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.
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:
I heard that many papers will not get published UNLESS they are pro-narrative in the abstract / conclusion. I have read several where the concluding remarks were the opposite of what I had decided, based on the data. And of course, the MSM ONLY reads the short version of everything. MSM is great at copy/paste and regurgitating.
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.
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.
Agreed. The various protocols all uniformly emphasize the need to have the medication available to take the minute you are symptomatic. Steve Kirsch suggested this as well as several of the MDs very early on. It is true that Kirsch was saying this at a time when rapid tests were not readily available and there was significant lag time in getting PCR results.
I presume that part of the issue is in the delay inherent in enrolling people in a trial. So the study gets designed and approved based on the staffing and funding available. If your staff work 9-5 four days a week, then you end up treating as late as day 7. And we end up with results that don't directly address the way doctors are actually using the compound being studied.
of course. it's rampant. i just did a quick query and there are currently 21,949 cases of Herpes Zoster reported to VAERS. if you use the URF of 31 that's 680,419 and of you use Josh Guetzkow's estimate of 401 you get 8,801,549 - which sounds more correct to me considering every single person in israel has it subsequent to those shots.
Dr. Rose. A friend of mine developed shingles in her eye shortly after the 2nd jab. The specialist she is seeing has been giving her cortisone shots but he’s had to give them more frequently and lately it takes longer for them to work. She’s afraid of losing her vision in that eye. We live in Ontario. Do you have any suggestions ? Thank you .
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?
I dont think the dose change here is significant. It's just slightly different than what most of the advocates for Ivm are suggesting. It's in the ballpark.
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.
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.
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:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Alliance-I-MASKplus-Protocol-ENGLISH.pdf
thank you Jerry! i made the addition/correction.
I heard that many papers will not get published UNLESS they are pro-narrative in the abstract / conclusion. I have read several where the concluding remarks were the opposite of what I had decided, based on the data. And of course, the MSM ONLY reads the short version of everything. MSM is great at copy/paste and regurgitating.
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.
yup. i covered it. :) thanks
Jerry's comment covered it. I was eager to post and did not review all comments. I will try to exercise better "comment discipline" in the future.
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
Agreed. The various protocols all uniformly emphasize the need to have the medication available to take the minute you are symptomatic. Steve Kirsch suggested this as well as several of the MDs very early on. It is true that Kirsch was saying this at a time when rapid tests were not readily available and there was significant lag time in getting PCR results.
I presume that part of the issue is in the delay inherent in enrolling people in a trial. So the study gets designed and approved based on the staffing and funding available. If your staff work 9-5 four days a week, then you end up treating as late as day 7. And we end up with results that don't directly address the way doctors are actually using the compound being studied.
Bingo!!! and they passed on people who had taken it prior to screening at 7 days.
Jessica, have you heard of any connection between the💉and an uptick in herpes?
of course. it's rampant. i just did a quick query and there are currently 21,949 cases of Herpes Zoster reported to VAERS. if you use the URF of 31 that's 680,419 and of you use Josh Guetzkow's estimate of 401 you get 8,801,549 - which sounds more correct to me considering every single person in israel has it subsequent to those shots.
Dr. Rose. A friend of mine developed shingles in her eye shortly after the 2nd jab. The specialist she is seeing has been giving her cortisone shots but he’s had to give them more frequently and lately it takes longer for them to work. She’s afraid of losing her vision in that eye. We live in Ontario. Do you have any suggestions ? Thank you .
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.
see my next post
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?
I dont think the dose change here is significant. It's just slightly different than what most of the advocates for Ivm are suggesting. It's in the ballpark.
I agree - there are many other things wrong with the study to focus on that.
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💕💕
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.