dr kory was on fox today. he recommends following the protocols from the company which he's the president of. it says that if ivermectin doesn't work. you should take a couple of drugs used by men that are transitioning
https://s3.amazonaws.com/drupal8mediamatters.org/static/D8File/2022/01/10/flccc-pierre-kory-treatment-covid-19-drugs.pdf?VersionId=CPmnmsgmm7LgzVWvV2pEItgKV1cAl.ak#page=2
no video on youtube yet. you have to watch the entire thing https://video.foxnews.com/v/6290779450001#sp=show-clips
(6 votes)
Comments
(Old Spike)
Laughing at a doctor getting covid while on ivermectin is like laughing at a vaccinated getting covid. Everyone is getting covid.
The hospital beds are filled up with 53% Unvaxx and 47% Vaxx. Everyone is getting it.
(Old Spike)
(Long Spike)
its not the same, i don't think i've seen a credible study of ivermectin for covid let alone a study that shows its a useful preventative for covid.
i was thinking yesterday about people saying they've been counting the hospitilizations wrong, so, considering that heart attacks, broken bones and all sorts of other issues that might result in a hospitilization happens to everyone regardless of vaccination status. why is it that the unvaxxed which make up a minority of the population, take up more than 50% of the hospital beds? are they just stupid in general?
(Old Spike)
You haven't seen a credible study because you've gone out of your way not to look. There are 73 of them here - (do you think that one of the positive studies could be credible lol?):
https://ivmmeta.com/
Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. All remain significant after exclusions. 48 studies from 44 independent teams in 20 different countries show statistically significant improvements in isolation (37 primary outcome, 34 most serious outcome).
•Meta analysis using the most serious outcome shows 67% [53‑76%] and 83% [74‑89%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis (excluding all GMK/BBC team studies), for primary outcomes, for peer-reviewed studies, and for RCTs.
•Results are very robust — in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 59 of 73 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.
•While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 26% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm.
•Multiple treatments are typically used in combination, which may be significantly more effective.
•Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used, including treatments, as supported by Pfizer [Pfizer, TrialSiteNews]. Denying the efficacy of treatments increases mortality, morbidity, collateral damage, and endemic risk.
(Long Spike)
are they including the study that compares people that took ivermectin to people that took hcq to people that were dead? that sites a joke. its been a joke for 4 or 5 months. https://twitter.com/gidmk/status/1422044335076306947 if you want to see a guy go almost page by page and explain how stats work
(Old Spike)
By their very nature meta-analyses include bad studies - the whole purpose of a meta-analysis is to cut through the contradictory findings of individual studies to arrive at an aggregate result. As studies are determined to be problematic or are retracted they are removed from the meta-analysis and the results are recalculated. What the site has shown over 4 or 5 months is that no matter what's removed, what's added, etc., the aggregate result shows a dramatic positive result for ivermectin. You make the case for mass formation when you dismiss the entire site because of the very nature of how a meta-analysis works. A multi-decade veteran of meta-analysis in the video above can explain more to you. Or you can keep avoiding the information and stick to your twitter bubble.
(Long Spike)
i have no reason to watch it. its a shithouse with no foundation. according to the site. its got a lower effective rate than the vaccines. its doesn't stop you from getting covid since kory got it and it doesn't stop transmission since he and his kid got it. so by the same logic you use to talk about the vaccines. ivermectin doesn't work
(Old Spike)
Again you're having difficulty with logic. No one makes the claim that ivermectin stops you from getting COVID - how would it do that? It inhibits virus replication, so if you take it as a profilaxis (sic don't feel like looking that up), which is a good idea for the vulnerable, or are given it early in infection it dramatically improves a number of data points (as shown in the summary above). That's the only claim made, and the claim is supported by the study meta-analysis. The vaccines were introduced as a full-stop solution similar to the smallpox vaccine - some are now trying to claim that this was never the case. The vaccine does not work like the smallpox vaccine - it does not stop the spread, as we were told. So it doesn't work as claimed.
I will take a vaccine that is introduced after it goes through the standard, former process and does exactly what they say it will do. For me that needs to be something that actually stops infection/transmission. Let me know if they introduce something like that.
(Long Spike)
the smallpox vaccine is another virus. and with it, it took 180 years to eraticate smallpox. it also wasn't done with just a vaccine. places had mandatory vaccination and quarantines. it, just like any other vaccination, doesn't prevent it from getting into you, it only gives you a higher percentage of not being affected by it. so you can still spread it. smallpox vax sits at 95% effectivness, tapers off after 3 years. pfizer is as effective, just doesn't last as long. i'd say its basically the same. if smallpox came back, you wouldnt get the vaccine for it
just summing it up, you won't take the vaccine because its not like the smallpox vaccine, so you'll take the less effective alternative knowing from that israeli study that an unvaxxed person can get the virus twice in the same amount of time a vaxed person gets it once. you're trading a shot every 6 months for an anti-viral pill every other day thats not meant for prolonged use
(Old Spike)
Large scale smallpox vaccination began in the 1950s and the disease was said to be eradicated by 1979. If the efficacy of the smallpox vaccine had been similar to what they've released for COVID, we'd still be trying to get rid of smallpox today. If you're aware of this, you should be just as upset over the false claims made by the makers of the COVID vaccines as I am - and you should have waited to see what they produced before rushing to stick yourself with an experiment and barking at others to do the same.
Again let me know when they come out with a vaccine that behaves and is as effective as the smallpox vaccine. 95% sounds good to me and 95% was among the initial claims made for the current mRNA vaccines. We now know better. They can keep trying and maybe eventually they'll come up with something that will work where the benefits far outweigh the risks and if that happens I will probably take that vaccine.
(Site Administrator)
they're up around 90+ percent effective at preventing serious illness
you've had over 6 months to learn this info but I guess you used all your bandwidth watching Tim Pool & friends ... I bet most of those outrage porn merchants you love are vaccinated btw.
(Old Spike)
Some of Tim's staff are vaccinated and some aren't. "Up around 90+ effective at preventing serious illness" - that's not the same as preventing infection. These are experimental gene therapies that do not prevent infection, as the smallpox vaccine does, and are not at all comparable in any way with the smallpox vaccine.
Historically, the vaccine has been effective in preventing smallpox infection in 95% of those vaccinated. In addition, the vaccine was proven to prevent or substantially lessen infection when given within a few days of exposure.
Do you think you are clever when you site a percentage of "up around 90+ percent" when you are talking about symptom reduction and not infection prevention? The COVID vaccines deployed by Western countries - specifically the mRNA variety - do not prevent infection at a rate of 90%. Compare that to the smallpox vaccine which does prevent infection at a rate of 95%. Something like that is exactly what we need.
I'm currently looking into the Sputnik vaccine and seeing what's involved in acquiring that shot after first confirming that it works in a similar manner to the Smallpox vaccine - it prevents infection as well as illness.
(Site Administrator)
>that's not the same as preventing infection
so what?
do you refuse to drive your car because it's not a mclaren f1?
these vaccines don't prevent you catching the virus, they suppress the symptoms of the disease that the virus causes which in turn suppresses the spread of the virus itself. Not vaccinating because it rubs up against an idealistic fantasy means you're basically willing to catch the virus & pass it on more easily than you would if you just took the vaccine. It's your choice what you do but you should be aware this is what you're doing.
(Old Spike)
Not vaccinating because the product sucks - doesn't do what was initially claimed. Sorry they fooled you - at this point you're getting pretty ridiculous so I'll just leave it here. If you believe the vaccines were always just gene therapy treatments for the symptoms right from the beginning, then you're just a fool for saying the things you're saying now. An idiot actually.
We need a vaccine that prevents infection, even though even if we had such a thing (sputnik looks good but still reading) that the tendency of this SARS to mutate, with mutation being boosted by the nature of the current vaccines and the policies to administer them, means this is likely going to become endemic and should be folded into the previous flu policies along with early treatment and specific measures for the vulnerable, etc., etc. Omicron certainly suggests this is the direction in which we are moving.
(Site Administrator)
If you thought the vaccines would stop you from catching the virus you need to go back to square one.
(Old Spike)
It's actually quite the other way around, but all that really matters is this Dan - the product that a small group of interested parties wants to force on the population is not something that interests me. I'm not interested - I'll take a vaccine that stops infection, or I'll take the choice of the full suite of therapies that are available and effective, or both would be ideal. If people want to try the experimental gene therapy that has a mass obedience propaganda behind it and has produced millions of creepy zombies trying to cram it down everyone's throat I still, even at this stage, wish them the best. The more I am pushed to take one treatment and one treatment only, the less interested and tolarant I'm getting.
(Site Administrator)
it's not a treatment it's a vaccine & it helps suppress the spread of the virus
(Old Spike)
It's experimental gene therapy and Japan appears to have shown that early treatment with a number of drugs does a much better job of reducing the spread, in combination with the gene therapy if you want to go for that as well. The people recommending a classic vaccine and the availability of early treatment options are the people who make logical sense when they speak. You are just saying hey this should reduce the spread so you have to take it and don't ask questions - this isn't China bud, and your efforts are doing nothing to help and everything to make it worse.
I've decided to give people like you and sal9000 the benefit of the doubt and think of you more as unfortunate victims. You're weak, highly suggestible, but in the end people like you are just another kind of victim in all of this.
(Site Administrator)
it's better to own your decision than to try & blame others
(Old Spike)
It's better to say something real than to throw out some meaningless quip.
(Site Administrator)
Better to say nothing than your half-baked gibberish
(Old Spike)
Transitioning? Like to become female?