Pierre, you're gonna love this.
Someone needs to tell Alex Berenson;)
Jessica, you are a hero for everything you're doing!
This is so typical and so infuriating, that the authors of this study would fail to mention their positive results in the abstract, basing their conclusions on the lack of statistical significance instead. Also, they waited to start treatment until ~7 days into the disease, after PCR results were in. That's not early!!
You might not be aware that FLCCC increased their recommended dose of IVM for Delta. They think that results are dose-dependent, and they're not seeing any problems with the higher dose. See:
Great job Jessica.
They didn’t get the memo: when the lie loses its power - you don’t try to reanimate the lie - you censor….and shut down bouncy houses.
Thank you!!! We are up to 5 states in the US where docs are allowed to prescribe off label. Progress! (ME NE IN OK SC and maybe FL? Also SD working on it)
I appreciate Jessica's work. Without diminishing that work, I think Dr. Kory and FLCCC are recommending .4 mg/kg as outpatient treatment for positive cases. It is .2 for prophylaxis, but once there is a positive case they suggest at a minimum doubling that or even as much as .6 mg per kg. That change came following Delta and as Omicron emerged. I believe the MDs emphasized early higher dose treatment as these variants emerged.
I don't think that diminishes the critique.
The pts with "mild to moderate dz" waited up to one week before receiving Ivm. These investigators considered someone with lobar pneumonia, and /or symptomatic for 7 days but with adequate pO2 ,to be "mild-moderate" dz. The primary endpoint of the study was 'disease progression', meaning to stage 3, 4 ( hypoxia). Secondary endpoints were mortality at 28 days, ventilator rates set by the staff, etc.
Why would mortality not be a primary endpoint? or even progression to mechanical ventilation? Unless you kind of knew that most persons with 7 days of sxs, and/or lobar pneumonia, would progress to more serious pulmonary dz? Then you would have a study that showed no utility of the index drug to prevent progression to the "primary" endpoint of your study.
Mccullough, and others, advocate for Ivermectin or HCQ use within 2 days of sx onset, i.e., as early as possible. Makes sense to me.
If I wait a week before getting tetanus toxoid for a wound, and then get tetanus, do I assume that tetanus toxoid is entirely, or statistically useless? No. I would suggest getting the antidote/ medication as soon as possible without delay.
- m robert weiss, md
Jessica, have you heard of any connection between the💉and an uptick in herpes?
Jessica, you made some great points about dosing. I added a link to your article, from mine, just in case if someone needs to decide on dosing.
It is in the section "Tempest on Substack" :-)
Someone please explain this to Alex Berenson, so he stops making a fool of himself.
Jessica, I don't know you do it but thank God you do!
I am confused as to why you think that taking 0.4 mg/kg of ivermectin for 5 days, which I did when I had covid, after the Fareed-Tyson protocol, is going to make a huge difference in outcome compared with 0.2 mg/kg on days 1 and 3. Why would taking extra ivermectin cause an effective drug to become ineffective while still far below the dose that makes it poisonous?
Thank You Jessica...I so appreciate you and your peers using your gifts for truth, on my family's behalf. You all have engaged so many in learning so much, and respected that the masses of non PHD citizens can understand your explanations, and confirmed that our basic intellectual conflict with the propaganda is valid. So much gratitude and respect.
Thank you for this Jessica. I am also subscribing to Alex Berenson's Substack page. He has been really brutally heavy handed about this. I plan to become a paid subscriber to his page just so I can reference your material. I do have one correction to your info, however (I think). When I follow your link to FLCCC, I find that the dosage that you reference (.2 mg/kg twice a week), that appears to be for prophylaxis, not early treatment. Unless I am reading incorrectly, the early treatment protocol appears to be the same as what was used in the Malaysian study. (Please correct me if I am wrong about that.)
That said, one of the other questions that I have about this study, other than the blatant disregard for the positive results of Ivermectin, and also in several of the HCQ studies, is that the study does not utilize the entire treatment protocols that proponents of these medicines are using. To a person, what I have heard and read from these physicians is that HCQ and Ivermectin are used in conjunction with several other compounds, and it is this entire cornucopia of compounds that work together to prevent devolvement to severe disease. All of these compounds are readily available and inexpensive. The studies are simply simple-minded in their approach and methodology at best, and/or dishonest at worst, IMHO.
Again, I thank you for your writing. I have really savored becoming educated about how the pharmacological sausage is made, and how easily led astray we can all be when we just take a pronouncement at face value. Trust, but verify, verify and verify again!
My biggest concern is how they selected the study population - 500 people in 6 months suggests that there was a significant drop off from people they screened to people enrolled. How many did they screen to get to 500? With a high drop off like that in a study like this, you are jacking up the variance to an unacceptable level. At that point, it is smarter to go for a population level analysis. Also, excluding everyone who had taken IVM in the week prior to being screened is a whopper of a confounding variable. I am not concerned with the dosing issue, as IVM is relatively safe. It is tempting to confuse it with the Hydroxycloroquine study in Brazil that they did in 2020 that they published in Lancet and used to shut down HXQ that was 5 times the recommended dose on severe cases. HXQ is not as well tolerated in large doses as IVM is. In this study, they distorted it in different ways, mostly in surreptitious study design manipulation that is hard to detect unless you know what to look for. DEMONIC.
I don’t know why I didn’t subscribe a long time ago.