Ivermectin use in treating SARS-CoV2. Peer-reviewed journal article.

CONCLUSION: "...The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."
Ivermectin may actually help in treating SARS-CoV2. Huh!
Whodathunkit?
From all the press about overdoses one would think that ivermectin is the new fentanyl (truly false reports, see: / 4192195714168045 .

[@charlescfap]

This video was taken down by YT's algorithm within 3 hours of being posted and I was notified that I had recevied a 'strike' against my account. I appealed and the vide got put back up by YT and the strike removed. Interesting. : - )

[@chertfoot1500]

Excellent! Thanks for sharing that history with youtube

[@michaelk487]

Yes

[@westonprice3994]

Thanks for all the data, Charles. Much appreciated. Cheers.

[@helenhenthorn4948]

There is many more peer reviewed, journal published, randomized placebo controlled, double blinded RCTs, OCTs, Meta-analysis/systematic reviews showing significant positive effects of ivermectin you could have fun with. Then just for a hoot you could look at cohort, population, prospective and retrospective studies, testimonies from seasoned critical care doctors, and many other types of data. It's called saving lives vs big pharma profits.

[@charlescfap]

Yes'm! I read it all. I'm currently reading "Medicines and Organized Crime" by Peter Gotzsche who was summarily dismissed from The Cochrane Collaboration (of which hewas one of the founders). It's a book that will make you question WAY too much! [tee hee!]

[@cleetx3546]

@@charlescfap Medicines and Organized Crime is a great one!

[@helenhenthorn4948]

Cochrane is funded primarily by international governments or government-funded universities & Bill Gates. Why did Cochrane exclude so many RCTs in their meta-analysis and did not include OCTs, plus rating CIs is really open to bias. Cochrane also did a review of 2 studies comparing RCT findings to equivalent design OCTs which found largely insignificant differences. Cochrane took the position that (and I might be paraphrasing): “OCTs should be considered during development of clinical therapeutic guidelines.”). Several of the IVM meta-analyses included OCTs and prophylaxis studies; also critical for supporting it's use.

[@charlescfap]

Cochrane has become corrupted (Gates?), which is why they summarily dismissed Gotzsche over their Gardasil vaccine stance. The full transcipt of the 'kangaroo court' board meeting is available online now (as a of a couple of weks ago). He was given 5 minutes to make his entire defense and was cut of after 3 minutes and told to leave. They are no longer the Gold Standard of meta-reviews. Sad, but the Borg of Pharma ever grows and infiltrates.

[@chertfoot1500]

idk if there's corruption. But people are mis-using the Cochrane review, for sure. (Popp et al). The results are consistent with a 99% reduction in outpatient mortality, yet, people say it proves it doesn't work.
Obviously most haven't read it. These papers are actually not so hard to read, even though the biochem can be very complicated the results are summarized in simple form.