19 Comments
Nov 2, 2022·edited Nov 2, 2022

Ivermectin is not worthless as one drug. It has some 20-plus modes of action against SARS-CoV-2 and COVID, and is effective both as a prophylactic and treatment, and shows beneficial effects for all stages of the disease. Its function as a zinc ionophore is just one of its effects. Trials that used Ivermectin alone increased survival significantly. However, multi-drug protocols work MUCH better against COVID than ANY single therapeutic! Targeting the disease process maximally at each stage: viral replication, inflammatory (cytokine/chemokine overproduction), and thrombotic, almost guarantees rapid and uncomplicated recovery.

Expand full comment

So very happy I have my covid kits now. Zinc, ivermectin, antibiotic. Drs Tess Lawrie, Zev Zelenko RIP, and Pierre Kory et al are the doctors I take my advice from. Declined vaxx, had covid mid sept. Had to beg for an antibiotic as I am immunocompromised. Made up my mind at that point the shoddy medical system is broke and sent for covid kits for “next time”. Still take Quercetin, zinc, NAC, Vit D &C daily. Eat healthy, get exercise, sunshine when the chem trails are not blocking the sun, and get enough rest. 72 years old and participating in life💕💕

Expand full comment

Activ- 6 trial was total farce. Patients enlisted out to 7-10 days after initial symptoms. Ivermectin dose probably too low for higher level moderate cases, given only a piss poor 3 days only and without zinc or multi drug admn. Trial designed for and used as pure propaganda by Gates to attempt nailing the coffin shut on IVM

Paxlovid MUST be started by day 3 and continued for 5 days . The holes in this trial could be used for 747s to pass through . The designer knows it and we know it . Pure Bullshit is really hard to hide when it’s complete dysentery. I should know!

Billy Davis DVM

Expand full comment

These people are so corrupt and evil. Shame on them. Accountability needed.

Expand full comment

Please read "Turtles All the Way Down!" Like Kennedys The Real Anthony Fauce book, it will open your eyes in a horrifying way. You'll learn that placebos are not even placebos most of the time but are used to skew Adverse Events. Yes this study was designed to fail like all the other ones mainstream setup to demonize effective early treatment with repurposed drugs. Scandalous

Expand full comment

The study failed on several counts. First IVM was administered up to 7 days after the 1st symptom and up to 10 days after a positive pcr test, (which itself is problematic.) Administration should begin in 3 to 5 days. Second the dosage was 400mg for everybody rather than dosed by weight. Third while it is recommwnded to give IVM for 5 to 7 days at a minimum, they only gave it for three days. Fourth, the study only involved patients with mild symptoms meaning there was little for the drug to do since mild symptoms almost always pass. Fifth the median age of participants was 48 years, yet where IVM shows the most dramatic improvements is among older patients. In short, the study was designed to assure IVM displayed no benefit.

Expand full comment

Paul, please read the detailed section of the report, where a total of six people suffered "venous thromboembolism." Venous thromboembolism is a known adverse event listed by the vaccine manufacturers. The study did not identify whether any or all of the people with venous thromboembolisms had been vaccinated. It sure would have been interesting to take those six people and identify which shots, and how many, each had taken.

Expand full comment
Nov 2, 2022·edited Nov 2, 2022

No, the reason why IVM is designed to fail in ACTIV 6 is the severely under dosing design at 400 mg/kg daily x 3 days. It isn't weight based for the individual, which most studies that aren't trying to sabotage its efficacy are 0.4-0.6 mg/kg daily . If I was assigned in the DRCT and got 0.4 mg/kg daily for 3 days, I would be under dosed. This is comical and shameful of Duke to take NIH money to sabotage IVM efficacy, thereby confusing symptomatic patients and decreasing the statistically significant margins of treatments outcomes from that of placebo. Another Corrupt clinical trial wasting money, time, and most of all, potential symptomatic reduction, and viral shedding duration in patients. Due to a possible interaction between quercetin and ivermectin, these drugs should be staggered throughout the day . For COVID treatment, ivermectin is best taken with a meal or just following a meal, for greater absorption.

Expand full comment

They studied this in vaccinated people, gave treatment 7+ days after onset of self-reported symptoms (drug delivered by mail), they changed their endpoints and outcomes, and on and on. But this crap gets published. If it weren't such a serious issue, it'd be one of absolute hilarity when reading these bits of junk. They're not even junk science which would be too elevated a descriptor.

Expand full comment

I highly recommend Alexandros Marinos' Substack, Do Your Own Research. Over the course of several articles he brutally dismantles this "designed to fail"/poorly run study. Further, he got the inside scoop from one of the ACTIV-6 trial participants:

https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/

Expand full comment

The study is also flawed because there is no reliable way to diagnose COVID-19. Those people "diagnosed" with COVID-19 may or may not have had an infection with the SARS-COV2.

Expand full comment

The only real value that can be attributed to the ACTIV-6 & for that matter the TOGETHER trials would be to print them out on paper and use them to line bird cages with or shred them up and use them as cat litter .

Expand full comment

Thank you, i didn't know ivermectin was an ionophore.

as far as i am concerned, using a placebo is immoral.

already know what happens in a population when they don't go to the doctor.

using a placebo is akin to not going to the doctor.

the way these studies should be done is randomizing the patients to each doctor that wants to participate. Can something like that be gamed, i suppose.

so the way you do it is: have multiple doctors in the trial.

the first doctor examines the patient uploads all the charts to the cloud that everyone can see and a computer then randomly sends that patient to one of the other doctors in the study.

that second doctor examines and treats the patient uploading everything to the cloud that everyone can see right a way...

end of study criteria, which doctors and patients have best outcome.

remove the lower 5% of the doctors that did the worst.

bring in 5 more doctors and repeat.

eventually will end up with the best protocols if there is such a thing along with on which patients those protocols work...

Expand full comment

Way back in Spring 2022 I watched Dr Pierre Kory pick apart how one of those studies . He showed how they gave too little and too short a period to deliberately show Ivermectin as barely helpful. I think that that particular trial was SPONSORED by Pfizer. His contention is that the first thing you do is see WHO SPONSORED  ( paid for ) whatever trial you’re looking at. It’s pretty obvious from there whether they are either for or against whatever it is being studied. As with everything else judge by what which way the 💰💰is trying to be flowed. Sadly we once believed these organizations actually worked for the public good, now we know better😡

Expand full comment