Wall Street Journal cites new study from Canada claiming to show that Ivermectin offers no benefit to Covid patients. The study is not published and ostensibly was not even reviewed by the journal.
I am one of the WSJ subscribers who commented on that article by linking to a study with the opposite proof. We who comment on the 2 year long covid hysteria there are used to the silly articles the WSJ shows us and we know before we read which subscribers will be in denial in the comment section over the * horse medicine*. When I tell them that the molnupiravir is also from equine medicine they go silent.
The levels of groupthink and lengths to which purported scientists and credentialed medical professionals are undertaking in an effort to continue to demonize Ivermectin is astonishing. What I've not seen - from ANYONE - is any evidence that Ivermectin is harmful, so this continued quest confounds me. The only plausible explanation seems to be that there is no money to be made with Ivermectin. This has changed the entire way that myself, my family and members of my network view the medical and scientific communities and their respective bodies of work. The absence of early treatment protocols and slanderous handling of life-saving drugs is not only immoral, it's criminal. Judgement Day will not be kind to those who were either complicit or complacent.
Mar 22, 2022·edited Mar 22, 2022Liked by Darby Shaw
There is a PowerPoint presentation somewhere on the internet from August of last year which shows partial data and methodology for this study (which also looked at some other drugs, and was positive about Fluvoxamine if I remember correctly) but it is an opaque mess.
Note that there were news stories about this study at that time as well. Why rehash now, pre-print, with no publication to link to?
Yes, I believe I came across that PowerPoint in my search. I couldn't make heads or tails of it. It certainly does not meet the definition of a published study, whether pre-print or otherwise.
New hatchet job in fortune magazine today. But actual links to a paper… one which is infuriating for its patent … fraud.
The headline claim of ineffectiveness is based on the whole populations of the IVM and control groups. But, wait! The whole population of the control group didn’t actually take a 3 day course of IVM - or EVEN ANY AT ALL! The stats from the total group mean exactly nothing - so why report at all?
So then they have a second group that had IVM at least 1 time, but not 3 times…. slightly better…. And finally a 3rd group that used IVM the 3 days, 400 mcg per kg, which looks better (as compared to the initial placebo group, not the conform placebo).
But they aren’t transparent about that cohort… and also don’t explain how 2/3ds the PLACEBO group failed to conform to the treatment regimen (which could matter if they took other meds or even IVM on their own, or if they, say, got too sick to take the placebo…).
This isn’t science - it’s propaganda parading itself as science. These people should never be allowed to conduct a study ever again, for the blatant, though deceptive, abuse of process.
Edit: and of course Alex Berenson is running with the garbage study….
Second edit: looks like this is actually the publication of the study you discussed, above (the same study). And there is confusion due to the study’s (deliberate) opacity as to when IVM treatment was started post symptoms, and when ARs occurred post symptom. The most obvious read suggests that IVM began on average a bit over 5 days from symptom onset, and AE on average a little under 6! Meaning AEs potentially preceding treatment!?! More charitably the AEs are measured not from symptom onset but from randomization… but that isn’t what their own chart says…. And the lack of transparency doesn’t help.
My personal experience with an ivermectin trial in the US. I had COVID in Feb. I first got that run down feeling on a Thursday night but felt better the next am, only to feel run down again that next evening. Woke up on Saturday feeling like a cold was setting in, and it was pretty intense by that evening. Sunday was spent in bed working through a fever. Decided to take a test Monday and it popped positive quick. Lost smell on Tuesday. Found out about IVM study Tuesday PM and signed up online. Got contacted by a researcher Thursday, got some pills on Monday, 12 days post initial symptoms, but one week post positive test. Most major symptoms had resolved by that point. Took the medicine anyways, but I can’t say I notified any difference, but how would I? By the time I got the pills most major symptoms had resolved and my sense of smell was returning slowly.
I don’t see how any of these trials will show positive results without having immediate access to the meds. Heck, I stumbled upon the trial via dumb luck on Reddit.
That is criminal. When I bought it here in the state about 6 months ago, it was a little pricey. But if you feel like you need someone you could try Seven Cells or Honey Bee Health. I don't think it says on the packaging what it is, so it might go through.
ForceVax cannot allow dissent, nor dissenters, the house of cards it constructed cannot stand one card be wiggled or moved. It will lie, cheat, steal, while mandating coercion and duress against all whom dare question the narrative; ChoiceVax is a position that exposes them in the present, and hurts them in the future.
Did they administer the whole treatment protocol or just ivermectin? That is also a key omission in the "anti-ivermectin" studies. The itech study from Malaysia did this.
The editors at the WSJ saw that Sara Toy didn't have anything to do, and its been awhile since there was a media hit piece on Ivermectin, so Sara got the assignment. Perpetuating the lie, keeps her employed.
Txs BOB and GRACE!! "Grace [De Niro’s wife] and I have a child with autism," he said in a statement, "and we believe it is critical that all of the issues surrounding the causes of autism be openly discussed and examined."
My husband and I were just remarking on the fact that DeNiro had become very outspoken about the autism-vaccine link right up to the election of Trump. Then it seems like his Trump-hate took over. I didn't hear much from him about vaccines after that. And I haven't heard him say anything at all about the deadly Covid vaccines or Covid vaccine mandates.
I am one of the WSJ subscribers who commented on that article by linking to a study with the opposite proof. We who comment on the 2 year long covid hysteria there are used to the silly articles the WSJ shows us and we know before we read which subscribers will be in denial in the comment section over the * horse medicine*. When I tell them that the molnupiravir is also from equine medicine they go silent.
Just curious. Do you get any benefit from actually paying hard earned money to the WSJ? I just can’t fathom that.
The levels of groupthink and lengths to which purported scientists and credentialed medical professionals are undertaking in an effort to continue to demonize Ivermectin is astonishing. What I've not seen - from ANYONE - is any evidence that Ivermectin is harmful, so this continued quest confounds me. The only plausible explanation seems to be that there is no money to be made with Ivermectin. This has changed the entire way that myself, my family and members of my network view the medical and scientific communities and their respective bodies of work. The absence of early treatment protocols and slanderous handling of life-saving drugs is not only immoral, it's criminal. Judgement Day will not be kind to those who were either complicit or complacent.
There is a PowerPoint presentation somewhere on the internet from August of last year which shows partial data and methodology for this study (which also looked at some other drugs, and was positive about Fluvoxamine if I remember correctly) but it is an opaque mess.
Note that there were news stories about this study at that time as well. Why rehash now, pre-print, with no publication to link to?
Yes, I believe I came across that PowerPoint in my search. I couldn't make heads or tails of it. It certainly does not meet the definition of a published study, whether pre-print or otherwise.
New hatchet job in fortune magazine today. But actual links to a paper… one which is infuriating for its patent … fraud.
The headline claim of ineffectiveness is based on the whole populations of the IVM and control groups. But, wait! The whole population of the control group didn’t actually take a 3 day course of IVM - or EVEN ANY AT ALL! The stats from the total group mean exactly nothing - so why report at all?
So then they have a second group that had IVM at least 1 time, but not 3 times…. slightly better…. And finally a 3rd group that used IVM the 3 days, 400 mcg per kg, which looks better (as compared to the initial placebo group, not the conform placebo).
But they aren’t transparent about that cohort… and also don’t explain how 2/3ds the PLACEBO group failed to conform to the treatment regimen (which could matter if they took other meds or even IVM on their own, or if they, say, got too sick to take the placebo…).
This isn’t science - it’s propaganda parading itself as science. These people should never be allowed to conduct a study ever again, for the blatant, though deceptive, abuse of process.
Edit: and of course Alex Berenson is running with the garbage study….
Second edit: looks like this is actually the publication of the study you discussed, above (the same study). And there is confusion due to the study’s (deliberate) opacity as to when IVM treatment was started post symptoms, and when ARs occurred post symptom. The most obvious read suggests that IVM began on average a bit over 5 days from symptom onset, and AE on average a little under 6! Meaning AEs potentially preceding treatment!?! More charitably the AEs are measured not from symptom onset but from randomization… but that isn’t what their own chart says…. And the lack of transparency doesn’t help.
Just absolute garbage.
Probably because the WSJ is getting part of the $1B the Feds earmarked for media to encourage people to take the jab.
My personal experience with an ivermectin trial in the US. I had COVID in Feb. I first got that run down feeling on a Thursday night but felt better the next am, only to feel run down again that next evening. Woke up on Saturday feeling like a cold was setting in, and it was pretty intense by that evening. Sunday was spent in bed working through a fever. Decided to take a test Monday and it popped positive quick. Lost smell on Tuesday. Found out about IVM study Tuesday PM and signed up online. Got contacted by a researcher Thursday, got some pills on Monday, 12 days post initial symptoms, but one week post positive test. Most major symptoms had resolved by that point. Took the medicine anyways, but I can’t say I notified any difference, but how would I? By the time I got the pills most major symptoms had resolved and my sense of smell was returning slowly.
I don’t see how any of these trials will show positive results without having immediate access to the meds. Heck, I stumbled upon the trial via dumb luck on Reddit.
I'm glad it sounds like you recovered well even without early treatment.
We cannot get Ivermectin in Canada, I tried!! Customs takes it away if you have it shipped from India.
This is awful. I hope things can be turned around in Canada.
That is criminal. When I bought it here in the state about 6 months ago, it was a little pricey. But if you feel like you need someone you could try Seven Cells or Honey Bee Health. I don't think it says on the packaging what it is, so it might go through.
https://sevencells.com
https://honeybeehealth.com
Thank you for this information. I will try, would like to have it in the house for the next plandemie, just in case.
I think that's a good plan. 👍🏽
ForceVax cannot allow dissent, nor dissenters, the house of cards it constructed cannot stand one card be wiggled or moved. It will lie, cheat, steal, while mandating coercion and duress against all whom dare question the narrative; ChoiceVax is a position that exposes them in the present, and hurts them in the future.
Did they administer the whole treatment protocol or just ivermectin? That is also a key omission in the "anti-ivermectin" studies. The itech study from Malaysia did this.
Yes, I agree. I don't understand why this is so complicated for those who design these studies. It's almost like they want their trials to fail?!
I think that's exactly right, designed to fail.
Yes, I agree. 👍🏽 No doctor is giving Ivermectin alone, it's always with a protocol.
The editors at the WSJ saw that Sara Toy didn't have anything to do, and its been awhile since there was a media hit piece on Ivermectin, so Sara got the assignment. Perpetuating the lie, keeps her employed.
Txs BOB and GRACE!! "Grace [De Niro’s wife] and I have a child with autism," he said in a statement, "and we believe it is critical that all of the issues surrounding the causes of autism be openly discussed and examined."
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/28/11317718/robert-de-niro-vaxxed-tribeca-film-festival
My husband and I were just remarking on the fact that DeNiro had become very outspoken about the autism-vaccine link right up to the election of Trump. Then it seems like his Trump-hate took over. I didn't hear much from him about vaccines after that. And I haven't heard him say anything at all about the deadly Covid vaccines or Covid vaccine mandates.
Surprised? The WSJ is a deep state asset.
Sad to see WSJ which I normally expect to be more accurate take this route. What a bunch of idiots