Covid Jab Follies: The more you know.

Oh dear god. You neophytes with degrees in human biology from YouTube University would be hilarious if it wasn’t for this sort of profound and willful ignorance cost people their lives.

ivermectin has been conclusively debunked as an effective treatment or prevention strategy for COVID-19 by the global scientific community. Major Health Organizations like the WHO, FDA, CDC, NIH, et., have thoroughly debunked Ivermectin for use in treating COVID 19. Even Merk the original manufacturer recommended against its use outside of clinical trials due to lack of efficacy.

The consensus rests on clear, data-driven reasons established through rigorous, peer-reviewed clinical trials.

These are scientific reasons why Ivermectin failed as a treatment for COVID 19:

Unacheivable invitro dosages. Initial interest sparked from laboratory (in vitro) cell-culture studies showing antiviral activity. However research
highlighted that achieving the same antiviral effect in humans requires a drug concentration up to 50 to 100 times higher than what is safe. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11918548/

No Reduction in Hospitalization: The large-scale TOGETHER Randomized Clinical Trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, evaluated ivermectin against a placebo. It found that ivermectin did not lower the incidence of hospital admission or prolonged emergency department observation. [1, 2, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8810517/

No Impact on Recovery Speed: The multi-site ACTIV-6 Trial, published in JAMA, evaluated mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients. It concluded there was no statistically significant difference in recovery time or death prevention between ivermectin and a placebo. https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html

Ineffective in Vaccinated Populations: The PRINCIPLE Trial by the University of Oxford specifically tracked ivermectin's performance in community settings. Investigators confirmed that ivermectin completely lacked meaningful benefits in altering recovery or hospital outcomes. https://www.principletrial.org/news...cks-meaningful-benefits-in-covid-19-treatment

Flawed or Fraudulent Early Data: Early "pro-ivermectin" meta-analyses heavily relied on small studies and preprints that were later retracted. As documented in a Nature Journal report, key foundational papers (such as the Elgazzar preprint) were withdrawn due to widespread data plagiarism, fabrications, and structural flaws. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

And if that isn’t enough here’s some additional links to peer reviewed sources that debunk Ivermectin’s efficacy as a treatment for COVID-19.





But hey, who am I to tell you to research the actual science as I’m pretty sure that all you need is a handful of cranks to express opinions not based on the scientific data to support your political group think.
 
Bottom line: you have a full court press of "debunking" despite positive results in clinical trials. But since there is no approval for general use, any civilians ir doctors stating positive are just "anecdotal" and to be ignored. Yet previously respected medical scientists warning of long term negative cardio effects are discredited, and there is no public tracking of folk who die from cardiac problems (with no personal/family history) as to whether they were jabbed or not.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8248252/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8875435/
.
The covid vax would not have been approved under pre-pandemic standards. But now any and all reputable research that is not on the bandwagon is ignored.

I'm here because Ivermectin was pivotal in ending my month long hospitalization due to Covid. I get a kick out of people telling me different based on their beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top