Except he isn't an actual doctor of medicine. He is best described as a quack.
When I use the term "Youtube doctor" I implicitly mean, "Quack" apologies if it wasn't clear
Except he isn't an actual doctor of medicine. He is best described as a quack.
I never said it was. I said it was initially demonised but is now ok to talk about. I've done little research in that area so wouldn't like to comment.Can you show me a link to a peer reviewed blind study that shows that ivermectin is effective against Covid?
I cited it a few times already; the stats show overwhelmingly that when compared to every other vaccine the covid shots are a multitude of times more dangerous.
Here you goCan you show me a link to a peer reviewed blind study that shows that ivermectin is effective against Covid?
As far as I can tell, Hart Island has always been used to bury people in mass graves (around 1,500 a year) unclaimed bodies or people who can't afford a funeral.In New York, they ended up stacking bodies on Hart Island because they'd run out of space to process the dead
Although several media sources reported in April 2020 that burials had begun,[60][86][87] New York City mayor Bill de Blasio clarified that Hart Island was only being used to bury unclaimed corpses, as well as the bodies of those who chose it as a burial place
I thought they were super hot on taking down misinformation and dubious sourcesI thought YouTube now had strict rules around COVID, why hasnt his stuff been removed or plastered with warnings?
its a tough job youtube has, setting aside the crackpots from those who, whilst may not agree with the majority at least give some thought to their claims................... I dont want nut job disinformation but at the same time equally i do not want to be in a society where views not exactly the party line are hidden either.I thought they were super hot on taking down misinformation and dubious sources
Presume he must be legit then
I never said it was. I said it was initially demonised but is now ok to talk about. I've done little research in that area so wouldn't like to comment.
You asked for a peer-reviewed study, so I looked and posted it for you.Did you bother to read that or just google looking for it? That is not a blind study, its an observation of data supplied across a city by the Brazilian health service. There is zero control, there is no proof that those who said they didn't take ivermectin for covid didn't take it for parasite infection which is a major issue in that area. Also people with parasite infection don't do as well when they have covid as those that aren't infected. As for the peer review, where is it? I think you need to look again for a true controlled blind study that is properly peer reviewed. Looking through the comments it seems one of the doctors admits to being paid by the manufacture of ivermectin.
Excuse my ignorance, but what difference would it make if it was a blind study? Surely you either die, or you don't? I'd imagine a blind study would be useful if you were asking the patient's subjective feelings about something (level of pain for example), but this seems pretty clear cut; you're either seriously ill / dying or you're not?Conclusions
The regular use of ivermectin decreased hospitalization for COVID-19 by 100%, mortality by 92%, and the risk of dying from COVID-19 by 86% when compared to non-users.
Protection from COVID-19-related outcomes was observed across all levels of ivermectin use, with a notable reduction in risk of death in the over 50-year-old population and those with comorbidities. The reduction in infection rate was significant, irrespective of the level of ivermectin use. The results of this prospective observational study of a strictly controlled population of 223,128 participants reinforce the efficacy of ivermectin and the demonstration of a dose-response effect.
You asked for a peer-reviewed study, so I looked and posted it for you.
It says it's peer-reviewed, right at the top, but as I alluded to in a previous post, I haven't looked into Ivermectin in depth so couldn't tell you much about it. I also didn't read it word for word, because I have a business to run, but the conclusion was:
Excuse my ignorance, but what difference would it make if it was a blind study? Surely you either die, or you don't? I'd imagine a blind study would be useful if you were asking the patient's subjective feelings about something (level of pain for example), but this seems pretty clear cut; you're either seriously ill / dying or you're not?
By the way, I didn't make any claims about the efficacy of Ivermectin; only that it was massively demonised by press outlets after Joe Rogan talked about using it in 2020. Now it seems open to discussion, which is surely a positive thing. Do you want people to have more tools to get better or not?