The new 1טeרmEזכiה paper proves it works. Trust the scients. Thank you Igor Chudov.

Pierre, you're gonna love this.

There’s a new paper in town entitled: “Efficacy of 1טeרmEזכiה Treatment on Disease Progression Among Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19 and ComorbiditiesThe I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial”. It was published today: February 18, 2022 - the darkest day that my beautiful Canada has EVER faced. I love you my patriot kin. I regret that I am not present. Deeply.

I was in the middle of reading this paper (thank Liz) - rather, looking for inconsistencies in it, and noticed in my email inbox that Igor Chudov had already found a really good one. Good on ya Igor. You’re awesome. I want to share your find. And please read his Substack on this because he includes an excellent comment from a reader at the end about the p-values.

The conclusions and relevance of this paper are as follows:

Conclusions and Relevance  In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, 1טeרmEזכiה treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of 1טeרmEזכiה for patients with COVID-19.

Really? Not recommended, eh?

Before reading on, the 1טeרmEזכiה dose used in this study was 0.4 mg/kg as part of a 5-day daily regimen. The Early Outpatient Protocol recommended by the FLCCC is 0.2 mg/kg as part of 2-dose staggered regimen on days 1 and 3.¹ The Post COVID-19 Exposure Prevention protocol recommends a 2-dose staggered regimen of 0.4 mg/kg (take with or after a meal) on days 1 and 3. So, even if the doses are matched at 0.4 mg/kg, there are 3 extra days of treatment in the study and the treatment is not staggered. Also of relevance, is the absence of Zinc in the protocol. Many of my readers have pointed this out. These things might make a difference. Just saying.

How about I just called it horse dewormer from now on. Igor got censored for his write-up on this already on ‘twit-ter’. Or better yet, HD. Or furious HD. There. That’s good. Furious HD.

Furious HD is closing like a horse possessed. Yes. Yes he is.

Please refer to the Secondary Outcomes in the Results section in the screenshot below.

What this necessarily means is that of the people who were subjected to mechanical ventilators:

1. 4 people were on furious HD

2. 10 people were NOT on furious HD

Wait now, doesn’t that bode well for furious HD? Doesn’t that mean that more than twice the people who needed vents were NOT on furious HD?

Next line. They claim that the 28-day-in-hospital mortality rate was ‘similar’ in the two groups.

1. 3 people died who were on furious HD

2. 10 people died who were NOT on furious HD

Similar? 241 people were on furious HD and 249 were not. So that’s 1.2% versus 4%. I don’t find those to be similar at all. Maybe that’s just me. But besides that, more than 3 times as many people died who were NOT on furious HD.

It is more than worth mentioning that the people that they enrolled had co-morbidities and that the most commonly reported ‘Severe Adverse Event’ in the furious HD group was diarrhea. Diarrhea isn’t something you can’t easily recover from with hydration and proper nutrition. But I digress.

When you consider risk versus benefit, I think this data pretty clearly shows that the ‘patient’ does better in the context of Furious HD.

I will leave it at that.

1. https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-I-MASK-Protocol-v4-2020-11-22.pdf