First article, first reference therein contains meta-study with restrictive criteria and proper registration (much data out the window) and has this neat little caveat:
"No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy."
Pierre Kory is probably the world's #1 proponent of ivermectin, and he admits that the efficacy of the substance is squared directly over prevention and immediate onset.
Alpha strain showed highest response to ivermectin, subsequent strains showed more resistance. As virulence increased, the window to allow ivermectin a chance to be effective required either prophylactic dosing or immediately upon first symptoms.
Any trial which observes mild to severe covid is missing the window almost entirely, and much of the trials were excluded, so there was no broad net to find even "arguable" efficacy with such a trial setup.
Regardless, it was not about proving efficacy. The authorities loved to present it that way, because they believe they had a silver tool in a vaccine, but that never materialized, as all vaccinated got covid as well. So, a vaccine it was not, but for so long it was argued that selection of a "placebo" was "harmful" because it allowed vaccine avoidance--a now known falsehood.
As for ivermectin - that too doesn't work. My science is based on observance of the molecule and no molecules in ivermectin have one, remained intact once inside the body, and two breached any rogue cell, any covid cell and did something to it. There is zero biologic value to ivermectin as regards curing the matters that are covid related. Same with vitamin D and all the other repurposed drugs, supplements, remedies that popped up with this pandemic that claimed to save the day.
In the case of covid, it was engineered to wreak havoc on the human immune system, so in this instance, intervention with steroids was mandatory for those who got behind the curve.
Of course, steroids don't do that. Steroids reduce the immune response. The immune response to the spike protein becomes dysregulated in susceptible people, and the damage stems from autoimmune disorder. The steroid knocks that off.
There is no immune response to the spike protein. Because it is harmless, innocuous. I could drink a cup of pure spike proteins and nothing would happen. Details here: Do vaccines work or don't they? Risk vs Reward - is the Juice worth the squeeze? No, and no.
The reason for so many studies is due to us being in a pandemic and all eyes are on covid and fighting or preventing it. So all companies have stepped up their game to promote various drugs, treatments etc, pumped some money into these quick studies - yet not one of those studies has conclusive evidence - not one. And still, here on substack some have linked studies and not one of them say it works. "Potential" is okay in sports and for marketing but it's still snake oil at this point.
So, let me show you how to really read these articles - beyond getting hyped up on the headline. It starts out by saying "could be worthy of attention" and "probable mechanisms". Meaning no hard evidence.
Then it goes on to say
"Ivermectin has rapid oral absorption, high liposolubility, is widely distributed in the body, metabolized in the liver (cytochrome P450 system), and excreted almost exclusively in feces" "peak plasma levels". "anti-inflammatory" This is all kinds of contradiction in terms, concepts and meanings.
We can simply start with digestion destroys molecules, rapidly. As for "peak plasma levels". If the body ingested marble dust - there would be a marble dust plasma presence. A presence doesn't mean it's doing anything. In fact, if it was doing something you wouldn't see it because it's inside a cell - and we don't have that technology yet.
To say Ivermectin is an "anti inflammatory" is odd. Ivermectin has plenty of known side effects - each cause inflammation...
Then the study you provided us with, in it's "Conclusion" states the following:
"We have summarized published results on the inhibition of multiple viral and host targets that could be involved in SARS-CoV-2 replication and the disease COVID-19. Although multiple antiviral and host target activities have been reported for ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, it is STILL UNCLEAR if any of these activities will play a role in the prevention and treatment of the disease. The controlled clinical trials that are underway will reveal if these activities will translate into clinical efficacy."
Many times it's easier to scroll down past all of the flub and get right to the conclusion notes.
I know, thanks to knowing physics chem and biology that ivermectin doesn't work. And all peer reviewed papers say the same thing. The problem is many of you don't know how to read the study properly. You think they are saying ivermectin works - but you skipped past the part where they say it works so far in a petri dish, in a lab (in vitro). You also miss the part where they ALL conclude that there is not enough evidence to say it actually works.
Official physician and CDC guidance was once positive for covid, go home, take acetaminophen, and wait until O2 levels drop and difficulty breathing sets in, then go to hospital.
Acetaminophen has a harsher side effect and risk profile than ivermectin, and on top of that it is in numerous cold medicines, so as an OTC compound, it is very likely to be used into the risk zone. Ivermectin, being prescribed at known safe, tested dosing, is quite unlikely to be causative of side effect injury. Its safety profile is better than acetaminophen.
Nevertheless, people were NOT allowed to take ivermectin "placebo" but were DIRECTED to take acetaminophen placebo, self-medicated, and with greater OD risk. That is NOT logical in any sense, nor is it ethical for a novel disease with no cure.
Papers? Link please
187 ivermectin COVID-19 studies, 138 peer reviewed, 93 comparing treatment and control groups. Recent: De Forni Ochoa-
Jaramillo PRINCIPLE Marinos Aref Uematsu Qadeer. ACTIV-6 TOGETHER PRINCIPLE COVID-OUT. Ivermectin was
adopted for early treatment in all or part of 22 countries (39 including non-government medical organizations). Submit
updates/corrections.
Every study you sent me was 2020 or 2021 - here is a more recent study provided by the Journal of American Medicine (JAMA);
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801828
First article, first reference therein contains meta-study with restrictive criteria and proper registration (much data out the window) and has this neat little caveat:
"No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy."
Pierre Kory is probably the world's #1 proponent of ivermectin, and he admits that the efficacy of the substance is squared directly over prevention and immediate onset.
Alpha strain showed highest response to ivermectin, subsequent strains showed more resistance. As virulence increased, the window to allow ivermectin a chance to be effective required either prophylactic dosing or immediately upon first symptoms.
Any trial which observes mild to severe covid is missing the window almost entirely, and much of the trials were excluded, so there was no broad net to find even "arguable" efficacy with such a trial setup.
Regardless, it was not about proving efficacy. The authorities loved to present it that way, because they believe they had a silver tool in a vaccine, but that never materialized, as all vaccinated got covid as well. So, a vaccine it was not, but for so long it was argued that selection of a "placebo" was "harmful" because it allowed vaccine avoidance--a now known falsehood.
I'm the guy saying and showing vaccines don't work, can't work - it's my article on Substack.
Do vaccines work or don't they? Risk vs Reward - is the Juice worth the squeeze? No, and no.
https://rev10.substack.com/p/vaccines-do-they-work-or-are-they
As for ivermectin - that too doesn't work. My science is based on observance of the molecule and no molecules in ivermectin have one, remained intact once inside the body, and two breached any rogue cell, any covid cell and did something to it. There is zero biologic value to ivermectin as regards curing the matters that are covid related. Same with vitamin D and all the other repurposed drugs, supplements, remedies that popped up with this pandemic that claimed to save the day.
Prednisolone? Budesonide?
Those down regulate the immune system. It's what was needed for covid after a critical period of infection, when the immune response became erratic.
Nope. Leave the body alone - that's the only way to heal. We are so wired to always add something to the body - the body is screaming 'keep shit out!'
In the case of covid, it was engineered to wreak havoc on the human immune system, so in this instance, intervention with steroids was mandatory for those who got behind the curve.
No. Wrong. Incorrect. Ivermectin does nothing. Steroids also don't kill the virus that is covid.
Of course, steroids don't do that. Steroids reduce the immune response. The immune response to the spike protein becomes dysregulated in susceptible people, and the damage stems from autoimmune disorder. The steroid knocks that off.
There is no immune response to the spike protein. Because it is harmless, innocuous. I could drink a cup of pure spike proteins and nothing would happen. Details here: Do vaccines work or don't they? Risk vs Reward - is the Juice worth the squeeze? No, and no.
https://rev10.substack.com/p/vaccines-do-they-work-or-are-they
The reason for so many studies is due to us being in a pandemic and all eyes are on covid and fighting or preventing it. So all companies have stepped up their game to promote various drugs, treatments etc, pumped some money into these quick studies - yet not one of those studies has conclusive evidence - not one. And still, here on substack some have linked studies and not one of them say it works. "Potential" is okay in sports and for marketing but it's still snake oil at this point.
The first was a simple search, but it described sundry possible mechanisms. You contest that, so set it aside.
The following is the one referenced in the initial comment. It has tests, results, and commentary.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36555121/
Every study people have sent me was 2020 or 2021 - here is a more recent study provided by the Journal of American Medicine (JAMA);
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801828
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00491-6
So, let me show you how to really read these articles - beyond getting hyped up on the headline. It starts out by saying "could be worthy of attention" and "probable mechanisms". Meaning no hard evidence.
Then it goes on to say
"Ivermectin has rapid oral absorption, high liposolubility, is widely distributed in the body, metabolized in the liver (cytochrome P450 system), and excreted almost exclusively in feces" "peak plasma levels". "anti-inflammatory" This is all kinds of contradiction in terms, concepts and meanings.
We can simply start with digestion destroys molecules, rapidly. As for "peak plasma levels". If the body ingested marble dust - there would be a marble dust plasma presence. A presence doesn't mean it's doing anything. In fact, if it was doing something you wouldn't see it because it's inside a cell - and we don't have that technology yet.
To say Ivermectin is an "anti inflammatory" is odd. Ivermectin has plenty of known side effects - each cause inflammation...
Then the study you provided us with, in it's "Conclusion" states the following:
"We have summarized published results on the inhibition of multiple viral and host targets that could be involved in SARS-CoV-2 replication and the disease COVID-19. Although multiple antiviral and host target activities have been reported for ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, it is STILL UNCLEAR if any of these activities will play a role in the prevention and treatment of the disease. The controlled clinical trials that are underway will reveal if these activities will translate into clinical efficacy."
Many times it's easier to scroll down past all of the flub and get right to the conclusion notes.
You still have been unable to present a single peer-reviewed article to support your claims. Do so or give it up, cold liver.
Every study you sent me was 2020 or 2021 - here is a more recent study provided by the Journal of American Medicine (JAMA);
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801828
I know, thanks to knowing physics chem and biology that ivermectin doesn't work. And all peer reviewed papers say the same thing. The problem is many of you don't know how to read the study properly. You think they are saying ivermectin works - but you skipped past the part where they say it works so far in a petri dish, in a lab (in vitro). You also miss the part where they ALL conclude that there is not enough evidence to say it actually works.
Official physician and CDC guidance was once positive for covid, go home, take acetaminophen, and wait until O2 levels drop and difficulty breathing sets in, then go to hospital.
Acetaminophen has a harsher side effect and risk profile than ivermectin, and on top of that it is in numerous cold medicines, so as an OTC compound, it is very likely to be used into the risk zone. Ivermectin, being prescribed at known safe, tested dosing, is quite unlikely to be causative of side effect injury. Its safety profile is better than acetaminophen.
Nevertheless, people were NOT allowed to take ivermectin "placebo" but were DIRECTED to take acetaminophen placebo, self-medicated, and with greater OD risk. That is NOT logical in any sense, nor is it ethical for a novel disease with no cure.
The immune system is the only thing that can defeat covid, or cancer, or colds and flus etc.
Details here:
https://rev10.substack.com/p/vaccines-do-they-work-or-are-they