re: The real reason HCQ, ivermectin and any other early treatment for COVID was demonized.

quote:

---

...because they don't work.

---

Neither did the "vaccine".

quote:

---

I mean if it doesn't work

---

Because in the minds of these paranoid nutjobs, the slightest success destroys their entire narrative, therefore they HAVE to be on the side of evil and destruction.

Truth and freedom to the Left are like a crucifix to a vampire...

OK, that was a bad analogy because the Left have an adverse reaction to the cross as well....

All these studies are flawed. Ivermectin will provide partial benefits as an anti-viral. It's mechanism is to bind ACE2 to keep the virus from getting past the cell membrane. It doesn't work all the time.

But in combination with other anti-virals it can help. Add HCQ to the mix then you can cut off RNA polymerase for a period of time plus binding ACE2 with ivermectin.

Add famotidine then you and inhibit viral protein assimilation.

The cocktail effectiveness depends on viral load. If you have a low viral load you may only need one medication to fight the virus and allow your own immune system to catch up and take over. Some people may need all of these anti-virals plus monoclonals (which are an actual cure).

It all depends on your virial load.

This is why I remain befuddled about the establishment's non-approach to early treatment when the viral load is low.

All the establishment preached was:

Mask
Social distancing, and
Vaccine.

No early treatment.

quote:

---

The vaccine is much more effective at preventing severe outcomes.

---

quote:

---

Enlighten me. What peer-reviewed studies disprove my point?

---

Study

Cliffs

quote:

---

You may want to read the update, in which they had to remove 2 studies of suspect quality and their new results showed no effect.

---

Are you sure that is what it says? Here are some excerpts...

quote:

---

The overall point estimates of mortality risk ratio vary from 0.51 (all studies) to 0.65 (Elgazzar excluded) to 0.75 (both Elgazzar and Niaee excluded). Only in the last case do orthodox 95% confidence intervals stray above unity, and by a very small amount. Above 95% CIs in Figures 2 and 3 are 0.96 and 1.03, respectively, in practical terms a minor difference. It is obvious that removal of study data will decrease the overall statistical power of any meta-analysis. However, even when significantly diluted by exclusion of disputed trials, meta-analysis continues to show an improved mortality outcome. Moreover, additional data from the later trials are broadly consistent with the original findings.

---

quote:

---

Subsequent to our article,3 Neil and Fenton16 confirmed by Bayesian hypothesis testing robust evidence of a mortality advantage under treatments including ivermectin. Their sensitivity analysis covered the exclusion of Elgazzar,5 the Niaee7 trial having been already disregarded, not on grounds of reliability, but simply because mortalities were not, at that time, reported7 by disease severity. Severity being a key component of the hypothesis of Neil and Fenton,16 data not stratified by severity were of no value. They showed explicitly that the removal of the disputed study5 (Niaee7 excluded by design) simply reduced the probability of a favorable risk reduction to around 0.77 or odds of 77:23 that ivermectin treatment offers a mortality benefit. Even under this significant reduction in participants, the conclusion of mortality benefit continued to hold.16

---

quote:

---

what peer reviewed studies prove the vax works?

---

N Engl J Med 2021; 384:403-416
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2035389

quote:

---

This article was published on December 30, 2020, at NEJM.org.

---

Why the Religious Zealotry against Ivermectin and other alternative treatments from The Cult of Big Pharma, ESPECIALLY when you all got it wrong so often, costing thousands of lives in the process?

You didn't have all the answers, you still don't, yet your religion had you REFUSING any alternatives with a Religious fervor.....

Why i$ that?