ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 14 of 21
« First < 41011121314 15161718 > Last »
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>Ivermectin Wins in India
0372 09:28 AM 08-14-2021
Proven and safe solution with a time tested alternative to the mRNA Experiment.


https://www.thedesertreview.com/opin...5e2519364.html

News of India's defeat of the Delta variant should be common knowledge. It is just about as obvious as the nose on one's face. It is so clear when one looks at the graphs that no one can deny it.

Yet, for some reason, we are not allowed to talk about it. Thus, for example, Wikipedia cannot mention the peer-reviewed meta-analyses by Dr. Tess Lawrie or Dr. Pierre Kory published in the American Journal of Therapeutics.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opin...0b1f2ff67.html

Wikipedia is not allowed to publish the recent meta-analysis on Ivermectin authored by Dr. Andrew Hill. Furthermore, it is not allowed to say anything concerning www.ivmmeta.com showing the 61 studies comprising 23,000 patients which reveal up to a 96% reduction in death [prophylaxis] with Ivermectin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AIvermectin

One can see the bias in Wikipedia by going on the "talk" pages for each subject and reading about the fierce attempts of editors to add these facts and the stone wall refusals by the "senior" editors who have an agenda. And that agenda is not loyalty to your health.

The easy way to read the “talk” page on any Wikipedia subject is to click the top left “talk” button. Anyone can then review the editors’ discussions.

There is a blackout on any conversation about how Ivermectin beat COVID-19 in India. When I discussed the dire straits that India found itself in early this year with 414,000 cases per day, and over 4,000 deaths per day, and how that evaporated within five weeks of the addition of Ivermectin, I am often asked, "But why is there no mention of that in the news?"

Yes, exactly. Ask yourself why India’s success against the Delta variant with Ivermectin is such a closely guarded secret by the NIH and CDC. Second, ask yourself why no major media outlets reported this fact, but instead, tried to confuse you with false information by saying the deaths in India are 10 times greater than official reports.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...he-official-co

Perhaps NPR is trying so hard because NPR is essentially a government mouthpiece. The US government is “all-in” with vaccines with the enthusiasm of a 17th century Catholic Church “all-in” with a Geocentric Model of the Universe disputing Galileo. Claiming that India’s numbers are inaccurate might distract from the overwhelming success of Ivermectin.

But in the end, the truth matters. It mattered in 1616, and it matters in 2021.




The graphs and data from the Johns Hopkins University CSSE database do not lie. On the contrary, they provide a compelling trail of truth that no one can dispute, not even the NIH, CDC, FDA, and WHO.

Just as Galileo proved with his telescope that the earth was NOT the center of the Universe in 1616; today, the data from India shows that Ivermectin is effective, much more so than the vaccines. It not only prevents death, but it also prevents COVID infections, and it also is effective against the Delta Variant.

In 1616, you could not make up the telescopic images of Jupiter and its orbiting moons, nor could you falsify the crescent-shaped images of Venus and Mercury. These proved that the earth was NOT the center of the Universe – a truth the Catholic Church could not allow.

Likewise, the massive drop in cases and deaths in India to almost nothing after the addition of Ivermectin proved the drug's effectiveness. This is a truth that the NIH, CDC, and FDA cannot allow because it would endanger the vaccine policy.

Never mind that Ivermectin would save more lives with much less risk, much less cost, and it would end the pandemic quickly.

Let us look at the burgundy-colored graph of Uttar Pradesh. First, allow me to thank Juan Chamie, a highly-respected Cambridge-based data analyst, who created this graph from the JHU CSSE data. Uttar Pradesh is a state in India that contains 241 million people. The United States’ population is 331 million people. Therefore, Uttar Pradesh can be compared to the United States, with 2/3 of our population size.

This data shows how Ivermectin knocked their COVID-19 cases and deaths - which we know were Delta Variant - down to almost zero within weeks. A population comparable to the US went from about 35,000 cases and 350 deaths per day to nearly ZERO within weeks of adding Ivermectin to their protocol.

By comparison, the United States is the lower graph. On August 5, here in the good ol’ USA, blessed with the glorious vaccines, we have 127,108 new cases per day and 574 new deaths.

Let us look at the August 5 numbers from Uttar Pradesh with 2/3 of our population. Uttar Pradesh, using Ivermectin, had a total of 26 new cases and exactly THREE deaths. The US without Ivermectin has precisely 4889 times as many daily cases and 191 times as many deaths as Uttar Pradesh with Ivermectin.

It is not even close. Countries do orders of magnitude better WITH Ivermectin. It might be comparable to the difference in travel between using an automobile versus a horse and buggy.

Uttar Pradesh on Ivermectin: Population 240 Million [4.9% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 26

COVID Daily Deaths: 3

The United States off Ivermectin: Population 331 Million [50.5% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 127,108

COVID Daily Deaths: 574

Let us look at other Ivermectin using areas of India with numbers from August 5, 2021, compiled by the JHU CSSE:

Delhi on Ivermectin: Population 31 Million [15% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 61

COVID Daily Deaths: 2

Uttarakhand on Ivermectin: Population 11.4 Million [15% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 24

COVID Daily Deaths: 0

Now let us look at an area of India that rejected Ivermectin.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...le34561235.ece

Tamil Nadu announced they would reject Ivermectin and instead follow the dubious USA-style guidance of using Remdesivir. Knowing this, you might expect their numbers to be closer to the US, with more cases and more deaths. You would be correct. Tamil Nadu went on to lead India in COVID-19 cases.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opin...78d521f9a.html

Tamil Nadu continues to suffer for its choice to reject Ivermectin. As a result, the Delta variant continues to ravage their citizens while it was virtually wiped out in the Ivermectin-using states. Likewise, in the United States, without Ivermectin, both the vaccinated and unvaccinated continue to spread the Delta variant like wildfire.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/healt...day/index.html

Tamil Nadu off Ivermectin: Population 78.8 Million [6.9% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 1,997

COVID Daily Deaths: 33

Like the JHU CSSE data, Galileo's telescope did not lie either, and the truth can usually be found in plain sight. Ivermectin works, and it works exceedingly well. Harvard-trained virologist Dr. George Fareed and his associate, Dr. Brian Tyson of California's Imperial Valley, have saved 99.9% of their patients with a COVID Cocktail that includes Ivermectin. They have released versions of their new book published in the Desert Review that everyone should read.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opin...d67e94c25.html

I could talk about how every one of my patients who used Ivermectin recovered rapidly, about my most recent case who felt 90% better within 48 hours of adding the drug, but I won't. I could write about how Wikipedia censors more than Pravda, about how you should always read the "talk" section of EVERY Wikipedia article to go behind the scenes and understand what the editors DO NOT want you to read, but I will refrain.

I could write about VAERS and how it is so much easier to navigate by following Open VAERS or how Wikipedia has unfairly portrayed Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the world's sharpest and most credible doctors. But I will hold back.

https://www.openvaers.com/

I could also discuss our current cancer treatment system's dangers and how chemotherapy and radiation stimulate cancer stem cells and cancer recurrence. About how this information has been suppressed and how the addition of repurposed drug cocktails can help prevent this, but I digress.

https://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Can.../dp/0998055425

I could recite the history of early outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with repurposed drugs, including Ivermectin, with all the specifics, and EXACTLY WHY this lifesaving information has been censored, but instead, I will leave researching these topics to each of you readers as individuals.

https://www.amazon.com/Ivermectin-Wo.../dp/1737415909

Because you already know what will happen if you simply sit back and swallow what the media are feeding you. You MUST question what the government tells you, and always DO YOUR OWN research.

Following the 1616 Inquisition of Galileo, the Pope banned all books and letters that argued the sun was the center of the Universe instead of the Earth. Similarly, today, the FDA and WHO have banned any use of Ivermectin for COVID outside of a clinical trial.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consum...event-covid-19

https://www.who.int/news-room/featur...linical-trials

YouTube and Wikipedia both consider Ivermectin for COVID as heresy.

“YouTube doesn’t allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19… Treatment misinformation: claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19.”

Wikipedia defines heresy as: “any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs, in particular the accepted beliefs of a church or religious organization. The term is usually used in reference to violations of important religious teachings, but is also used of views strongly opposed to any generally accepted ideas. A heretic is a proponent of heresy.”

Heresy is disagreeing with the government, or their health authority, even if they are all wrong and even if their policies harm people. Today we no longer call it heresy; it is labeled as misinformation.

Galileo was found guilty of heresy and sentenced on June 22, 1633, to formal imprisonment, although this was commuted to house arrest, under which he remained for the rest of his life.

On August 7, 2021 Medpage Today published a new quiz, “Can COVID Misinformation Cost You Your Medical License?”

https://www.medpagetoday.com/quizzes/news-quiz/93943
[Reply]
Imon Yourside 12:29 PM 10-09-2021
Originally Posted by HonestChieffan:
Are you taking Ivermectin?
Originally Posted by Ninerfan11:
I am. I am friends an ICU nurse who was, along with most of her co workers (she may have lost her job though). When they get sick, it's what they take.
Originally Posted by HonestChieffan:
when they get sick they take Ivermectin? What sort of sickneses are they treating with it?

What form are you taking?
Originally Posted by Fish:
Originally Posted by Al Bundy:
They must get sick with river blindness.

[Reply]
seamonster 05:23 AM 10-11-2021
Originally Posted by Fish:






•Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 66% [52‑76%] and 86% [75‑92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials.

•Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 30 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.

•Results are very robust — in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 53 of 64 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.

•While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 25% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm.

•Multiple treatments are typically used in combination, and other treatments could be more effective, including monoclonal antibodies which may be available in countries not recommending ivermectin (sotrovimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, and bamlanivimab/etesevimab).

•Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used, including treatments, as supported by Pfizer [Pfizer, TrialSiteNews]. Denying the efficacy of treatments increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage.

•There is evidence of a negative publication bias, and the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 64 studies is estimated to be 1 in 222 billion.

•Over 20 countries have adopted ivermectin for COVID-19. The evidence base is much larger and has much lower conflict of interest than typically used to approve drugs.

•All data to reproduce this paper and sources are in the appendix. See [Bryant, Hariyanto, Kory, Lawrie, Nardelli] for other meta analyses with similar results confirming efficacy.


[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 08:22 AM 10-11-2021
Originally Posted by seamonster:




•Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 66% [52‑76%] and 86% [75‑92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials.

•Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 30 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.

•Results are very robust — in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 53 of 64 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.

•While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 25% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm.

•Multiple treatments are typically used in combination, and other treatments could be more effective, including monoclonal antibodies which may be available in countries not recommending ivermectin (sotrovimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, and bamlanivimab/etesevimab).

•Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used, including treatments, as supported by Pfizer [Pfizer, TrialSiteNews]. Denying the efficacy of treatments increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage.

•There is evidence of a negative publication bias, and the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 64 studies is estimated to be 1 in 222 billion.

•Over 20 countries have adopted ivermectin for COVID-19. The evidence base is much larger and has much lower conflict of interest than typically used to approve drugs.

•All data to reproduce this paper and sources are in the appendix. See [Bryant, Hariyanto, Kory, Lawrie, Nardelli] for other meta analyses with similar results confirming efficacy.

From your own dubious link:

•While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 25% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm.
[Reply]
seamonster 08:28 AM 10-11-2021
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
From your own dubious link:

•While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 25% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm.
Did you see the 65+ studies that showed efficacy or just cherry pick a blip that barely fits your narrow minded agenda?
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 08:29 AM 10-11-2021
Originally Posted by seamonster:
Did you see the 65+ studies that showed efficacy or just cherry pick what fits your agenda?
If you have a problem with what I posted from your link, blame them. Their words, not mine.
[Reply]
seamonster 08:33 AM 10-11-2021
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
If you have a problem with what I posted from your link, blame them. Their words, not mine.
Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 66% [52‑76%] and 86% [75‑92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials.

Their words. Not mine.
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 08:34 AM 10-11-2021
Originally Posted by seamonster:
Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 66% [52‑76%] and 86% [75‑92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials.

Their words. Not mine.
In no way does that negate what I posted.
[Reply]
seamonster 08:35 AM 10-11-2021
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
In no way does that negate what I posted.
Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. Treatment is more effective when used early. Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 66% [52‑76%] and 86% [75‑92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials. Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 30 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation. The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of heterogeneous studies is remarkable, with 91% of the 64 studies reporting positive effects.
[Reply]
Donger 08:41 AM 10-11-2021
Originally Posted by seamonster:
Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. Treatment is more effective when used early. Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 66% [52‑76%] and 86% [75‑92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials. Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 30 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation. The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of heterogeneous studies is remarkable, with 91% of the 64 studies reporting positive effects.
Most of these studies have been very small, and a few of them have been retracted. Oxford is presently working on a significant trial (PRINCIPLE).
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 08:45 AM 10-11-2021
Originally Posted by Donger:
Most of these studies have been very small, and a few of them have been retracted. Oxford is presently working on a significant trial (PRINCIPLE).
That's why I referred to the site as dubious.
[Reply]
Donger 08:51 AM 10-11-2021
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
That's why I referred to the site as dubious.
The RCT showing the highest RRR had 24 participants. Total:

https://c19ivermectin.com/chaccour.html
[Reply]
seamonster 08:55 AM 10-11-2021
Originally Posted by Donger:
Most of these studies have been very small, and a few of them have been retracted. Oxford is presently working on a significant trial (PRINCIPLE).
23 thousand is a small study?
[Reply]
Donger 09:00 AM 10-11-2021
Originally Posted by seamonster:
23 thousand is a small study?
Which study was that?
[Reply]
RaidersOftheCellar 09:47 AM 10-11-2021
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
In no way does that negate what I posted.
So you're actually trying to argue that one generic, meaningless line nullifies the results of 65 studies?

:-)
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 09:49 AM 10-11-2021
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
So you're actually trying to argue that one generic, meaningless line nullifies the results of 65 studies?

:-)
.

Originally Posted by Donger:
Most of these studies have been very small, and a few of them have been retracted. Oxford is presently working on a significant trial (PRINCIPLE).

[Reply]
Page 14 of 21
« First < 41011121314 15161718 > Last »
Up