Please do. I am in the camp that if the current approved early treatment in US is none (wait til you are sicker, go to hospital), I'd take ivermectin. But I'd follow the complete early treatment, zinc, Vitamin C, Vitamin D, and quercertin. And I'd start it immediately. Alex has a blind spot on ivm. But I doubt ivermectin will kill me, and the approved hospital treatment likely will.
That is precisely what I did. I took all of the foregoing before contracting it. Once positive I added nigela sativa and H1 and H2 antihistamines. I recovered. Did they work to prevent more severe illness? Obviously it's impossible to know the counterfactual.
But I took the supplements and meds with the precautionary principle firmly in mind. None of those were going to cause me harm when taken in the suggested amounts and duration. I made sure of that.
Compare that with the "official guidance." Wait until O2 sats drop to the low 90s - high 80s then go to ER. For what? To maybe just maybe get a steroid, get another "approved" drug that can cause kidney failure and death? Or worse get benzos and put on a vent? What did I have to lose? Nothing.
Alex ignores the precautionary principle applies to these treatments, and he does so even in the face of dismal alternatives.
There is something else at work in his reasoning. He seeks to set himself entirely apart from the dopey anti-vaxers so Twitter and his former colleagues at NYT will beg for his forgiveness?
My rationale, much better stated. I cannot ascertain what's up with Alex and ivermectin. You should stop in to his two posts today. He has doubled down. His readers are revolting and many are claiming they are unsubscribing.
I find their attitude toward Alex as mystifying as his towards ivermectin. W.hat we claimed to want was a place for open, free discussion. Cancelling him because he doesn't agree on an alternative treatment supported by many of us? I don't want an echo chamber
Alex's behaviour is bizarre. I cancelled the first go around battle with Malone. I don't care if he doesn't like Ivermectin, its his easy attitude towards Malone (was you say doubled down today). His expertise is providing newspaper level summaries of medical studies. Remember that.
Thanks for the comment on this study, Jessica. Alex Berenson took a look at this study and, being the shrinking violet that he is, promptly called out Robert Malone for still advocating ivermectin. At least I no longer subsidize that fellow; I am now only a free subscriber.
Here is my comment on his substack to the study:
"
ChesterView10 hr ago
It seems like a study that was done in good faith, although you never know. I think however there is one very important bit of information that needs to be highlighted. In the third paragraph of the 'Results' section there is the following:
"The mean (SD) duration of symptoms at enrollment was 5.1 (1.3) days."
Five days into symptoms is well along in the course of a viral disease for a drug that is (mostly) an anti-viral. Ideally, ivermectin would be given prophylactically or very early (first day or two) of symptoms. Tamiflu, for example, should be used in the first 48 hours of the flu to be most effective.
It is like a fire: catch it early and you can put it out with a cup of coffee. A little later and all the engine companies in the world aren't going to do the trick."
Maybe it would be even better if you dropped Bob Malone a note suggesting that HE mention it to Alex. The two being such close fragging buds and all… 😉
Sorry, that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek… 🙂. Yes, I saw there’s more Furious HD. I look forward to reading it. BTW, ‘Furious HD’ makes me laugh every time I see it. 😂 So needed right now. Thank you!
Alex has had a bee in his bonnet over ivm and other early treatments from the get go. Makes me more skeptical of the rest of his reporting. And we really don't need him anymore.
It rEAlly disheartens me to agree with you, as Alex was like a lifeline for me in the beginning and I wholeheartedly trusted his reporting. Buuut...'things' have changed, been 'oFF' with him for some time now I feel, and his continuous position agaiNst Ivm/Early Trtmnt... well, pretty much killed any trust I had left and noW skepticism flag soaring high. So yeah... totally with ya.
Doing RCTs is nice, but it's abused so much, especially in this high $$ stakes "pandemic." The only reliable data that isn't biased by doctors expectations is population death rates. Dr. Harvey Risch of Yale saw this very clearly early on.
One such result I recall was Morocco I think, where they used HCQ, stopped HCQ, then used HCQ again. The signal was was undeniable: death rates went up 2 weeks after stopping HCQ, then back down 2 weeks after restoring HCQ. That's a fixed population in the same place serving as their own control. Just as good is that one state in India that targeted positive-tested folks with IVM. Deaths and covid had a stunning drop in that state while surrounding states didn't drop. You don't need my masters in theoretical stats to see these aren't random occurrences. Also important is that nobody has provided the "missing variable" that could have caused these outcomes.
"That's a fixed population in the same place serving as their own control." To paraphrase the Tattoine pod race announcer: I don’t care what universe you’re from, that’s beautiful! In my ‘universe’ of physical sciences research, we call the equivalent an ‘internal calibration standard’, which is typically the most reliable calibration possible because it by nature eliminates so many possible lurking variables. Thank you for sharing these observations!
Thanks! Glad there's a name for it. As a EE, I use terms like noise floor, baseline density, stationarity, the latter because we deal with millions of samples per second. Medical stats scare me. They have a hundred samples, 1000 variables, use parochial methods, wave a wand, and magically p < 0.05.
Honestly, life sciences research in general is too scary for me too. IMO, we have it easy in the ‘hard sciences’ because they are in reality the ‘easy sciences’ by comparison. Too many mind-boggling variables and too much complexity for my simple mind. I have great respect for those who work hard to draw meaningful conclusions from such data. Or maybe we just don’t have the right wand. 🙂
Say, if you happen to have references for the Morocco and India studies that you mentioned, I’d love to read through them for myself.
India was just a couple of months ago. Robert Malone referenced it. Morocco (if I'm recalling correctly) was in mid 2020, the plot looking like a step-up, step down. A brief search didn't show it up. Sorry
Someone needs to tell Alex Berenson;)
i'll email him.
Please do. I am in the camp that if the current approved early treatment in US is none (wait til you are sicker, go to hospital), I'd take ivermectin. But I'd follow the complete early treatment, zinc, Vitamin C, Vitamin D, and quercertin. And I'd start it immediately. Alex has a blind spot on ivm. But I doubt ivermectin will kill me, and the approved hospital treatment likely will.
I take zinc, Vitamin C, Vitamin D, and quercertin (and a lot more) supplements as prophylactic.
ExAAACTLY!!!! 100% agree with eVerything you said.
That is precisely what I did. I took all of the foregoing before contracting it. Once positive I added nigela sativa and H1 and H2 antihistamines. I recovered. Did they work to prevent more severe illness? Obviously it's impossible to know the counterfactual.
But I took the supplements and meds with the precautionary principle firmly in mind. None of those were going to cause me harm when taken in the suggested amounts and duration. I made sure of that.
Compare that with the "official guidance." Wait until O2 sats drop to the low 90s - high 80s then go to ER. For what? To maybe just maybe get a steroid, get another "approved" drug that can cause kidney failure and death? Or worse get benzos and put on a vent? What did I have to lose? Nothing.
Alex ignores the precautionary principle applies to these treatments, and he does so even in the face of dismal alternatives.
There is something else at work in his reasoning. He seeks to set himself entirely apart from the dopey anti-vaxers so Twitter and his former colleagues at NYT will beg for his forgiveness?
My rationale, much better stated. I cannot ascertain what's up with Alex and ivermectin. You should stop in to his two posts today. He has doubled down. His readers are revolting and many are claiming they are unsubscribing.
I find their attitude toward Alex as mystifying as his towards ivermectin. W.hat we claimed to want was a place for open, free discussion. Cancelling him because he doesn't agree on an alternative treatment supported by many of us? I don't want an echo chamber
Alex's behaviour is bizarre. I cancelled the first go around battle with Malone. I don't care if he doesn't like Ivermectin, its his easy attitude towards Malone (was you say doubled down today). His expertise is providing newspaper level summaries of medical studies. Remember that.
*nasty
Thanks for the comment on this study, Jessica. Alex Berenson took a look at this study and, being the shrinking violet that he is, promptly called out Robert Malone for still advocating ivermectin. At least I no longer subsidize that fellow; I am now only a free subscriber.
Here is my comment on his substack to the study:
"
ChesterView10 hr ago
It seems like a study that was done in good faith, although you never know. I think however there is one very important bit of information that needs to be highlighted. In the third paragraph of the 'Results' section there is the following:
"The mean (SD) duration of symptoms at enrollment was 5.1 (1.3) days."
Five days into symptoms is well along in the course of a viral disease for a drug that is (mostly) an anti-viral. Ideally, ivermectin would be given prophylactically or very early (first day or two) of symptoms. Tamiflu, for example, should be used in the first 48 hours of the flu to be most effective.
It is like a fire: catch it early and you can put it out with a cup of coffee. A little later and all the engine companies in the world aren't going to do the trick."
Maybe it would be even better if you dropped Bob Malone a note suggesting that HE mention it to Alex. The two being such close fragging buds and all… 😉
no i already got an email from him in response to my email. see my newest post.
Sorry, that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek… 🙂. Yes, I saw there’s more Furious HD. I look forward to reading it. BTW, ‘Furious HD’ makes me laugh every time I see it. 😂 So needed right now. Thank you!
Alex has had a bee in his bonnet over ivm and other early treatments from the get go. Makes me more skeptical of the rest of his reporting. And we really don't need him anymore.
It rEAlly disheartens me to agree with you, as Alex was like a lifeline for me in the beginning and I wholeheartedly trusted his reporting. Buuut...'things' have changed, been 'oFF' with him for some time now I feel, and his continuous position agaiNst Ivm/Early Trtmnt... well, pretty much killed any trust I had left and noW skepticism flag soaring high. So yeah... totally with ya.
Doing RCTs is nice, but it's abused so much, especially in this high $$ stakes "pandemic." The only reliable data that isn't biased by doctors expectations is population death rates. Dr. Harvey Risch of Yale saw this very clearly early on.
One such result I recall was Morocco I think, where they used HCQ, stopped HCQ, then used HCQ again. The signal was was undeniable: death rates went up 2 weeks after stopping HCQ, then back down 2 weeks after restoring HCQ. That's a fixed population in the same place serving as their own control. Just as good is that one state in India that targeted positive-tested folks with IVM. Deaths and covid had a stunning drop in that state while surrounding states didn't drop. You don't need my masters in theoretical stats to see these aren't random occurrences. Also important is that nobody has provided the "missing variable" that could have caused these outcomes.
"That's a fixed population in the same place serving as their own control." To paraphrase the Tattoine pod race announcer: I don’t care what universe you’re from, that’s beautiful! In my ‘universe’ of physical sciences research, we call the equivalent an ‘internal calibration standard’, which is typically the most reliable calibration possible because it by nature eliminates so many possible lurking variables. Thank you for sharing these observations!
Thanks! Glad there's a name for it. As a EE, I use terms like noise floor, baseline density, stationarity, the latter because we deal with millions of samples per second. Medical stats scare me. They have a hundred samples, 1000 variables, use parochial methods, wave a wand, and magically p < 0.05.
Honestly, life sciences research in general is too scary for me too. IMO, we have it easy in the ‘hard sciences’ because they are in reality the ‘easy sciences’ by comparison. Too many mind-boggling variables and too much complexity for my simple mind. I have great respect for those who work hard to draw meaningful conclusions from such data. Or maybe we just don’t have the right wand. 🙂
Say, if you happen to have references for the Morocco and India studies that you mentioned, I’d love to read through them for myself.
India was just a couple of months ago. Robert Malone referenced it. Morocco (if I'm recalling correctly) was in mid 2020, the plot looking like a step-up, step down. A brief search didn't show it up. Sorry