Completely unPRINCIPLEd: mainstream medicine caught hiding ivermectin's benefits against covid
A major trial was apparently rigged against ivermectin, but gave the game away with an annex that showed it actually works. That annex has now been deleted by the journal.
Ivermectin is the red pill
These days if you put it to a normie that lockdowns, masks and jabs did far more harm than good they may even agree. But you can be sure they’ll justify the child cruelty, deliberately-induced mob hysteria and unquestioned withdrawal of our most basic human rights with some argument that we had to do something to address the terrible scourge of covid.
It was such a crazy time, heh!
But tell them a treatment for covid was available from day 1 that was well studied, widely available, extremely safe and cheap but the authorities went to extraordinary lengths to stop it being used and they will have to change the subject urgently. Or wake up.
There is no way for even the most ardent apologist for tyranny to justify the deliberate suppression of a treatment that could have ended “the pandemic”. No conclusion is possible except that the authorities are indeed malign, and were willing to sacrifice millions of lives - along with our claimed principles and freedoms - for some purpose that served their interests, but left patients with ventilation and midazolam as their only options.
The story of ivermectin is properly told by others better qualified. But my summary is:
As much as you can say that any drug works, ivermectin works against covid. The only qualification I can see is to what extent the benefits extend to mortality, as RCTs seem underpowered to tell this. But as its pretty clear it has some effect on the disease, you’d have to say an effect on mortality is expected. And nobody can dispute, with integrity, that it seems extremely safe.
It is absolutely indisputable that the authorities have lied and cheated to prevent ivermectin being used. This includes the simple expedient of writing negative conclusions over positive results (eg the rewriting of the WHO guidelines, for which Tess Lawrie famously called out Andrew Hill) and conducting trials, effectively sponsored by pharma, apparently rigged to show no benefit - see below. One of my favorites is the simple lie that ivermectin overdoses were backing up ERs - since shown to be pure fabrication. The title of the article has changed but this disinformation is still out there:
The mainstream medicine / pharma / media complex carried out its usual crushing of careers of anyone who dared speak the truth about it. You can add to this the nauseating spectacle of pharmacists who happily doled out fentanyl refusing to fill valid ivermectin prescriptions on “ethical” grounds.
For the detailed story, I recommend The War on Ivermectin by Pierre Kory.
But why, your normie may ask, would our authorities do this??
There’s (at least) one nice simple answer: the covid jabs were able to circumvent most of the requirements for proper research and trials - already fairly badly undermined, its true - and get all sorts of other advantages, by qualifying for an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).
And you can only get an EUA if there is no existing recommended treatment for the condition in question.
So they had to trash anything that could get a recommendation, or the whole mRNA vaccination project would have been jeopardised.
They had to trash it whether it worked or not.
The PRINCIPLE trial was already a smoking gun
Pharma companies have two key competencies: bribing payers (doctors and governments); and rigging clinical trials. Of course they used both these superpowers to the max throughout covid, and against ivermectin, but we’re going to focus here on the trials.
There are innumerable ways, if you are in control of a clinical trial, that you can tweak things in the direction of the outcome you want. Choose the right outcome to measure, the right people to recruit, the right times to test, the right dosing regimen. A lot of this is legit - even before you get into choosing which data to publish, and outright cheating like unblinding and so forth.
These tactics are usually used to make a poor drug candidate look like it works. But they can also be used - a lot more easily, actually - to make something that works look like it doesn’t.
This dichotomy is neatly shown in two trials of covid antivirals: one for the pharma-sponsored molnupiravir, a patented drug costing $700 for a 5 day course, and the other for ivermectin costing next to nothing.
It so happened that the same investigator ran both these trials. As shown in the table below, despite being expected to work in basically the same way, the two trials made very different choices about trial population, the time at which treatment was given, and other key parameters.
You may not be surprised to learn that the design choices for ivermectin tend to make it a lot harder to show a benefit - while those made for the pharma-patented product seem keenly tailored to maximise any positive effect.
For example, patients were recruited to the ivermectin trial up to 14 days after symptoms - far too late to expect a benefit - while the latest time for molnupiravir was 5 days. Subjects were specifically told to take ivermectin on an empty stomach - although this is known to reduce efficacy.
Pierre Kory has, as you would expect, an excellent write up of this trial and its chicanery, including the startling fact that, despite their apparent efforts to load the dice against ivermectin, many of the results are actually positive. For example, see this slew of findings showing ivermectin alleviating the symptoms of covid:
Seems inconvenient in a study that concludes:
Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted.
However the ‘researchers’ managed to alleviate any awkwardness with the simple expedient of sticking this data - along with tiresome details of how they designed the trial and so forth - in an a supplementary annex, linked on the web page. Huh.
You don’t need to be certain ivermectin works to be certain the establishment is lying about it
To summarise my view of ivermectin: as someone with a career in this field I am, in principle, sceptical of claims for efficacy (or safety) of any drug. It’s just so incredibly difficult to attribute causality, even if the trials are honest. The evidence I’ve seen seems pretty much as reliable as one could hope for, and if I felt threatened by covid I’d definitely take ivermectin. But my principled uncertainty applies to ivermectin, as it does to any drug.
But what I am absolutely certain about is that the authorities have deliberately lied to make it seem ivermectin doesn’t work, and to prevent its use - even though there is significant evidence to suggest it works, it is clearly safe, and patients had no viable alternative. The medical establishment has broken all rules of scientific integrity, and they have been caught going to extreme lengths to suppress a drug that could have prevented “the pandemic”.
The PRINCIPLE trial is one of the best pieces of evidence for this - possibly the clearest smoking gun of the whole covid saga, and its right there in black and white.
Or it was..
Now they have deleted the annex that gave the game away
When the story of PRINCIPLE broke, along with all the apparently positive results that had been buried in the annex, I went to the journal site to check it was true. Sure enough, all the apparently positive results I’d seen were there in a large pdf of supplementary material.
Being of suspicious and cautious nature I habitually take personal copies of material I feel may be useful for, I don’t know, some kind of second Nuremburg or something.. ..so I downloaded a copy of the pdf - amounting to ~400 pages and 18MB.
Which is a good job because Today I Learned (from this zerohedge article) the annex is nowhere to be seen on the journal page. Where once there were two linked pdfs, if I recall correctly, now there is only one - but it has been duplicated. Presumably to make it appear as if there are two pdfs.
Now why would they do that?
Anyone who wants a copy do let me know and we can sort something out..
Huh, ... will an 18mb file go through email? I can't remember the limit, but isn't it around 20mb?
I like once available, newly deleted PDF's. Likely for the same reason you like downloading them ahead of time. Nose rubbing. I know a "horsie paste" hater that needs a good what-for. lol