patrick.net

https://rumble.com/v1huyrn-ivermectin-the-truth.html


original link

Here is the dosing info from the paper our fearless leader posted.
Regular use of ivermectin as prophylaxis for COVID-19 led up to 92% reduction in COVID-19 mortality rate in a dose-response manner: results of a prospective observational study of a strictly controlled population of 88,012 subjects among 223,128 participants.
This exploratory analysis of a prospective observational study involved a program that used ivermectin at a dose of 0.2mg/kg/day for two consecutive days, every 15 days.
I would be inclined to take it once a week instead of the two consecutive days every 15 days.

Patrick says

Ivermectin is an extremely safe drug. The normal dose is 150 micrograms (mcg) per kilogram (kg), so 12mg would be the dose for a 176 lb person if I did this right:

Just want to point out that dose, per Mayo Clinic, is for a treatment may be repeated every 3 to 12 months.. So taking ivermectin as a propphylaxis would be at a much greater magnitude (which is what the Kerr, et. al. pre-print participants did).

To be fair, I think there has been a big disconnect for a while already between the public announcements like HORSE DEWORMER! and actual scientific papers on the NIH site showing that it does work.

Hypothesis:

Most of the stuff for mammals is the same shit they give humans.

And unlike Big Pharma lobbying and immunity, generics manufacturers for livestock don't wanna be sued for killing Foal of Legendary Horse or Ms Habersham's precious Foo Foo prize poodle, so the quality level is extremely high.

Just sayin' Neeeeeeigh. Better than GoodRx if you catch my drift.

Nice 15 minute video run-down on 'mectin.
https://rumble.com/v1huyrn-ivermectin-the-truth.html
(P. why won't my videos embed?)

Robert Sproul says

(P. why won't my videos embed?)

@"Robert Sproul" For Rumble videos, you need to paste in the "embed" link, the one labelled "Embed IFRAME URL":





It might be possible for me to automatically pull that out of the html of the web page, but I haven't tried yet. I'll put that on my list.

https://slaynews.com/news/ivermectin-lowers-chance-covid-death-92-percent-study/

https://nitter.pussthecat.org/jakeshieldsajj/status/1565395166931914753#m

Jake Shields
@jakeshieldsajj

The study shows 95% decrees In mortality yet they still recommend against its use

These people would rather you die than admit they were wrong and lose money

The study used 88,012 people with 92% reduction in death

This isn’t minor this is massive Decline in deaths

https://www.cureus.com/articles/111851-regular-use-of-ivermectin-as-prophylaxis-for-covid-19-led-up-to-a-92-reduction-in-covid-19-mortality-rate-in-a-dose-response-manner-results-of-a-prospective-observational-study-of-a-strictly-controlled-population-of-88012-subjects

All the details.

https://www.aflegal.org/news/afl-demands-records-relating-to-the-governments-suppression-of-ivermectin-treatment-for-covid-19

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, America First Legal (AFL) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to obtain records relating to the suppression of Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 by federal government bureaucrats.

A new study from August 31, 2022 reveals that regular use of Ivermectin as “prophylaxis for COVID-19 led up to a 92% reduction in COVID-19 mortality rate,” and the “hospitalization rate was reduced by 100% in regular users compared to both irregular users and non-users.” Yet, Dr. Fauci, the FDA, and the allied media continuously warned against Ivermectin use to fight COVID-19. In fact, the media smeared Ivermectin use by painting it as an anti-parasite “horse drug,” when Ivermectin for livestock differs from Ivermectin for humans. We now know that Ivermectin is highly successful for early outpatient treatment of COVID-19, and yet, since the origins of the pandemic, the government suppressed and deterred its use.

Last month, AFL filed a FOIA request to uncover the government’s suppression of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for COVID-19 treatment. The American people have a right to know why government officials and so-called “trusted” experts like Dr. Fauci suppressed HCQ and Ivermectin, and whether these coordinated discouragement campaigns were politically or financially motivated.

This dude bragged about torpedoing HCQ and is now at the Rockefeller Foundation.

https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/profile/dr-rick-bright/

Patrick says

Today, America First Legal (AFL) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the U.S.

Really? Why did they wait over 2 years to do this?

Patrick says

To be fair, I think there has been a big disconnect for a while already between the public announcements like HORSE DEWORMER! and actual scientific papers on the NIH site showing that it does work.

If there isn't a link to it, and it's not in archive.org - it's 99% probability FALSE, to make people believe it, only to have some twat that understands that our intelligence agencies, news media, and government CONSTANTLY feed us false information, point out it's false information.

The reason hyperlinks were created was to allow references. If some ASSHOLE is making a claim and not providing a link although they PRESUMABLY just copied a screenshot from that very link, it's FALSE.

I can't find that, so where the fuck is it?

Quit falling for bullshit please. We've had the Internet for 30 years.

It drives me crazy. People have to spend more time DEBUNKING bullshit than learning today, because people are LAZY. Everybody that reads this, if they want to know, will have to look it up, and when they don't find it, it's a question of how much energy they expended to find it. It's DESIGNED to make people who THINK waste time.

The Canadian government knew it worked as well, yet publicly tried to discredit it.

https://scoopsmcgoo.substack.com/p/phac-emails-re-ivermectin-2

richwicks says

If there isn't a link to it, and it's not in archive.org - it's 99% probability FALSE, to make people believe it, only to have some twat that understands that our intelligence agencies, news media, and government CONSTANTLY feed us false information, point out it's false information.

The reason hyperlinks were created was to allow references. If some ASSHOLE is making a clai...

Here's the link:

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/

richwicks says

If there isn't a link to it, and it's not in archive.org - it's 99% probability FALSE, to make people believe it, only to have some twat that understands that our intelligence agencies, news media, and government CONSTANTLY feed us false information, point out it's false information.

What is false, NIH saying Ivermectin is useful for treating Covid or that there was an FOIA request?
Out of curiosity, @richwicks, does that link satisfy you? No sarc intended.

Karloff says

Here's the link:

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/

Good. And here's the archive.org link to it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220415000000*/https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/

They missed hydroxychloroquine - listed as far back as June 12, 2021.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210612061731/https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/

Claims are fine, but when you claim "the government wrote this on the Intenet", NOT PROVIDING A LINK IS very frustrating. It wastes time and you have no idea how easily it is to fake anything.

Let me demonstrate:



If I had a black enough soul to be a propagandist and disinformation agent, it's trivial. It's just text, it's trivial to falsify.

GNL says

Out of curiosity, @richwicks, does that link satisfy you? No sarc intended.

Yes, it does. I upvoted it, and also demonstrated how trivial it is to falsify a website. My position MUST BE, whatever I see is FALSE until I can prove otherwise. It serves me well, but it's so much work to find a fucking link, going through ADULTERATED search engines that hide this shit.

I used wget. I just changed some text. The hardest part was getting a decent screenshot.

It is SO EASY to peddle false information. You have a source, please link to it. Ivermectin was also mentioned in earlier versions on archive.org.

AmericanKulak says

And unlike Big Pharma lobbying and immunity, generics manufacturers for livestock don't wanna be sued for killing Foal of Legendary Horse or Ms Habersham's precious Foo Foo prize poodle, so the quality level is extremely high.

Quality level between drugs for animals and people are identical, since they are identical drugs.

Stuff can be ADDED for animals though.

https://search.nih.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=nih&query=ivermectin+cancer&commit=Search

Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug derived from an antiparasitic ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7505114/
On the other hand, ivermectin promotes programmed cancer cell death, including apoptosis, autophagy and pyroptosis. Ivermectin induces apoptosis and ...
Ivermectin as an inhibitor of cancer stem‑like cells - PubMed
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29257278/
Abstract. The aim of the present study was to demonstrate that ivermectin preferentially inhibited cancer stem‑like cells (CSC) in breast cancer cells ...
Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug derived from an ... - PubMed
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32971268/
Ivermectin is a macrolide antiparasitic drug with a 16-membered ring that is widely used for the treatment of many parasitic diseases such as river ...
Ivermectin has New Application in Inhibiting Colorectal Cancer Cell ...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34483925/
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and still lacks effective therapy. Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug, has been shown ...
Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 ...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32533071/
Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder ...
Antibiotic ivermectin preferentially targets renal cancer through ...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28847725/
We show that ivermectin significantly inhibits proliferation and indu … Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most aggressive type of genitourinary cancer ...
Antitumor effects of ivermectin at clinically feasible ... - PubMed
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32474842/
Purpose: Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that exhibits antitumor effects in preclinical studies, and as such is currently being repositioned for c ...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fda-misled-public-ivermectin-accountable-144900899.html

The FDA Misled the Public About Ivermectin and Should Be Accountable in Court, Argues the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/p/activ-6-dosing-and-timing-a-fox-in

Antivirals are like a parachute. If you open them too late, you’re going to get hurt, badly. This doesn’t mean the parachute didn’t work. It means that you didn’t open it in time. Very similarly, if an antiviral is taken too late to effectively check the replication of the virus, any effect will be suboptimal, to say the least.

This is, of course, is very well understood by the people who test antivirals. For instance, the EPIC-HR trial—that led to Paxlovid's approval—as well as the MOVE-OUT trial—that led to Molnupiravir's approval—excluded patients that were over five days from symptom onset. MOVE-OUT had 50% of patients with less than three days from symptom onset. For EPIC-HR that was 68%. ACTIV-6 on the other hand, only had 25% of ivermectin patients with less than five days from symptom onset. As absurd as it may sound, 75% of the patients in ACTIV-6 for ivermectin would have been rejected from the Molnupiravir and Paxlovid trials for having the disease in too advanced a stage.

And let’s not forget that based on what we learned from the ACTIV-6 patient I spoke to, the drug was shipped on the first day of participation in the trial, which means most likely we should add an extra day to all the ACTIV-6 numbers above. Based on the literature review I did in this previous article, the ACTIV-6 trial for ivermectin treated its patient later than all the trials describing themselves as “early treatment” in the New England Journal of Medicine.

I don't know what my horse got yesterday, some respiratory virus, maybe the flu, but my horse took a dose of ivermectin and he's feeling much better with symptoms down about 50% within 16 hours.

AmericanKulak says

I don't know what my horse got yesterday, some respiratory virus, maybe the flu, but my horse took a dose of ivermectin and he's feeling much better with symptoms down about 50% within 16 hours.

My horse and my wife's horse had mixed results. I think it's most effective during the initial viral replication phase, but maybe not so much later.

Patrick says

My horse and my wife's horse had mixed results. I think it's most effective during the initial viral replication phase, but maybe not so much later.

Symptoms appeared about 48 hours ago, took a dose, 12 hours later felt 50% better. 24 hours ago took another dose, by hour 48 I am 90% better. Just a sniffle and sneeze now and again, otherwise as normal.

I've read that some of the studies of ivermectin deliberately waited until the viral replication phase was over and patients were quite ill, in order to have "evidence" that ivermectin doesn't work.

AmericanKulak says

Patrick says

My horse and my wife's horse had mixed results. I think it's most effective during the initial viral replication phase, but maybe not so much later.

Symptoms appeared about 48 hours ago, took a dose, 12 hours later felt 50% better. 24 hours ago took another dose, by hour 48 I am 90% better. Just a sniffle and sneeze now and again, otherwise as normal.

My own personal horse's experience is that Ivermectin shuts down replication and symptoms, but doesn't necessarily elminate the virus on its own. It just makes it much easier for my horse's immune system to mop up, so the duration of the infection is about the same, just 95% easier to deal with.

Bret Weinstein
@BretWeinstein
Nov 16
Interesting that the "science" we are supposed to be following on Ivermectin turns out to be riddled with FTX money. It's probably just a coincidence that has nothing to do with the utterly indefensible methods, sensational headlines and still-secret datasets.

https://palexander.substack.com/p/judge-paul-m-fullerton-illinois-saves

Judge PAUL M. FULLERTON (Illinois) saves Mr. Ng, orders IVERMECTIN: "I am not forcing this hospital to do anything other than to step aside. I am not forcing any doctor in Edward Hospital to do this.

I am just asking -- or not asking -- I am ORDERING through the Court's power to allow Dr. Bain to have the emergency privileges & administer this medicine." Temporary emergency privileges to Dr. Alan Bain

https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/thinking-points-december-2-2022

Maybe this message will work?

I suppose you could inject yourself with a product made by a felon that skipped even the most basic safety testing. But the question is why would you do that!? You are not a junkie. Seriously, y’all. Knock it off.

On Aug. 26, 2021, the CDC warned against the use of Ivermectin and a few weeks later, the American Medical Association did the same.. In turn, the medical boards removed the medical licenses of doctors who prescribed Ivermectin.

The goal of NIH and the CDC was not public health but the profits of Big Pharma. So, they blocked the use of Ivermectin "because the presence of a cure would have prevented the emergency use authorization of what has turned out to be a highly dangerous and often deadly experimental, unapproved Covid "vaccine. The bottom line is that people had to die in order that Big Pharma and its executives could make billions of dollars in profits and performance bonuses... https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2022/11/22/the-truth-about-ivermectin/

The_Deplorable