It is remarkable that the vaccines have no RCTs showing reductions in death or hospitalization, and they are promoted broadly by public health. Ivermectin on the other hand has far better RCT data showing reductions for these serious outcomes, and they ban it, or investigate physicians who prescribe it. For observational data it is the same story. While observational data is lauded for vaccines when it works in favour of the vax-for-all narrative (and discontinued when it doesn't), observational data for ivermectin is ignored and denigrated.
Sorry, but you're misunderstanding what's said in your PDF excerpt.
There's a difference between reducing mortality and treatment: if ivermectin somehow reduces symptoms and facilitates the body's recovery, that does not mean that it is actually treating COVID-19. This is unsurprising, as ivermectin is an anti-parasitic, and *not* an anti-viral.
Not to mention that the second and third bullet points in your excerpt clearly show that the evidence was mixed at-best, and the fifth bullet point indicates that more evidence is needing. You're cherry-picking data to reach the conclusion you want.
They knew hydroxychloroquine work before they release the Covid. That’s why they came so hard against Trump when he suggested it. He was in touch with Dr. Zelenko that was curing people left and right. I think the establishment was surprised by the success of ivermectin. It went unfettered it was even using hospitals for a period of time. Then they got their act together and made up a bunch of lies about it even though it was one of the most used drugs in the world for the past 40 years and completely safe. Once they knew it worked they had to crush it. Get Dr. Cory‘s new book coming out the war against ivermectin
It is remarkable that the vaccines have no RCTs showing reductions in death or hospitalization, and they are promoted broadly by public health. Ivermectin on the other hand has far better RCT data showing reductions for these serious outcomes, and they ban it, or investigate physicians who prescribe it. For observational data it is the same story. While observational data is lauded for vaccines when it works in favour of the vax-for-all narrative (and discontinued when it doesn't), observational data for ivermectin is ignored and denigrated.
Sorry, but you're misunderstanding what's said in your PDF excerpt.
There's a difference between reducing mortality and treatment: if ivermectin somehow reduces symptoms and facilitates the body's recovery, that does not mean that it is actually treating COVID-19. This is unsurprising, as ivermectin is an anti-parasitic, and *not* an anti-viral.
Not to mention that the second and third bullet points in your excerpt clearly show that the evidence was mixed at-best, and the fifth bullet point indicates that more evidence is needing. You're cherry-picking data to reach the conclusion you want.
Please stop spreading misinformation.
They knew hydroxychloroquine work before they release the Covid. That’s why they came so hard against Trump when he suggested it. He was in touch with Dr. Zelenko that was curing people left and right. I think the establishment was surprised by the success of ivermectin. It went unfettered it was even using hospitals for a period of time. Then they got their act together and made up a bunch of lies about it even though it was one of the most used drugs in the world for the past 40 years and completely safe. Once they knew it worked they had to crush it. Get Dr. Cory‘s new book coming out the war against ivermectin