Ivermectin Reviews? Drug 99,8% effective in 48 hours against COVID-19?

[Remundo]

on the other hand, the same ANSM recommended doliprane and in bed to treat COVID19.

[pedrodelavega]

Unnecessary posturing, FDA advice still the same https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer- ... vent-covid

What useless gestures? ... you have to say it in which language?

the answer is clear and clear " ANY MEDICAL WORLD CAN PRESCRIBE IVERMECTIN " this was recorded by the lawyers of the FDA

Ms. Honold said the FDA did not intend to require anyone to do anything or prohibit anyone from doing anything.

What about when the FDA said, "No, stop"?

Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, who is on the panel reviewing the appeal, asked the question.

"Why isn't that an order?" It looks very similar, doesn't it? ".

Ms Honold called the statements "mere jokes".

“Can you answer the question, please? Can we say that the term "stop" can be related to an imperative form, and therefore to an order? asks Judge Elrod.

– “In some contexts, these words could be interpreted as a command,” Ms. Honold said.

– “But in this context, the FDA merely used these words as part of a 'humorous' tweet intended to share its informational article, these statements do not rise to the level of an order. »

– These statements “do not prohibit physicians from prescribing Ivermectin to treat COVID or for any other purpose,” she continued.

geo.jpg


https://geopolitique-profonde.com/artic ... vermectine

It is still and as always disinformation. Reality

[Robob]

Study in Peru: https://www.cureus.com/articles/172991- ... y-state#!/

- 2 years to be published then peer-reviewed in Cureus.
- 2 years of battle against lies to be able to place the vaccines.
- The truth comes out slowly.
- Those responsible will be exposed, but we will pay the bill as always.


"Results
Reductions in excess deaths over a 30-day period after peak deaths averaged 74% in the 10 states with the most intensive use of IVM. As determined in all 25 states, these reductions in excess deaths were strongly correlated with the extent of IVM use (p < 0,002). For four months of IVM use in 2020, before a new president in Peru limited its use, there was a 14-fold reduction in excess deaths nationwide, then an increase 13 times within two months of restricting the use of IVM. Notably, these national excess mortality trends align with WHO summary data for the same period in Peru.

Conclusion
The natural experiment that was launched with the authorization of the use of IVM for COVID-19 in Peru on May 8, 2020 gave strong evidence of the effectiveness of the drug. In all 25 states of Peru, there was a significant correlation between the extent of IVM distributions and reductions in 30-day excess deaths (p<0,002). The 10 states involved in Operation MOT, with the largest extent of IVM distributions, saw an average reduction in excess deaths of 74% at 30 days after the peak of deaths. Several potential confounders, including the effects of a social isolation mandate imposed in May 2020, variations in the genetic makeup of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and differences in seropositivity rates and population densities across 25 States, were taken into account but do not appear to have considerably influenced these results.

These encouraging results from IVM treatments in Peru and similar positive indications from Uttar Pradesh, India, which have a population of 33 million and 229 million respectively, offer promising models for further mass deployments of IVMs, depending on the needs, both for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. IVM's proposed mechanism of action against SARS-CoV-2, which involves binding the drug to the spike protein of the virus, limiting virus morbidity and infectivity, may help retain the efficacy of IVM against viral mutant strains that may emerge. Further investigations will help generalize these findings, for example, to therapeutic applications to post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC),"

[izentrop]

More crap my pov robob...

This very weak article on ivermectin, of course in Cureus, the journal that will publish literally anything

[sicetaitsimple]

It's funny"!
Janic explained to us yesterday, about a study of excess mortality among the Amish,even this communication from AFP underlines the randomness of the conclusions of some researchers. Their only criterion of excess mortality relating only to a comparison with the previous year, which has no statistical value

And there, if I read correctly, this study on Peruvian data would take as a reference 2 months, January and February 2020, i.e. just before the Covid.(Excess all-cause deaths were calculated from total deaths, state by state, by subtracting the respective baseline means for January through February 2020.).
But that brings no comment....

Finally, it seems surprising to me that the country which has counted the most deaths per million inhabitants in the world (about 6500 according to "official" figures) is cited in some way as a reference. But nothing can surprise me....

[Janic]

Finally, it seems surprising to me that the country which has counted the most deaths per million inhabitants in the world (about 6500 according to "official" figures) is cited in some way as a reference. But nothing can surprise me....

it is indeed necessary to relativize figures without knowing the real implication. It was attributed to so-called covid deaths which were linked to other existing pathologies or comorbidities without this virus being the real cause.
Only History in a few years or decades will make an acceptable balance sheet, that is what the statistical archives of the countries are for, which can be compared with each other outside of passionate and contradictory debates, but which unfortunately few consult.

[Robob]

More crap my pov robob...

This very weak article on ivermectin, of course in Cureus, the journal that will publish literally anything

It's a point of view.

This article is peer-reviewed: there are scientists who have accepted to take the full face in the media for having supported this study. It is certainly out of interest, not to defend any truth: we know that supporting IVM, a generic molecule that pharmacies are selling off in boxes of 100 tablets at €4 a box on Aliexpress, is an extremely lucrative idea!

Conversely, you relay the opinion of a Guardian columnist who has never cared for anyone except his bank account.

The doctors who detract from IVM in favor of vax are the worst because for the past 3 years, they have certainly caught covid several times and had the opportunity to try to treat themselves with HCQ or IVM. I postulate that they know, like me or anyone who has tested IVM as soon as she had a scratchy throat and compared the evolution of their condition to that of their relatives who are also contaminated.

[pedrodelavega]

It's funny"!
Janic explained to us yesterday, about a study of excess mortality among the Amish,even this communication from AFP underlines the randomness of the conclusions of some researchers. Their only criterion of excess mortality relating only to a comparison with the previous year, which has no statistical value

And there, if I read correctly, this study on Peruvian data would take as a reference 2 months, January and February 2020, i.e. just before the Covid.(Excess all-cause deaths were calculated from total deaths, state by state, by subtracting the respective baseline means for January through February 2020.).
But that brings no comment....

Finally, it seems surprising to me that the country which has counted the most deaths per million inhabitants in the world (about 6500 according to "official" figures) is cited in some way as a reference. But nothing can surprise me....

Most surprisingly, Robob, who has accustomed us to "dissecting" the studies, takes this one at face value, when it is obviously stuffed with bias.

[Robob]

Most surprisingly, Robob, who has accustomed us to "dissecting" the studies, takes this one at face value, when it is obviously stuffed with bias.

I dissect when a covidist NFM arrives claiming that a 'pre-print study is stuffed with bias. There, I have no reason to verify the assertions of a lambda guy on Tweeter who comes back with these arguments from 2 years ago while the study is now peer reviewed. If this guy is known, his analysis of the time was part of the objections and was therefore invalidated.

If the analysis brings new facts why not: not here.

[Janic]

pedro el zero

when it is obviously stuffed bias.

insofar as the director of the lancet acknowledges that most published studies have (“are stuffed”) biases; This puts the pros and cons back to back.