Peer reviewed study. The Horse Paste works

[Cooke 2,030]

https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching

 

Conclusions

In a citywide ivermectin program with prophylactic, optional ivermectin use for COVID-19, ivermectin was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death rates from COVID-19.

 

Hooray for extremely cheap off the shelf medicine with and effective off label use. 

 

No wonder why big Pharma wanted to bury this so bad. 

 

*incoming big Pharma and government defence force* 

[jehurey 3,238]

can we just bundle all of your dumb anti-vax bullshit into one megapost

 

we can call it "cooke proceeds to lose his shit for 3 straight years" that should pretty much explain everything as concise as possible.

 

Also, in the comments section [btw, cooke posted a "open access medical journal" that has a fucking comments section, LOL]

 

Quote

Sherry Carp Jan 29, 2022 at 11:44 PM

"All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work." What doesn't shock me is that two of the authors, Flavio A. Cadegiani and Pierre Kory are both founding members and MATH+ and I-MASK+ developers, otherwise known as the Ivermectin Protocol, developed by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, FLCCC Alliance. Seems to me, there is no greater conflict of interest, with a clear bias. Both of these men performed the analysis and interpretation of clinical and demographic data generated by the statistical analysis. Flavio A. Cadegiani designed and performed the statistical analysis, while Pierre Kory was also responsible for reviewing the data and the manuscript. So, you have two men who clearly want a particular outcome from this study due to the current organization they now control, FLCCC Alliance. Their main focus is on the use of Ivermectin, calling it the "cornerstone of COVID-19 treatments," as they declare the supposed benefits of Ivermectin in their MATH+ protocol for pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis (according to the 66th version of their guide). These men and their organization, FLCCC Alliance clearly have much to gain with a positive outcome, in their favor, from this study.

You just posted a "study" by people who are clear businessmen and lobbyists for ivermectin use.  They have a business agenda related to Ivermectin.

 

LOL

[Cooke 2,030]

19 minutes ago, jehurey said:

can we just bundle all of your dumb anti-vax bullshit into one megapost

 

we can call it "cooke proceeds to lose his shit for 3 straight years" that should pretty much explain everything as concise as possible.

 

Also, in the comments section [btw, cooke posted a "open access medical journal" that has a fucking comments section, LOL]

 

You just posted a "study" by people who are clear businessmen and lobbyists for ivermectin use.  They have a business agenda related to Ivermectin.

 

LOL

Big ivermectin.. LMAO the packaging costs more than the medicine 😂

[jehurey 3,238]

20 minutes ago, Cooke said:

Big ivermectin.. LMAO the packaging costs more than the medicine 😂

notice how you didn't actually respond to what I said?

 

I noticed.

 

another one of your "smoking gun against covid" threads that have backfired on you.

 

you just posted a "indepedent study" that was authored by two people in the business of selling and promoting ivermectin.

 

are you aware of that?

 

you are now.

[Cooke 2,030]

20 minutes ago, jehurey said:

notice how you didn't actually respond to what I said?

 

I noticed.

 

another one of your "smoking gun against covid" threads that have backfired on you.

 

you just posted a "indepedent study" that was authored by two people in the business of selling and promoting ivermectin.

 

are you aware of that?

 

you are now.

Nothing has backfired sweetie. You didn't dispute this peer reviewed long running study by claiming I'm anto vax.. Which I'm not. I'm fully vaccinated honey booboo. What I'm anti big Pharma and government acting like authoritarian douchebags with our health. All options should be available. Medicine is not a one size fits all thing. Never has, never will be, no matter how much Pharmaceutical companies and their compromised government official friends tell you otherwise. 

 

By the way, did you see who the new FDA pick is? No conflicts there lol. 

[Cooke 2,030]

Is there any logical reason why you wouldn't want a very cheap and widely available therapeutic to not work? 

[jehurey 3,238]

2 hours ago, Cooke said:

Nothing has backfired sweetie. You didn't dispute this peer reviewed long running study by claiming I'm anto vax..

THat's right..............I didn't dismiss it by claiming that you were anti-vax.

 

I dismissed it because you posted an "independent study" from authors who are in the Ivermectin business on a "Journal" that is not a real journal, but a "open-based" Journal.............meaning its a user-submitted website and not a real publication.

 

Me pointing out that the authors specifically have their hands in selling and forming some sort of Ivermectin group.................is LITERALLY what discredits them.

 

That's like Cattle Farmers writing a health study in which they conclude that eating red meat is good for you.

[Cooke 2,030]

3 minutes ago, jehurey said:

THat's right..............I didn't dismiss it by claiming that you were anti-vax.

 

I dismissed it because you posted an "independent study" from authors who are in the Ivermectin business on a "Journal" that is not a real journal, but a "open-based" Journal.............meaning its a user-submitted website and not a real publication.

 

Me pointing out that the authors specifically have their hands in selling and forming some sort of Ivermectin group.................is LITERALLY what discredits them.

 

That's like Cattle Farmers writing a health study in which they conclude that eating red meat is good for you.

You still haven't disputed any of the findings jehurey, you are simply trying to discredit it because you're a douchebag like that. It's interesting how you can do that with this but then just broadly accept whatever Pfizer or Moderna tells you. The shallowness of your critical thinking is astounding 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Cooke

[Cooke 2,030]

Results: Of the 223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered for the study, a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis: 113,845 (71.3%) regular ivermectin users and 45,716 (23.3%) non-users. Of these, 4,311 ivermectin users were infected, among which 4,197 were from the city of Itajaí (3.7% infection rate), and 3,034 non-users (from Itajaí) were infected (6.6% infection rate), with a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.53-0.58; p < 0.0001). Using PSM, two cohorts of 3,034 subjects suffering from COVID-19 infection were compared. The regular use of ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (25 [0.8%] versus 79 [2.6%] among ivermectin non-users; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.49; p < 0.0001). When adjusted for residual variables, reduction in mortality rate was 70% (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.46; p < 0.0001). There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (44 versus 99 hospitalizations among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63; p < 0.0001). After adjustment for residual variables, reduction in hospitalization rate was 67% (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 023-0.66; p < 0.0001).

 

Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

 

 

Are you going to dispute the numbers or just play games? 

[jehurey 3,238]

21 minutes ago, Cooke said:

Results: Of the 223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered for the study, a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis: 113,845 (71.3%) regular ivermectin users and 45,716 (23.3%) non-users. Of these, 4,311 ivermectin users were infected, among which 4,197 were from the city of Itajaí (3.7% infection rate), and 3,034 non-users (from Itajaí) were infected (6.6% infection rate), with a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.53-0.58; p < 0.0001). Using PSM, two cohorts of 3,034 subjects suffering from COVID-19 infection were compared. The regular use of ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (25 [0.8%] versus 79 [2.6%] among ivermectin non-users; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.49; p < 0.0001). When adjusted for residual variables, reduction in mortality rate was 70% (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.46; p < 0.0001). There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (44 versus 99 hospitalizations among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63; p < 0.0001). After adjustment for residual variables, reduction in hospitalization rate was 67% (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 023-0.66; p < 0.0001).

 

Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

 

 

Are you going to dispute the numbers or just play games? 

The authors were discredited within the comments section.

 

They are BIASED, business-driven members of a group that deals with lobbying for Ivermectin use.

 

Do you understand that...............or do you not?

 

That's a simple yes or no question.

[jehurey 3,238]

24 minutes ago, Cooke said:

You still haven't disputed any of the findings jehurey, you are simply trying to discredit it because you're a douchebag like that. It's interesting how you can do that with this but then just broadly accept whatever Pfizer or Moderna tells you. The shallowness of your critical thinking is astounding 

Sorry, that's not working with me.

 

I clearly explained to you HOW its discredited.

 

Do you have a specific response to that? Yes or No?

[Cooke 2,030]

10 minutes ago, jehurey said:

The authors were discredited within the comments section.

 

They are BIASED, business-driven members of a group that deals with lobbying for Ivermectin use.

 

Do you understand that...............or do you not?

 

That's a simple yes or no question.

Show me. 

[jehurey 3,238]

25 minutes ago, Cooke said:

Show me. 

Ok.

 

Let's mosey along to.........................the very first post I made in this thread.

 

do you need me to hold your hand and guide you to the top of this webpage?????????????????

 

[0.2 seconds later]

 

okay.............we've arrived:

 

Sherry Carp Jan 29, 2022 at 11:44 PM

"All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work." What doesn't shock me is that two of the authors, Flavio A. Cadegiani and Pierre Kory are both founding members and MATH+ and I-MASK+ developers, otherwise known as the Ivermectin Protocol, developed by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, FLCCC Alliance. Seems to me, there is no greater conflict of interest, with a clear bias. Both of these men performed the analysis and interpretation of clinical and demographic data generated by the statistical analysis. Flavio A. Cadegiani designed and performed the statistical analysis, while Pierre Kory was also responsible for reviewing the data and the manuscript. So, you have two men who clearly want a particular outcome from this study due to the current organization they now control, FLCCC Alliance. Their main focus is on the use of Ivermectin, calling it the "cornerstone of COVID-19 treatments," as they declare the supposed benefits of Ivermectin in their MATH+ protocol for pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis (according to the 66th version of their guide). These men and their organization, FLCCC Alliance clearly have much to gain with a positive outcome, in their favor, from this study.

[Cooke 2,030]

3 hours ago, jehurey said:

Ok.

 

Let's mosey along to.........................the very first post I made in this thread.

 

do you need me to hold your hand and guide you to the top of this webpage?????????????????

 

[0.2 seconds later]

 

okay.............we've arrived:

 

Sherry Carp Jan 29, 2022 at 11:44 PM

"All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work." What doesn't shock me is that two of the authors, Flavio A. Cadegiani and Pierre Kory are both founding members and MATH+ and I-MASK+ developers, otherwise known as the Ivermectin Protocol, developed by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, FLCCC Alliance. Seems to me, there is no greater conflict of interest, with a clear bias. Both of these men performed the analysis and interpretation of clinical and demographic data generated by the statistical analysis. Flavio A. Cadegiani designed and performed the statistical analysis, while Pierre Kory was also responsible for reviewing the data and the manuscript. So, you have two men who clearly want a particular outcome from this study due to the current organization they now control, FLCCC Alliance. Their main focus is on the use of Ivermectin, calling it the "cornerstone of COVID-19 treatments," as they declare the supposed benefits of Ivermectin in their MATH+ protocol for pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis (according to the 66th version of their guide). These men and their organization, FLCCC Alliance clearly have much to gain with a positive outcome, in their favor, from this study.

So because they are using ivermectin in their protocols very early on in Covid that means they have some sort of financial gain from this? What are you even trying to say here?  A doctor that prescribes Tylenol can't be involved in a study on Tylenol for off label use?  Are you dumb jehurey or just pretending to be?  This is about saving as many lives as possible, if you want to make it a gotcha political moment then you're a fucking idiot.

Edited March 9, 2022 by Cooke

[jehurey 3,238]

7 minutes ago, Cooke said:

So

no no no no sweetie.

 

you're not going to avoid the actual thing that I am telling you about.

 

The AUTHORS of this study specifically have a conflict of interest to PROMOTE ivermectin.

 

Therefore discrediting them.

 

Do you understand this?

 

Yes

 

or

 

No?

[Cooke 2,030]

30 minutes ago, jehurey said:

no no no no sweetie.

 

you're not going to avoid the actual thing that I am telling you about.

 

The AUTHORS of this study specifically have a conflict of interest to PROMOTE ivermectin.

 

Therefore discrediting them.

 

Do you understand this?

 

Yes

 

or

 

No?

Nice work bud. 

[Cooke 2,030]

10 hours ago, jehurey said:

no no no no sweetie.

 

you're not going to avoid the actual thing that I am telling you about.

 

The AUTHORS of this study specifically have a conflict of interest to PROMOTE ivermectin.

 

Therefore discrediting them.

 

Do you understand this?

 

Yes

 

or

 

No?

That is not a fucking conflict of interest. you are the dumbest piece of shit garbage human being I've ever spoken to. 

 

They have an INTEREST in it succeeding yes! but that is not a fucking conflict. They do not gain anything from it, they do not make money from it. They are doctors trying to save fucking lives. Fuck you are awful. 

 

Better not drink water if a doctor tells you to drink more cause they might be in the big tap water industry. 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Cooke

[Goukosan 2,256]

2 hours ago, Cooke said:

That is not a fucking conflict of interest. you are the dumbest piece of shit garbage human being I've ever spoken to. 

 

They have an INTEREST in it succeeding yes! but that is not a fucking conflict. They do not gain anything from it, they do not make money from it. They are doctors trying to save fucking lives. Fuck you are awful. 

 

Better not drink water if a doctor tells you to drink more cause they might be in the big tap water industry. 

 

It is a conflict of interest when, the organization (FLACC) directly profits from the use of the horse drug all while claiming they don't have any "relationships or activities to influence the work"

 

To the point that they're merchandising it.... they're selling Tshirts, mugs and cups touting the drug.

 

 

Not only that, this isn't the first time FLACC did a study on the supposed benefits of the horse paste to treat Covid19.  The first study they did that was also peer reviewed by people with a conflict of interest.... The next step is to open it up for independent review and Once the study was opened up for independent review so that it could be published.. Turns out the much of the raw data didn't exist  and it was shelved. 

 

 

Seems like they licked their wounds and are back to try again.

 

Now for this study, they're currently not sharing who the peer reviewers were and the raw data is not available for independent review.   Most likely they will not try to get published because that would open it up to be verified. 

 

So far from what's available in the report, turns out the base data is filled with inconsistencies as they didn't properly parse out who used the drug, who didn't and didn't factor in prior covid infection into their base data, but they calculated it as if it did. 

 

Let's wait and see if they share who the peer reviewers were and if it the raw data will be reviewed independently and be published. 

 

Spoiler alert.. It won't be because they tried that already and were exposed. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Goukosan

[Cooke 2,030]

6 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

 

It is a conflict of interest when, the organization (FLACC) directly profits from the use of the horse drug.  To the point that they're merchandising it.... they're selling Tshirts, mugs and cups touting the drug.

 

Not only that, this isn't the first time FLACC did a study on the supposed benefits of the horse paste to treat Covid19.  The first study they did that was also peer reviewed by people with a conflict of interest.... The next step is to open it up for independent review and Once the study was opened up for independent review so that it could be published.. Turns out the much of the raw data didn't exist 

 

 

Now for this study, they're currently not sharing who the peer reviewers were and the raw data is not available for independent review.   Most likely they will not try to get published because that would open it up to be verified. 

 

So far from what's available in the report, turns out the base data is filled with inconsistencies as they didn't properly parse out who used the drug, who didn't and didn't factor in prior covid infection into their base data, but they calculated it as if it did. 

 

Let's wait and see if they share who the peer reviewers were and if it the raw data will be reviewed independently and be published. 

 

 

 

 

Explain how they benefit goukosan? The drug is literally cheaper than the packing it comes in. 

 

The conflict of interest comes from big Pharma trying to bury it so they can sell remdesevir and molnupiravir for 300/800 dollars per dose instead of 3 cents a dose.

 

Are you starting to see the bigger picture now sweetie?  

Edited March 9, 2022 by Cooke

[Goukosan 2,256]

28 minutes ago, Cooke said:

Explain how they benefit goukosan? The drug is literally cheaper than the packing it comes in. 

 

The conflict of interest comes from big Pharma trying to bury it so they can sell remdesevir and molnupiravir for 300/800 dollars per dose instead of 3 cents a dose.

 

Are you starting to see the bigger picture now sweetie?  

 

The data has to be verified Cooke.

 

If this study is valid it will be reviewed independently before it is adopted for mass user for covid.     The last time their data was verified it was pure bullshit. 

 

Let's see what happens this time around.