New study shows ivermectin can reduce chance of death by 92%
But the WHO, NIH, and FDA all recommend that you avoid using it.
A new large prospective observational study of 88,000 people shows ivermectin works; the greater the dose, the better it works.
Here’s a snip from one of the tables on hospitalization rates in a matched group of 283 patients:
There were 0 COVID hospitalizations in the group of regular ivermectin users compared to 10 in the irregular user group.
How does the WHO react?
They ignore it of course!
The WHO has not updated their treatment guideline for Ivermectin in over a year. New studies are ignored since they are relatively small.
But this one was relatively large since it was everyone in a small city (223,128 residents of Itajaí).
This study doesn’t justify modification of their treatment guidelines. Ivermectin is to be avoided, except in a clinical trial:
Ivermectin study data
Here is the data on ivermectin studies from c19early.com. Do you see a pattern to the studies?
Lower mortality in 46 studies.
Can you cite a drug with 46 studies showing a mortality benefit that was later found to be harmful to patients?
Of course not! The level of evidence is extraordinarily consistent.
Here is the data that the WHO relied on to make their assessment not to use ivermectin:
If you were offered a drug like this, most every person would take it. But the WHO basically says you should run in the other direction.
Here’s what the WHO recommends you take instead (Molnupiravir, Sotrovimab):
Here’s the data for two of the drugs they recommend, Molnupiravir
and sotrovimab:
Here’s how all three drugs compare (ivermectin vs. the two the WHO recommends):
See? They recommend the drugs with lower efficacy and tell you not to use the drug with the highest efficacy.
NIH says to avoid ivermectin
Summary
The WHO, NIH and FDA recommend you take the least effective drugs and that you avoid taking one of the most effective drugs.
This is how science works nowadays.
See more here: substack.com
Bold emphasis added
Header image: The Conversation
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Joseph Olson
| #
I highly recommend Dr Pierre Kory website for more information on Ivermectin
https://covid19criticalcare.com
Reply
ColA
| #
Steve Kirsch,
You published on this July 26, 2022; and the very first thing you said was BS! The Study you referenced is NOT NEW it was published in December 2021and there have been 40 + studies/trials/tests on IVM since then, as noted in c19early.com.
I do not think you do your credibility much value when the first thing you say is not accurate and so easily checked! Skeptics like us get enough backlash you don’t need to spoon feed them!
It might have also informed people more if you had informed them of the costs of each, Ivermectin – $1, Molnupiravir – $707 and Sotrovimab – $2100.
Oh And on April 6, 2022 the FDA suspends EUA use of GSK-Vir’s Sotrovimab for Covid-19 treatment in US!
In truth, as IVM is banned for Covid-19 use in Australia, I am better off sitting in the Sun, with a nice strong brew of green tea and turmeric!!
Reply
Wisenox
| #
For some perspective, the fake virus has a 99.5% survival rate. The most vulnerable have a 98.7% rate.
This means that who-gives-a-sh%$-ivermectin reduces the chance of death by 0.46% to 1.196% for a person that has a 98.7% to 99.5% chance of surviving anyway.
There is an alternate treatment that is much more effective. Its called “pulling your head out of your ass”, and it has zero side effects.
They keep spewing Ivermectin crap like the public is scrambling for it, or should be. Its just a way of subtlety conveying the falsehood that covid exists and is a threat, which its not. In fact, if people didn’t believe in covid, it wouldn’t exist at all.
Covid requires leaps of faith to believe in, just like Santa. You see it in nature, but only when they put it there testing their mRNA vaccines. Different animals have various parts of their anatomy that are suitable analogs for the human versions. For example, Croatian hamsters have suitable ACE2 receptors to use as analogs. They test the vaccine in the animal populations to make sure that it works without raising alarms, while still diffusing the genetic changes through a wild population. Then, they magically find the new threat in whatever animal population it is and claim zoonotic transmission.
Reply