New JAMA Paper Show Ivermectin Blows the Covid Vaccines Out of the Water

2cent wrote:Except the information hasn't disappeared.  Here's some of it, if you can stand it.

Interpretation of the data
So there are five takeaways from the study:

Vaccine efficacy in the real world is quite small. If you got vaccinated, it reduced your chance of death by just 24%. However, the study did NOT look at the all-cause mortality of the vaccine (it only enrolled people who survived the vaccine), so the tiny absolute risk reduction you get from a 24% relative risk reduction (roughly 24% of .25% =.06% benefit) is less than the absolute risk of dying from the vaccine (around .2%). See Incriminating Evidence for details on this.

If you were not vaccinated (which you shouldn’t be), ivermectin reduced your chance of death by 72%. So it was 3 times more effective than the vaccine. But the risk of ivermectin is negligible so the risk-benefit ratio is extremely favorable. Ivermectin has a 3X effect size (benefit) and is more than 100,000X less risky with respect to death risk, killing nobody (compared to over 200,000 people from the vaccine). So it’s the clear choice. It’s the only rational choice.

The vaccine did provide a SMALL incremental benefit if you took both (10% lower risk), but it’s a non-starter since the risk-benefit analysis doesn’t support ever using the vaccine.

If we want to reduce deaths, ivermectin is the way to go. Avoid the vaccine entirely.

There is no way you have a paper like this with 431,000 views and just two comments. This implies that virtually all the comments were counter-narrative and were censored from public view. That in itself is stunning.

Note that multidrug protocols that use ivermectin are much better than ivermectin alone. For example, the Fareed Tyson protocol has treated 10,000 people with no deaths, whereas in this study, 1 of the 75 unvaccinated people who got ivermectin died (1.3%). Multidrug protocols are clearly the way to go.

Acknowledgment
I want to thank Massimaux for highlighting what the study said in his tweet.

Twitter avatar for @masimaux
Massimaux
@masimaux
In the I-TECH study, of 490 patients, 241 got Ivermectin and 331 were vaccinated.

Can we compute the vaccine effectiveness AGAINST DEATH and Ivermectin effectiveness AGAINST DEATH? Yes, we can! See the figure.

Which prevented more deaths, The Vaccine or Ivermectin?
Image
February 20th 2022

11 Retweets17 Likes
A note from UK Professor Norman Fenton
Professor Fenton was kind enough to reach out to me and offer than he also wrote an article on the JAMA study.

He included a Bayesian analysis of the mortality data to highlight the fact that the authors’ claim that “mortality rates between the 2 groups were similar” was essentially academic fraud.

Couldn’t have said it any better myself. He also links to this article.

Here’s a great video he did back in January 2022 on scientific fraud and how he went from a respected academic to being deplatformed because he told the truth.

Summary
It doesn’t get much better than this. A paper published in JAMA showing ivermectin is three times better than the vaccines in preventing death. Combined with the risk data of the vaccines, it’s clear that if you are given a choice, you’d always choose ivermectin and never choose the vaccine.

Will this paper make a difference? I don’t think so.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-jama-paper-show-ivermectin-blows?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxNTYyMTUyOCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDkwNzgxODIsIl8iOiJrZHZFRCIsImlhdCI6MTY0NTY0Njc4NywiZXhwIjoxNjQ1NjUwMzg3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNTQ4MzU0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.0I4FDdlwmfctIS0XTRgmh0pQYdy6p6OUvVccNkofC9Y&utm_source=url&s=r

The embedded links work as well.

Sprintcyclist wrote:

2cent wrote:Except the information hasn't disappeared.  Here's some of it, if you can stand it.

Interpretation of the data
So there are five takeaways from the study:

Vaccine efficacy in the real world is quite small. If you got vaccinated, it reduced your chance of death by just 24%. However, the study did NOT look at the all-cause mortality of the vaccine (it only enrolled people who survived the vaccine), so the tiny absolute risk reduction you get from a 24% relative risk reduction (roughly 24% of .25% =.06% benefit) is less than the absolute risk of dying from the vaccine (around .2%). See Incriminating Evidence for details on this.

If you were not vaccinated (which you shouldn’t be), ivermectin reduced your chance of death by 72%. So it was 3 times more effective than the vaccine. But the risk of ivermectin is negligible so the risk-benefit ratio is extremely favorable. Ivermectin has a 3X effect size (benefit) and is more than 100,000X less risky with respect to death risk, killing nobody (compared to over 200,000 people from the vaccine). So it’s the clear choice. It’s the only rational choice.

The vaccine did provide a SMALL incremental benefit if you took both (10% lower risk), but it’s a non-starter since the risk-benefit analysis doesn’t support ever using the vaccine.

If we want to reduce deaths, ivermectin is the way to go. Avoid the vaccine entirely.

There is no way you have a paper like this with 431,000 views and just two comments. This implies that virtually all the comments were counter-narrative and were censored from public view. That in itself is stunning.

Note that multidrug protocols that use ivermectin are much better than ivermectin alone. For example, the Fareed Tyson protocol has treated 10,000 people with no deaths, whereas in this study, 1 of the 75 unvaccinated people who got ivermectin died (1.3%). Multidrug protocols are clearly the way to go.

Acknowledgment
I want to thank Massimaux for highlighting what the study said in his tweet.

Twitter avatar for @masimaux
Massimaux
@masimaux
In the I-TECH study, of 490 patients, 241 got Ivermectin and 331 were vaccinated.

Can we compute the vaccine effectiveness AGAINST DEATH and Ivermectin effectiveness AGAINST DEATH? Yes, we can! See the figure.

Which prevented more deaths, The Vaccine or Ivermectin?
Image
February 20th 2022

11 Retweets17 Likes
A note from UK Professor Norman Fenton
Professor Fenton was kind enough to reach out to me and offer than he also wrote an article on the JAMA study.

He included a Bayesian analysis of the mortality data to highlight the fact that the authors’ claim that “mortality rates between the 2 groups were similar” was essentially academic fraud.

Couldn’t have said it any better myself. He also links to this article.

Here’s a great video he did back in January 2022 on scientific fraud and how he went from a respected academic to being deplatformed because he told the truth.

Summary
It doesn’t get much better than this. A paper published in JAMA showing ivermectin is three times better than the vaccines in preventing death. Combined with the risk data of the vaccines, it’s clear that if you are given a choice, you’d always choose ivermectin and never choose the vaccine.

Will this paper make a difference? I don’t think so.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-jama-paper-show-ivermectin-blows?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxNTYyMTUyOCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDkwNzgxODIsIl8iOiJrZHZFRCIsImlhdCI6MTY0NTY0Njc4NywiZXhwIjoxNjQ1NjUwMzg3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNTQ4MzU0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.0I4FDdlwmfctIS0XTRgmh0pQYdy6p6OUvVccNkofC9Y&utm_source=url&s=r

The embedded links work as well.

there are no information or data.
it is an opinion with no facts
the link leads to another opinionated conspiracy commenter

Calypso Jones wrote:https://www.uncoverdc.com/2023/04/10/dear-andy-one-mans-unconscionable-silence-on-ivermectin/

The one man that could have made ivermectin available and saved countless lives...failed the test.

............. Findings In this open-label randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with COVID-19 in Malaysia, a 5-day course of oral ivermectin administered during the first week of illness did not reduce the risk of developing severe disease compared with standard of care alone.

Meaning The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19. ..................

RV wrote:But, but, Ivermectin doesn't make trillions of dollars for big pharma and the Democrats...