Replies

I would still like to have the option of having ivermectin early rather than be told not to try to treat my symptoms. If I didn’t improve with early treatment, then I haven’t lost anything.

I have a problem with doctors who said stay at home until you can’t breathe anymore. Then come on in, and we’ll isolate you until you give up the fight. No comfort of family or friends, just a bunch of strangers who know nothing about you. No one to advocate for the patient. That’s completely immoral.

If I’m on my way out, let me at least have my family with me. Let us at least get to say goodbye in person.

Late posting but I had to find some important links I remembered seeing.

Don't be fooled by the charlatan Dugway Duke's posting (#20) -- there were a LOT more than 8 ivermectin studies, there were at least 99, and a meta-analysis of these shows ivermectin to be 62 percent effective (see my link at bottom of this post). That's much more effective than the horrible drugs given by hospitals, such as Remdesivir: "How Greed and Negligence Likely Killed 600,000+ Americans".

https://c19science.info/FDA_Approval_Process.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

The medical establishment rushed to publish studies critical of ivermectin soon into the epidemic. They skewed the results -- deliberately choosing the very sick to begin using it in some studies, which of course diminished the overall effectiveness. Ivermectin achieves the best results when used early, the earlier the better. Another way to skew the results was using low dosages of ivermectin. And of course, ivermectin HAD to be disparaged for the EUA to be approved -- if the government had favorably recognized alternative-treatment effectiveness (HCQ too), the EUA could not be FDA approved, under law. Billions of dollars were at stake for the sale of C19 "vaccines", let alone their own protocols for other competing treatments (Remdesivir, etc.)

By the way, the Lancet article on early treatment is dated Jan 2021. That may be the Lancet article that was retracted. There was another article from The New England Journal that had a similar fate, also on ivermectin. Both retractions were embarrassing and showed how blatant the medical establishment's politicization of science has become.

A comment on the JAMA article -- the AMA does not speak for or represent all doctors, only about 15 percent of doctors are dues-paying members. They are as mainstream as it gets, part of the revolving-door cycle between corrupt regulators in the FDA/CDC/NHS and the medical establishment.

The charlatan Dugway Duke used to spend all his/her time defending and promoting the "vaccine" but since that argument is all but lost he/she has moved on to attacking ivermectin. I wonder what the real motive is, because almost nobody is still on that bandwagon anymore, either because their critical thinking skills finally kicked in, or they've personally witnessed or experienced the tragic results of being "fully vaccinated".

Here is the 99 study meta-analysis of ivermectin:

https://c19ivm.org/meta.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email