BigPharma & the Death Cultists have Won: Ivermectin does **NOT** Reduce Risk of COVID-19 Hospitalization, New Clinical Study Shows, so Please Rush Out and Get Another DEATHVAX™ Booster

Forget Uttar Pradesh’s irrefutable Ivermectin success story with near zero covid deaths. Forget the dozens upon dozens of high quality research studies establishing Ivermectin’s exceptional reduction of hospitalizations and mortality. Forget about science and data too, because yesterday the Death Cultists have defeated all of the horse pill popping antivaxxers, racists, climate change deniers, and domestic terrorists in one fell research study swoop.

As such, everyone must walk —no! —run out at this very moment and subject oneself to a DEATHVAX™ serving; to wit:

Because… “A new clinical trial, conducted by a partnership between academics and clinicians in Brazil and Canada, found that anti-parasitic drug ivermectin does not reduce the risk of hospitalization for patients with COVID-19. The peer-reviewed study also showed ivermectin treatment did not help with various other health measures related to the virus such as viral clearance after a week, speed of recovery or risk of death. The study results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).”

Here is one of BigPharma’s apparatchiks **PROVING** how Ivermectin is useless based on this new **GROUNDBREAKING** and **DEFINITIVE** study. Once again, “Trust the Science” is “The Science is Settled” until “The Science is Always Changing” so **OBEY** the State and Corporations. Please review Eric Feigl-Ding’s full thread for all of the key points that the Death Cultists are now ecstatically celebrating:

Eric Feigl-Ding @DrEricDing

NEW TRIAL—Ivermectin does **NOT** reduce risk of #COVID19 hospitalization, according to trial from Brazil 🇧🇷 published in NEJM. They honestly analyzed it 10+ different ways—still zilch. Pretty solid.🧵 ➡️Someone tell Joe Rogan. Someone tell Bolsonaro too. nytimes.com/2022/03/30/hea…

And now let’s review the **ACTUAL** methodological fraud from this BigPharma “study” as performed by universities and researchers with direct and indirect ties to the DEATHVAX™ makers:

EDIT: Ivermectin is first and foremost an "early treatment"; this study only considered subjects that had shown symptoms for more than 7 days. At that point, the virus is mostly gone, with the individual experiencing the untreated viral damage. This kind of “research” was purposely done to malign Ivermectin, and as such the researchers, their universities and their BigPharma backers knowingly engaged in crimes against humanity.

1) Young and healthy people were not included in the study and had to have at least one of the severe risk factors for disease

• Age over 50

• Hypertension requiring medical therapy

• Diabetes mellitus

• Cardiovascular disease

• Lung disease

• Smoking

• Obesity

• Organ transplantation

• Chronic kidney disease (stage IV) or receipt of dialysis

• Immunosuppressive therapy (receipt of ≥10 mg of prednisone or equivalent daily)

• Diagnosis of cancer within the previous 6 months

• Receipt of chemotherapy for cancer.

2) The group included both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. The percentage of vaccinated participants in each group was not specified. Note that by choosing not to identify vaccination status as a confounding variable the authors are implying that vaccines are playing no role in preventing hospitalization.

3) Most noteworthy the authors wrote that the majority of the Placebo recipients ended up being hospitalized indicating that Ivermectin showed a benefit, exactly the opposite conclusion of the paper.

“100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event (composite of hospitalization due to the progression of COVID-19 or an emergency department visit of >6 hours that was due to clinical worsening of COVID-19), as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group

However, these data were not statistically significant given the size of the study.
This is how the authors were able to conclude there was no benefit to Ivermectin use in preventing hospitalization in high-risk patients in their study.

4) Only 288 of 679 participants randomized to receiving the placebo reported 100% adherence to the study protocol. Nearly 400 didn’t. 391 people who didn’t take the placebo, but did something else, were included in two of the three calculations of Ivermectin efficacy anyway.” Probably the placebo recipients knew the difference between Ivermectin and the placebo and went out and took ivermectin. In other words, it was not a true blinded study.

5) Rather than pounding the final nail in the coffin around Ivermectin’s utility in treating COVID, the NEJM study raises more questions.

• What would the effect have been if a higher dose shown to be effective were administered?

• What would be the benefit of this medicine in patients with no risk factors?

• How statistically significant would the results have been if more participants were enrolled?

• Why weren’t more participants enrolled as the study progressed given the emerging benefit of the drug and the absence of adverse events?

• Why did the investigators define a primary outcome with such different real-world implications (ER visits vs hospitalizations)?

• With less than 50% of the placebo arm adhering to the study protocol, why were their outcomes included in the analysis?

• What effect did vaccination status have on outcome? If this is the primary means endorsed to prevent hospitalization, why wasn’t vaccination status mentioned as a confounder?

• Did the investigators choose to limit the study as it became clear that an Ivermectin benefit would be too big to ignore?

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...8-a703c029bc06

Given these obvious issues with the study, it is becoming even more clear where the real story is: Neither The Globe and Mail, The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times are willing to pursue startling details around how corporate interests are corrupting scientific opinion as reported

Instead, these iconic journals chose to report on a scientific study on or prior to the day of publication using misleading headlines backed up by flimsy investigations conducted by journalists with no capacity to dissect the analysis or data.

Here’s a bigger question: Are they incompetent, or complicit, too? Consider this article that concludes that these large pharma sponsored publications cherrypick studies that are negative and ignore the vast majority of studies that are positive https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...ic-ivermectin/

Do NOT comply.