Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,867
25,489
1
2020evidence.org

Regular Use of Ivermectin as Prophylaxis for COVID-19 Led Up to a 92% Reduction in COVID-19 Mortality Rate in a Dose-Response Manner: Results of a Prospective Observational Study of a Strictly Controlled Population of 88,012 Subjects​



“…

Results​

Among 223,128 subjects from the city of Itajaí, 159,560 were 18 years old or up and were not infected by COVID-19 until July 7, 2020, from which 45,716 (28.7%) did not use and 113,844 (71.3%) used ivermectin. Among ivermectin users, 33,971 (29.8%) used irregularly (up to 60 mg) and 8,325 (7.3%) used regularly (more than 180 mg). The remaining 71,548 participants were not included in the analysis. COVID-19 infection rate was 49% lower for regular users (3.40%) than non-users (6.64%) (risk rate (RR): 0.51; 95% CI: 0.45-0.58; p < 0.0001), and 25% lower than irregular users (4.54%) (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.66-0.85; p < 0.0001). The infection rate was 32% lower for irregular users than non-users (RR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.64-0.73; p < 0.0001). Among COVID-19 participants, regularusers were older and had a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes and hypertension than irregular and non-users. After PSM, the matched analysis contained 283 subjects in each group of non-users and regular users, between regular users and irregular users, and 1,542 subjects between non-users and irregular users. The hospitalization rate was reduced by 100% in regular users compared to both irregular users and non-users (p < 0.0001), and by 29% among irregular users compared to non-users (RR: 0.781; 95% CI: 0.49-1.05; p = 0.099). Mortality rate was 92% lower in regular users than non-users (RR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02-0.35; p = 0.0008) and 84% lower than irregular users (RR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04-0.71; p = 0.016), while irregular users had a 37% lower mortality rate reduction than non-users (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.40-0.99; p = 0.049). Risk of dying from COVID-19 was 86% lower among regular users than non-users (RR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.03-0.57; p = 0.006), and 72% lower than irregular users (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.07-1.18; p = 0.083), while irregular users had a 51% reduction compared to non-users (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.32-0.76; p = 0.001).

Conclusion​

Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin. This dose-response efficacy reinforces the prophylactic effects of ivermectin against COVID-19.
…”
 
  • Like
Reactions: john4psu

WPTLION

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2002
3,307
3,535
1
Have you guys seen this? Quoting a friends FB Post:


"Recently, the legislature of our most populous state, California, passed Assembly Bill 2098, which would provide for disciplinary action to be taken by the Medical Board of California against physicians who spread misinformation regarding Covid-19. No other state has done this sort of thing...not ever. It is expected to be signed into law by the Governor.
This intrusion of the government into the practice of medicine is wrong on so many levels. First of all, I don't think state medical boards have had difficulty in the past disciplining their licensees; after all, they do have absolute control of their licenses. "Unprofessional conduct" is an appropriate reason for discipline, but what this bill does is define the dissemination of "misleading information" regarding the "nature and risks of the virus", and the "development, safety, and effectiveness of the vaccines" as unprofessional conduct.
You see the glaring red flag, don't you? Who defines what "misleading information" is? The CDC? Seriously? As you all know, I have taken a different position regarding exactly the areas of the pandemic mentioned in this bill, namely the risk of SARS-CoV-2 virus in young, healthy Americans; the strength and durability of natural immunity alone in this population; and the demonstrably problematic safety profile and long-term efficacy of the vaccines, especially concerning the delta and, even more obvious, omicron variants.
But, based on what we KNOW now...I mean absolutely KNOW (per the recent guidance from the CDC)...those views have been correct."
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,867
25,489
1
2020evidence.org
Have you guys seen this? Quoting a friends FB Post:


"Recently, the legislature of our most populous state, California, passed Assembly Bill 2098, which would provide for disciplinary action to be taken by the Medical Board of California against physicians who spread misinformation regarding Covid-19. No other state has done this sort of thing...not ever. It is expected to be signed into law by the Governor.
This intrusion of the government into the practice of medicine is wrong on so many levels. First of all, I don't think state medical boards have had difficulty in the past disciplining their licensees; after all, they do have absolute control of their licenses. "Unprofessional conduct" is an appropriate reason for discipline, but what this bill does is define the dissemination of "misleading information" regarding the "nature and risks of the virus", and the "development, safety, and effectiveness of the vaccines" as unprofessional conduct.
You see the glaring red flag, don't you? Who defines what "misleading information" is? The CDC? Seriously? As you all know, I have taken a different position regarding exactly the areas of the pandemic mentioned in this bill, namely the risk of SARS-CoV-2 virus in young, healthy Americans; the strength and durability of natural immunity alone in this population; and the demonstrably problematic safety profile and long-term efficacy of the vaccines, especially concerning the delta and, even more obvious, omicron variants.
But, based on what we KNOW now...I mean absolutely KNOW (per the recent guidance from the CDC)...those views have been correct."
Yeah it's crazy. Just goes to show how captured the CA legislators are by big pharma. They are one of the few states in the country that don't allow religious or personal belief exemptions for childhood vaccines. So unless you want your kid to get a big pharma jab you can't use the publicly funded school systems. What a nice setup for big pharma! Their product sucks so bad and is so fragile that people are mandated by law to get their kids injected if they want the privilege of using the schools their own taxes fund.