Ivermectin, for the interested

Status
Not open for further replies.
So you zambezi want thousands of people to be used in an experiment, to test a drug, that the biggest producer ever of said, and all the leading organisations entrusted with protecting us from harmful drugs already say, is not suitable for that purpose.

And all this because you are a newly self crowned google expert on Covid, clear as day zambezi, clear as day.
Too late for this, tens of thousands all around the world have used the drug successfully. Quite why Merck would choose to promote its as yet unproven, $700 per course new drug over its old, proven safe, proven effective yet non-profitable drug escapes you, that is ’clear as day’. They’re a bit quiet wherever ivermectin is being used to overwhelmingly great effect, in spite of their ‘market influencing ploy’ however, that is also ‘clear as day’.
 

“Findings​

At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days (Fig. 1). In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people. Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days. The lack of a meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is further exemplified, for instance, by comparison of Iceland and Portugal. Both countries have over 75% of their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa that have around 10% of their population fully vaccinated.”
 

“Findings​

At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days (Fig. 1). In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people. Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days. The lack of a meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is further exemplified, for instance, by comparison of Iceland and Portugal. Both countries have over 75% of their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa that have around 10% of their population fully vaccinated.”

From that NIH link above, the US CDC declares:


1634507155858.webp



And so this paper makes the obvious statement that the narrative on vaccines must change:


1634507039966.webp
 

Every avoidable death is to be lamented.

OpenVAERs [US data] now lists approx 17 000 deaths attributed to one or other covid vaccine. Amidst 800 000 reported negative impacts.

1634569274234.webp

Clearly personal risk-benefit analysis is key. If I was diabetic [per the oz news report of one couple] , or overweight, or had another co-morbidity I might consider the use of the current crop of covid vaccines as a lower risk than the disease.

But the data might sway me towards treatment instead:

 
Every avoidable death is to be lamented.

OpenVAERs [US data] now lists approx 17 000 deaths attributed to one or other covid vaccine. Amidst 800 000 reported negative impacts.

View attachment 226073

Clearly personal risk-benefit analysis is key. If I was diabetic [per the oz news report of one couple] , or overweight, or had another co-morbidity I might consider the use of the current crop of covid vaccines as a lower risk than the disease.

But the data might sway me towards treatment instead:

I see you're still using your so called "world expert" Dr. Peter McCullough as a source for "facts".

Any news on that law suit that his former employers have filed against him?
 
Whilst we can argue about invermectin till the cows come home when will we start genuinely dissecting the current vaccines and their inefficiency/potential inefficiency and the validity of the testing which caused so much panic.

Three people I know this week all double jabbed all now positive for covid ages from 12, 43 and 62. Fools errand to believe vaccinations will work we have been fighting flu for centuries and still never beat it.
 

Three errors/lies/fallacies in the E-E article. Such poor journalism.

In turn:




1634576871769.webp Remdesivir is not a monoclonal antibody 1634578432533.webp





1634578336723.webp Ivermectin was designed and licenced for human consumption





1634576986377.webpThe myriad successful RCTs around the globe have achieved those results with safe doses of IVM 64_RCT_meta_analysis_ivmmeta.com.webp
 
Whilst we can argue about invermectin till the cows come home when will we start genuinely dissecting the current vaccines and their inefficiency/potential inefficiency and the validity of the testing which caused so much panic.

Three people I know this week all double jabbed all now positive for covid ages from 12, 43 and 62. Fools errand to believe vaccinations will work we have been fighting flu for centuries and still never beat it.
Nobody ever said the vaccines were 100% effective
Best research at the moment has them between 70-80%
That means that if 10 people are exposed to Covid, then, on average, 7 or 8 will not get it seriously and 2 or 3 will
If none of those people had been vaccinated then there there is a distinct possibility that all 10 would get it seriously
The more people who are vaccinated, the larger the total number of people in the 20-30% group who will not be protected - so it's no surprise that 3 people you know who had tested positive.
But how sick are they, and how many people do you know who have been vaccinated and have not tested positive?
Also, what level of exposure did those who tested positive have to the virus, and did they take sensible precautions like mask wearing and social distancing to further reduce their risk of becoming infected.
Just because you are double jabbed doesn't means you are free from all risk of being infected, but your risk is far lower than for people who have not been vaccinated
The numbers of people in hospital and dying from Covid relative to the number of confirmed daily infections makes it abundantly clear that the vaccines do work

Cheers

Bruce
 
Quoted from the link above:

...as the VAERS website warns, any report submitted to the database “is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.”

As we’ve explained before, anyone can submit a report of an event to VAERS, even if it’s not clear that a vaccine caused the problem. All reports are accepted into the database without determining whether the event was caused by a particular vaccine, and therefore, as a disclaimer warns, submissions “may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.”

“One of the main limitations of VAERS data is that it cannot determine if the vaccine caused the reported adverse event,” reads its website. “This limitation has caused confusion in the publicly available data from VAERS WONDER, specifically regarding the number of reported deaths. There have been instances where people have misinterpreted reports of deaths following vaccination as deaths caused by the vaccines; that is not accurate.”

So when VAERS says it has received 2,509 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine as of March 29, that does not mean that those deaths were caused by the vaccine.

In fact, after reviewing medical records, autopsies and death certificates for all of those cases, physicians from both the CDC and the FDA determined that there was “no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths.”
 
Spreading anti-vax nonsense is like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. It is a reckless abuse of free speech.

Zambezi: the data you are referring to in your previous post does not show that "The myriad successful RCTs around the globe have achieved those results with safe doses of IVM" This data is not based on Randomised Controlled Trials as you suggest. Rather it includes unverified data from myriad Observational Trials the validity of which has been repeatedly disputed by numerous medical authorities around the world - including the World Health Organisation, The British Medical Journal, The European Medical Agency and the Federal Drugs Administration.

Zambezi: I recognise that you care deeply about this issue. But you are peddling nonsense. You have been double jabbed. Am I wrong? You have not taken Ivermectin. Am I wrong?

If you feel so passionately about this issue why are you not following the advice of the websites you seem so keen to advertise to others?
 

'If you dont believe in the vaccines, you dont believe in science'
Interesting link, so Dr. McCullough is still being sued and it's accepted that "For Invermectin to reach the levels in the lung tissue that would stop the virus it would require 100 times the dose that is approved for human beings".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top