COMMENTS FROM DONNA GARNER: Here are the results of (1) an authentic medical study, (2) completed very recently, (3) from a strictly controlled, citywide program in the southern city of Itajai, Brazil, (4) using data from 88,012 subjects, (5) published in a well-respected medical journal, (6) where the subjects either took Ivermectin regularly (as a prophylactic to prevent COVID) or (7) took Ivermectin when they contracted COVID.
So what were the results: (1) a 92% reduction in the COVID mortality rate, (2) the non-users of Ivermectin had a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate, (3) a 7-fold increased risk of dying from COVID compared to those who took it regularly, and (4) the hospitalization rate was reduced by 100% in regular users compared to both irregular users and non-users.
“Mortality rate was 92% lower in regular users than non-users…84% lower than irregular users…while irregular users had a 37% lower mortality rate reduction than non-users. Risk of dying from COVID-19 was 86% lower among regular users than non-users…and 72% lower than irregular users…while irregular users had a 51% reduction compared to non-users.”
We also need to remember what Dr. Fauci and this Biden administration did to stop Americans from using Ivermectin so as to promote the billion-dollar pharma industry’s failed COVID vaccines. Thousands and thousands of lives could have been saved. Untold cases of long-haul COVID could have been prevented. The Remdesivir/ventilator deaths could have been prevented. Human suffering across our nation could have been tremendously reduced.
Indeed what was perpetrated on Americans by our national healthcare hierarchy are “crimes against humanity.” Instead of stopping the use of Ivermectin, our U. S. healthcare leaders should have done what was done in Itajai, Brazil, that reduced deaths by 92%.
Instead, our national healthcare hierarchy vilified FDA-approved medicines (e.g., Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, etc.) and used the pandemic as a way to control all of us, doing irreparable harm to this and future generations.
=======================
https://www.cureus.com/articles/111851-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-88012-subjects#:~:text=Conclusion,of%20ivermectin%20against%20COVID%2D19
“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”
Lucy Kerr, Fernando Baldi, Raysildo Lobo, Washington Luiz Assagra, Fernando Carlos Proença, Juan J. Chamie, Jennifer A. Hibberd, Pierre Kory, Flavio A. Cadegiani
Published: August 31, 2022
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28624
Abstract
Background
We have previously demonstrated that ivermectin used as prophylaxis for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), irrespective of the regularity, in a strictly controlled citywide program in Southern Brazil (Itajaí, Brazil), was associated with reductions in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.
In this study, our objective was to determine if the regular use of ivermectin impacted the level of protection from COVID-19 and related outcomes, reinforcing the efficacy of ivermectin through the demonstration of a dose-response effect.
Methods
This exploratory analysis of a prospective observational study involved a program that used ivermectin at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day for two consecutive days, every 15 days, for 150 days. Regularity definitions were as follows: regular users had 180 mg or more of ivermectin and irregular users had up to 60 mg, in total, throughout the program.
Comparisons were made between non-users (subjects who did not use ivermectin), and regular and irregular users after multivariate adjustments.
The full city database was used to calculate and compare COVID-19 infection and the risk of dying from COVID-19.
The COVID-19 database was used and propensity score matching (PSM) was employed for hospitalization and mortality rates.
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, regular users 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.
9.2.22
“Ivermectin Use Proves Itself: 92% Reduction in COVID Deaths”
From Donna Garner
COMMENTS FROM DONNA GARNER: Here are the results of (1) an authentic medical study, (2) completed very recently, (3) from a strictly controlled, citywide program in the southern city of Itajai, Brazil, (4) using data from 88,012 subjects, (5) published in a well-respected medical journal, (6) where the subjects either took Ivermectin regularly (as a prophylactic to prevent COVID) or (7) took Ivermectin when they contracted COVID.
So what were the results: (1) a 92% reduction in the COVID mortality rate, (2) the non-users of Ivermectin had a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate, (3) a 7-fold increased risk of dying from COVID compared to those who took it regularly, and (4) the hospitalization rate was reduced by 100% in regular users compared to both irregular users and non-users.
“Mortality rate was 92% lower in regular users than non-users…84% lower than irregular users…while irregular users had a 37% lower mortality rate reduction than non-users. Risk of dying from COVID-19 was 86% lower among regular users than non-users…and 72% lower than irregular users…while irregular users had a 51% reduction compared to non-users.”
We also need to remember what Dr. Fauci and this Biden administration did to stop Americans from using Ivermectin so as to promote the billion-dollar pharma industry’s failed COVID vaccines. Thousands and thousands of lives could have been saved. Untold cases of long-haul COVID could have been prevented. The Remdesivir/ventilator deaths could have been prevented. Human suffering across our nation could have been tremendously reduced.
Indeed what was perpetrated on Americans by our national healthcare hierarchy are “crimes against humanity.” Instead of stopping the use of Ivermectin, our U. S. healthcare leaders should have done what was done in Itajai, Brazil, that reduced deaths by 92%.
Instead, our national healthcare hierarchy vilified FDA-approved medicines (e.g., Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, etc.) and used the pandemic as a way to control all of us, doing irreparable harm to this and future generations.
=======================
https://www.cureus.com/articles/111851-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-88012-subjects#:~:text=Conclusion,of%20ivermectin%20against%20COVID%2D19
“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”
Lucy Kerr, Fernando Baldi, Raysildo Lobo, Washington Luiz Assagra, Fernando Carlos Proença, Juan J. Chamie, Jennifer A. Hibberd, Pierre Kory, Flavio A. Cadegiani
Published: August 31, 2022
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28624
Abstract
Background
We have previously demonstrated that ivermectin used as prophylaxis for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), irrespective of the regularity, in a strictly controlled citywide program in Southern Brazil (Itajaí, Brazil), was associated with reductions in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.
In this study, our objective was to determine if the regular use of ivermectin impacted the level of protection from COVID-19 and related outcomes, reinforcing the efficacy of ivermectin through the demonstration of a dose-response effect.
Methods
This exploratory analysis of a prospective observational study involved a program that used ivermectin at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day for two consecutive days, every 15 days, for 150 days. Regularity definitions were as follows: regular users had 180 mg or more of ivermectin and irregular users had up to 60 mg, in total, throughout the program.
Comparisons were made between non-users (subjects who did not use ivermectin), and regular and irregular users after multivariate adjustments.
The full city database was used to calculate and compare COVID-19 infection and the risk of dying from COVID-19.
The COVID-19 database was used and propensity score matching (PSM) was employed for hospitalization and mortality rates.
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, regular users 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.