Covid Vaccine Scam, Ivermectin is the cure (Compilation)

[Van_der_Voort_4]

There are various studies conducted and their development has been suppressed

Research published over a year ago,

Antiviral Research
Volume 178, June 2020, 104787

The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro

Highlights

Ivermectin is an inhibitor of the COVID-19 causative virus (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro.

A single treatment able to effect ~5000-fold reduction in virus at 48 h in cell culture.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011?via=ihub

Uttar Pradesh was the first state in the country to introduce large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of Ivermectin. In May-June 2020, a team at Agra, led by Dr Anshul Pareek, administered Ivermectin to all RRT team members in the district on an experimental basis. It was observed that none of them developed Covid-19 despite being in daily contact with patients who had tested positive for the virus,” Uttar Pradesh State Surveillance Officer Vikssendu Agrawal said.


https://indianexpress.com/article/c...ivermectin-helped-to-keep-deaths-low-7311786/

State of Goa Pulls Ivermectin from Home Medical Kits on Orders from Union Health Ministry

Suffice it to say, the Indian government has been aware of some benefit of ivermectin otherwise they wouldn’t have declared it on the national protocol. TrialSite has reports from various countries that WHO funds could be used as leverage for any and all that proposed the use of ivermectin. These claims cannot be substantiated but there’s been at least five contacts in different countries that have shared this point.

https://trialsitenews.com/state-of-goa-pulls-ivermectin-from-home-medical-kits-on-orders-from-union-health-ministry/

There you have it,total suppression by WHO

We need a rotary lamppost emoji.

 

[wrbtrader]

You do realize that Bihar and UP were both in complete lockdowns until mid-June. In mid-June restrictions were lifted only slightly.

Everyone needs to realize the Bihar and UP were in complete 24 hour per day / 7 days per week lockdown. Of course COVID cases dropped during this very restrictive lockdown. They are still effectively under significant curfews and restrictions.

Bihar lifted the complete lockdown in mid-Jnebut still kept a nightly curfew from 7 pm and 5 am in place. Also government and private offices in Bihar were allowed to open with 50% attendance till 4 pm. Shops could remain open till 5 pm. Also private vehicles to ply on the road and said that online classes can also operate.

In UP from the June announcement - “There will be relaxation in coronavirus curfew in all the districts of the state from Wednesday onwards, from 7 am to 7 pm, for five days as the active Covid cases have come below 600,” an official state government spokesperson said. However, the night curfew between 7 pm and 7 am and weekend curfew throughout the day will continue, the spokesperson added.

Ivermectin which according the manufacturer, Merck, is completely ineffective in treating COVID -- had nothing to do with the declining case in Bihar and UP.

Coronavirus: Bihar, UP lift restrictions, Madhya Pradesh extends curfew till June 15
Bihar and Uttar Pradesh said that Covid-19 cases were declining in the states.
https://scroll.in/latest/996993/cor...ns-madhya-pradesh-extends-curfew-till-june-15

That's my point...if they're going to assume the declines in the Covid numbers were due to Ivermectin while ignoring the other measures being used (e.g. strict restrictions, better medical treatment via the help from other countries, improved Contact tracing to identify / quarantine, better Covid education, increased medical supplies like Oxygen / ventilators)...

Locations that have increasing Covid numbers while using Ivermectin and not other medical treatments...they should at the minimum have supporting data from the hospitals about the use of Ivermectin.

Seriously, I can send 10 boxes of Twizzlers candy to India and then say the decline in Covid numbers was due to people eating Twizzlers. I should at least be able to post verification of people eating Twizzlers. Just as important, when the Covid numbers begin to increase...I should be able to post verification data that correlates the increasing Covid numbers to people supply of Twizzlers is too low (sarcasm).

I did find the below information about distribution of Ivermectin in India...

Indian State Will Offer Ivermectin To Entire Adult Population — Even As WHO Warns Against Its Use As Covid-19 Treatment

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladi...ts-use-as-covid-19-treatment/?sh=56599cfe6d9f

Yet, @carrer stated some of those areas with increasing Covid numbers are not using Ivermectin to contrast what the government stated has been distributed to the entire adult population of Goa, India.

Maybe later this weekend I will look up the Covid numbers in Goa, India since the start of this distribution of Ivermectin unless someone already has the data along with looking up the locations with increasing Covid numbers in India to find up if they distributed Ivermectin to their people.

wrbtrader

 

[Buy1Sell2]

There are various studies conducted and their development has been suppressed

Research published over a year ago,

Antiviral Research
Volume 178, June 2020, 104787

The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro

Highlights

Ivermectin is an inhibitor of the COVID-19 causative virus (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro.

A single treatment able to effect ~5000-fold reduction in virus at 48 h in cell culture.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011?via=ihub

Uttar Pradesh was the first state in the country to introduce large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of Ivermectin. In May-June 2020, a team at Agra, led by Dr Anshul Pareek, administered Ivermectin to all RRT team members in the district on an experimental basis. It was observed that none of them developed Covid-19 despite being in daily contact with patients who had tested positive for the virus,” Uttar Pradesh State Surveillance Officer Vikssendu Agrawal said.


https://indianexpress.com/article/c...ivermectin-helped-to-keep-deaths-low-7311786/

State of Goa Pulls Ivermectin from Home Medical Kits on Orders from Union Health Ministry

Suffice it to say, the Indian government has been aware of some benefit of ivermectin otherwise they wouldn’t have declared it on the national protocol. TrialSite has reports from various countries that WHO funds could be used as leverage for any and all that proposed the use of ivermectin. These claims cannot be substantiated but there’s been at least five contacts in different countries that have shared this point.

https://trialsitenews.com/state-of-...al-kits-on-orders-from-union-health-ministry/
https://trialsitenews.com/state-of-...al-kits-on-orders-from-union-health-ministry/
There you have it,total suppression by WHO

We need a rotary lamppost emoji.

Doesn't fit the narrative

 

[jem]

So this is from July 6th.

So before you go posting your standardized bullshit response..
Make sure you are posting critiques that address these randomized controlled studies...

I am just here to learn on this subject as I knew little about it a few days ago.
At moment I am remaining skeptical as I should.



https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214?searchresult=1

"Viral clearance was treatment dose- and duration-dependent. In 11 randomized trials of moderate/severe infection, there was a 56% reduction in mortality (Relative Risk 0.44 [95%CI 0.25-0.77]; p=0.004; 35/1064 (3%) deaths on ivermectin; 93/1063 (9%) deaths in controls) with favorable clinical recovery and reduced hospitalization. Many studies included were not peer reviewed and a wide range of doses were evaluated. Currently, WHO recommends the use of ivermectin only inside clinical trials. A network of large clinical trials is in progress to validate the results seen to date."

I clicked the link and read this in the paper

and found interesting things...

If you believe it to be wrong... address this...

dont give me old quotes from Merck or counter studies from months ago which claimed randomized trials were needed.



The effect of ivermectin on viral clearance was most pronounced in the randomized trials evaluating doses of up to five days of ivermectin using doses of 0.4mg/kg. At these doses, there were statistically significant effects on viral clearance in all four randomized trials. In a meta-analysis of viral clearance with subgroups of dose duration, there were significant differences in time to viral clearance in favour of ivermectin (Mean Difference -3.00 days [95%CI -4.96, -1.03]; p=0.003, Figure 1A]. In a sensitivity analysis excluding high risk of bias studies, similar effects of ivermectin on time to viral clearance were seen [Supplementary Figure 2]. Furthermore, in another analysis, ivermectin showed improved viral clearance at day 7 (Relative Risk 1.35 [95%CI 1.05-1.75]; p=0.02, Figure 1B]. Effects on Clinical Recovery and Duration of Hospitalization Definitions of clinical recovery varied across trials, as shown in Table 4. In Table 4A, three of the six trials showed significantly faster time to clinical recovery on ivermectin compared to control. In four trials, ivermectin showed significantly shorter duration of hospitalization compared to control (Table 4B). In a meta-analysis of clinical recovery with subgroups of dose duration, there were significant differences in time to clinical recovery in favour of ivermectin (Mean Difference - 1.58 days [95%CI -2.80, -0.35]; p=0.01, Figure 1C]. Additionally, ivermectin showed a 29% improvement in clinical recovery in an analysis with subgroups of dose duration (RR 1.29 [95%CI 1.12-1.47]; p=0.0003, Figure 1D]. Ivermectin demonstrated a shorter duration of hospitalization compared to control (Mean Difference -4.27 days [95%CI -8.60-0.06]; p=0.05, Figure 1E). Ivermectin was not associated with a lower risk of hospitalization compared to control (RR 0.40 [95%CI 0.14-1.08]; p=0.07, Figure 1F). However, this analysis involved only four trials in 704 participants. In a sensitivity Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214 by guest on 30 July 2021 Accepted Manuscript 9 analysis including any hospitalization within 12 hours of randomization, there were significantly fewer hospitalisations compared to control (RR 0.32 [95%CI 0.13-0.80]; p=0.01, Supplementary Figure 3). Effects on Survival 11 randomized trials reported that at least one person had died post-randomization and were included in the analysis (Table 5). Across these 11 trials in 2127 patients, there were 35/1064 (3%) deaths in the ivermectin arms, versus 93/1063 (9%) deaths in the control arms. In a combined analysis using inverse variance weighting, ivermectin showed a 56% reduction in mortality (RR 0.44 [95%CI 0.25-0.77]; p=0.004, Figure 1G). Heterogeneity was moderate, I 2 = 43%. There was a 70% improvement in survival in the subgroup of mild/moderate participants (RR 0.30 [95%CI 0.15-0.58]; p=0.0004). The total number of deaths was small, the analysis was based on 128 deaths and there was no significant difference between ivermectin and control in the severe subgroup (0.58 [95%CI 0.25-1.32]; p=0.19). Consistent results were observed in an analysis excluding high risk of bias studies (RR 0.45 (95%CI 0.24-0.82); p=0.01, Supplementary Figure 4). When only low risk of bias studies were included this result was also maintained (RR 0.31 [95%CI 0.10-0.90]; p=0.03, Supplementary Figure 5). Additional subgroup analysis of the mortality outcome with trials separated by dose-duration, blinding and control group showed consistent survival benefit and no significant subgroup differences were found (Supplementary Figures 6, 7 and 8). A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was performed and no single study had a substantial effect on the overall effect size (Supplementary Table 4). A funnel plot for the mortality outcome showed no significant effects of publication bias: the treatment effects were similar in studies of different sizes, p= 0.618 (Supplementary Figure

 

[gwb-trading]

So this is from July 6th.

So before you go posting your standardized bullshit response..
Make sure you are posting critiques that address these randomized controlled studies...

I am just here to learn on this subject as I knew little about it a few days ago.
At moment I am remaining skeptical as I should.



https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214?searchresult=1

"Viral clearance was treatment dose- and duration-dependent. In 11 randomized trials of moderate/severe infection, there was a 56% reduction in mortality (Relative Risk 0.44 [95%CI 0.25-0.77]; p=0.004; 35/1064 (3%) deaths on ivermectin; 93/1063 (9%) deaths in controls) with favorable clinical recovery and reduced hospitalization. Many studies included were not peer reviewed and a wide range of doses were evaluated. Currently, WHO recommends the use of ivermectin only inside clinical trials. A network of large clinical trials is in progress to validate the results seen to date."

I clicked the link and read this in the paper

and found interesting things...

If you believe it to be wrong... address this...

dont give me old quotes from Merck or counter studies from months ago which claimed randomized trials were needed.



The effect of ivermectin on viral clearance was most pronounced in the randomized trials evaluating doses of up to five days of ivermectin using doses of 0.4mg/kg. At these doses, there were statistically significant effects on viral clearance in all four randomized trials. In a meta-analysis of viral clearance with subgroups of dose duration, there were significant differences in time to viral clearance in favour of ivermectin (Mean Difference -3.00 days [95%CI -4.96, -1.03]; p=0.003, Figure 1A]. In a sensitivity analysis excluding high risk of bias studies, similar effects of ivermectin on time to viral clearance were seen [Supplementary Figure 2]. Furthermore, in another analysis, ivermectin showed improved viral clearance at day 7 (Relative Risk 1.35 [95%CI 1.05-1.75]; p=0.02, Figure 1B]. Effects on Clinical Recovery and Duration of Hospitalization Definitions of clinical recovery varied across trials, as shown in Table 4. In Table 4A, three of the six trials showed significantly faster time to clinical recovery on ivermectin compared to control. In four trials, ivermectin showed significantly shorter duration of hospitalization compared to control (Table 4B). In a meta-analysis of clinical recovery with subgroups of dose duration, there were significant differences in time to clinical recovery in favour of ivermectin (Mean Difference - 1.58 days [95%CI -2.80, -0.35]; p=0.01, Figure 1C]. Additionally, ivermectin showed a 29% improvement in clinical recovery in an analysis with subgroups of dose duration (RR 1.29 [95%CI 1.12-1.47]; p=0.0003, Figure 1D]. Ivermectin demonstrated a shorter duration of hospitalization compared to control (Mean Difference -4.27 days [95%CI -8.60-0.06]; p=0.05, Figure 1E). Ivermectin was not associated with a lower risk of hospitalization compared to control (RR 0.40 [95%CI 0.14-1.08]; p=0.07, Figure 1F). However, this analysis involved only four trials in 704 participants. In a sensitivity Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214 by guest on 30 July 2021 Accepted Manuscript 9 analysis including any hospitalization within 12 hours of randomization, there were significantly fewer hospitalisations compared to control (RR 0.32 [95%CI 0.13-0.80]; p=0.01, Supplementary Figure 3). Effects on Survival 11 randomized trials reported that at least one person had died post-randomization and were included in the analysis (Table 5). Across these 11 trials in 2127 patients, there were 35/1064 (3%) deaths in the ivermectin arms, versus 93/1063 (9%) deaths in the control arms. In a combined analysis using inverse variance weighting, ivermectin showed a 56% reduction in mortality (RR 0.44 [95%CI 0.25-0.77]; p=0.004, Figure 1G). Heterogeneity was moderate, I 2 = 43%. There was a 70% improvement in survival in the subgroup of mild/moderate participants (RR 0.30 [95%CI 0.15-0.58]; p=0.0004). The total number of deaths was small, the analysis was based on 128 deaths and there was no significant difference between ivermectin and control in the severe subgroup (0.58 [95%CI 0.25-1.32]; p=0.19). Consistent results were observed in an analysis excluding high risk of bias studies (RR 0.45 (95%CI 0.24-0.82); p=0.01, Supplementary Figure 4). When only low risk of bias studies were included this result was also maintained (RR 0.31 [95%CI 0.10-0.90]; p=0.03, Supplementary Figure 5). Additional subgroup analysis of the mortality outcome with trials separated by dose-duration, blinding and control group showed consistent survival benefit and no significant subgroup differences were found (Supplementary Figures 6, 7 and 8). A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was performed and no single study had a substantial effect on the overall effect size (Supplementary Table 4). A funnel plot for the mortality outcome showed no significant effects of publication bias: the treatment effects were similar in studies of different sizes, p= 0.618 (Supplementary Figure

It is interesting to read the study feedback (at the paper's link) about this paper from other scientists who state this meta-analysis was based on fraudulent information and needs to be withdrawn or revised.

Let's read the first two...

Are the authors aware of the the retraction of the pre-print by Elgazzar et al. (https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v1) over concerns of potential scientific fraud and breach of ethical conduct? This study was the largest study by patient number included in the meta-analysis, and also had the largest drug effect. Given the outsize effect this would have on the meta-analysis and concerns of the scientific integrity of this study, will the authors consider revising their analysis with this study excluded from the meta-analysis?

=====

The manuscript makes the claim: "A recent meta-analysis found no significant difference in adverse events in those given higher doses of ivermectin, of up to 2mg/kg, and those receiving longer courses, of up to 4 days, compared to those receiving standard doses. [21]" The reference provided, however, is not a meta-analysis. It is a review paper that currently has an editor's note that the conclusions of the paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the editors and the publisher.

 

[Van_der_Voort_4]

Doesn't fit the narrative

Absolutely !


If i need to post something about ivermectin or me being against vaccination on FB ,so it will be read i use binary code

01101000 01110100 01110100 01110000 01110011 00111010 00101111 00101111 01110100 01110111 01101001 01110100 01110100 01100101 01110010 00101110 01100011 01101111 01101101 00101111 01000001 01101100 01110000 01101000 01100001 01011111 01001101 01101001 01101110 01100100 00110111 00101111 01110011 01110100 01100001 01110100 01110101 01110011 00101111 00110001 00110100 00110010 00110000 00110111 00110101 00110011 00111000 00110000 00110010 00110110 00111001 00110011 00110101 00110101 00110000 00110000 00111000 00110100

 

[jem]

That is a useful critique... so I went and look at the study to see how big and influence it could be..


24 RCTs involving a total of 3328 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The sample sizes of each trial ranged from 24 to 400 participants. Of the 24 included studies, eight were published papers, nine were available as pre-prints, six were unpublished results shared for this analysis, and one reported results via a trial registry website.

===

so here is something worth further review... if these are also bad studies... you have done well on this subject so far.

many studies are pending.


The effect of ivermectin on viral clearance was most pronounced in the randomized trials evaluating doses of up to five days of ivermectin using doses of 0.4mg/kg. At these doses, there were statistically significant effects on viral clearance in all four randomized trials. In a meta-analysis of viral clearance with subgroups of dose duration, there were significant differences in time to viral clearance in favour of ivermectin (Mean Difference -3.00 days [95%CI -4.96, -1.03]; p=0.003, Figure 1A]. In a sensitivity analysis excluding high risk of bias studies, similar effects of ivermectin on time to viral clearance were seen [Supplementary Figure 2]. Furthermore, in another analysis, ivermectin showed improved viral clearance at day 7 (Relative Risk 1.35 [95%CI 1.05-1.75]; p=0.02, Figure 1B].

It is interesting to read the study feedback (at the paper's link) about this paper from other scientists who state this meta-analysis was based on fraudulent information and needs to be withdrawn or revised.

Let's read the first two...

Are the authors aware of the the retraction of the pre-print by Elgazzar et al. (https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v1) over concerns of potential scientific fraud and breach of ethical conduct? This study was the largest study by patient number included in the meta-analysis, and also had the largest drug effect. Given the outsize effect this would have on the meta-analysis and concerns of the scientific integrity of this study, will the authors consider revising their analysis with this study excluded from the meta-analysis?

=====

The manuscript makes the claim: "A recent meta-analysis found no significant difference in adverse events in those given higher doses of ivermectin, of up to 2mg/kg, and those receiving longer courses, of up to 4 days, compared to those receiving standard doses. [21]" The reference provided, however, is not a meta-analysis. It is a review paper that currently has an editor's note that the conclusions of the paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the editors and the publisher.

It is interesting to read the study feedback (at the paper's link) about this paper from other scientists who state this meta-analysis was based on fraudulent information and needs to be withdrawn or revised.

Let's read the first two...

Are the authors aware of the the retraction of the pre-print by Elgazzar et al. (https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v1) over concerns of potential scientific fraud and breach of ethical conduct? This study was the largest study by patient number included in the meta-analysis, and also had the largest drug effect. Given the outsize effect this would have on the meta-analysis and concerns of the scientific integrity of this study, will the authors consider revising their analysis with this study excluded from the meta-analysis?

=====

The manuscript makes the claim: "A recent meta-analysis found no significant difference in adverse events in those given higher doses of ivermectin, of up to 2mg/kg, and those receiving longer courses, of up to 4 days, compared to those receiving standard doses. [21]" The reference provided, however, is not a meta-analysis. It is a review paper that currently has an editor's note that the conclusions of the paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the editors and the publisher.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Absolutely !


If i need to post something about ivermectin or me being against vaccination on FB ,so it will be read i use binary code

01101000 01110100 01110100 01110000 01110011 00111010 00101111 00101111 01110100 01110111 01101001 01110100 01110100 01100101 01110010 00101110 01100011 01101111 01101101 00101111 01000001 01101100 01110000 01101000 01100001 01011111 01001101 01101001 01101110 01100100 00110111 00101111 01110011 01110100 01100001 01110100 01110101 01110011 00101111 00110001 00110100 00110010 00110000 00110111 00110101 00110011 00111000 00110000 00110010 00110110 00111001 00110011 00110101 00110101 00110000 00110000 00111000 00110100

That's easily readable.

 

[carrer]

You do realize that Bihar and UP were both in complete lockdowns until mid-June. In mid-June restrictions were lifted only slightly.

Everyone needs to realize the Bihar and UP were in complete 24 hour per day / 7 days per week lockdown. Of course COVID cases dropped during this very restrictive lockdown. They are still effectively under significant curfews and restrictions.

Bihar lifted the complete lockdown in mid-June but still kept a nightly curfew from 7 pm and 5 am in place. Also government and private offices in Bihar were allowed to open with 50% attendance till 4 pm. Shops could remain open till 5 pm. Also private vehicles to ply on the road and said that online classes can also operate.

In UP from the June announcement - “There will be relaxation in coronavirus curfew in all the districts of the state from Wednesday onwards, from 7 am to 7 pm, for five days as the active Covid cases have come below 600,” an official state government spokesperson said. However, the night curfew between 7 pm and 7 am and weekend curfew throughout the day will continue, the spokesperson added.

Ivermectin which according the manufacturer, Merck, is completely ineffective in treating COVID -- had nothing to do with the declining cases in Bihar and UP.

Coronavirus: Bihar, UP lift restrictions, Madhya Pradesh extends curfew till June 15
Bihar and Uttar Pradesh said that Covid-19 cases were declining in the states.
https://scroll.in/latest/996993/cor...ns-madhya-pradesh-extends-curfew-till-june-15

The curfew is being lifted gradually because Ivermectin is working. There are many parts of India and other parts of the world currently experiencing increasing Covid cases despite their lockdowns.

 

[carrer]

I do not know which part of India is using Ivermectin nor do I know if Delhi is using Ivermectin. So far, unless I missed the message post...not a single person has posted a graph or data about the use of Ivermectin and dates for correlation to the Covid infections, hospitalizations and deaths.

• It's just the author of the article assuming the drop in Dehli is due to Ivermectin without any verification data of the use of Ivermecting.

Thus, if you refer back to my question to elderado that posted the graph of declining new cases and declining new deaths...

How do we know who is using Ivermectin and what's the relationship to the strict restrictions, the door-to-door Covid testing, contact tracing, dramatically improving hospital care, and Covid education...how is that impacting those numbers considering it begins about the time when the declines started ?

• Another question I have now is...is it the hospitals that are distributing Ivermectin and if so...they should have data about that distribution to their patients versus other medical treatments they've used on their patients...correct ???

He has not replied and hopefully, he does reply or someone else can post the info even if its data from one hospital only.

P.S. India (the hardest Covid hit areas) has been receiving a lot of medical assistance (Oxygen tanks, beds, ventilators, medical supplies, medical personnel) for about 2 months now especially in Delhi, India.

• https://www.voanews.com/covid-19-pa...itical-medical-supplies-covid-infection-rates

• https://globalnews.ca/news/7836207/canada-medical-supplies-india/

wrbtrader

Please refer to my previous posts. I have presented the evidences.
This is one example:
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...e-cure-compilation.359924/page-2#post-5415208