New (human!) study on ivermectin confirms it (again!). Who is going to be prosecuted?
The FDA (that’s the most influential public health agency in the world if you didn’t know) is responsible for the most egregious disinformation1 (that’s worse than misinformation if you didn’t know) on social media.
In August 2021, they infamously tweeted:
“You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
I mean, seriously, “y’all”, does that even sound like something serious, a serious public health agency would say in the middle of a deadly pandemic?
Joining the collaboration of those conspiring against safe and effective early treatments like ivermectin, the FDA is responsible for the preventable “COVID” deaths and all those caused by the (truly “dangerous and lethal”) “vaccine” that could not have been granted EUA (Emergency Use Authorisation) in the presence of a safe and effective alternative. That’s more than 10 million by my estimation.
So, while the rest of us were being deplatformed and put on terrorist watchlists for sharing the truth about the benefits of early treatment and harms of the “vaccine”, especially for young people and pregnant women, this FDA tweet still remains. Exhibit 1, your “honour”2 for the Nuremburg II trials that will never happen.
As much of my sympathy for those who so readily acquiesced has gone, especially those who threw this tweet in my face when I tried to help them, I have given in to the urge to say “I told you so” (even though I genuinely never wanted to have to).
But anyway, here is yet another definitive study on the effectiveness of one of the safest and cheapest drugs FOR HUMANS in the world – ivermectin.
Desort-Henin et al., 5 Jan 2023 was a Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled*. It does not come better than that.
The SAIVE Trial, Post-Exposure use of ivermectin in Covid-19 prevention: Efficacy and Safety Results
Violaine Desort-Henin, Anna Kostova, Elmozafar Ahmed Babiker, Audrey Caramel, Richard Malamut
Results – Significantly lower COVID-19 cases with ivermectin prophylaxis. – Significantly lower cases with high viral load. – No participant had severe symptoms, required oxygen, or was hospitalized.
Risk of case with high viral load, 96.0% lower, RR 0.04, p < 0.001, treatment 4 of 200 (2.0%), control 99 of 199 (49.7%), NNT 2.1.
Risk of case, 71.6% lower, RR 0.28, p < 0.001, treatment 30 of 200 (15.0%), control 105 of 199 (52.8%), NNT 2.6, primary outcome.3
This trial makes the Cochrane analysis report statistically significant efficacy for prophylaxis, although they do not appear to have acknowledged this yet. There are currently 4 prophylaxis RCTs, and all 4 show statistically significant efficacy of ivermectin.
Cochrane ignored them by simply choosing to only include post-exposure prophylaxis RCTs, even though they were included for the paxlovid analysis with many of the same authors.
At the time there were no post-exposure RCTs and they knew that including any one of the 3 pre-exposure prophylaxis RCTs would show statistically significant efficacy.
This study demonstrated highly statistically significant evidence in a large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that daily oral treatment with ivermectin reduced the risk of infection following exposure to SARS-CoV-2.
Ivermectin was also shown to be safe in doses and duration higher than currently used in approved indications.
Download available for when it is retracted and pulled from the journal servers:
Poster Saive April2023 Ok3 – 203KB ∙ PDF File
*No horses or cows were harmed during the trial.
Joseph Goebbels, a famous Nazi.
1 Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information. It differs from disinformation, which is deliberately deceptive.
2 I have the same respect for the judiciary as I do for every other agency of the state – subzero – they are as ignorant and corrupt as the rest of them.
3 Yes, I know this does not match the table. Not sure whether that errant 1 infected person in the placebo is high or low load or the total is simply wrong. Obviously, it doesn’t change the results substantially but it would have been nice if someone had checked their arithmetic!