Large, Peer-Reviewed Research Study Proves Ivermectin Works Against COVID-19

[wvwvw]

The results are in from the world’s largest study of ivermectin for COVID-19.
MONDAY, JAN 24, 2022 - 11:50 PM



Researchers in Brazil found that regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and mortality rates.

The study was conducted in Itajaí, a port city in the state of Santa Catarina, between July and December 2020. Study authors include FLCCC physicians Dr. Flavio Cadegiani and Dr. Pierre Kory. Lead author Dr. Lucy Kerr was approached by the mayor of Itajaí, after the city began to experience a severe outbreak of COVID.

The entire population of Itajaí was invited to participate in the program, which involved a medical visit to compile baseline, personal, demographic, and medical information. In the absence of contraindications, ivermectin was offered as a preventative treatment, to be taken for two consecutive days every 15 days at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day.

Of the 223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered for the study, a total of 159,561 subjects elected to participate: over 70% opted to take ivermectin, and 23% chose not to.

Reduced infection and hospitalization rates

The study found a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate in favor of the group that took ivermectin (3.5% versus 8.2%).

In cases where a participating citizen of Itajaí became ill with COVID-19, they were recommended not to use ivermectin or any other medication in early outpatient treatment. Of those who did become infected, two equal-sized, highly matched groups (one that used ivermectin as a prophylaxis and one that did not) were compared. The regular use of preventative ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (0.8% versus 2.6%), and a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (1.6% versus 3.3%).

Study methods

Since vaccines were not available at the time, and few prophylactic alternatives existed in the absence of vaccines, Itajaí initiated a population-wide government program for COVID-19 prophylaxis. This was a prospective observational study that allowed subjects to self-select between treatment vs. non-treatment. The use of ivermectin was optional and based on patients’ preferences, given its benefits as a preventative agent was unproven.

To ensure the safety of the population, a computer program was developed to compile and maintain all relevant demographic and clinical data. All subjects were weighed to be able to accurately calculate the correct dose of ivermectin. In addition, a brief medical evaluation was conducted to record past medical history, comorbidities, use of medications and contraindications to drugs.

The following variables were analyzed and adjusted as confounding factors or used for balancing and matching groups for propensity score matching:


• Age

• Sex

Previous diseases (myocardial infarction and stroke)

• Pre-existing comorbidities (type 2 diabetes, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular diseases, cancer [any type], and other pulmonary diseases)

• Smoking

Patients who presented signs or the diagnosis of COVID-19 before July 7, 2020, were excluded from the sample. Other exclusion criteria included contraindications to ivermectin and age (subjects below 18 years of age were excluded).

During the study, subjects who were diagnosed with COVID-19 underwent a specific medical visit to assess clinical manifestations and disease severity. All subjects with symptoms were recommended not to use ivermectin, nitazoxanide, hydroxychloroquine, spironolactone, or any other drug claimed to be effective against COVID-19. The city did not provide or support any specific pharmacological outpatient treatment for subjects infected with COVID-19.

Intriguing findings

Interestingly, the group who self-selected to take ivermectin was older and had more comorbidities than the group who opted for no treatment. These results show that prophylactic ivermectin may be a mitigating factor in groups with higher risk of morbidity.



The belief that preventative and early treatment therapies would cause people to relax their caution of remaining socially distanced, leading to more COVID-19-related infections, is not supported here.

The data demonstrate that using preventative ivermectin significantly lowers the infection rate, and that benefits outweigh the speculated increased risk of changes in social behaviors.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/l...ermectin-works

[wvwvw]

A natural alternative to Ivermectin is Black Seed Oil.

For anyone struggling to obtain Ivermectin to fight spike protein shedding sickness, or vaccine injuries the Frontline Doctors are now recommending Black Cumin Seed Oil (Nigella Sativa) as a viable alternative.

It’s freely available in most countries.

[wvwvw]

New Hampshire seeks to make ivermectin available as an alternative COVID treatment

Lawmakers from New Hampshire are set to pass a bill that makes it easier for people to obtain ivermectin, which they believe can fight the coronavirus (COVID-19). The move will allow pharmacists to dispense the drug by means of standing orders.

In Pennsylvania, Representative Dawn Keefer also introduced a bill that allows doctors to write prescriptions for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19, but the bill is yet to leave the committee.

FDA, medical professionals against bill

Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration officials said that there is no data showing the effectiveness of the drug against COVID-19, with multiple medical experts testifying against the bill on Tuesday.

Dr. David Levine from Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center said that prescribing ivermectin is “dangerous and totally out of line with the standard of medical care around the world.”

In his testimony against the bill, Levine further wrote that he would never want ivermectin prescribed to himself or his family, and “would take legal action against anyone who recommended this to my loved ones.”

However, there are experts that do agree with the use of ivermectin. Dr. Paul Marik, a neurocritical care doctor, testified that ivermectin is one of the safest drugs on the planet, adding that a human-grade version of the drug is approved for treatment in 79 other countries. He also pointed out that since its discovery in 1987, over 3.7 billion doses of ivermectin has been dispensed as an anti-parasitic drug.

“So somehow Japanese people, Indian people, Brazilian people can tolerate it safely but it’s toxic in Americans. You have to be kidding,” he said.

Marik further cited several studies that definitively proved ivermectin has both viricidal and anti-inflammatory properties. He also pointed out that it has already been used to treat deadly diseases such as mosquito-borne Zika virus and other similar viruses similar to the SARS-CoV-2 RNA viruses that cause COVID-19.

The bill is still currently in committee but is expected to go to a House vote in the next couple of week

https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-ha...w_4228066.html

[Rafael Passoni]

My mom's friend has got COVID 2 times even full vacinated, and at the second time it was more severe leading to hospitalar care. I wonder if she had taken a profilatic drug she wouldn't underwent to this mishap. My brother has got COVID after Janssen too, but he was ok.

[JamesBond007]

Imagine being such a mentally retarded sheeple you need a possibly corrupt p-hacked process such as a peer reviewed journal to 'prove this' ?

"Medicine continues to be the most dangerous business in America, with tens of thousands slaughtered and turned into invalids and hundreds of thousands injured regularly. ... doctors and drugs [are] the fourth leading cause of death in America ..." --Bruce West, MD

Doctors and Drugs may actually but the third leading cause medicine currently as that quote is somewhat dated but in any event it ranks high up there regardless still currently.

...ordinary folk have a deep respect for professional men of every kind[ e.g. doctors --James]. They are unaware that a man who makes a profession of a thing loves it not for the thing itself, but for the money he makes by it; or that it is rare for a man who teaches to know his subject thoroughly; for if he studies it as he ought, he has in most cases no time left in which to teach it. -- Arthur Schopenhauer

Effective treatments for covid are hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and assorted biological and nutraceutical approaches but there is not as much money to be made as there is in mRNA vaccines :

There are two kinds of health research, but only one of them is currently recognized by medical science, namely, what I call group study, ie, studies of groups of people who are subjected to some form of procedure, diet, supplementation, etc. Group studies have obvious value, at least when competently done, altho there are certain important problems inherent in these studies including proper choice of variables and the need to replace double-blind with multiple-blind studies. However, the fact that group studies are not -- or not consciously -- combined with the second form of research is perhaps the most important flaw in allopathic medicine, and one which is actually leading to its collapse in the face of competition with naturopathy. This second form of research what I call self study, by which I mean the process in which an individual subjects his own body to some form of procedure, diet, supplementation, etc, to see if it works for him. This procedure, of course, is different from that of various medical heroes, who subjected themselves to such things as yellow fever, AIDS and other dread diseases in order to prove something for others: Rather, self study is merely the way an individual can find out if the result of some group study -- or his grandma's advice, or his own intuition -- has any relevance for his own personal well-being. Self study is important not merely for the obvious reason that group studies are irrelevant to what works for some particular individual, but also because the individual is the one person with the greatest interest in promoting his own health -- unlike his doctor, whose interest inclines to collecting his fee -- and because the individual has access to "research data" (his own feelings and reactions) not accessible to the white-coated set.

But there is an important caveat for those involved in self study, namely, what the famous Harvard psychologist BF Skinner called "the development of superstition". Skinner's famous experiment, performed on my favorite animal -- pigeons -- is one which should be read, marked, learned and inwardly digested by not only those involved in self study, but also religionists, astrologizers, superstitionists, allopaths and others of their ilk. What Skinner did was to place hungry pigeons in a so-called Skinner box, which would drop food grains to the pigeon at random times. What Skinner found is that, if food were dropped when a pigeon was performing some particular action (eg, strutting, grooming, scratching, etc), the food would "reinforce" the behavior, so that the hungry pigeon would tend to perform such behavior in order to get more food. Thus a pigeon, after some time in a Skinner box, would be found to be performing some action over and over, thus indicating that it had developed a "superstition" about how it could cause food to appear -- a superstition which would become more and more strongly reinforced as the pigeon was "rewarded" for this behavior by the random appearance of food. (Note: Skinner was a behaviorist, and thus did not believe in the existence of mentality apart from its behavioral manifestations; hence superstition to him meant merely "behaving superstitiously". Please don't ask me if he knew the difference between when he was awake and when he was not.)

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see that Skinnerian reinforcement is the basis of not only superstition and religion, but also all kinds of other misbehaviors, particularly allopathy. That is, a person gets sick, he goes to the doctor, the doctor gives him a pill, he gets well, and Voila! -- he (and the doctor) thinks there is a relation between what the doctor did and the fact that he got well, when in fact there may be no relation and -- as many of us well know -- we would probably have gotten well sooner without the doctor. This situation is exacerbated by the so-called placebo effect, ie, the fact that irrelevant "cures" are successful in curing 1/3 of all diseases anyway -- or at least that 1/3 of us get well after visiting the doctor (please don't ask what happens to the other 2/3).

The lesson of the Skinner box for self study should be obvious, but I will spell it out anyway: Just because you feel better after taking some pill, enduring some regimen, or whatever, this does not necessarily mean that the pill, regimen or whatever had anything to do with your feeling better. Furthermore, in cases where a pill, regimen or whatever is not in fact helpful, one should attempt to determine this fact, not merely because the cost of pillage or whatever can mount up, but also because such therapies may actually be doing some unrecognized kind of harm. Thus in order to purge your life of "naturopathic superstition" you should make a list of your pills, regimens, etc, and then systematically drop each one for awhile to see if it makes any difference. In fact, if you want to be really scientific about it, you could try dropping all possible combinations: For example, if you are taking three different pills, first drop one, then the second, then the third, then the first and second, then the first and third, etc, etc, etc. Following this, you could fool around with different dosages, and in general spend your whole life figuring out what you should be taking, all the while forgetting that what you need now may not be the same thing you needed last year, and isn't science wonderful?

In closing, I would like to make one final point which is also not recognized by allopathic medicine, but which is unconsciously recognized by many engaged in self study, namely, that the best method of curing or preventing disease is to utilize a multiplicity of strategies. What I am getting at here is a lesson from systems theory, to wit, that the best way to prevent a "system" from breaking down is to have a backup system. We see this in hospitals, for example, which generally have backup power systems to insure power in case a squirrel gets into the power company's transformers. In the case of our body "system", the best way to keep it from "going down" is to have multiple backup strategies for staying healthy: For example, we might try to keep healthy both by eating a good diet and by exercising, so that if one strategy doesn't provide optimal health by itself, the other will "take up the slack". Likewise, in order to assure cardiovascular health, we might take both vitamin C and vitamin E, even tho we feel that one of them may be "redundant".

Naturopaths have a great deal to teach allopaths, but allopaths are unlikely to learn anything. One reason for this is because they will probably all die from their own treatments first.

[JamesBond007]

bah... bah... bah.. I'm a mentally retarded sheep that respects all doctors and academics etc... :

...ordinary folk have a deep respect for professional men of every kind[ e.g. doctors --James]. They are unaware that a man who makes a profession of a thing loves it not for the thing itself, but for the money he makes by it; or that it is rare for a man who teaches to know his subject thoroughly; for if he studies it as he ought, he has in most cases no time left in which to teach it. -- Arthur Schopenhauer