In this brilliant analysis of a BBC article that claims Ivermectin has been debunked we see how really crappy these people are.
Here is a video of a very cheeky doctor who goes through in detail the article by the BBC and the foundational data they refer to which is zilch.
As you can see here this meta-analysis of ivermectin studies is amazingly consistent. The average efficacy was 66% better than without ivermectin. The dots you see above indicate the effectiveness of the drug. The farther to the left the dot the higher the efficacy. If the dot is in the middle it is unclear if it had a benefit or not. If it is to the right of the midpoint then it would actually have been deleterious to users.
As the doctor who is speaking in the video points out the “side effects” of ivermectin are less than the reported side effects of acetaminophen and numerous other drugs people take every day.
What the doctor shows is the deceit used by the BBC in their reporting.
The BBC reporters reference a study that doesn’t exist. He points out the “purported” study which doesn’t actually exist is lead by a student not a doctor, clinician or researcher.
He points out that the BBC article essentially rejects ALL meta-studies which are the best evidence we have which leaves you with nothing but individual studies which can all be flawed which they point out and which the BBC seems to be saying all you should have. But which study?
Meta-studies are done because sometimes individual studies are flawed so we look for combining data from many studies to get a lot more data to determine the truth of a point. The BBC is trivially correct that all studies can be biased and flawed even meta-studies but that is essentially saying you can’t believe anything. You might as well do random things and just guess because all the studies might be flawed.
That’s why we do meta-studies.
In any case the results for ivermectin from the studies is spectacular almost every one. In many meta-studies you get studies which show no effect or even negative effects all the time. In fact with ivermectin these individual studies are remarkably consistent. Virtually every one shows some pretty dramatic improvement.
The BBC brings up many irrelevant points which either points to the BBC’s bias or outright deception like arguing that people might take ivermectin instead of the vaccine or use the horse prescriptions. This is effectively like saying some people are stupid. It has nothing to do with wither ivermectin actually works or not.
The BBC appears to be trying to misdirect people, precisely what they claim the pro-ivermectin camp is trying to do. They are saying since some person did something stupid we should all refrain from taking ivermectin.
The results you see in the chart above relate to people who already had covid and were using it to suppress virus replication after the virus had already been detected in someone and was affecting them enough to get tested and had symptoms of the disease.
In this chart you can see the results of studies when used prophlactically:
In this meta-analysis the average efficacy was 86% showed improvement.
We are talking public health here, not tax policy.
We are talking about people’s survival here not critical race theory.
I don’t get it. How can something like this be published in any publication that asserts it is “unbiased” or providing “information” when they clearly are NOT!
These meta-analysis don’t prove ivermectin is flawless or works in all cases but it is very powerful evidence that ivermectin should be part of any regimen when someone has covid.
This meta analysis and the studies all say that in the US possibly hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved if people had followed Trump’s advice of taking IVM or HCQ.
Is that why these people are doing this because they deep down know they’ve killed hundreds of thousands of people by ignoring Trump’s advice? That they know that if people saw the data they would be shocked it is so obvious that IVM and HCQ have potential and might be really good and they said it was a Trump lie when it wasn’t? Is this simply projection of their own guilt?
This is especially the case because of the low toxicity of ivermectin and similarly for HCQ. These drugs have been given billions of times and in the case of HCQ probably trillions of doses with almost 0 side effects.
As the doctor points out simple non-prescription medications such as Tylenol, vitamin d have higher toxicity than either of these drugs HCQ or ivermectin.
So, as President Trump said: “What have you got to lose?”
That’s a very non-doctor way to put it but it is true. It is the heart of what I call “proactive” prevention. If something has no negative effects through a lot of data and there is evidence it might help even with limited evidence for this why not do it?
However, this is a lot more than “little evidence.” These trials are incredibly positive and while each one might have small flaws the meta-analysis is the best way we have of producing evidence where we don’t have a $100 million drug company study.
In fact this evidence could easily be more than a $100 million study but my point is a lot more than that ivermectin is effective and you should take it if you have any concerns about covid at all.
My point is how deceptive the media has become even when it comes to things as critical as life or death medical care. They are willing to tout their politics even over the health of people while they claim they are the ones protecting the health.
Yet, clearly they aren’t.
In the beginning of the video the doctor narrating points out the silliness of having reporters giving you this information and disdain he has that these journalists are making these arguments when they are not doctors or researchers themselves.
This is unfortunately common. It is not rare that you see this kind of bias in reporting from the left. In my experience in climate studies it is endemic that virtually everything coming out of the media is grossly in error and actually the opposite of the truth.
One of the more remarkable things is the more they argue they are right the more likely it is really totally false and the opposite of what they say.
I’m not arguing believe me. Look at the studies. If you don’t believe the pictures above go to the video or go to the studies. It is all available. I have no desire to force you to admit I am right. I am simply telling you my opinion from studying the facts. Before you make a life or death decision or decide for yourself look at the data yourself. It’s not that hard.
Lying about global warming doesn’t have an impact of life or death. Like lying about critical race theory isn’t life or death but these reporters have taken the same practices they use politically to get their way and applied it to the health of people and lied to us. Even the BBC which used to be quality.
The same is true of almost all media today. Everything has become so political you have to look at the data yourselves. You simply can’t trust me or anybody with information today because almost all reporting is biased by politics for some reason today.
I don’t know why trying to suppress ivermectin is so important politically. Is it simply they don’t want to be wrong when they made fun of Trump for suggesting it or HCQ?
Is it because they have become fixated on supporting big pharmaceutical to the point they are willing to work for them and destroy people’s lives to help drug companies?
Is it just hate? Are these people driven by social status they gain by going along with each other no matter how crazy the point they are trying to make?
The same is true with masks. I cannot tell you how stupid the mask idea is.
There is almost zero evidence masks do anything. I could believe masks do something even though the physics of them seems to make it impossible for them to do so. But the problem is regardless of all the studies and rhetoric there is simply the raw fact that every single person can confirm without hardly thinking.
Somewhere around 100 million people in the US have had covid. Almost all of them were wearing a mask and they still got covid.
The masks don’t work. Anybody would say after 100 million failures of something that it is obvious it doesn’t work. Depending on masks to provide you any safety is tantamount to saying I am an idiot. Obviously they don’t work effectively because so many people wore their masks, got the disease anyway. They don’t work obviously. You don’t need a study to tell you this.
Maybe they could protect you 5%. 5% is nothing in a disease with R0=6. It reduces R0 to 5.7. I know of no way to distinguish the benefit at all of 5.7 vs 6 for R0. The disease is a superspreader and this mask is not changing the fact that it will get to you if you are in its presence with almost exactly the same likelihood as if you didn’t wear a mask.
This is the same as the idea of vaccinating children.
Let me be clear if there was any reason to give the vaccine to children I’d be all for it as I am 100% for everyone 100% getting it if they are >65 and I am highly for 100% coverage of anyone over 45. Below 45 the disease consequence and the vaccine unknowns start to get into a gray area.
For kids under 18 the evidence is clear even provided by Pfizer. There is no reason to give kids under 18 the vaccine. Not a single kid has died who didn’t already have a highly compromised disease.
Those kids with highly compromising disease should take the vaccine if they can. They should also take ivermectin or HCQ and probably monoclonal antibodies but they are very special situations.
For the 99.9% of kids not in that situation they should NOT take the vaccine because there is 0.0% chance of dying of covid and some chance of negative unknown effects from the vaccine.
Pfizer itself admits that kids who took the vaccine or didn’t take the vaccine had identical serious illness or death rates. 0. None. Nobody got serious illness or death.
The vaccine prevented in some kids a stuffy nose and increased the number of symptomless infections. However, symptomless infections still means a kid is infected. You just don’t know it. So in a real sense it could increase the infectivity because you wouldn’t know your kid had the disease.
The good news is that for some unknown reason the transfer or infectivity of kids to adults is virtually zero. So even if your kid did get covid and you didn’t know it you very likely wouldn’t get covid from them. So maybe it doesn’t make a difference that they have a symptomless covid but scientifically and ethically speaking it is not possible to argue you should give a kid the not completely tested vaccine when there is zero chance of them having serious disease or death from it.
Yet we see the Biden administration is getting ready to force parents to give the vaccine to kids despite this obvious and irrefutable logic that nothing good can come from giving them the vaccine.
Once again we are faced with insanity. Why are they forcing this on people? Just because they can? To distract from the fact they are failing to stop the spread?
Proactive prevention is taking something with a very large well known low risk profile that has been shown to help you with some serious disease like cancer or heart disease.
Insane prevention is taking something that has unknown or unclear risk profile that is shown to help you with some trivial condition.
That is what the Biden administration and some other people are saying. Take this thing we have really no good information on to help prevent your kid from getting a stuffy nose. It’s beyond stupid. We are talking about true CCCP level of insanity. We have to fight this.
Trump advocated things like people in critical conditions having the right to take risky medicines or therapies. The argument was simple. If you are going to die with high likelihood let you try something. If it doesn’t work well at least you tried.
It’s the same argument about proactive prevention. Taking very low risk supplements or therapies that have some decent evidence might lower your chances of serious outcomes later is worth the risk. The key is very low risk things. Don’t take extra calcium for instance especially for men which could have potential heart issues. Don’t take B12 in large doses. But consider d3 in doses under 2500ug if you are over 25. Because worst case you wasted some small amount of money. Best case you prevented some cancer later in life.
Are they simply trying to convince you they are doing something even if it is harmful to distract you from the fact that there are more cases and deaths this year than last possibly because they haven’t used ivermectin or HCQ like Trump suggested?
If so at least don’t suggest doing things that are dangerous like giving kids under 25 or 21 vaccines that have 0 chance of helping them and some chance of killing them or other unknown problems. It’s just common sense, isn’t it?
Should you get the vaccine under 45?
As I’ve pointed out in this article and others the efficacy of the vaccine to prevent death from covid is undisputed and irrefutable for people over 65. Even for the variants it drastically reduces death rate. Maybe not 1/20th but probably 60-80% depending on your immune function and age.
However, if you already have had covid and are certain 100% you did then you can forego everything but take some vitamin D and pine bark. I would not get the vaccine or boosters.
Everything below only relates to people who’ve not already had covid.
If you are over 65 or have any comorbidities you should absolutely take the vaccine. I believe there is solid science that even with any potential problems the benefit is clear. Since many people 65 and above have immune systems that are weak I would also prescribe if I was a doctor and they allowed you to prescribe daily supplements vitamin D and pine bark and a one week course of ivermectin.
Between 45 and 65 I think you absolutely should take it. By 45 your immune function is down 50%. I would also take vitamin D and ivermectin exactly as above. However, if you really for some reason didn’t want to take the vaccine you could consider taking the risk. To compensate for that I would absolutely take ivermectin and supplements. Assuming you don’t have other comorbidities you will likely do well from studies and statistics I’ve seen you have very little risk but frankly I would consider taking the shots if not the booster. I don’t think you should take a booster. I think you should take vitamin D and ivermectin and forget the booster but you could. It’s your risk.
If you are 21-45 you are in a position I would consider carefully whether to take the shots or not take the shots or booster. I would take ivermectin and vitamin D for sure anyway but your decision to take the shot should be based on how important having peak physical condition is.
1 in 1000 males according to a Canadian study got myocarditis from the shot. In this video you can see a top performance athlete reduced to arthritic weakling who has a 50% chance of dying in the next 10 years. He was 29 when he got myocarditis literally a week after taking the vaccine.
The chances of a top athlete getting myocarditis spontaneously is infinitesimal. I have never heard of it.
There is strong evidence in the US of increased incidence of myocarditis among people given mRNA vaccines. The death rate of this is much much higher than covid. It’s not a good trade off. If you are younger I would consider strongly the J&J version of the vaccine or forego vaccine.
Top athletes in this age range may seriously want to avoid the vaccine. At least the mRNA versions. Other people it is a toss up in my opinion. There is risk we don’t know long term what this vaccine will have. Especially with females it is too risky without knowing to take it if you are planning to have babies at any time.
If you are under 21 years of age you should absolutely NOT be getting the vaccine.
Literally in 50,000,000 American kids under 18 no one has died in 2 years from covid. You’ve probably heard numbers like 300 or 500 have died but those are kids with leukemia and other serious ailments. Those kids should consider the vaccine and ivermectin and vitamin D but everyone else it would be criminal to give the vaccine to them.
There is no upside to taking the vaccine and only downsides for people under 21.
In fact, Sweden has outlawed the vaccine to people under 30. I think this is very sane advice. Instead of mandates to take the vaccine we should be prohibiting people under 21 or maybe 30 like Sweden from taking it.
Until we develop better vaccines and have known lifetime and safety profile we cannot consciously advise children be given something like that.
What about spreading the disease?
Some people have said but you might spread the disease if you don’t take the vaccine.
I have seen no evidence that people given the vaccine spread the disease less than people who haven’t. Even if they did spread it more if everyone follows the guidelines above almost no-one would die and you must realize that since covid is a r0=6 disease one way or another you are going to be exposed to this virus over the next 2 years.
Also, people under 21 for some reason don’t seem to spread the virus. I am not sure what to make of this or why but study after study shows that young people don’t seem to spread it much.
If you do get the disease even wearing your mask and taking the vaccines don’t blame republicans. This is really stupid. First, the highest non-conforming groups not getting the vaccines are blacks and Latinos not republicans. But irrespective of that you can’t automatically blame them because there is no reason to believe that vaccinated people are less spreading that unvaccinated people.
About 80% of Americans have been vaccinated now. 80% of the people in hospitals are double vaccinated people and many 3 times vaccinated. This is because if your immune system is weak getting more shots doesn’t improve your chances much. What will improve your chances is taking an antiviral and vitamin D. But you can’t blame unvaccinated because there is a 9 in 10 chance you were infected by a vaccinated person.
Why? Because first 80% of people are vaccinated so you have at least 80% chance. The other reason is because of the remaining 20% a lot are kids and kids have been shown in numerous studies to not spread the disease easily. So, that means the probability is 9 out of 10 you got covid from a vaccinated person.
The other thing is that the US government under Biden is letting in 200,000 plus unvaccinated people 40,000 or more have active covid according to the CPB. These are thousands of vectors every month who each spread it to 6 people or 240,000 who then spread it to 6 people. Within a month millions of people are infected from these illegal immigrants. It is highly likely that a lot of people in the hospital are illegal immigrants or have been infected by illegal immigrants directly or indirectly.
The CDC doesn’t report the number of people who are illegal immigrants in our hospitals but we know that spikes in cases correspond almost precisely with where CPB drops off loads of newly illegal immigrants. I can’t say with 100% certainty this is the cause but it is irrelevant. Everybody is going to get this disease. Take my advice and do the things I suggest and I believe you have the highest chance of survival and success. Don’t do what the government says.
Don’t believe the governments mask and vaccine advice. It makes no sense. The fact that we have more cases and deaths this year says that they have no idea what they are doing. Do the research yourself. This is the greatest thing about America, not that you have the right not to take a vaccine but that you can make your own choice what is best for you. Don’t give up your rights to the government.
There is also the issue that symptomless covid means you don’t know if you are infected and spreading so it’s not clear that getting the vaccine means you would or your kids would spread it less even if it prevented stuffy nose and some cold like symptoms.
Once again under 25 you don’t need to take pine bark or vitamin D but you might consider ivermectin.
We have learned a lot
The above is based on the science articles I have read. It is based on common sense, logic and risk aversion.
Do not let the government dictate what you do or journalists. Don’t let me tell you what to do. Study the issue and understand the logic.
Donald Trump told us taking ivermectin or HCQ was a good idea. He told us to take vitamin D, zinc and get the shot.
If the US had followed his advice there would have been almost certainly 100,000 deaths less in the US maybe 200,000 less over the last 2 years.
Trump didn’t know this at the time. He was applying what I call “proactive thinking.” He was simply pointing out that the risk of taking these antivirals was nil and the potential benefits speculative but with some evidence so why not take them?
In fact it’s turned out in a large number of clinical studies that ivermectin and HCQ both show a 50-80% reductions in covid death rates which means conservatively 200,000 or more lives would have been saved.
Instead our media immediately jumped on HCQ and Ivermectin and claimed they were “dangerous.” In fact, they are less dangerous than taking acetaminophen or zinc or vitamin D in higher doses. Literally a trillion doses of HCQ has been given over a long time and 3.7 billion doses of ivermectin at least over 30 years. These drugs have unbelievably safe profiles with almost no adverse reactions even when billions of people have gotten them in larger doses than recommended by doctors for covid.
So, our media has gotten this terribly wrong. But the evidence is coming in and the results are getting clearer and clearer. This disease is not as simple as everyone get the vaccine 3 or 4 or 5 times until it works. That is insanely stupid and dangerous.
It is clear that antivirals should play a lot in our approach to covid because it will lower the mutation rate dramatically. Everyone should be given ivermectin or HCQ prophylactically in the US. Everyone over 45 should be taking vitamin D. I think they should take pine bark too.
A booster shot is an extreme measure that should be given only to people over 65 who have a compromised immune system. I highly recommend supplements to boost your immune function and antivirals instead of a booster based on the evidence available today which is getting more and more settled.
Don’t wear a mask. They are stupid and do nothing. However, when around people who are older like 75 or greater I would wear a n95 mask and sterilize yourself prior to coming within 12 feet of them.
UnderstandItAll 