Guest Post by Steve Kirsch
Except that a study published in JAMA shows that it does, as do multiple peer-reviewed meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Who is telling you the truth and how can you tell?
Here is the NY Times article which references this study:
Now, since the press is supposed to get comments from BOTH sides, you’d think there would be equal amounts of commentary from people like Pierre Kory and Paul Marik in the Times article, right?
But nope, Zimmer didn’t contact anyone to give the other side of the story. That’s what GOOD reporters do nowadays: they only report the side of the narrative that supports what the government says.
And the researchers will investigate higher dosages, but they will not give it for more than 3 days. Why is that? Because, after all, everyone knows you should never give ivermectin for more than 3 days! <sarcasm off>
What does the peer-reviewed literature say?
There are ten systematic reviews and meta-analyses for ivermectin but they have different conclusions, some saying it works others saying it doesn’t.
It’s unfair to compare the extremes to prove a point; that’s not how science works. For example, this paper argues we should compare the “properly done” Cochrane review with the Kory review and concludes that “At the time of writing, the evidence from rigorous and ethical research does not support the use of ivermectin in preventing or treating COVID-19.” Yet, I just called Kory and he said that the Cochrane review is seriously flawed.
Each side can present what they believe is compelling data.
For example, here’s a slide from my “Things you need to know” deck which took data from a paper on ivermectin to show that ivermectin (at 72%) was 3X better at preventing death than the vaccine (24%).
So if ivermectin actually doesn’t work to prevent death, it suggests the vaccines don’t work either.
For more data, see the c19early site.
The conclusion to all of this is to be careful about which studies you rely on. The most “credible” studies may not be the best ones. They may be the worst ones.
How to tell who is telling the truth
Who is telling you the truth?
There is one method that is pretty reliable: the people who are calling for transparency, answers, and want a debate with no vested interest are almost always the ones telling the truth. Tess Lawrie vs. Dr. Andrew Hill comes to mind. I can’t think of a counter-example to this method.
Nobody seems to want to challenge Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Paul Marik in a live debate on ivermectin.
It is not hard to figure out who is telling the truth on that one.
Is there a virus?
Also, for those thinking ahead about what I just wrote in the previous paragraph, I just now sent off an email to Christine Massey challenging her, Lanka, Kaufman, Bailey, etc. to a debate on whether COVID is a virus or not. She received the email and is conferring with her colleagues. Let’s see if they accept. That will be fun. I bet I can sell tickets to that one.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
The NY Times is a major source of misinformation, deception and out right lies.
If Steve’s contention is that viruses as advertised are a thing, and should his challenge for a debate be accepted, he will be destroyed. Politely, but unequivocally.
But who will adjudicate, and will betting be allowed?
The NYT needs to return to reality. Who do you suppose helps fund the times? Big Pharma?
Look at the magnificent turn of events concerning Covid in Uttar Pradesh, India once Ivermectin was introduced.
Case closed.
Stock up, because we haven’t seen the last of Covid. The “son of Covid” awaits us all.
Son of Covid will return this fall with the updated jabs
My son and I are living proof the ivermectin works very well (I’m a retired surgeon, BTW). My son (19 y/o) was very sick, so I pressed our MD for a prescription. He relented, and my son was better in 2 days. I was also quite ill (60 y/o), and foolishly waited 10 days, with no improvement, before getting my prescription. Some of the “experts” say it MUST be given before day 5 or 7 (complete BS). By the end of my 5 day course (gasp!), I was almost completely back to normal. Areas of India and Africa with widespread use of ivermectin experienced very low rates of covid. The FDA, state, and local medical regulators are guilty of mass murder for denying people access to this life saving, inexpensive, and safe medication. The very fact of its efficacy (even off label) rendered the EUA of the shit shot illegal under CDC and FDA regulations.
US Congressman’s daughter dies of vax (allegedly):