What I don’t understand is why Daniel — if he was taking Ivermectin prophylactically— felt that wasn’t sufficient to protect others from him possibly transmitting c19 to an elder...? If this was really the principle reason to get a shot. What diminished his confidence in his relative own protection & immunity from covid to the degree tha…
What I don’t understand is why Daniel — if he was taking Ivermectin prophylactically— felt that wasn’t sufficient to protect others from him possibly transmitting c19 to an elder...? If this was really the principle reason to get a shot. What diminished his confidence in his relative own protection & immunity from covid to the degree that he’d take one of the vaccines known now to be least effective against c19 & variants.
Uttar Pradesh has been promoted as an area that has had 'outstanding' success with ivermectin. Stats supporting their claims which posit low death rates against other areas where ivermectin was not used have underpinned many of their claims of success. The article below seems fairly objective as it does not mention vaccines, therapies, ivermectin, just how skewed the statistics have been coming out of that region.
A bit on Ivermectin— The American Journal of Therapeutics, Meta-Analysis PDF file:
“Meta-analysis of 15 (study) trials found that Ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no Ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence)."
“Findings indicate with moderate certainty that Ivermectin treatment in COVID-19 provides a significant survival benefit.” “Overall, the evidence suggests that early use of Ivermectin may reduce morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.”
[Findings ignored by U.S. FDA, failure to issue EUA for Ivermectin in Covid-19 treatment.]
“World Health Organization (WHO) document on Ivermectin …found that adverse events with Ivermectin were primarily minor and transient. ...Ivermectin is NOT a new and experimental drug with an unknown safety profile. Ivermectin is a WHO listed “Essential Medicine”.
“At least 5 other (study) reviews of Ivermectin use for COVID-19 have been published, including one co-authored with Nobel Laureate Professor Satoshi Omura, discoverer of Ivermectin…”
There are at least 75 peer-reviewed studies over 30 years on the safety and efficacy profile of this drug, whereas we have only a span of months of data on current vaxxes on market.
Of note: "In Canada, similarly, a provincial review of all available studies found no basis for recommending ivermectin outside of a clinical trial. They specifically note the “critically low quality” of Dr. Tess Lawrie’s meta-analysis."
I watched Lawrie being interviewed and unfortunately cannot remember by who. When asked critical questions about ivermectin, (answers she should have at her fingertips and questions that were not particularly hardball,) her response was, "It works" That was it. "It works." That's not a particularly rigorous response and falls short of any scientific argument I am familiar with.
What I don’t understand is why Daniel — if he was taking Ivermectin prophylactically— felt that wasn’t sufficient to protect others from him possibly transmitting c19 to an elder...? If this was really the principle reason to get a shot. What diminished his confidence in his relative own protection & immunity from covid to the degree that he’d take one of the vaccines known now to be least effective against c19 & variants.
PM - check out the Quilette article I cite. Evidence for Ivermectin still seems quite weak, unfortunately.
Uttar Pradesh has been promoted as an area that has had 'outstanding' success with ivermectin. Stats supporting their claims which posit low death rates against other areas where ivermectin was not used have underpinned many of their claims of success. The article below seems fairly objective as it does not mention vaccines, therapies, ivermectin, just how skewed the statistics have been coming out of that region.
https://article-14.com/post/untitled-60cf605395758
A bit on Ivermectin— The American Journal of Therapeutics, Meta-Analysis PDF file:
“Meta-analysis of 15 (study) trials found that Ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no Ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence)."
“Findings indicate with moderate certainty that Ivermectin treatment in COVID-19 provides a significant survival benefit.” “Overall, the evidence suggests that early use of Ivermectin may reduce morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.”
[Findings ignored by U.S. FDA, failure to issue EUA for Ivermectin in Covid-19 treatment.]
“World Health Organization (WHO) document on Ivermectin …found that adverse events with Ivermectin were primarily minor and transient. ...Ivermectin is NOT a new and experimental drug with an unknown safety profile. Ivermectin is a WHO listed “Essential Medicine”.
“At least 5 other (study) reviews of Ivermectin use for COVID-19 have been published, including one co-authored with Nobel Laureate Professor Satoshi Omura, discoverer of Ivermectin…”
There are at least 75 peer-reviewed studies over 30 years on the safety and efficacy profile of this drug, whereas we have only a span of months of data on current vaxxes on market.
Read the Quilette article Daniel cites, it casts serious doubt on the AJT meta-analysis you cite by Dr. Tess Lawrie. https://quillette.com/2021/07/06/looking-for-covid-19-miracle-drugs-we-already-have-them-theyre-called-vaccines/.
Of note: "In Canada, similarly, a provincial review of all available studies found no basis for recommending ivermectin outside of a clinical trial. They specifically note the “critically low quality” of Dr. Tess Lawrie’s meta-analysis."
I watched Lawrie being interviewed and unfortunately cannot remember by who. When asked critical questions about ivermectin, (answers she should have at her fingertips and questions that were not particularly hardball,) her response was, "It works" That was it. "It works." That's not a particularly rigorous response and falls short of any scientific argument I am familiar with.