Ivermectin Archives - Looking at today's world

Thanks to Christopher Cook (former executive editor of The Western Free Press) from The Freedom Scale.

If you’ve been paying attention—and if you’re reading this, then chances are you have been!—you know that ivermectin is effective against covid. You know that ivermectin has been maligned, lied about, and mocked by the mainstream narrative-creation machine. You know that orders came down from the top, and then spread down through the entire medical-pharmaceutical establishment, to make ivermectin nearly impossible to get. The government has even gone so far as to confiscate shipments that people have ordered from overseas.

You may have also read some of the many studies and data that demonstrate ivermectin’s effectiveness. You know about Uttar Pradesh and other states in India. You know about the lower severe-covid rates in Africa—where they eat ivermectin like candy because of the parasites there.

You also likely know that it is extremely safe, with few side effects; that it garnered a Nobel Prize; and that it has been administered several billion times worldwide since its advent.

That said, you may or may not have seen ivermectin work with your own eyes. Facts tell, but stories sell, and seeing it save someone is powerful stuff. So I am going to share one such story about which I have direct personal knowledge, and whose details I can confirm are 100% accurate.

First, some background…

For an as-yet-unknown reason, this patient appears to be more susceptible to severe covid symptoms. Patient had a strong reaction to Alpha in 2020 and severe symptoms, hospitalization, and multi-month recovery from Delta in the second half of 2021. (One hypothesis for this heightened susceptibility involves overactive immune response, but no dispositive determinations have been made.) Fever in 2021 was over 103˚ for 7 days; patient’s history thus gave strong reason for concern as soon as high fever began to manifest with this most recent infection.

And yet, read the details below and observe the rapid recovery as soon as ivermectin was administered:

Saturday:

Patient complained of upper respiratory symptoms culminating in high fever.

Sunday:

Fever reached 102.6 before administering fever-reducing medication (ibuprofen, acetaminophen). Fatigue, upper-respiratory symptoms strong. Covid test negative.

Monday:

Covid test in AM positive. Ivermectin administered mid-morning (0.6mg/kg). Fever reached 102.8 before administering fever-reducing medication. Fatigue, cough, fog, sputum production all severe. Heart rate elevated. Daytime SpO2 low-mid 90s. Covid test repeated to confirm; still positive. Fever-reducing medication taken before sleep (10PM).

Tuesday:

7 AM wakeup, no fever. Ivermectin administered (same dosage). Daytime SpO2 low-mid 90s. Took until 2pm for fever to slowly climb to 100.8. Fever-reducing medication administered. Fatigue, cough, fog, sputum production, heart rate all improved.

Wednesday:

7 AM wakeup, temperature normal. Ivermectin administered (same dosage). Temperature remained normal all day. Daytime SpO2 low-mid 90s. Fatigue, cough, fog, sputum production, heart rate all significantly improved.

Thursday:

Temperature normal. Ivermectin administered (same dosage). All symptoms further improved. Entering pulmonary-inflammatory phase. Daytime SpO2 variable (91–95) Nighttime SpO2 average 91.

Friday:

Temperature normal. Ivermectin administered (same dosage; final dose). All symptoms significantly improved. Daytime SpO2 variable (93–97) Nighttime SpO2 average 93.

Saturday:

Temperature normal. Covid test negative. All symptoms dramatically improved. Daytime SpO2 variable (94–97) Nighttime SpO2 average 94 (which is low-average for patient).

Sunday:

Temperature normal. Covid test negative result confirmed. All symptoms continue to improve. Daytime SpO2 is between low-normal and normal.

Subsequent days:

SpO2 normal. Minor cough and fatigue linger but improve, and no indication of increase in inflammatory risk.

Notes:

This began as a stronger-than-expected reaction to the current strain, based on reports of mild symptoms for most others. Fever ~103 for two days, with no indication of any pending improvement. Given patient’s previous history, there was strong concern and expectation of severe symptoms and continued high fever. After ivermectin administered, fever went from ~103 to ~101 to normal in under 48 hours, and remained normal thereafter. Symptoms showed significant improvement each day.

Vitamins and other supports were administered, but ivermectin was the main player.

There is always the risk of confusing correlation with causation, and obviously this is a single case study and not a broad scientific study. But given the fact that close to 100 studies have been done…and given the patient’s rapid recovery in spite of apparent susceptibility to severe covid reaction, this does appear to be one more data point in ivermectin’s favor.

Given all we know about ivermectin’s effectiveness, we can rightly say that its vilification, and especially its removal as a medical option for millions of people in America and elsewhere, constitute literal

crimes against humanity.

I wonder if anyone will ever be held to account.

FLCCC Doctors: “We treat patients, not p-values.”

JAMA has done it again.

“It” is the February 18, 2022 publication of a study on ivermectin with a conclusion that inexplicably departs from the study’s own data. Even worse, the Malaysian I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial and JAMA itself dismiss the totality of peer-reviewed, published evidence (and a number of summary meta-analyses) showing repeatedly shorter times to clinical recovery, fewer hospitalizations, and far less death when COVID patients are treated with ivermectin.

“This study was clearly designed to fail. The authors selected out patients with mild or moderate disease who were at low risk of having a major event. Consequently it was grossly underpowered for any meaningful patient-centered outcome,” said Dr. Paul Marik, FLCCC Chairman Chief Scientific Officer.

The authors of the study reported that “ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.”

This graph of the I-TECH study results clearly shows that even in this underpowered study, mortality benefits trend in FAVOR of ivermectin. Even though there were SEVEN fewer deaths with the use of ivermectin in this study— the authors STILL erroneously concluded that IVM was ineffective for COVID. The question to be answered here by JAMA is why they ever chose to publish this highly misleading study.

But Dr. Pierre Kory, FLCCC president and Chief Medical Officer, says that is flat out wrong and highly misleading.

“In the study’s control group, two and a half times more patients had to be placed on mechanical ventilation —and there were three times more deaths in the control group. This shows that ivermectin causes a 75% risk reduction in death and further strengthens metadata of Ivermectin’s large mortality benefits in severe COVID.”

Dr. Keith Berkowitz, FLCCC co-founder, noted that the study’s strongest p-value (the measure of statistical significance) was for the 28-day hospital mortality. “Overall, this study was too limited and small to even be randomized. Still, the results trended in favor of ivermectin,” said Berkowitz.

An important note about the study:

It’s important to recognize here that the study participants had been experiencing symptoms for FIVE days by the time they were enrolled in the study. This is an important point to consider, given the primary outcome of the study was “the proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease.” As those of you who have been following the FLCCC know, early treatment (within the first ONE OR TWO DAYS of symptom onset) is critical to slow virus replication and impeded progression to severe disease.

So the authors of the study reported that ivermectin was not helpful in preventing progression to severe disease—among study patients who had been started too late in their disease at the start. Nevertheless, the authors concluded that IVM was not helpful in the treatment of COVID.

But wait a second.

What happened to the patients when they did progress to severe disease? What did the study find out about its secondary outcomes, which included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events? Let’s take a look:

In which arm of the study would you prefer to be? The study showed that fewer people in the ivermectin arm of the trial required mechanical ventilation or ICU admission. Fewer died, of course, while more experienced diarrhea. It is likely that most would say that they would MUCH prefer to be in the ivermectin arm of the study.

“It is clear that a massive study would have been far better to determine greater statistical significance,” continued Dr. Marik. “But to be honest, this study is in line with the major medical journals which will only publish negative studies on ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. They simply will not publish any of the dozens of positive studies that have emerged. This constitutes enormous, deliberate publication bias, which is immensely injurious to scientific truth—and to patients throughout the world.”

Original here:

Pass it on.

JAMA has done it again.

Pass it on.