If I understand correctly, "P= .09" means there is a 91% chance that the effect was not by chance. And if there's a 91% probability that by taking a harmless drug for a few days I can reduce my chance of death by 70%, then how stupid would I be to refuse? The P=.05 cutoff is arbitrary and doesn't take into account risk vs. benefit, right?
Another great example of undermining a real finding "the effect size" with an underpowered study "statistical significance." Do people ever do power analyses any more before they start a study, it was always required for any Ph.D. candidate.
I see that Berenson's jumped on the anti-iver bandwagon today. If you read what the former NYT writer posted just a short time ago, though, it quickly becomes painfully clear that animus toward Robert Malone, not any kind of science, is what underlies his hasty conclusion. Berenson seems to have lit out initially on a quest for truth but then veered sharply onto a campaign for personal promotion.
Dr. Zelenko says that zinc must be used along with ivermectin or HCQ, along with vitamin D3 and vitamin c, but zinc is the main thing. Zinc is what prevents viral replication in cells, but it can’t penetrate cell walls easily. Ivermectin enables zinc to do that.
Home tested positive for Covid in early January 2022. Unvaxxed. Felt like a mild flu. Took ivermectin the next day (in my cabinet, just in case), napped for one hour, woke up with no fever and no body aches or fatigue. Ivermectin works. Took ivermectin for 4 more days. Totally fine. 55 years old, no comorbid conditions. Took my D, zinc and Quercetin. It’s AWFUL how our doctors/government aren’t telling us what to do, that we have to search for our own information. My husband’s brother just lost his healthy 74 year old father-in-law. Got vaxxed, one week week later in hospital with Covid and pneumonia. One week after that on ventilator in critical care unit on his stomach. Died one week after that. Lives in a different state and we didn’t learn of the details until he was in the hospital, unfortunately.
Just my two bits, but I think it is a monstrous crime to deny anyone the chance to try a remedy that has no measurable side effects! Especially those who are already dying ! My 30 year old son came down with a horrible sore throat and fever -he was very sick -the next day it was in his lungs but he started go take ivermectin and on the third day after he was well enough to go back to work. He never got any tests but it was going around at work -he is unvaxxed . Took vit c zinc D and melatonin, too. I think we witnessed a miracle.
Feb 19, 2022·edited Feb 19, 2022Liked by Igor Chudov
If Pfizer was marketing ivermectin, that summary would read a 150% increase in reducing ventilation and over 300% reduction in death. Perspective matters.
I know it's not on topic here, but I'm not sure where else to mention this that might be seen. People need to check out this week's shocking VAERS data for myocarditis: https://openvaers.com/covid-data/myo-pericarditis and look at the chart for cases by year. 24,187 reports of vax-related myocarditis in 2021 was a shocking number in itself, but as of February 11 there are already 9,560 for 2022! That's on pace for over 80,000 this year.
I'm troubled by what passes for "standard of care." According to the study, that is "symptomatic therapy and monitoring for signs of early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging." That's basically nothing. Isn't the value of ivermectin achieved at least in part by its use together with Zinc? And what about the other elements of the various early treatment protocols? What is a "standard of care" that does not even include assessment of Vitamin D levels? In addition to being underpowered, this looks like a clear attempt to set up ivermectin monotherapy as a failure, thereby broadly tarnishing it as well as its use as part of a regimen.
If I understand correctly, "P= .09" means there is a 91% chance that the effect was not by chance. And if there's a 91% probability that by taking a harmless drug for a few days I can reduce my chance of death by 70%, then how stupid would I be to refuse? The P=.05 cutoff is arbitrary and doesn't take into account risk vs. benefit, right?
Another great example of undermining a real finding "the effect size" with an underpowered study "statistical significance." Do people ever do power analyses any more before they start a study, it was always required for any Ph.D. candidate.
"Hunter Biden-level art skills" 😆
This is a recurring theme. The abstract presents the press-release–approved conclusion so it's fit for print while the data proves the opposite:
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/telling-the-truth-in-the-age-of-sponsored
The suppress early treatment play book.
1. Try and use the medicine out of its applicable time frame. i.e. give anti-virals to severely advanced patients on ventilators as happened with HCQ.
2. Give far too little of a dose to be effective.
3. Give far too much of a dose so as to appear dangerous.
4. If all else fails make your study severely under powered so you can write off the positive clinical results as being not statistically significant.
5. Drop or manipulate primary and secondary end points if the drug you wish to suppress happens to meet any of them.
Have I missed any more?
I see that Berenson's jumped on the anti-iver bandwagon today. If you read what the former NYT writer posted just a short time ago, though, it quickly becomes painfully clear that animus toward Robert Malone, not any kind of science, is what underlies his hasty conclusion. Berenson seems to have lit out initially on a quest for truth but then veered sharply onto a campaign for personal promotion.
CNN is a lie machine
Dr. Zelenko says that zinc must be used along with ivermectin or HCQ, along with vitamin D3 and vitamin c, but zinc is the main thing. Zinc is what prevents viral replication in cells, but it can’t penetrate cell walls easily. Ivermectin enables zinc to do that.
Home tested positive for Covid in early January 2022. Unvaxxed. Felt like a mild flu. Took ivermectin the next day (in my cabinet, just in case), napped for one hour, woke up with no fever and no body aches or fatigue. Ivermectin works. Took ivermectin for 4 more days. Totally fine. 55 years old, no comorbid conditions. Took my D, zinc and Quercetin. It’s AWFUL how our doctors/government aren’t telling us what to do, that we have to search for our own information. My husband’s brother just lost his healthy 74 year old father-in-law. Got vaxxed, one week week later in hospital with Covid and pneumonia. One week after that on ventilator in critical care unit on his stomach. Died one week after that. Lives in a different state and we didn’t learn of the details until he was in the hospital, unfortunately.
Just my two bits, but I think it is a monstrous crime to deny anyone the chance to try a remedy that has no measurable side effects! Especially those who are already dying ! My 30 year old son came down with a horrible sore throat and fever -he was very sick -the next day it was in his lungs but he started go take ivermectin and on the third day after he was well enough to go back to work. He never got any tests but it was going around at work -he is unvaxxed . Took vit c zinc D and melatonin, too. I think we witnessed a miracle.
If Pfizer was marketing ivermectin, that summary would read a 150% increase in reducing ventilation and over 300% reduction in death. Perspective matters.
I know it's not on topic here, but I'm not sure where else to mention this that might be seen. People need to check out this week's shocking VAERS data for myocarditis: https://openvaers.com/covid-data/myo-pericarditis and look at the chart for cases by year. 24,187 reports of vax-related myocarditis in 2021 was a shocking number in itself, but as of February 11 there are already 9,560 for 2022! That's on pace for over 80,000 this year.
I'm glad I didn't wait for CNN to tell me ivermectin is useless before I took it for covid. I can't prove it helped but it sure didn't hurt.
I'm troubled by what passes for "standard of care." According to the study, that is "symptomatic therapy and monitoring for signs of early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging." That's basically nothing. Isn't the value of ivermectin achieved at least in part by its use together with Zinc? And what about the other elements of the various early treatment protocols? What is a "standard of care" that does not even include assessment of Vitamin D levels? In addition to being underpowered, this looks like a clear attempt to set up ivermectin monotherapy as a failure, thereby broadly tarnishing it as well as its use as part of a regimen.
If taken early on, the results are much more impressive, for sure.
Those are better odds than the vax is offering. And a week after symptoms is bordering on late to start IVM.
is there a chance that the headline was the only way this would be published while the authors knew folks can read?