Reddit's mods are absolute SCUM.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (23)
sorted by:
If it's the study I saw recently, it was on vaccinated patients only, so the results aren't particularly relevant to our demographic... The study goals are usually manipulated to minimize success of unprofitable products but I suppose it's always possible this was performed honestly.
I don't know any un-vaccinated who are getting sick any more. The vaccinated prefer to go to the emergency room and take expensive prescriptions anyway so I just let them.
I still have my prophylaxis box but I'm taking less of everything and focusing more on eating better. I dose up if I feel any discomfort that might be cold related, or if I'm in proximity to a huge group, but otherwise it's been life as normal for a very long time.
Like Paxlovid, IVM works best if you take it within 4 days of symptoms. The study for Paxlovid treated people within 2 days of symptoms (on average, I think). Most IVM studies average at about 14 days past the onset of symptoms, which I consider to be scientific misconduct given that antivirals need to be given when there is viral replication occurring. IVM taken past 4 days is no longer an antiviral treatment. It may be treating inflammation at that point, but it is not the best treatment for inflammation.
The study I'm referring to had pretty high IVM loads administered at symptom offset.
Basically on the surface it looked better run than average. The thing that really stood out to me is that the user group was 100% vaccinated... (EDIT: actually 84%...)
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827
I hadn't dug into it in much detail but the other thing I just noticed is I'm a bit unclear if fluvoxamine was considered the placebo??? Often the language describing the study methodology is quite tortured.
From the paper:
Infection is when symptoms start, not the time of exposure.
Within 10 days of symptoms/infection is way too long of a window. It needs to be 4 days to be a proper antiviral study. Again, the people who studied Paxlovid understood this. If they can, so should these authors. If they are waiting on a PCR test result, I imagine that moves the fastest time to treat in the wrong direction.
In my opinion, if you get so much as a slight headache, start taking IVM right away, and take a test and add fluvoxamine and/or nitazoxanide (per FLCCC protocols) if the test comes back positive. Personally, I skip the tests because I only get headaches when sick and little else was floating around in 2020-2022. In 2023, I would still skip the test and assume covid if someone else tested positive that I might have been exposed to, or were exposed at the same time as me.
It looks like they were A/B testing with fluvoxamine, with some "non active agent" as a placebo. Which, again, both of these drugs are useless as an antiviral unless they prove that these were taken within 4 days of infection.
The tests are completely worthless for determining if you have covid if covid actually exists and is not just rebranded cold. Remember there are many different coronaviruses out there and the pcr test using 40+ cycles can take the smallest snippet of coronavirus gene that are floating around everywhere during cold/flu season and magnify it to unrealistic levels. They have admitted the pcr tests cant tell the difference between cold/flu/covid.
The tests are total bunk and were designed to be a weapon of fear. Including the tests puts your entire thesis into questionable territory.