by Steve Kirsch
Whoops! How embarrassing! The CDC gave you bad advice. If you want to survive COVID, you should use the drug they said to avoid, and avoid the drug they said to use.
Remember that “horse dewormer” that the FDA, CDC, NIH, CNN, and Sanjay Gupta all told you not to use? A new paper recently published in the Journal of the AMA (JAMA) shows that Ivermectin works way better than the COVID vaccine in keeping you from dying from COVID.
This was an open-label randomized trial done in Malaysia with around 250 patients in each arm. One arm got IVM + standard of care, the other arm got the standard of care.
Of course, JAMA never would have published this if they thought that people would actually look at the data. The abstract says: “The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.” You are supposed to read the abstract and believe that ivermectin has no effect.
In fact, that’s exactly what people do even when you tell them expressly to ignore that:
Do not fall for it. Read the paper if you want the truth. If you want to be misled, just read the abstract.
Pierre Kory did a brilliant takedown of the paper on his substack. I won’t repeat that here. Instead, I’ll just summarize the data for you; the hidden gems in the paper that you are never supposed to notice.
The lower the p-value, the more significant the result is. A Chi-squared test was used. Data came from the JAMA paper appendix.
Interpretation of the data
So there are five takeaways from the study:
- Vaccine efficacy in the real world is quite small. If you got vaccinated, it reduced your chance of death by just 24%. However, the study did NOT look at the all-cause mortality of the vaccine (it only enrolled people who survived the vaccine), so the tiny absolute risk reduction you get from a 24% relative risk reduction (roughly 24% of .25% =.06% benefit) is less than the absolute risk of dying from the vaccine (around .2%). See Incriminating Evidence for details on this.
- If you were not vaccinated (which you shouldn’t be), ivermectin reduced your chance of death by 72%. So it was 3 times more effective than the vaccine. But the risk of ivermectin is negligible so the risk-benefit ratio is extremely favorable. Ivermectin has a 3X effect size (benefit) and is more than 100,000X less risky with respect to death risk, killing nobody (compared to over 200,000 people from the vaccine). So it’s a clear choice. It’s the only rational choice.
- The vaccine did provide a SMALL incremental benefit if you took both (10% lower risk), but it’s a non-starter since the risk-benefit analysis doesn’t support ever using the vaccine.
- If we want to reduce deaths, ivermectin is the way to go. Avoid the vaccine entirely.
- There is no way you have a paper like this with 431,000 views and just two comments. This implies that virtually all the comments were counter-narrative and were censored from public view. That in itself is stunning.
Note that multidrug protocols that use ivermectin are much better than ivermectin alone. For example, the Fareed Tyson protocol has treated 10,000 people with no deaths, whereas in this study, 1 of the 75 unvaccinated people who got ivermectin died (1.3%). Multidrug protocols are clearly the way to go.
I want to thank Massimaux for highlighting what the study said in his tweet.
It doesn’t get much better than this. A paper published in JAMA shows ivermectin is three times better than vaccines in preventing death. Combined with the risk data of the vaccines, it’s clear that if you are given a choice, you’d always choose ivermectin and never choose the vaccine.
Will this paper make a difference? I don’t think so.