Was the last Israel peek induced by the well known Pfizer post jab immune deficit ?? 31 August number did go down to 1/5!
No it was a data fake. Next day world record CoV-19 of > 15'000 cases. So we still see no effect of the boosters except that these fuel CoV-19 cases.
Display Morehttps://www.medrxiv.org/conten…04.22.21255913v1.full.pdf
A first paper of vaccine induced CoV-19
One finding:
Ct values were lowest in those not vaccinated and not previously PCR/antibody-positive.
The important detail is hidden in Table IV (at end) and not commented. The odds ratio for vaccinated severe cases ct < 30 is much larger post vaccination up to 28 days than for unvaccinated.
I didn't see any table with severe cases - Table 4 shows this?
CT is about 31 across the board.
Here is a heartbreaking look at a hospital in Florida. It includes a short video interview with a nurse. She had a baby last year, which must have been frightening. She is vaccinated now, but there is another pregnant young woman in the ICU with COVID. That must be hard for her to deal with.
Inside a Florida Hospital Full of Dying, Unvaxxed Thirtysomethings
‘IT’S A NIGHTMARE’
“I’ve never bagged so many thirtysomething-year-olds, leaving behind young kids, pregnant wives,” one nurse said.
I didn't see any table with severe cases - Table 4 shows this?
It's a provaxx study! Don't expect any real information. Table 7 shows the "strange" relation with CT and post vaccination odds of an infection.
Is the COVID-19 infection fatality rate among the elderly lower than first reported?
Health researchers at Stanford University are investigating whether the infection fatality rate (IFR) among elderly people who have been infected with the COVID-19 virus was lower than initially reported. The conclusions reached during the study are still under the peer-review and editorial process. However, these conclusions could change several aspects of existing IFR and other mortality statistics that continue to inform and govern clinical practice while responding to the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) once published.
Current Data
Smriti Mallapaty, a Sydney, Australia-based senior reporter for Nature, reported in August of 2020 that the mortality risks for COVID-19 infection among the elderly were high. Citing data from a collection of studies that were in preprint at the time, Mallapaty reports that COVID-19 IFR climbs steeply as years of age accrue — especially among much older men.
“For people in their fifties and early sixties, about five will die — more men than women,” Mallapaty wrote. “For every 1,000 people in their mid-seventies or older who are infected, around 116 will die.” Research teams in Spain, England, Italy, and Switzerland, at the time, all quantified the risks based on the presence of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the infection of the coronavirus disease 2019 among broader general populations.
What the CDC says
Data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that at least 85 years and older are 600 times higher of dying from a COVID-19 infection. This metric is relative to the 18- to 29-year-old age category based on the dataset as of July of 2021. This age group was considered a reference group because it accounts for the most significant cumulative number of COVID-19 cases compared to the other age groups data.
“Getting very sick means that older adults with COVID-19 might need hospitalization, intensive care, or a ventilator to help them breathe, or they might even die,” the CDC states.
“The risk increases for people in their 50s and increases in 60s, 70s, and 80s. People 85 and older are the most likely to get very sick. Other factors can also make you more likely to get severely ill with COVID-19, such as having certain underlying medical conditions.”
The preprint study and structure
TrialSite News has reviewed a preprint of the study, which is currently in the peer-review process. Cathrine Axfors, a researcher at the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), and John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, professor of medicine, a researcher at METRICS, and an epidemiologist at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, led the study.
The study’s intention, precisely, was to investigate further the IFR of COVID-19 infection among elderly populations residing in retirement communities and nursing homes.
The studies that were selected include SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence investigations that are greater than or equal to 1000 study participants or similar to or older than 70 years. Each selected study presented data on the seroprevalence in the elderly, which was aimed to generate data samples from a broader, general population and data on cumulative COVID-19 deaths in elderly populations. In total, twenty-three seroprevalence surveys representing fourteen countries. Across all countries, the median IFR in what they determine as “community-dwelling elderly” and the elderly overall was 2.4% and 5.5%, respectively. IFR was, naturally, higher with larger proportions of people. Also expected, younger age data that was included and used as further reference had lower IFR values.
Synthesis of data
The preprint study argues that the overall synthesis finds “a consistently much lower IFR of COVID-19 in community-dwelling elderly than in elderly overall.” Both researchers note that this difference across the studies is substantial in countries where nursing homes are an “established form of residency.”
Very low IFR estimates were confirmed in younger groups under the age of 50 years. Middle-aged groups and the elderly were lower, though, in other previous “influential work with biased methodological choices” but in agreement with other studies. Estimates in this study are intended to also serve as “key pieces of information underlying public health policy decisions” that will determine “better management and better preventive measures.”
Limitations
By no means should this study be taken as settled or peer-reviewed just yet. The study, as mentioned above several times, is still in the processing of being peer-reviewed.
Overall, the findings in the preprint still emulate traditional recommendations from other sources. While IFR rates might be lower among elderly populations as determined in this study, individuals in elderly groups are still at the highest risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death. Elderly people, especially those with preexisting conditions, should continue to follow CDC guidelines and receive a COVID-19 vaccination if they haven’t.
Call to Action: TrialSite staff will continue to monitor.
Medical Associations Citing Merck et al. Declare War on Ivermectin Use Targeting COVID-19 in America
A trio of influential medical professional associations issued a press release to express their strong opposition to the “ordering, prescribing, or dispensing of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial.” TrialSite suggests the medical establishment, including the FDA, CDC, and growing numbers of medical societies, are now circling the wagons on the independent physicians who have followed and interpreted positive research results predominantly in low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs). On the record, the American Medical Association (AMA), American Pharmacists Association (APhA), and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists represent the next attack on what could be the forthcoming surrender of the use of ivermectin as a tool in the war against COVID-19. TrialSite suspects movements are in the works to 1) punish physicians or pharmacists that dispense and prescribe the drug for the COVID-19 off-label indication and, if that doesn’t work, 2) potentially criminalize the use of the drug off label for use against COVID-19.
TrialSite offers a breakdown of the logic behind this recent strong declaration.
What spooks these preeminent physician and pharmacist associations?
A 24-ild increase since the pandemic commenced, increasing exponentially over the past few months.
What are the associations calling for?
The immediate end to all prescribing, dispensing, and use of ivermectin for the prevention of COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial. They also call for all “trusted health care professionals in their communities” to become proactive about warning patients not to use ivermectin outside of FDA-approved indications and guidance.
What dangers do they share?
First, AMA and the others established that the animal varieties of ivermectin “are highly concentrated for large animals” and thus “pose a significant toxicity risk for humans.”
What authority do they cite?
The medical associations refer to advisories indicating that ivermectin isn’t authorized or approved for the treatment of COVID-19 outside of clinical trials. They share that both the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the FDA have cautioned, especially emphasizing the animal version and the risks posted in self-medication.
The group also sites Merck as an authority here, noting they are a “manufacturer of the drug” and indicate the lack of evidence to support the use of the drug to treat COVID-19. Of course, they don’t mention Merck’s material interests in clearing ivermectin use around the world. They have been given $356 million in taxpayer money to develop what could be considered in part at least a competitive product targeting COVID-19. Merck has also been guaranteed a $1.2 billion purchase from the Biden Administration, should their Molnupiravir gain emergency use or formal approval.
Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals is also a major producer they do not reference.
Finally, the AMA and others cite that the Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19 recommend against using ivermectin outside of a clinical trial.
What data do these prominent associations use to back their strong declarations?
Very little. They do refer to “Calls to poison control centers” that have increased “five-fold” from their pre-pandemic baseline. But how many are there? 50 calls is a lot different than 500,000.
What do they want patients to do?
Use the FDA’s Consumer update explaining why one should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 as well as the CDC Health Alert Network Advisory on the Rapid Increase in Ivermectin Prescriptions and Reports of Severe Illness Associated with Products Containing Ivermectin to Treat COVID-19. While this report provides some anecdotal data, it lacks any total numbers and speaks in generalities that calls to poison centers have increased five-fold. But it would appear there hasn’t been any formal study on the matter, at least not yet.
What does the AMA, APhA, and ASHP declare is the more effective way to limit the spread of COVID-19?
Vaccination followed by wearing face masks, social distancing in public spaces—avoidance of large crowds—and frequent hand washing. In their press release, they also “strongly urge eligible unvaccinated individuals to get vaccinated.”
Want to read an objective fact check for ivermectin?
See the TrialSite fact check for more information
Why are doctors prescribing ivermectin off-label?
Because doctors have followed many of the ivermectin studies worldwide, including a handful of meta-analyses, pointing to positive data points in targeting COVID-19. TrialSite has reported on this topic for a long time. See a listing of the studies and the TrialSite fact check.
Why don’t the preeminent associations agree with these studies?
They believe they are not of sufficient quality and hence discount dozens of them.
Will this ever-tightening pressure and possibly eventual band increase pharmaceutical and vaccine sales?
Absolutely. Many are using ivermectin (human version) as a prophylaxis as a handful of studies show some positive data. The medical establishment doesn’t believe it works at all and wants it banned.
What lies ahead?
TrialSite suspects the Biden Administration considers physicians prescribing ivermectin and the patients consuming it as a hindrance to universal vaccination. Of course, any illicit use, such as self-medication with the animal variety, is wrong and should be stopped. While prescribing off-label ivermectin for COVID-19 is legal now between a licensed physician, for example, and their consenting patient, don’t be surprised if some significant moves are made first to pressure pharmacies and doctors to shun the drug. If that fails, conditions may intensify, including executive actions under the PREP Act or other federal edict to essentially criminalize the use off-label—yes, criminalize even the use of the human variety directed by a licensed doctor and their consenting patient. Note this is what happened in South Africa until a push back by civil society groups and a lawsuit led to the acceptance of the drug off-label.
Starting this week, powerful medical associations will put a progressively tighter squeeze on any independent-minded physicians that deviate from the party line.
American Medical Association calls for 'immediate end' to use of ivermectin for COVID-19
The American Medical Association (AMA) is calling for the "immediate end" to the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and for doctors to stop prescribing it for that purpose, amid a spike in the use of the drug.
Ivermectin, often used as a deworming agent in animals and sometimes for humans, is not approved to treat COVID-19 and has not been shown to work for that purpose. Poison control centers have recorded a five-fold increase in calls related to ivermectin, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The AMA, the country's largest doctors group, is now joining in warning against use of the drug, joining the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC.
"We are alarmed by reports that outpatient prescribing for and dispensing of ivermectin have increased 24-fold since before the pandemic and increased exponentially over the past few months," the AMA said in a statement, joined by the American Pharmacists Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. "As such, we are calling for an immediate end to the prescribing, dispensing, and use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial."
The groups also call on doctors and pharmacists to warn patients about using the drug to treat COVID-19.
"Use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has been demonstrated to be harmful to patients," the groups said. "Calls to poison control centers due to ivermectin ingestion have increased five-fold from their pre-pandemic baseline."
Experts say that instead of risking the use of unproven drugs, people should get vaccinated.
As jed point out, not just anyone can fix the new designs of cars or just about anything today but we still have time - to learn the old ways
A funny story about that --
An elderly widow across the street had a 1960s Cadillac rusting in her backyard. A guy from a trade school found out about it. He bought it from her, and sent a tow truck to pick it up. He said he wanted a car for the students to work on. A car you can see how it works just by looking.
I am big fan of obsolete technology. I like to spend a few weeks every year in a house without modern amenities. No telephone service or internet, no TV, no running water or air conditioning, a Franklin stove . . . but I draw the line at electricity. I like electricity. When people say they want to experience the good old days, they mean approximately 100 years ago. Most of us know how to live with a Franklin stove and maybe kerosene lights, but we would not want to back to the 18th century. You would not want to live without screens to keep the bugs out at night.
Woven wire screens were invented in the 1840s but not widely used to keep bugs out until the 1870s. It is surprising it took so long for such a beneficial innovation to take hold. Living without screens was miserable. Quote:
According to the National Museum of American History, prior to the 1870, mosquitos and other annoying insects were kept at bay by keeping windows and doors shut – even throughout the summer for most common people. The first known ads for window screens specifically are dated back to 1873, where the ad promises screens to be the difference between “absolute misery and sweetest comfort” by allowing customers to keep their windows open while blocking the mosquitoes from entering.
I have lived in Japanese houses from the Meiji era. They have no walls, essentially. They have sliding panels inside, large multi-pane glass panels for the outside, and wooden panels used during hurricanes. But they also have wire screen panels that are rolled out in the evening when the mosquitoes come out. The glass panels shown here are rolled back into their box, and screen door panels are rolled out instead:
(This preview shows the wrong image for some reason. Click on it to see the image I refer to)
Experts say that instead of risking the use of unproven drugs, people should get vaccinated.
Amen. Thank you, AMA.
"Use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has been demonstrated to be harmful to patients," the groups said.
That's why the US health care system soon will be ranked 177th on this planet...
Only the poorest Indian people can afford a CoV-19 treatment.
When do the US people understand that the FM/R/X/B just now rips off their last meat from the bones ?!
That's why the US health care system soon will be ranked 177th on this planet...
Only the poorest Indian people can afford a CoV-19 treatment.
When do the US people understand that the FM/R/J/B just now rips off their last meat from the bones ?!
Nobody understands anything as evidenced by this site. People are willing to discount mass observational evidence from now hundreds of doctors using it - and consider that "anecdotal" but are looking for some statistical darling study iinstead (that could only be funded by pharma but wont be funded by pharma)
I almost encourage these people to suck themselves into the matrix and consider the best use of their mind and body maybe to go get "quad vaxxed" with two moderna and two pfizer shots and then 2 updates! Volunteers?
People are willing to discount mass observational evidence from now hundreds of doctors using it - and consider that "anecdotal"
No, that is not anecdotal. "Anecdotal" means a one-off case, or very few cases. If hundreds of doctors are using X and they report it works, that cannot be an anecdotal error. However, they still might all be mistaken. That happens. Many medical procedures and drugs in the past were abandoned because it turned out they did not work. That was despite the fact that many doctors thought they did work. This happens when the drug appears to be only marginally effective, which is what most doctors report for ivermectin. For example, ivermectin appears to reduce time in the hospital from 10 days to 8 days on average (in some studies). Or, it appears to make patients feel better. It is very difficult to gauge how well a patient feels, or whether he would feel better or worse without the drug. You would have reset time and re-run the universe, treating him again without the drug.
In short, doctors and patients often have the illusion that something is working when it is not actually working. This is caused by wishful thinking, and by statistically confounding results. That is to say, people using several different drugs and therapies at the same time. As any sensible person would do! You cannot tell which drug or therapy is helping. Does the patient feel better because of ivermectin? Or because the nurses turned him on his stomach? Would he have felt better anyway, without the drug? There is no way of knowing, because you cannot reset time and run the universe over again.
You cannot avoid these problems. But you can reduce them by running double-blind tests of drugs. So far, the double blind tests of ivermectin have been inconclusive. They have shown that it may have a marginal effect, or it may have no effect.
Use of a drug outside of a double-blind test cannot be used to verify it is working unless the drug produces dramatic results, like the first use of penicillin. Most doctors using ivermectin do not report such dramatic results. Only one drug for COVID produces dramatic results. Only one reduces mortality by a factor of 100: the vaccine. Since we have the vaccine, everyone should take it, and there will be no need for ivermectin or anything else, other than things like ordinary decongestants and ibuprofen to relieve symptoms.
Why bother with a drug that produces only an inconclusive or marginal results, when you have one that works nearly every time, greatly reducing the severity of breakthrough cases, and virtually eliminating deaths?
on recognising crocodiles...
image recognition is a bit like the immune response...except its only 2D..not multidimensional
which image below gives better recognition
spike or half monty
Example objects | Image Recognize
There was a book called silent Spring a while back
Happy Covid Spring everybody... or Fall
September 1
University of Florida Emerging Pathogens Institute Breakthrough—Identify 53 ‘Druggable’ Targets for COVID-19 Antiviral Therapies
University of Florida (UF) researchers operating in the Emerging Pathogens Institute discovered “dozens” of potential therapeutic targets that could lead to effective antiviral therapies targeting SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19, as well as other coronaviruses. The team, led by Principal Investigator Stephanie Karst, will now leverage a recent grant to validate their findings in living organisms. The team filed a patent as they have identified potential targets that a pharmaceutical company could license and develop should they be further validated.
TrialSite provides a brief summary of the UF team’s breakthrough.
How many possible druggable targets targeting COVID-19?
The University Florida team, a cross-disciplinary group of researchers, recently published a paper on the preprint server bioRxiv. They identified 53 novel genes and pathways that indicate the potential for “druggable targets for antiviral therapies for COVID-19 plus a broad array of coronavirus types,” reports DeLene Beeland writing for the University of Florida.
What did the team use to identify targets?
UF investigators employed CRISPR gene editing tools and techniques in the quest to find specific genes and molecular pathways that support the replication of human coronaviruses, noted UF.
The Paper
Follow the link to bioRxiv.
Any intellectual property created?
Yes. The team filed a patent entitled “Methods of Treatment for SARS-CoV-2 Infections” (PROV Appl. No. 63/145,763) on Feb 4, 2021.
About the UF Emerging Pathogens Institute
The UF Emerging Pathogens Institute was launched in 2006 to provide world-class research to facilitate interdisciplinary studies of the emergence and control of human, animal, and plant pathogens of concern to Florida, the nation, and the world.
What are some genes and targets of interest?
The UF investigators uncovered several host genes as pivotal for SARS-CoV-2 and OC43 infections, indicating that these genes are candidates for “broad-spectrum therapies against coronaviruses that infect humans,” communicated UF.
Prominent examples include CDK4, EDC4, and XRN1, playing critical roles in supporting replication pathways for two coronaviruses. Perhaps these genes represent important antiviral targets?
Also, other genes that could support viral spread from the host cell include GNPTAB, GNPTG, and NAGPA encode for lysosomal proteins that the UF team suspects may promote the release of virions the replicated progeny of a virus from the initially infected cell.
Who makes up the study team?
Led by Dr. Michael Norris, Principal Investigator for the UF’s Emerging Pathogens Institute and Co-Director of the Spatial Epidemiology & Ecology Research Laboratory (SEER Lab), the research team included Stephanie Karst, UF College of Medicine, and Chris Vulpe, College of Veterinary Medicine.
What’s next?
The team will now test their findings in living organisms. Stephanie Karst received a 2021 UF Research Opportunity Seeds Fund award to support an investigation into host RNA-processing dependencies of coronavirus infection first identified in the CRISPR experiments.
FDA resignations over White House booster shot guidance a 'mess for administration'
The FDA reportedly has not reviewed COVID-19 vaccine booster shot data
FDA resignations over White House booster shot guidance a 'mess for administration' | Fox Business
Reports that Food and Drug Administration officials plan to step down over the White House’s COVID-19 booster shot guidance have created a "mess" for the Biden administration, according to Dr. Mark Siegel.
In a statement on Tuesday, the FDA said that Marion Gruber, director of the agency’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review, and her deputy director, Phil Krause, will leave in October and November, respectively.
Siegel told "America’s Newsroom" that the seeming clash between the FDA and the White House has created "a mess for the administration."
There’s a lot of confusion, there’s a lot of finger pointing … this is a mess for the administration right now," Siegel said.
Siegel acknowledged that studies out of Israel indicate a significant reduction to the spread of the virus, but that the "confusion" between the White House and health officials have complicated matters.
"It’s a combination of things where the messaging is coming out of the White House and not of the FDA, and also out of the NIH with Tony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins has said, ‘Hey, we might have the vaccines for the 5 to 11 year olds in a couple of months’ … well, FDA hasn’t reviewed the data yet," Siegel explained. "And with the boosters, the president himself said, ‘We’re going to get boosters in a month,’ and the FDA says, ‘Wait, we haven’t reviewed the data yet.’"
Siegel claimed that acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock is also under fire, especially with her position not yet fully confirmed.
Earlier this month, President Biden said the plan was for every adult to get a booster shot eight months after getting the second shot
The White House’s decision comes amid the surge of the highly transmissible delta variant of COVID-19, which studies have shown to double the risk of hospitalization for unvaccinated individuals.
However, the FDA did not provide guidance to Biden on the issue of booster shots, with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) reportedly spearheading decisions.
The White House and FDA did not respond to FOX Business’ request for comment.
"Officials said the policy of screening, proper treatment and aggressive vaccination has helped restrict numbers.
ACS health and family welfare Amit Mohan Prasad said 27 districts have become-Covid- free and 36 districts have less than five cases.
Despite decline in cases, it is important to follow Covid-19 prevention protocol.
The daily case positivity rate in Uttar Pradesh has dipped to 0.01% which had been hovering at 16.84% during the peak of the second wave."
Amazing numbers for the India state with 241 million population, ~13 million 50 and older.
Compare that to Kerala on the same date (2 Sept). Population 34 million, with ~8 million 50 and older:
"Kerala continued to report surge in COVID cases as it confirmed 32,097 new positive cases on Thursday. The test positivity rate in Kerala is 18.41 per cent at present. Over one lakh total 74,000 samples were tested in the last 24 hours. One hundred eighty-eight deaths were also confirmed due to COVID today, taking the death toll to 21,149."
While here in the US IVM is under an all out FUD campaign by the FDA, CDC, media, American Medical Association (AMA), American Pharmacists Association (APhA), American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), and as of today joined by the ACLU which announced a lawsuit being prepared by prisoners against the Arkansas sheriff who oversees the prison that the doctor prescribed IVM in.
You cannot avoid these problems. But you can reduce them by running double-blind tests of drugs. So far, the double blind tests of ivermectin have been inconclusive.
Only criminals make RCT studies with patients at risk. So RCT's are done among very low risk patients. Still all these RCT's did show a big advantage with Ivermectin = 2 days faster clearing even for people that would not need it!
So the only negative aspect is the narrative that has been pay by big pharma. Tehy did not even define what they meant with fail or no effect despite the was a large effect. Tamiflu-carp of Roche was accepted with 1 day faster flu clearing in case you take it teh first 48 hours...Ivermectin you can take the first 7 days with a larger effect...
So its the usual Big pharma fraud.
University of Florida (UF) researchers operating in the Emerging Pathogens Institute discovered “dozens” of potential therapeutic targets that could lead to effective antiviral therapies targeting SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19, as well as other coronaviruses. The team, led by Principal Investigator Stephanie Karst, will now leverage a recent grant to validate their findings in living organisms. The team filed a patent as they have identified potential targets that a pharmaceutical company could license and develop should they be further validate
That's it ! Searching for the big money -patents - instead of helping the world with an already famous drug.
New drugs will have no chance against Ivermectin. At least not the next 5 years.
President Biden said the plan was for every adult to get a booster shot eight months after getting the second shot
The Big FM godfather speaks himself! Remember the challenger? Already once boosters did fail and only killed 7 person. That time I expect many more over time...
Israel despite boosters still stays on record level (> 10'000) CoV-19 cases. Wasn't vaccination once meant to give them all back the freedom?????
The other vaccine only concentration camp India's state Kerala does even worse and now delivers 3/4 of all cases.
USA will soon join this gang of fools!
The daily case positivity rate in Uttar Pradesh has dipped to 0.01% which had been hovering at 16.84% during the peak of the second wave."
Amazing numbers for the India state with 241 million population, ~13 million 50 and older.
This article does not say these results are from ivermectin, but I assume that is what you meant. Or what you think.
If so, this not amazing. It is bogus. Impossible. There is zero chance ivermectin is this effective yet that has not been detected in a double-blind test. Even the positive tests are not this good. If the drug works dramatically well, it has to work dramatically well in some of the double-blind tests. Not every single test, but at least in some of them. It cannot be that the people administering these tests are all incompetent dunces, and the doctors in Uttar Pradesh are all much more skilled.
Furthermore -- and I am sorry to say this -- you should not trust public health statistics from India. That is not my opinion, or a bias against India. That is what many experts in India say.
While here in the US IVM is under an all out FUD campaign by the FDA, CDC, media, American Medical Association (AMA), American Pharmacists Association (APhA), American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP),
If the doctors and other professionals in these organizations sincerely believe that ivermectin does not work, and that the use of it may prevent people from seeking effective treatment, they have a professional obligation to oppose it. What do you want them to do? Should they endorse it, against their own judgement? Or remain silent? Because you think it works? You, along with other amateurs with no medical training, and politicians, and a few doctors should not be allowed to overrule decisions made by professional organizations. Especially when there is no convincing scientific evidence despite multiple double-blind tests. What other standard do you want to apply? If you don't believe in double-blind tests, where does that leave you?
To take an example I gave earlier, suppose your local civil engineer and bridge inspectors determined that a bridge was on the verge of collapse, and should be closed. Suppose you disagree, even though you are a self-appointed expert in bridges with no degree, qualifications or background in civil engineering. Suppose the mayor also disagrees, and orders the bridge be kept open. That would not be a wise course of action. Ignorant amateurs should not overrule experts in matters of life and death.
You do not want doctors to violate their oaths and ignore their professional obligations, even if you disagree with them. Their job is to use their best judgement. Not your best judgement, or the collective judgement of idiots on the internet. In cold fusion we have seen the damage caused by overruling experts and adjudicating difficult scientific questions based on the collective ignorance and stupidity of science writers and Wikipedia trolls. We have seen what happens when you ignore experts and prevent them from doing their jobs.
