YouTube repeatedly deletes this powerful Congressional testimony by Dr. Pierre Kory on Ivermectin.

a reply to: Bunch

Yeah, I'd love to see their sources since the Rolling Stone article that fed this idea waa fake news. Not even the 1st time in recent memory Rolling Stone has published a completely fake story. Yet, your handlers have no problem continuing to push whatever garbage they publish.

a reply to: bluesman462002

Yeah, I'm immediately suspicious of anyone who tries to quantify something as "many, some, most, part, etc." It happens all the time. You can tell who the slow learners are, because they simply repeat it, filling in those blanks for themselves.

a reply to: gladtobehere

I think its wrong to delete this video. The man is a serious scientist. But it must also be differentiated and looked at exactly. So here is a review of a German university on this drug:

The Cochrane Review now published found no evidence that ivermectin improves the condition of sufferers or reduces the number of deaths - compared with standard treatment or a placebo. Nor does the drug prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to currently available evidence. However, the evidence base is currently very poor and does not allow any definitive statements to be made.

In fact, several small studies had shown apparently large effects of ivermectin on the mortality of patients. However, these results did not stand up to scientific scrutiny. "We included 14 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1678 participants in our review," explains biologist Dr. Stephanie Weibel, who, together with physician Maria Popp, is the lead author of the review. Both work in the research group "Evidence Based Medicine and Systematic Reviews" of the Department of Anesthesiology at UKW.

In 13 of these 14 studies, mildly to moderately ill Covid 19 patients received either standard treatment, placebo, or ivermectin. One study examined the extent to which ivermectin can prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection - without comparing it to any other form of prevention. Weibel, Popp, and others involved in the Cochrane Review used these studies to determine whether ivermectin can reduce deaths among covid-19 patients, whether the therapy improves or worsens the condition of those infected, and what side effects the therapy causes.

Stephanie Weibel and Maria Popp say the results are clear: "The current evidence does not justify the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of covid-19," they say. And at the same time, they qualify that this only applies to use outside of high-quality randomized trials. They believe further research is needed for one main reason: "The studies conducted to date on ivermectin have had comparatively few participants. Moreover, they were of limited quality in terms of study design, conduct and reporting," says Stephanie Weibel. Accordingly, they lack "high-quality evidence" to make statements about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin.

www.uni-wuerzburg.de...

a reply to: gladtobehere

I see no reason that they would delete this video. All the guy is asking is to review the data.

a reply to: Bunch

First of

Dude says if you take the horse dewormer the following will happen:

It is not a horse de-wormer if you are allowed the human meds.

I guarantee anyone who watches this with the history of the medication will find it compelling as I did!

THE STORY OF IVERMECTIN AND COVID-19
www.bitchute.com...

Anyone starting their argument against ivermectin using the words “horse dewormer” already have an agenda and a opinion that will not change.

Should you go to the local feed store and by livestock grade meds? No. We all k ow that so quit basing your argument on that. It is very disengenuous.

originally posted by: Bunch
Had to stop watching at minute 4.

Dude says if you take the horse dewormer

Gaslighting again?

Doctor Kory doesn't use 'horse dewormer' he uses prescription Ivermectin, that has been used and prescribed for many decades for humans, and has been on the WHOs list of critical medicins for - decades.

It's safety and efficacy - yes, with proven anti-inflammatory and anti-viral properties - have been proven time and time again.

The problem is, it is cheap (off-patent) = about $1 per pill, compared to Remdesivir, which costs $3,000 per treatment.

the following will happen:
1. You won’t get COVID
2. You WONT get sick.
3. You WONT spread the disease.

He has proven it, in practicve, over the last year and a half plus.

It is the truth. Deal with it.

Also, anecdotally I have a couple of friends that have taken the horse dewormer and have gotten COVID… which was even more of a pain since they where dealing with the hyper diarrhea effects of the horse dewormer and the COVID symptoms themselves.

Probably because they were using the veterinarian version, and using the wrong dose (it is easy to get it wrong when it isn't the prescription version).

So, all that means is your friends were just dumbasses.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: Bunch

There seems to be a deliberate coordinated effort to refer to Ivermectin as a "horse dewormer".

In a relatively small paragraph, you just happen to repeat it 3 times...

Despite the fact that it's been approved for use in humans since at least 1996:

USA Clears Ivermectin For Human Use.


Not to mention its recognition by the international scientific community:

The 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

originally posted by: Bunch

Also, anecdotally I have a couple of friends that have taken the horse dewormer...

You're funny.

🙂

Dewormer is the same as anti parasitic. I believe the key that will unlock the mystery...

a reply to: Bunch

Horse dewormer.

Just... LOL

I have the horse version of invermectin, It smell pleasantly like sour apples candy, but taste like bitter Vaseline and have the consistency of Vaseline Oitment.

a reply to: tanstaafl

He has proven it, in practicve, over the last year and a half plus.

How can he do that if he rejects controlled studies? How does he know ivermectin works better than a shot of whiskey?

Silly comparison, but a valid question. Don't you think?

a reply to: wdkirk

Should you go to the local feed store and by livestock grade meds?

Nope.

Since it is a prescription medication for humans, it should only be issued as such.

a reply to: gladtobehere




Free Speech is Not FREE Unless to Speak It LOUD and CLEAR .

www.bitchute.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: tanstaafl
"He has proven it, in practice, over the last year and a half plus."

How can he do that if he rejects controlled studies?

Who said he 'rejects controlled studies'? Of course, if the controlled study in question is flawed - which a very large number are extremely flawed - then anyone would be right to reject it - right?

How does he know ivermectin works better than a shot of whiskey?

Because he's been using it along with his cohorts, in practice, saving people's lives.

Silly comparison,

Yes, it is...

but a valid question. Don't you think?

Not even remotely.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: gladtobehere

I just read an anti Ivermectin article yesterday that was the most ridiculous thing ever.
There was this whole scary lead up on all the Horrible Horrible side effects.

You know the side effects they listed?????? Possible Diarrhea and Dizziness.

Those are the GOOD side effects from the vaccines...the ones the vaxxed pray they get instead of blood clots, heart attack, and neurological disorders.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Of course, if the controlled study in question is flawed - which a very large number are extremely flawed - then anyone would be right to reject it - right?

Not without explaining exactly what is wrong with the study. Is it better to cherry pick questionable studies as he does here:

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Any chance of cherry picking with those particular 18 trials? I notice that this retracted study is prominent in this meta-analysis, so 17 trials maybe? Maybe reason to be concerned about other trials cited as well?
www.nature.com...


That paper of his was rejected earlier this year by another journal, btw:

Upon further scrutiny by our Research Integrity team about the objectivity of this paper during the provisional acceptance phase, it was revealed that the article made a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance, and at times, without the use of control groups. Further, the authors promoted their own specific ivermectin-based treatment which is inappropriate for a review article and against our editorial policies.

We note that last week the authors offered a revised version of their paper for consideration, based on the concerns discussed with the Handling Editor.

Apparently the authors didn't follow through.

source

Because he's been using it along with his cohorts, in practice, saving people's lives.

Again, how does he know it is ivermectin which is saving those lives? No other care is being provided? Is he withholding ivermectin from some? You know, are there any controls?

Republicans want you to die, so all you Democrats, keep getting the shot if you haven’t already

Let the right die off, as many as possible anyway. Quit making pleas for them to get a shot. Stop talking about it altogether

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: tanstaafl

He has proven it, in practicve, over the last year and a half plus.

How can he do that if he rejects controlled studies? How does he know ivermectin works better than a shot of whiskey?

Silly comparison, but a valid question. Don't you think?

Where did you get the idea that Dr. Pierre Kory "rejects controlled studies"?

Here's a link to an article wherein Dr. Kory and his group of highly credentialed medical specialists & scientists 'applaud' "the Latest Research" (including controlled studies)...
www.einpresswire.com... es-in-covid-19

Using the highest quality methods for scientific review, the group of guideline experts examined 24 randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants

In conducting their extensive review of the evidence on ivermectin, the researchers applied the Cochrane Library standard for a systematic review.

Researchers included Drs. Andrew Bryant, Tess Lawrie, Edmund Fordham, Therese Dowswell, Scott Mitchell, Sarah Hill and Tony Tham.

This new research will make history as it provides more than sufficient evidence for the power of ivermectin to prevent hospitalization and death from COVID-19.”— Dr. Pierre Kory, President, FLCCC Alliance

The article contains links to the actual research, as well as to the "American Journal of Therapeutics" where the meta-analysis study was published.

journals.lww.com...

a reply to: lostgirl

The article contains links to the actual research, as well as to the "American Journal of Therapeutics" where the meta-analysis study was published.

Yeah. See my post above.

a reply to: lostgirl

How effective is the vaccine at 1 month, 2 months....6 months....8...10? And how effective is it against Delta, Gamma, Mu? When does it become less effective than a shot of whiskey?

We get to find out in real-time. But Ivermectin still needs more study AND clinical observation doesn't count anymore. We can't use it one a minute before we know everything.

Dr. Kory responds to the crap debate