WHO on Ivermectin for Scabies vs COVID-19
#1
Back in 2018 the WHO accepted the old anti-parasite medication Ivermectin as a treatment for Scabies based on meager evidence.   Scabies causes itch and a rash, not a deadly pandemic.  

Today the WHO is still opposed to the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19 even though their own consultant, Dr Hill, reported a 75% reduction in death in his meta analysis of various studies from around the world ! 

Dr. Kory, a former med school prof and leader of the FLCCC association of emergency medicine doctors explains the situation in this clip and presents the meta analysis data. https://youtu.be/xy85K1hENn4?t=1793

Dr Lawrie presents the meta analysis from the WHO's own consultant, Dr Hill in this clip.  Meta analysis from Dr Lawrie's group concluded Ivermectin caused a 68% reduction in death.  
https://youtu.be/IQkoL2l3-gg?t=524

This meta analysis reports a greater than 80% improvement when Ivermectin was used early in the disease.  
https://ivmmeta.com/
 
You won't hear about this from sources that are funded by Big Pharma.  They have too much to lose if a cheap, old, safe, Nobel winning medication is adopted widely.   Emergency use authorization could be removed for expensive treatments.   The risk-benefit analysis for the experimental vaccines changes when there is a rather effective treatment.  Dr Chris Martenson explains in greater detail here   https://www.peakprosperity.com/private-p...ic-health/

Remember if people with a relevant PhD write things on social media that is contrary to the WHO's position they may be censored.   

Med school professor Peter McCullough who is editor of two medical journals and the most published person in his medical specialty in the world had his Youtube video taken down.  It was describing a paper he and a group of doctors from around the world had published in a medical journal about treatments for outpatients. 
https://youtu.be/QAHi3lX3oGM?t=161

McCollough's group reported an 87% reduction in hospitalization and 75% reduction in death
https://trialsitenews.com/texas-physicia...eath-74-9/

Did you hear that the big hats at the Vatican are hosting a COVID-19 conference apparently for vaccine salesmen and the political Left to push their agendas--Pfizer, Bill Gates, Fauci, Clinton, etc. 
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/under...ng-haywire

I understand that Jesus ate with sinners but he did not give them his platform so they could push their evil agenda.

Abp Vigano's comments about the conference
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/vig...orld-order
[-] The following 5 users Like joegrane's post:
  • CaoimhinPConnell, ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident, J Michael, jutius, Zedta
Reply
#2
This is good stuff.

Hydroxychloroquine got a bad rap because a fake paper published in the Lancet was promoted to suppress its use.  That article was later retracted, which is itself something that only happens to the Lancet (a very prestigious journal) once every few decades.  Further studies have confirmed that HCQ is effective at reducing the severity of the disease and reducing the likelihood that an infected person will become hospitalized.  It hasn't been shown to be effective if it's administered after the disease has already become severe or the person is already hospitalized.

Ivermectin, however, is effective at reducing the severity of the disease, the likelihood of hospitalization, and the likelihood of death, and it does not need to be administered early.  It can be administered at any time during the course of the disease, and it will improve outcomes.
[-] The following 6 users Like ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident's post:
  • Ambrosiano, Anon777, J Michael, joegrane, PilgrimMichelangelo, Zedta
Reply
#3
(04-23-2021, 08:12 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: ...
Hydroxychloroquine got a bad rap because a fake paper published in the Lancet was promoted to suppress its use.  That article was later retracted, which is itself something that only happens to the Lancet (a very prestigious journal) once every few decades.  
So true and so sad.  

A Yale professor on what happened in Switzerland after the fake Lancet study was published.  

On May 27, the Swiss national government banned outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Around June 10, COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and remained elevated. On June 11, the Swiss government revoked the ban, and on June 23 the death rate reverted to what it had been beforehand.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/...liticized/

That effect likely happened all over the world.  Think about how many deaths were caused by someone deciding to publish a fake study.  The letter cosigned by 150 prominent medical pros providing a list of problems with the paper is described here here. https://youtu.be/IUD_wvkNhnk?t=1733

Of course corporate media funded by Big Pharma did not report the situation.  What was happening around the same time?  The race related protests and riots in Minnesota and elsewhere.   That situation was sad but it was not hundreds or thousands of lives lost needlessly due to a fake study during a pandemic!  

There have been SO many studies of treatments for outpatients that only make sense if they were designed to fail.  I could provide a long list.  

The UK Recovery Trial's study of HCQ used 2000mg of the drug on the first day to hospitalized patients.  More people in the treatment arm died than in the placebo arm.   That big dose was far more than the 800mg given on day 1 in the HCQ study by the US NIH and many other studies.  the NIH concluded that the treatment did no harm.   

However for a while we heard in the media that the Trump recommended drug was killing people.   Anything given in excessive doses can kill.  People drown on water.  

The Boulware post exposure prevention study of HCQ deceived in a different way.  They concluded that the drug was ineffective, however when several other groups of researchers reanalyzed the raw data they all concluded that HCQ actually worked.  It only worked when people started using it within a few days of exposure. 
http://covexit.com/accidental-heroes-in-...-covid-19/  ( additional links if requested)

Time sensitivity is not so strange for an "antiviral."  An antiviral for the flu, Xofluza, requires that treatment starts within two days of onset of symptoms.  

So why did Boulware, et al design a 24 hour delay in the start of treatment into the study?  They shipped the medication overnight.    Why did he not bother to mention that HCQ actually was helpful when started early?   Instead corporate media reported that HCQ does not work when the study showed that it actually did work!   There were other strange design issues with that study.
[-] The following 2 users Like joegrane's post:
  • ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident, J Michael
Reply
#4
(05-01-2021, 10:51 PM)joegrane Wrote: Time sensitivity is not so strange for an "antiviral."  An antiviral for the flu, Xofluza, requires that treatment starts within two days of onset of symptoms.  

So why did Boulware, et al design a 24 hour delay in the start of treatment into the study?  They shipped the medication overnight.    Why did he not bother to mention that HCQ actually was helpful when started early?   Instead corporate media reported that HCQ does not work when the study showed that it actually did work!   There were other strange design issues with that study.

This is a good point. Xofluza isn't the only flu medicine that must be administered that quickly. Tamiflu and Relenza also must be taken within the first 24-48 hours to have any effect whatsoever.
[-] The following 1 user Likes ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident's post:
  • J Michael
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)