I had mentioned that the medical establishment is turning a blind eye to Ivermectin.
I still think that's happening. But I hope the Oxford trial can find out.
It looks as if the trial has been set up to fail by adopting the wrong methodology:
https://covid19up.org/university-of-oxford-study-ivermectin/
They are selecting candidates already at higher risk (over 65 or with pre-existing conditions or with symptoms present up to 14 days) and treating them with half the recommended dose.
Importantly, it is not even necessary to wait for these trials. Ivermectin is safe, cheap and proven in the field - and it has been peer-reviewed. It has walloped covid in India and should be saving lives right now in the UK and around the world. In addition, it is effective against long covid and adverse effects from the jabs (apart from the permanent damage, of course).
I have some ivermectin on order myself (imported), just in case. I recently met someone - a PhD chemist - who has been taking horse ivermectin as a prophylactic since March. This has been in consultation with a GP friend in the USA. It is about 10% of the cost. It is in paste form and has to be measured out accurately, but it is essentially the same as human ivermectin. It is readily available in the UK.
Please disregard the https://covid19up.org , they are nutters.Oxford's a good but subtle methodology designed excellently. ... You can trust Oxford, I think.
Huh?
Long blast of ignorant bluff and bluster and ridiculous naivety removed for brevity.
I don't see any real malicious intent with the Oxford people. Just fairly typical incompetence with is (sic) standard with most studies in this area.
That is why they are peer reviewed by the most highly regarded journals in the world!
Now if you care to break open any textbook on the subject. Say this one..
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-18539-2
..now look at the Study Protocol list on P16/P17
See Section C, items 1), 2) and 3)?...
The Oxford Study fails on all three in several key places.
If you read further on these three items as discussed in great details later on in the text book (I can give you page references if you need help finding the relevant pages) you will learn that everything I wrote is the actual science involved and everything you wrote is complete blather. Or in more technical terms, total bollocks.
The study in question (which is basically a Comparative Effectiveness Trial, sort of) falls at the first hurdle with study subject selection for this very simple reason..
See that last bit in the lead quote?.."valid false positive rates"?. Thats the really important bit. And why the Oxford Study means little or nothing mathematically in establishing relative effective of the treatments.
Its a badly constructed study. According to the standard practice textbooks. And some very basic principals of statistics.
And your peer review comment would give rise to very cynical chuckle to anyone who actually knows about how the "peer review" world actual works. Ah, the innocence of ignorance.
The Oxford Study fails on all three in several key places.
Too late kid, the idea that Oxford University is part of the axis of evil against ivermectin is already in the infinitely deep, ever expanding,elaborate fractal pattern of nested theories and paranoid beliefs, I can't add it twice,
They are selecting candidates already at higher risk (over 65 or with pre-existing conditions or with symptoms present up to 14 days) and treating them with half the recommended dose.
Please explain why 65+ candidates makes the trial fail. It is important that some candidates die to see if ivermewctin reduces risk. If none die, trial useless. If all die, ivermectin is useless.If some die, the difference in the group totals matters so see how effective ivermectin is, pls explain why older candidates makes the trial fail. Try to explain clearly, if you can.
They are selecting candidates already at higher risk (over 65 or with pre-existing conditions or with symptoms present up to 14 days) and treating them with half the recommended dose.
Here is a letter written today (1st July) by FLCCC to the Lead Investigators of The PRINCIPLE Trial:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mnp580p8pckc96f/PRINCIPLE TRIAL LETTER.pdf
It does not mince words. The last paragraph states:
In conclusion, it is our strong belief that The PRINCIPLE Trial is a non-essential, poorly designed study that will lead to a harvest of unreliable data concerning the utility of Ivermectin in COVID-19. Any further delays in getting safe, effective, early treatments to patients will result in additional needless illness and death.
