If observational studies can argue for support for the The Jab and Boosters, then Ivermectin should be afforded the same opportunity. Battle of the flawed studies.
A new peer-reviewed study concluded that the mortality rate in people who used ivermectin regularly was 92 percent lower than in non-users and 84 percent lower than in irregular users.
Among the authors are Flávio Cadegiani, a board-certified endocrinologist, and Pierre Kory, an outspoken pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist, as well as president and chief medical officer of the Front Line Critical Care Alliance.
The study, published on Aug. 31 in the Cuerus Journal of Medical Science, was conducted via a prospective observational study of a “strictly controlled population” of 88,012 subjects in the Brazilian city of Itajaí.
The individuals that took ivermectin as a preventive medicine prior to COVID infection saw remarkable reductions in hospitalization as well as death, according to the publication.
McCullough and Zelenko Protocols
Dr. Benjamin Marble, an urgent care specialist in Florida who has been practicing for over two decades, asserts that he and his group have treated about 150,000 acute COVID-19 patients and have only lost 6 people.
The nearly 100 percent effectiveness was achieved, Marble says, using the “McCullough protocol” (pdf) of which ivermectin is the cornerstone drug.
“This is another great study which proves ivermectin works against COVID-19, something I already knew is a simple fact,” Marble told The Epoch Times.
Marble thinks that this study “should be the nail in the coffin” to the claims that ivermectin does not help against COVID.
Kevin Jenkins, the co-chair of the Zelenko Foundation said: “This study proves what we have known for some time, that ivermectin was an effective tool to combat COVID-19.”
“Sadly, the only thing that comes to my mind is the lives that we’ve lost,” Jenkins told The Epoch Times.
WIND: one more study that will be ignored by the mainstream. No, I don’t take it as proof that Ivermectin works, but I do take it as a data point for making an objective effort to replicate the results over and over (or not).