By Ludwig Van
I'm not a scientist, but something about the latest ivermectin study in Fairfax does not add up.
Sure, "Major study confirms ivermectin useless against COVID-19" makes a compelling headline, and for many it will settle the argument on the side of "THE SCIENCE"…but what does the study really say?
Does it really cut the mustard in light of the 80+ positive trial results from studies for this potential miracle drug?
It is important to note that this is not the first randomised controlled study (RCT) that has been done on ivermectin and Covid-19.
There have been 33 RCTs involving 7,100 people in total with a 56% positive result for ivermectin, cutting hospitalisations and death in half for those who have been given it.
Early treatment was by far the most effective with 60% recovery rate compared to placebo. Late treatment was only 23% effective in comparison.
The meta study suggests giving ivermectin in the early stages of Covid can save lives and even, to a lesser extent, later on in the disease progression.
If you include all studies, including observational, 129,000 people have been trialed with a 65% positive outcome.
The media has been silent on the overwhelming positive studies that have come out over the past 2 years, but for some reason jumped at the chance to publish anything negative, such as the following study which currently seems to be the toast of the town in the strange world of MSM.
The Reis Study ‘ Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19’
Was it so obvious that they were not receiving a placebo that they decided that it wasn’t worth it?
Or even worse, they physically couldn’t go on any further.
Obviously, this is just speculation on my part, but there was no explanation given for the disparity in numbers by the authors so speculation is the best we can do in this instance.
Knowing this, how on earth did the authors come up with a total of 111 people having a primary outcome event when only 288 people completed the study?
This not only does not make any sense but invalidates the study completely.
A primary outcome was measured by whether the patient spent more than 6 hours in an emergency department within 28 days of starting treatment.
Anyone who was admitted to an emergency department less than 24 hours after starting the protocol was not counted and then excluded from the study. Considering 60% in the placebo arm dropped out of the study before finishing, how many hospital admissions out of the 679 were admitted within 24 hours and not counted?
Now, let’s take a look at the results after the obvious manipulation was done to water down the effectiveness of ivermectin.
As you can see, even with their flawed and sketchy data, ivermectin beat the placebo in nearly every avenue.
In this study, your risk of death was 12.0% lower, your risk of mechanical ventilation was 23.0% lower and your risk of hospitalisation was 17.0% lower. None of these were mentioned in the trial summary or article parroting the trial summary.
So as you can see, this was a positive study. The results were statistically significant and it was not reported as such by the authors of the study or the presstitutes tasked with fear-mongering propaganda.
Now let’s look at the safety and efficacy data of ivermectin before it was demonized by big pharma;
Ivermectin was discovered in 1975. Below are just some of the FACTS about this incredibly safe drug.
The authors of the Reis, Lopez-Medina study clearly state time and time again in their disclosure statement that there were no conflicts of interest in the funding of the study, from people or organisations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google or AstraZeneca. But reading into the two “not for profit” groups that donated to this study, you can clearly see that this is a lie.
As you can see in the disclosure statement below, the author ticked no to any conflicts of interest..
The following excerpt is from IVMmeta regarding the financial conflicts of interest and likely data manipulation of the study:
“Two ivermectin trials to date involve very large financial conflicts of interest [López-Medina, Reis] — companies closely involved with the trial or organizers stand to lose billions of dollars if ivermectin efficacy becomes more widely known. The design of these trials favors producing a null outcome as detailed in [López-Medina, Reis]. Note that biasing an RCT to produce a false positive result is difficult (suppressing adverse events is relatively easy [Evans]), but biasing a trial to produce a false negative result is very easy — for example, in a trial of an antiviral that works within the first 24 hours of symptom onset, trial organizers only need to avoid treating people within the first 24 hours; or with a disease like COVID-19, organizers only need to select a low-risk population where most people recover quickly without treatment. We note that, even under the very suboptimal designs, these trials produced positive results, although without statistical significance.”
The major donors of the study were a group called the Rainwater Charitable Foundation which in 2018 was given $19,681,052 by the Fort Worth Children’s Partnership (FWCP).
The FWCP was given $211,300 by the (drum roll please) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in 2020.
Fast Grants was the other contributor, which is made up of a group of billionaires which include, The Audacious Project which is funded by Bill Gates, The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, which the Facebook founder has essentially made his own version of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. At the initiative, Zuckerberg funds & “creates tools'' in order to identify NEW ways to treat disease, something that an effective Ivermectin would render useless If it was found to treat not just Covid, but the list of other diseases that it is touted to be able to treat.
Zuckerberg actively funds the “neutral” FastGrants to the tune of millions of dollars, as do other tech heavyweights like Jack Dorsey, Reid Hoffman, Elon Musk, Chris and Crystal Sacca.
Schmidt Futures (Eric & Wendy Schmidt from Google) give money to FastGrants while also actively funding new DNA sequencing and new technologies merging AI and Biologics with their collaboration with the Broad institute to “connect biology & machine learning for understanding programs of life”.
Where have we heard this machine-human hybrid talk before, “cough cough”? Did someone say Klaus Shwab & the World Economic Forum?
Google is also directly funding the parent company of AstraZeneca, Vaccitech, which was responsible for the viral vector and blood clot-inducing vaccine Oxford-AstraZeneca.
Currently, Fast Grants is funding 24 different Sars-COV-2 vaccines as well as discrediting its biggest (and cheapest) rival, Ivermectin. Not including any vaccines funded by individual investors.
Not sure how you read it, but to me, this is a massive conflict of interest and has big tech, big pharma, and Bill Gates fingerprints all over it!
As I said at the start of this article, I am not a scientist nor I am a doctor. But I do have a basic understanding of the terminology used in scientific studies and even I can see this for what it is.
I’ve only begun to scratch the surface of the lies and fraud that have gone into this paper.
I have heard rumors that this very paper has been doing the rounds in the peer review circles for around 6 months, trying to find scientists and journals corrupt enough to give it the tick of approval for publication, and even with this, it still shows positive efficacy for treating Covid-19 in the early stages.
The efforts that have gone into discrediting this drug have been nothing less than extraordinary. And this only tells us one thing. This drug works, and if the truth is allowed to come out, the ‘Pandemic’ would be over.
This is something that the ‘powers-that-be’ cannot allow to happen.
Our articles and rebuttal pieces are written by our writers on our volunteer team