Earlier in the week, I posted an article in which I postulated that the widespread use of Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin in Africa to treat other diseases was inhibiting the spread of COVID-19 in that continent.
Thanks to a comment by reader Nahanni on another post yesterday, I was led to an article at NOQReport titled "Shocking Conclusions from Africa Study Expose Why Big Pharma’s Puppets are Suppressing Ivermectin Data". It predates my article, but I hadn't been aware of the study until Nahanni drew it to my attention. In so many words, the long article confirms my hypothesis. Here are a few excerpts. Bold, underlined text is my emphasis.
A graph made its rounds on social media yesterday that raised some eyebrows. It showed the clear difference between countries in Africa that use Ivermectin regularly versus those that do not. The differences were startling as the Ivermectin-nations showed unambiguous advantages against Covid-19. The mortality rates were very low compared to countries that do not use Ivermectin on a wide scale ... Universal Ivermectin use seems to be the only factor preventing these nations from a full-blown Covid-19 catastrophe.
. . .
The final and arguably most important “hidden” takeaway from the study is that recovery and fatality rates for Covid-19 cases were not statistically significantly different between Ivermectin countries and non-Ivermectin countries. That means that once a person was tested and officially declared a Covid-19 case, they recovered or died at essentially the same rates across the board.
This tells us that other factors such as medical proficiency, environmental differences, or access to vaccines do not contribute to whether someone lives or dies once they have become sick with the disease. Since overall mortality rates per capita are significantly lower in Ivermectin nations but case fatality rates are the same, Ivermectin is clearly effective as an early treatment and perhaps even as a preventative measure.
Remember, the people in the Ivermectin nations are already taking the drug. They aren’t waiting for a positive Covid test and likely aren’t even very concerned about the disease at all. Many if not most who do end up becoming Covid-19 cases in Ivermectin nations were likely among those who were not taking Ivermectin as an antiparasitic.
There's more at the link, including statistics, charts, etc.
I'm very glad to have independent confirmation of what was basically just a theory of mine, based on experience in Africa, but not supported by medical evidence. The latter is now available, and seems to support my theory. It's a warm fuzzy feeling to find that I was pretty much on the money.
I'd like to find out whether anyone's done a similar study on Hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 suppressant in Africa. So many millions of people take it there as an anti-malarial prophylactic medication that I'm certain it must be having that effect; but as yet I haven't found any investigations looking into whether that's affecting COVID-19 infection rates. I'm willing to bet that it is, as discussed in my earlier article.
Peter
7 comments:
The mandate goes into effect on January 4th. I work for one of the largest employers in one of the biggest cities in my area. I'm not sure what I'm going to do.
Ann Barnhardt (https://www.barnhardt.biz) was way ahead of the curve on this one.
Something that's rarely mentioned is that a likely explanation for the attacks on Ivermectin is that these vaccines are still under EUA - Emergency Use Authorization. That law stipulates that if a currently approved and available drug is effective, an EUA can not be issued.
So if they admitted Ivermectin was effective they would have to take the jabs off the market (or never could have issued them). Have you seen how many billions the pharma companies have made off this? One has to wonder how much was passed along to politicians and bureaucrats.
Peter, forgive me if you've covered this earlier and I've missed it. Have you followed the blow-up between Joe Rogen (the podcaster) and CNN? Rogen came down with Covid and, among other things, said he was taking Ivermectin. CNN went ballistic, claiming that Rogen was taking horse dewormer. Then Dr. Gupta, of CNN, went on Rogen's podcast. Joe (verbally) pinned him to the wall, saying 'You know that a doctor prescribed the Ivermectin for me. Why did you lie?"
Dr. Gupta had no response. Then CNN doubled down, saying "Well, Ivermectin is used as a horse dewormer so we didn't 'technically' lie." Disgusting.
Africa also doesn't have a Vit D deficiency problem.
Case rates and CFR in certain African nations have skyrocketed, now that the west has given them the vaccines. Same thing in Singapore, Vietnam, Philippines. Hardly any cases or deaths before vax, and now BOOM!
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/ is one place you can read about this; there are plenty of others.
Well, well, well.
So Ivermectin was used to treat members and staff of Congress, but it's bad for the little people.
Ivermectin was used to treat all of society in India, and an outbreak was stopped dead.
And any other place where Ivermectin can freely be purchased, rates dropped to nothing.
Gee, I'm so glad that OrangeManBad MeanTweets was wrong about Ivermectin. Oh, that's right. He wasn't. Nor about Hydrocloroquine. Nor about using light therapy on blood. Nor about, well, a hellava lot of things...
Funny. You know a society is screwed when sumptuary laws keep the proles from having what the elites have. And now cheap and effective drugs are considered modern 'sumptuary items' just like some foods and house fixtures (like windows, seriously, windows... and chimneys) were considered good for the elite but bad for the little people.
Post a Comment