Ivermectin is a zinc ionophore and so IVM needs to be taken WITH zinc (escorts zinc ions into the cell cytoplasm); we have always stated use MULTI-DRUG sequenced COMBINED TREATMENTS, not ONE (1)
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.
Not only is IVM pleiotropic in its own right but we ALL know that basically nobody treats COVID with IVM alone or HCQ alone. It's always a sequenced mutlidrug approach (e.g. McCullough protocol and Zelenko protocol to name but two). They get away with it though. Maybe they're suffering from PIP (paxlovid induced psychosis).
"They" only use them alone in the trials! At least normally. I have heard of people using just Ivermectin because that's all they had, and it worked anyway.
It does depend on weight. Dosage is normally calculated in either micrograms or milligrams per kilogram of body weight. To convert to kilograms, divide weight in pounds by 2.2.
Then multiply it by desired dosage, usually between 400 micrograms to 600 micrograms Ivermectin per kilogram of body weight, taken orally once per day. It is absorbed better when consumed with some fat-containg food. That 400 mcg to 600 mcg is the dame as 0.4 to 0.6 milligrams (mg).
If taken for COVID, continue until symptoms are gone. If for neutralizing spike protiens in persons fooled into taking the COVID shots, who knows? The FLCCC has new guidelines out for treating the "vaccine" injured, but nobody knows for sure what will work best for mitigating spike damage as a preventive. Someone would have to factor-in cost and availability of the Ivermectin to determine how frequently to take it, but infected cells will keep producing the spikes, so having some Ivermectin in the body frequently would give one the best chance of neutralizing them as they are produced and, hopefully, before they can cause damage
I find that, in myself, the higher doasage creates a temporary peculiar sensitivity to light, making things appear brighter or with higher contrast than normal, but vision goes back to normal after stopping the Ivermectin.
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💕💕
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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 .
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...
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😡
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.
Not only is IVM pleiotropic in its own right but we ALL know that basically nobody treats COVID with IVM alone or HCQ alone. It's always a sequenced mutlidrug approach (e.g. McCullough protocol and Zelenko protocol to name but two). They get away with it though. Maybe they're suffering from PIP (paxlovid induced psychosis).
"They" only use them alone in the trials! At least normally. I have heard of people using just Ivermectin because that's all they had, and it worked anyway.
Please, do you know what is the dosage per day of ivermectin for an adult? It depends on their weight?
It does depend on weight. Dosage is normally calculated in either micrograms or milligrams per kilogram of body weight. To convert to kilograms, divide weight in pounds by 2.2.
Then multiply it by desired dosage, usually between 400 micrograms to 600 micrograms Ivermectin per kilogram of body weight, taken orally once per day. It is absorbed better when consumed with some fat-containg food. That 400 mcg to 600 mcg is the dame as 0.4 to 0.6 milligrams (mg).
If taken for COVID, continue until symptoms are gone. If for neutralizing spike protiens in persons fooled into taking the COVID shots, who knows? The FLCCC has new guidelines out for treating the "vaccine" injured, but nobody knows for sure what will work best for mitigating spike damage as a preventive. Someone would have to factor-in cost and availability of the Ivermectin to determine how frequently to take it, but infected cells will keep producing the spikes, so having some Ivermectin in the body frequently would give one the best chance of neutralizing them as they are produced and, hopefully, before they can cause damage
I find that, in myself, the higher doasage creates a temporary peculiar sensitivity to light, making things appear brighter or with higher contrast than normal, but vision goes back to normal after stopping the Ivermectin.
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💕💕
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
These people are so corrupt and evil. Shame on them. Accountability needed.
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
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.
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.
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.
“Follow the money” Who wants what results and why!
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.
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/
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.
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 .
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...
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😡