Unfortunately, in the Bangladesh mask trial we [find] evidence of all of the above."

University of California San Francisco epidemiologist Vinay Prasad, who previously wrote his own review of mask-research literature, called the reanalysis "provocative" in his newsletter. The Bangladesh study "falls apart," he concluded.

"If participants could see a big truck or boxes in intervention villages, but not see that in control villages, they may be more likely to enroll," he wrote. "In fact, 9% more likely!"

A person who enrolls in the trial because "they are getting something for free" may be "slightly less likely to properly report COVID symptoms (perhaps they report less or differently) and less likely to follow through with testing," Prasad said. "Assuming these people are just a little different, can cause the entire trial results to tip."








Any medicine Trump supported was trashed because of Trump . Biden saying the pandemic is over is readily accepted, but if Trump said it nope.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

The Criminal Censorship Of Ivermectin By The High Impact Medical Journals - Part 3




A colleague and ENT surgeon from Italy named Puya Dehghani had become not only an early treatment expert but also an expert on ivermectin in COVID at the same time as the FLCCC. His organization Naso Sano had hosted me for a series of lectures, starting even before my testimony. He and a colleague named Asiya Kamber Zayidi then wrote a brilliant paper detailing all the mechanisms of action of ivermectin with some clinical data on outcomes. A writer named Joomi (and I assume scientist as her work reveals a deep scientific knowledge) did an excellent autopsy of what happened to Asiya and Puya’s paper, so please read it here. Since I am shamelessly borrowing from her post, please subscribe to her incredible substack. From Joomi:

This paper was about the putative mechanisms and modes of action of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2. Here’s a schematic of some of the key modes of action, from the paper:




Zayidi and Dehgani’s paper passed peer-review and was published. It received hundreds of thousands of reads over many months. Yet, suddenly, out of the blue, the Editor retracted the paper over the objections of the authors. Apparently, the Editor was under orders to remove any interpretations of data that might support clinical efficacy in COVID. “Just the mechanisms ma’am.” Check it out:




The lead author of the paper, Asiya Zaidi then made this statement:



In other comments she said:

If the editor decides to go against #COPE guidelines of publishing and ethics and make personal politically biased decisions, the publishers should intervene.
How could the editor remove an article citing ‘efficacy reasons’ when we spoke about mechanisms?”
To me, this action simply shows how much Pharma was scouring publications and trying to eliminate any mentions of efficacy, especially in the high-impact journals. Take a look at Table 2 of the paper to see how many papers on the different modes of mechanism were reviewed:



More quotes from the author:
“The post publication review confirmed that we appropriately described the mechanisms and yet the editor decided to twist the narrative? asked us to cite fraudulent studies based on efficacy or face retraction?”
And:
“The journal of antibiotics by Nature forced us to change our stance from ivermectin might work to ‘ivermectin doesn’t work’ or face retraction.
We did not change our stance since we spoke of mechanisms and not efficacy.
So we faced retraction and have no regrets because we do not lack conscience.”
Now, check this out. Satoshi Omura, who won the Nobel prize for discovering ivermectin, was a member of the editorial panel for the journal. He was not consulted about the retraction according to his colleague Hideaki Hanaki:

 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Peer-Reviewed Studies on Ivermectin Retracted ‘Without Explanation’: Dr. Pierre Kory



Retracted Papers​

At the conference, Kory identified three examples of manuscripts on ivermectin that were retracted after they were submitted to medical journal publications and passed peer review.

Epoch Times Photo

(Australian Medical Professionals’ Society/Screenshot via The Epoch Times).


One example was a manuscript by Elgazzar et al., titled “Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis,” which was retracted “without any opportunity of reply,” according to a letter to the editor by researchers Bryant et al.

Elgazzar’s manuscript was accused of data fabrication and plagiarism.

The second example was a review article by Zaidi and Dehgani-Mobaraki titled, “The mechanisms of action of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2—an extensive review,” which was retracted by a journal’s editor-in-chief, who cited concerns with its methodology and conclusion.

“[T]he cited sources do not appear to show that there is clear clinical evidence of the effect of ivermectin for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the reliability of this review article. None of the authors agree to this retraction,” the retraction notice states.

The third example was Kory’s own research article titled, “Review of the emerging evidence demonstrating the efficacy of Ivermectin in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19,” which he said was also retracted after passing peer-review.

Kory’s article was later amended by removing its original reference to the study by Elgazzar et al.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

The FDA Misled the Public About Ivermectin and Should Be Accountable in Court, Argues AAPS



“Defendant FDA has improperly exploited misunderstandings about the legality and prevalence of off-label uses of medication, in order to mislead courts, state medical boards, and the public into thinking there is anything improper about off-label prescribing,” AAPS writes in its amicus brief to the court. “Not only is off-label prescribing fully proper, legal, and commonplace, but it is also absolutely necessary in order to give effective care to patients.”

Yet the FDA published multiple statements and sent letters to influential organizations to falsely disparage ivermectin, implying that it was not approved for treating Covid-19. Many, including courts and state medical boards, were misled by the FDA into thinking that its lack of approval for this treatment meant that ivermectin should not be used to treat Covid-19.

“It has never been proper for the FDA to interfere with that essential part of the practice of medicine, and the FDA knows it,” AAPS informed the court. The FDA “insisted and continues to insist on interfering with the prescription of this safe medication by physicians in treating Covid-19,” AAPS added.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
There is no telling how man people died because Faucci and others wanted to sell their expensive medication instead of a cheap one that worked..

The nerve of these ass wholes saying follow the science which is exactly what they didn't do.
Faucci and the Chinese developed this virus and Faucci the Democrats, and the Chinese used it to get rid of Donald Trump.

Faucci, Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler should all be in prison for this and other scams they pulled off to destroy America.
 

PrchJrkr

Long Haired Country Boy
Ad Free Experience
Patron
I think the next time my doctor asks me again if I've received the experimental jab yet, I'll ask her for a prescription for invermectin to keep on hand for when (if) I catch it again.
 

TPD

the poor dad

“People Need Held Accountable for What They Did”



There have now been 90 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies from 963 scientists in 27 countries that show an 83%, 62%, and 39% improvement for prophylaxis, early, and late treatment respectively in COVID patients.

Screen-Shot-2022-09-03-at-11.45.12-AM-scaled.jpg


“178 ivermectin COVID-19 studies, 127 peer-reviewed, 90 comparing treatment and control groups. Ivermectin has been officially adopted for early treatment in all or part of 22 countries (38 including non-government medical organizations),” according to the COVID-19 treatment studies tracker website.

Screen-Shot-2022-09-03-at-11.51.23-AM-scaled.jpg


On Saturday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA-R) responded to a tweet by former UFC/MMA fighter Jake Shields about an Ivermectin study used on 88,012 people with a 92% reduction in death. This study was published on the NIH website.
Newsweek twisted themselves into a pretzel trying to prove false that NIH was now listing ivermectin as a drug to treat covid.

False.

While approved for use in clinical trials, ivermectin has not been approved as a general use for COVID-19 treatment. The NIH still recommends against its use in that regard.

Furthermore, significant trials have found little evidence that the drug has any notable effect on recovery time from COVID-19.
I don't think anyone was claiming an effect on recovery time by taking ivermectin. The trials showed there was less deaths from covid if you took ivermectin.

 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons: FDA Misled the Public About Ivermectin


The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) recently filed a motion and amicus brief Thursday evening with the federal district court in Galveston urging it to allow the lawsuit to proceed against the FDA for its misleading statements against ivermectin, a drug used to fight parasites and given to covid patients during the early stages of infection.

In Apter v. HHS, a group of physicians sued to hold the Food and Drug Administration, a federal agency within the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), accountable for its interference with physicians’ ability to treat Covid-19.
“Defendant FDA has improperly exploited misunderstandings about the legality and prevalence of off-label uses of medication, in order to mislead courts, state medical boards, and the public into thinking there is anything improper about off-label prescribing,” AAPS writes in its amicus brief to the court. “Not only is off-label prescribing fully proper, legal, and commonplace, but it is also absolutely necessary in order to give effective care to patients.”

Yet the FDA published multiple statements and sent letters to influential organizations to falsely disparage ivermectin, implying that it was not approved for treating Covid-19. Many, including courts and state medical boards, were misled by the FDA into thinking that its lack of approval for this treatment meant that ivermectin should not be used to treat Covid-19.

As a reminder, ivermectin was one of the topics in a particular “Second Opinion” panel that Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) hosted earlier this year. Johnson gathered world-renowned doctors and medical experts to offer a different perspective on the pandemic: global pandemic response, the current state of knowledge of early and hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term.

Dr. Pierre Kory is the former Chief of the Critical Care Service and Medical Director of the Trauma and Life Support Center at the University of Wisconsin and an expert in using “horse dewormer” ivermectin. He details the studies across the globe, including the success of its use in a Brazilian city and Uttar Pradesh, India (news of which has been hidden or dismissed by the press).
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

FDA Says Telling People Not to Take Ivermectin for COVID-19 Was Just a Recommendation



The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) telling people to “stop” taking ivermectin for COVID-19 was informal and just a recommendation, government lawyers argued during a recent hearing.

“The cited statements were not directives. They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin,” Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers, told the court during the Nov. 1 hearing in federal court in Texas.

“They use informal language, that is true,” he also said, adding that, “it’s conversational but not mandatory.”

The hearing was held in a case brought by three doctors who say the FDA illegally interfered with their ability to prescribe medicine to their patients when it issued statements on ivermectin, an anti-parasitic that has shown positive results in some trials against COVID-19.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
So I occasionally listen to spotify and for whatever reason we get a lot of ads for the NYC audience rather than DC or Baltimore or someplace closer.

I bring this up because recently they have been running an advertisement for free "covid-19 medication". Just come in and get tested or bring your positive test to any one of their umpteen million clinics and get your free covid-19 medication.

They never mention what the medication is, so I am curious as to what medication they could be giving away. Is the mayor of NYC related to any pharmaceutical C-suites with an approved C19 treatment?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member



How the FDA Defended Its Statements About Ivermectin in Federal Court



The U.S. Food and Drug Administration spent the better part of 2021 vilifying ivermectin as a means of treating or preventing COVID-19, a drug the agency certified decades ago and which won a Nobel Prize in 2015 for its treatment of parasitic infections.

Despite its long safety record, FDA statements about the drug for COVID-19 use were peppered with cautionary language, and the agency followed up with social media posts featuring a horse, telling people to "stop it."









Despite the government's warnings, some studies have shown the drug as a promising treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19, and doctors across the country prescribed it for off-label use during the pandemic. But the FDA's position set in motion one roadblock after another, as the American Medical Association, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, and the CDC also lined up in opposition to ivermectin for COVID-19 use. Even if a patient had a prescription for it, pharmacies began refusing to fill it.


Fast forward to October, when three doctors who were disciplined for prescribing the drug sued the FDA for interfering in their decision-making.

But in a Nov. 1 hearing in federal court, the government argued the statements were just recommendations.

"The cited statements were not directives. They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it's prohibited or it's unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin," one of the government's attorneys, Isaac Belfer, said, according to The Epoch Times.




 
Top