Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

1.2K

(post is archived)

[–] • 4 pts

The funny thing is look at it like this???

What do the researchers who are doing research on chloroquine and iverticimin have to gain?

NOTHING IF ANYTHING THEIR CAREERS WILL BE RUINED AND THEIR REPUTATION MAYBE LOSE THEIR LICENSE

what do all the other fucking scumbags pushing the Vax have to gain? I don't know maybe everything tons of money small fame new jobs and on and on...

Give me a fucking break

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

When you take the mark the beast rewards you with a whole new world of riches even if just for a short time. But all least your friends will think your cool. Not so much when your in the pit though. Choices choices.

[–] • 2 pts

The best study to date on Ivermectin effectiveness is a meta-analysis of high quality RCTs using the GRADE method.

Shows mortality reduction of 48%. Matches with this study.

That's a moderate benefit. That's a ton of lives saved.

However, one prevailing theory is: it reduces death because it gets rid of parasites. These studies often take place in India and now Brazil where parasitic infections are much more common than in Western Countries like the US.

The parasite angle is one of probably multiple reasons Ivermectin works.

For any of you interested in the very high quality meta-analysis:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/

And this research team made a rebuttal to the idiots saying he included a bad RCT (which they dropped from their list).

[–] • 0 pt

I'm just throwing this out there as a possible confounding factor. It is probable that many of the people that "tested positive for covid" didn't have covid at all. Ivermectin is effective against more viruses than just covid, but the faulty diagnostics forces me to take this with a grain of salt. I think ivermectin is likely more effective than what is shown here.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I think it's probably a good treatment since fauci doesn't want to fund a real study.

But, I'm not going to bother to read a research paper from a site developed by a syrian muzzie born in Germany and migrated to the US with connections to Zuckerberg.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

The Cult of covid will never allow anything but the prescribed agenda of obedience and garbage therapeutics to prove you have a compromised immune system.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Did you actually read this article? It shows that it's barely effective. It shows that its only 7% effective and that the mortality rate is lower.

Amantadine is very effective. My uncle, aunt, cousin, all their staff, and now my father in law, brother in law all took Amantadine in the last couple of weeks and went from super sick with fever and coughing like crazy to almost completely healthy in 1-3 days.

[–] • 3 pts (edited )

Funny how you mention the numeric value for the effectiveness of reducing the infection rate, but not the mortality rate. The concluded that mortality rate is reduced by 45%, which is significant. The hospitalization rates are also reduced by a similar amount.

[–] • 0 pt

1 is 50% of 2 It isnt the percentage its the numbers when its this small and short lived. As I said above, its not earth shattering but its also Brazil. Lets face it, you do this study where people have shoes and wash on a regular basis I am sure it will be much better.

[–] • 0 pt

7% effective in preventing the getting of it, which people that take the drug never claimed to do anyway.

[–] • 0 pt

I agree. Its not earth shattering.

Results: A total of 220,517 subjects were included in the analysis; 133,051 (60.3%) ivermectin users and 87,466 (39.7%) non-users. COVID-19 infection occurred in 4,311 (3.2%) treated subjects, and 3,034 (3.5%) non-treated subjects. This evidence showed a 7% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate with use of ivermectin: COVID-19 infection rate ratio (Risk ratio (RR) of 0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.89 – 0.98; p = 0.003). A total of 62 deaths (1.4% mortality rate) occurred among users and 79 deaths (2.6% mortality rate) among non-users, showing a 48% reduction in mortality rate (RR, 0,52; 95%CI, 0.37 – 0.72; p = 0.0001). Risk of dying from COVID-19 among ivermectin users was 45% lower than non-users (RR, 0.55; 95%CI, 0.40 – 0.77; p = 0.0004).

[–] • 0 pt

Thanks. It looks like they under dosed, and by not including zinc in the study they’re only fighting half the battle. The Ivermectin docks at the same receptors as the spike and introduces the zinc into the cell which creates a ph imbalance that the corona doesn’t like as it prevents replication of the virus and spike. Further, vitamin D and other vitamins and minerals should be included to help regulate the immune system to help fight off a virus. Pretty simplified, but that is my understanding.