102

Might not want to say that publicly in India.

103

Why not?

It doesn’t work that well in other countries where Horse dewormer is used.

Why is that?

104

from Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 - PMC

Therapeutic Advances:

A large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes. Numerous prophylaxis trials demonstrate that regular ivermectin use leads to large reductions in transmission. Multiple, large “natural experiments” occurred in regions that initiated “ivermectin distribution” campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns.

In response to your claim it’s doesn’t reduce transmission. And spare me the horse dewormer nonsense, it has been prescribed to millions of humans with billions of doses.

105

As for Peru, effective there too.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3765018

For the 24 states with early IVM treatment (and Lima), excess deaths dropped 59% (25%) at +30 days and 75% (25%) at +45 days after day of peak deaths. Case fatalities likewise dropped sharply in all states but Lima, yet six indices of Google-tracked community mobility rose over the same period. For nine states having mass distributions of IVM in a short timeframe through a national program, Mega-Operación Tayta (MOT), excess deaths at +30 days dropped by a population-weighted mean of 74%, each drop beginning within 11 day after MOT start. Extraneous causes of mortality reductions were ruled out. These sharp major reductions in COVID-19 mortality following IVM treatment thus occurred in each of Peru’s states, with such especially sharp reductions in close time conjunction with IVM treatments in each of the nine states of operation MOT. Its safety well established even at high doses, IVM is a compelling option for immediate, large scale national deployments as an interim measure and complement to pandemic control through vaccinations.

106

One can find a bunch of studies pointing to the flaws in the Ivecermtin trials.

The point is that we just don’t know with any real confidence if there is an effect or not.

If there is… great. A cheap therapeutic that reduces mortality… would love it.

But like HCQ… so far there is no there there.

107

Oh well, some people are more susceptible to big pharma propaganda than others I guess.

1 Like
108

You do know that Ivecermtin is a pharmaceutical…… right?

109

Yes I do, one out of patent and thus not very profitable. Pennies per dose. I on the other hand, I have zero financial interest.

1 Like
110

Which has nothing to do with efficacy.

One can’t turn around and drop the “Big Pharma” bomb on an unproven treatment and then say … well… they don’t make THAT much money off of it.

It’s really silly.

111

You have reached the absurdity of arguing profit margins don’t matter. And it’s not unproven, India is pretty compelling.

112

But you keep waiting on the American peer review process.

from https://www.drugawareness.org/editor-of-lancet-medical-research-is-unreliable-at-best-or-completely-fraudulent/

Editor of Lancet: Medical Research is Unreliable at Best or Completely Fraudulent

Posted on June 22, 2015 by Ann Blake-Tracy

F. William Engdahl (NEO) : A shocking admission by the editor of the world’s most respected medical journal, The Lancet, has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of the Lancet recently published a statement declaring that a shocking amount of published research is unreliable at best, if not completely false, as in, fraudulent.

Richard Horton_The Lancet_USA_NEO_JUn 2015

Horton declared, “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

And he isn’t alone in thinking so. Same article.

Dr. Marcia Angell is a physician and was longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), considered to be another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. Angell stated,

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal ofMedicine.”

In case you can’t read between the lines. What they are referencing is big pharma’s capture of that process.

113

So like masks, there is conflicting evidence of effectiveness?

114

India also went into a severe lockdown at the same time.

Peru has been using Ivecermetin since Oct 2020. They got hit really hard in June by Covid. So that treatment was widely available but did nothing to abate Covid there.

Same with Brazil. Iveecermetin widely used and is widely available there.

So what is special about India where it works so well… but doesn’t in other parts of the world?

115

Where are all of the compelling studies that say that masks don’t work?

116

All of them pre covid. Otherwise they would have had us masking up for the flu. ICU were overflowing with flu patients as recently as 2018.

3 Likes
117

There are studies precovid that shows that masks do not work against respiratory diseases?

118

Yes. Here is the meta analysis.

119

The 2018-2019 Flu season had 34,200 deaths.

That is orders of magnitude less severe than Covid.

120

Some ICU were overflowed all the same.

1 Like
121

I don’t think that you actually read that or you wouldn’t have presented it as evidence that masks don’t work.