Study shows Ivermectin much better than Remdesivir

[jmdrake]

Edit: Rumble version because YouTube sucks and censors.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Those who continue to doubt ivermectin clearly side with the media.

 

[jkr]

Aaaannnnnnddd its gone

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

I have had air nailers in the past that were great and would still be working today. The only problem was I couldn't get the nails anymore.

 

[donnay]

Ivermectin has plenty of studies that show it is safe and effective, and remdesivir is a Fauci protocol. Knowing what we know about Fauci, I would definitely use Ivermectin over Remdesivir.

 

[jmdrake]

Aaaannnnnnddd its gone

That was quick! I put in the Rumble version now.

 

[dannno]

70% reduction = hundreds of thousands of people needlessly murdered, just in the United States.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The largest study of its kind to date has shown that invermectin has no clinical benefit against COVID. https://www.beckershospitalreview.c...ospitalizations-in-largest-study-to-date.html

 

[pcosmar]

The largest study of its kind to date has shown that invermectin has no clinical benefit against COVID. https://www.beckershospitalreview.c...ospitalizations-in-largest-study-to-date.html

LOL,,less than 1500 people in Brazil.
Funded by Gates.

Please try to be credible. or entertaining

 

[jmdrake]

The largest study of its kind to date has shown that invermectin has no clinical benefit against COVID. https://www.beckershospitalreview.c...ospitalizations-in-largest-study-to-date.html

And how much did you get funded for your part in that study and/or the propagation of that study to the exclusion of all other studies? Just curious.

 

[dannno]

The largest study of its kind to date has shown that invermectin has no clinical benefit against COVID. https://www.beckershospitalreview.c...ospitalizations-in-largest-study-to-date.html

The second study in the video was over 230,000 people in Brazil, over 113,000 took Ivermectin. How is this study the "largest study of its kind to date"? Both studies in the video showed about a 70% reduction in mortality.

 

[jkr]

The largest study of its kind to date has shown that invermectin has no clinical benefit against COVID. https://www.beckershospitalreview.c...ospitalizations-in-largest-study-to-date.html

liar

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The second study in the video was over 230,000 people in Brazil, over 113,000 took Ivermectin. How is this study the "largest study of its kind to date"? Both studies in the video showed about a 70% reduction in mortality.

Because the study I linked to involved subjects who had already contracted COVID, unlike the second study in the video. The former study investigated whether Invermectin was helpful in treating the disease; the latter was dealing with whether it helped in preventing infection.

 

[dannno]

Because the study I linked to involved subjects who had already contracted COVID, unlike the second study in the video. The former study investigated whether Invermectin was helpful in treating the disease; the latter was dealing with whether it helped in preventing infection.

The latter also looked at the outcome if they got the disease, and it showed that those who took ivermectin had about a 70% reduced mortality rate.

70% reduction is a number that has been bandied about for well over a year. It keeps showing up, again and again..

Why is it that all these studies show the same magic number, a 70% reduction, while other studies funded by big pharma show no reduction? Could it be that the packaging for Ivermectin costs more than the drug itself, and they are trying to push treatments that don't work, barely work, or in some cases end up killing more people and often cost over $1,000 for a full treatment?

 

[Matt4Liberty]

The latter also looked at the outcome if they got the disease, and it showed that those who took ivermectin had about a 70% reduced mortality rate.

70% reduction is a number that has been bandied about for well over a year. It keeps showing up, again and again..

Why is it that all these studies show the same magic number, a 70% reduction, while other studies funded by big pharma show no reduction? Could it be that the packaging for Ivermectin costs more than the drug itself, and they are trying to push treatments that don't work, barely work, or in some cases end up killing more people and often cost over $1,000 for a full treatment?

It's not even profits. These are people that have pretty much direct access to the FED's printing press. They also could have just changed the ivermectin formulation just enough for the new medication to get a separate patent and charge $100 per pill. It could have saved more lives and made them way more money.

That begs the question, if profits aren't the motivation, what is? Power and population reduction?

 

[dannno]

It's not even profits. These are people that have pretty much direct access to the FED's printing press. They also could have just changed the ivermectin formulation just enough for the new medication to get a separate patent and charge $100 per pill. It could have saved more lives and made them way more money.

That begs the question, if profits aren't the motivation, what is? Power and population reduction?

That's Level 3 thinking.

First Sonny needs to get from Level 1 to Level 2.

 

[jkr]

The latter also looked at the outcome if they got the disease, and it showed that those who took ivermectin had about a 70% reduced mortality rate.

70% reduction is a number that has been bandied about for well over a year. It keeps showing up, again and again..

Why is it that all these studies show the same magic number, a 70% reduction, while other studies funded by big pharma show no reduction? Could it be that the packaging for Ivermectin costs more than the drug itself, and they are trying to push treatments that don't work, barely work, or in some cases end up killing more people and often cost over $1,000 for a full treatment?

you gotta KILL people 2 make money...wait, thats not right...

 

[BortSimpson]

The largest study of its kind to date has shown that invermectin has no clinical benefit against COVID. https://www.beckershospitalreview.c...ospitalizations-in-largest-study-to-date.html

Even if I accept what you're saying (and I don't), do the Covid vaccines from Pfizer/Moderna/J&J have a clinical benefit against COVID? Or do they only purport to reduce the worst of the adverse events?

 

[dannno]

Even if I accept what you're saying (and I don't), do the Covid vaccines from Pfizer/Moderna/J&J have a clinical benefit against COVID? Or do they only purport to reduce the worst of the adverse events?

If you believe the covid statistics from the media that purported to show 90% of hospitalizations were unvaccinated, then that would be a good indicator. The problem is, the UK was pushing the same statistic then came out with their raw data that initially showed only 30% of hospitilizations were unvaccinated, when 70% of the population had received their vaccine.

We also have whistleblowers that have come out in the US contending that the actual raw data here showed essentially the same thing.

 

[BortSimpson]

If you believe the covid statistics from the media that purported to show 90% of hospitalizations were unvaccinated, then that would be a good indicator. The problem is, the UK was pushing the same statistic then came out with their raw data that initially showed only 30% of hospitilizations were unvaccinated, when 70% of the population had received their vaccine.

We also have whistleblowers that have come out in the US contending that the actual raw data here showed essentially the same thing.

And once part of the narrative starts to unravel, the whole thing has to come into question. I think many (or most) on here questioned it from the beginning but I mean this more toward people who did trust it.