The Guardian publishes his writings as if he is both an expert in the field and as if his perspective on such matters is all that is required to settle a question.
I am wary of criticising people in potentially public spaces, not least due to the potential legal repercussions. If I had anything positive to say about GMK I would say it here. I have nothing to say in this regard.
There are numerous noisy people who think themselves experts, who are frequently regarded as experts, and who may indeed be experts in all the relevant fields who complain about genuine good evidence (in my opinion) for the importance of vitamin D for the immune system, and/or for the safety and effectiveness of ivermectin as an early treatment for COVID-19. Their standard approach is some mixture of:
1 - Never actually mentioning or criticising the best evidence for the effectiveness of the nutrient or drug.
2 - Picking some weak or suspect study, pointing out its errors (perhaps unreasonably) and then portraying this as the best evidence, or representative of the best evidence, for the nutrient or drug.
3 - Portraying extreme resistance to new information as a virtue. This is usually in the form of insisting on RCTs, ideally not in third-world / developing countries, each showing splendidly positive results, to be covered by at least one and ideally more resoundingly positive meta-analyses.
There are good reasons for proposed new medical treatments need to surmount such hurdles before being widely implemented outside clinical trials - when the treatment is a new drug, where the safety is not known and is in fact difficult or impossible to research in the absence of millions of people having been given the drug over many years.
However, it is a mistake to insist on such high hurdles, which would take years and tens of millions of dollars to overcome, in the middle of a crisis, for very well researched nutrients such as vitamin D3 (or calcifediol, which what all immune cells need 50ng/ml of, and which is produced over days from D3 by hydroxylation in the liver), for a very well tested drug such as ivermectin, or for a very well researched and widely used (without prescription in the USA) hormone such as melatonin: https://c19melatonin.com.
The question of why so many physicians, immunologists etc. are so clueless about vitamin D is the most complex, perplexing, difficult and important problem I have ever encountered. One day I will write lots about it at https://nutritionmatters.substack.com .
Doctor's face extreme difficulties with the amount of knowledge and experience they are supposed to bring to bear on every clinical decision, often based on limited time and limited information. They can say X, have it misinterpreted as Y, and have Y cause harm or death to their patient or to someone else. They are very wary about changing their beliefs and are highly resistant to anyone pestering them to do so.
However, this whole global disaster would not be occurring at all if most people's 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were 50ng/ml (125nmol/L) or more. Doctors, collectively, could have and should have recognised the need for this over ten years ago. There's a chance that in that time, they could have convinced many or most people to supplement D3 to attain this. Then SARS-CoV-2 R0 rates would generally be below 1.0, there would be no pandemic, and very few people with such good 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels would be seriously ill, even without early treatment or vaccination.
They haven't recognised this, for a variety of reasons, and this is a single point of failure for all humanity, apart from a few people who have figured out the need for good D3 supplementation, or who have been advised to do so by their doctor or nutritionist. But every single person is trapped in the global disaster of the pandemic's direct effects and the effects of the numerous attempts (lockdowns, vaccines - but little or nothing in terms of nutrition or early treatment) to control it.
Returning to ivermectin, the question is not whether there are X number of glowing RCTs and Y number of positive meta-analyses, all served up in the manner to which some people have become accustomed. The question is whether it is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. This question can be converted into: 'How could it be unsafe and/or ineffective in a world in which the best available trials which seem to show its effectiveness actually exist?" Since it is not possible for all those research articles to be totally or even largely faked, a proper line if enquiry leads to scrutiny of the 7 most significant Early Treatment RCTs listed in the "after exclusions" table at https://ivmmeta.com .
Click on the left column for the studies named Espita-Hernandez, Bukhari, Elalfy, Mouyra, Merino, Faisal and Aref. There you will find links to the articles and the anonymous ivmeta.com people's assessment of these studies.
Don't complain about some being preprints or being in journals not indexed in PubMed. Don't complain about them not being done in Western nations. Be glad that some MDs and other researchers have gone to the trouble of conducting these RCTs, including knowingly harming and killing some of their patients in the control arms, for the benefit of people like us who keep asking for more and more evidence.
Also have a look at their assessment of the trials with red boxes on the right, Krolewiecki (non-significant negative results, somewhat significant positive result), Vallejos (similar, low risk patients, potential difficulty excluding patients who had not already used ivermectin) and Buonfrate (too late).
Don't complain about obviously professional meta-analysis work being done anonymously - these people need to earn a living.
Now, what is the chance, given the existence of these studies, that ivermectin is either unsafe or ineffective for early treatment of COVID-19? I think the chance is zero.
As far as I know, none of the noisy critics of Ivermectin deal with the best evidence like this.
My long suit is Monsanto's genetically engineered foods where Bill Gates has been a key investor and promoter of false claims and industry science that includes a vast network of front groups with media and academic shills that are featured as experts. This is more of the same.
Among the oldest and most abusive is original Big Tobacco/Petrochemical funded group ACSH who defend toxic profiteers with a stable of compromised sources. Sourcewatch has fab detail for ACSH which is worth a glance.
First red flag for me is Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz — January 18, 2018 featured by ACSH to defend Red Bull energy drinks. Like most food PR he references "sugar" which is not an ingredient but is used as a blanket term to included high fructose corn syrup as substantial equivalent. That's an odd oversight error for a man centered on diabetes research.
Then we have the author Jack Goodman who has a series of lies in his reporting of COVID vaccines. This piece from 2020 Covid-19: What’s the harm of ‘funny’ anti-vaccine memes?
Goodman claims safety and efficacy for vaccines that is entirely baseless putting his "science" into question. https://www.bbc.com/news/55101238.amp
"Vaccines go through rigorous safety checks before they can be administered to the public, with side effects closely monitored. Covid vaccines: Who decides if they are safe?"
This links to an opinion piece that reads like PhARMA press release. False claims aren't debunked they are advanced.
"People will still be offered the jab even if they have had Covid-19 in the past. That's because natural immunity may not be long-lived and immunisation could offer more protection."
Then Goodman adds "Vaccines must meet a high standard of safety and effectiveness before they are approved for use - it's misleading to call them experimental. "
Consider the source & follow the money.. his conclusion is revealing ""But the case can also be made that vaccines actually increase people's freedom to do things they otherwise wouldn't be able to, and can also contribute to safeguarding other people's personal freedoms too."
Couldn't be Bill Gates funding to media science helps bias of could it?
The Mehra (“Surgisphere”) connection with the first IVM paper is intriguing. Could it be that Surgisphere planned to promote disinformation - but then it turned out (by chance) that IVM was actually effective?
this article links to various articles, one about how IVM saved Louis Gossett Jr's life, quotes from his doctor, a letter to Rachel Maddow with links about IVM studies, an article that quotes Horowitz saying all the horse dewormer denial stories are crimes against humanity and more, https://celiasue.substack.com/p/dear-rachel-maddow
I'm increasingly suspicious of Gideon M-K's ability to do proper statistical analysis. I'm sure he's a decent epidemiologist though. For instance in his Medium piece [1] about ivermectin (Part II) he tries to use Bedford's law on trailing digits of reported patient weight values in Cadegiani et a paper to asses whether data is fabricated or not. He writes
"a short summary — the data that is in the spreadsheet uploaded by the authors doesn’t look real. When you enter in real data, you expect that there are certain elements of randomness to it. One way of looking at this is to examine the trailing digits of numeric variables like age, weight, and height— we expect these to follow certain distributions as a matter of course. So, for example, if you have people with weights of 34, 56, 79, and 45kg, the trailing digits would be 4, 6, 9, and 5. While not perfectly random, this distribution is expected to follow fairly specific rules, with 0 appearing the most, followed relatively equally by the numbers 1–9. This is an application of Benford’s law that is slightly less well-known but still holds true for real datasets.
As you can see from the chart above, the trailing digits here look really quite odd. There are far fewer 4s and 6s than 5s, and 0, which should make up roughly 12% of the values, doesn’t appear very much at all. When you compare this to the expected distribution with a chi-squared test, you get a p-value of 0.002, which is a statistically significant difference with the distribution that we’d expect. It’s also not hard to see by eye — we’d expect roughly 12% of the numbers to end with 0, but instead only 48/585 = 8% of them do. Similarly, we’d expect about 10% of numbers to end in 5, but instead 13% do."
I find this reasoning rather suspicious, since Bedford's law applies when the observed values vary in several orders of magnitude, and adult weights is not among them. In short I think he's trying do the same as people trying to prove election fraud using Bedford's law when the law doesn't apply [2].
BBC and Guardian are Gates money, as well as his other buys into other media. Also the Skeptic groups, which like to character assassinate, use the anti or pseudoscience and anti vax troupe for anyone questioning the corporate science, or chosen political narrative… and how that is now being expanded into the current covid arena.
I came across an article back in the spring, that detailed the tentacles of the BMGF. The article claimed they sponsor the Health section of the BBC. I can't find that exact resource (I now have 100s of bookmarks for C19 and the Great Reset), but here is one I found below. (By the way, I've found other articles about their "health" reporting funding, going back over a decade): https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/press/gates-hands-grants-to-media-to-support-his-views/
"Ivermectin for COVID-19 in Peru: 14-fold reduction in nationwide excess deaths, p<0.002 for effect by state, then 13-fold increase after ivermectin use restricted"
Authors: Juan Chamie-Quintero, Jennifer A. Hibberd, David Scheim
I would like to beg for a "Peru's tale of Covid", as so much humanitarian action was undertaken early on by the peruanian officials, including military to distribute the packages including ivermecting throughout the wide spread and quite thinly populated country. Showing people how to use it. THIS is response to crisis, if one cocludes: real cirisis, let's respond.
And it started very early! I think in May 2020 !
(AND it shows how vain it is if corruption is taking over like in DE!
I would like to learn how the operation to turn this all back, to deprive a country again of early working interventions, could be untertaken. It must have been a well-organised mafia thing.
And I would like to know which mass formation took place to suggest NOT to just use anything, and if its walnut leafs and pine needles and birch tree bark (very efficient by the way ;).
Or CIO2(aq) 3ppm reducing secondary attack rate in families by 90%. HEck, 3ppmis homeopathy! Shown there: http://www.ijmra.in/v4i8/2.php
Or reducing absenteism in school classes using air disinfection by FACTOR 2.4:
(Just put up a glass 10ml 0.3% CIO2 - it is self distributing. In schools, dilute with 1.5L PET water bottle to have DRINKING WATER, legally, in EU up to 20ppm. Do a DIY gas-permeable lid from membrane of old rain jacket (drill holes in lid, screw membrane (PTFE from gore tex) under lid), or do not close lid tightly. DIY "light beam switch" using auto-correlation between muticolor led and phototransistor to measure the 20ppm through the PET bottle by 3$ electronics attached to wlan or smart phone USB, called extinctometry (CIO2 is greenish-yellow, thus concentration measurement is easy). Other paths involve wheatstone bridges of "paper drawn free chlorine sensors" also able to be adopted to measuring "free oxigene" which CIO2 is donating.
By effectively reducing spread, it takes longer to become immune, but is the more humane and less society-disrupting way. In all the months they treated, they had only achieved 1/14ths of immunity, as after 1/14ths reduction after stopping treatment, death rate went up 13x.
So I feel the time span to carry through "treat early" must be something like >2 years.
I think in africa we had close to the most speediest path to this state, and they are only endangered by newly released variants, mulnovirapir or in immunocompromised (80% : the vaccinated!) (distributed gain of function) bred variants, or new "pandemics".
As many more pathogens seem to loom in the tool box of the narcissictic empathy-deprived psychopaths, I want to generalise this approach with applicability to all kinds of pathogens.
So...
We come back to "infect-then-treat" thoughts of Geert vanden Bossche.
Or not so drastic: use passive immunisation.
(As shown very effective in conveying immunity by shedding, from eg recovered family members to the others, we can emulate by taking snot, blow in bowl, scrape, sterlisize, filtrate, put thinned in some nasasl sprays, give to the vulnerable. 4x/day, 1 week, emulating shedding, needing no adjuvans.
Give me some tip who to discuss this and on which site? Prof. Bossche?)
I think all countries were in panick mode, so did not do the obvious all mammals do since millions of years: UP-SELECT well behaving variants. By retreating when ill depending on symptoms, when better, coming back, shedding broken viruses, giving pre-immunity to family/group. When not ill at all, no-one retreats, for mild symptoms only, all get it and are through in no time. So Gaia again does it most efficiently...
Ony humans under lead of WHO do it the other way round, and EVERY measure prolonged the pandemic maximally.
Especially the MASKS, as they efficiently PREVENTED pre-immunity by shedding broken pathogens.
And the tests, by doing the same: all tested positive shall not donate immunity for free, but shall lock themselves up by PCR, not by infectiousity (measurable!), some suggested to even seclude from children, with an uproar of the people with the heart at the right place instictively feeling this kills children. (Bit it did kill the elderly not being visisted for months.)
As in waves ALL possible variants existing in current genetic setup are there in parallel, it takes no time to UP-SELECT a mild variant as mild as possible right now, but it takes effort to change immunity (instantly possible by (topical) interventions and immune system modulation) and behaviour of a whole country AGAINST the lies the CDC's told on account of the WHO
(1.5m instead 3m, omitting: 40sec. hovering time, omitting 1 droplet is infections, omitting 1 droplet always slips throgh a mask as 10,000-ths are emitted even by NOSE BLOW: totally underestimated, even soft ones: together with sneeze and cough: best OUTSIDES.
Or: disinfect upper respiratory tract by (best inorganic) antiseptic nasal spray, doing "4 rounds breathing in, spray to nose, throat RING (starting 4/5 there) and one under tongue for saliva glands (starts 1/5 there)".
This is emulating gargling, but has better coverage of the whole upper respriratory tract, and thus is a bit more efficient (1% start elsewhere) and is useable for smokers as well (paralysed cilial hairs make start of infection just more ... distributed, nose, upper trachea, where non-smokers have mostly a start at the throat ring, but the infectious variants escape there soon with force.
Re-found this article after reading about detractors of the study supporting Dr Marik's sepsis protocol. Dr Kyle Sheldrick said the numbers used were too similar, and it looked fake. So, of course, wanting to learn more about Mr Sheldrick, I first go to Rounding the Earth and search his name. Sounds like a crusader for data integrity, Hypocrisy Department.
Gideon spends most of his time hyping a few questionable studies, but he did say this somewhat recently:
"4. The state of the literature as a whole. I'm getting a bit cynical, as I'm sure anyone would after seeing so much fakery, but it's important to remember that we haven't excluded modest benefits from ivermectin yet"
Hi Alex, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz has been completely unreasonably dismissive of ivermectin and vitamin D since this 2020-05-13 article: https://gidmk.medium.com/should-you-take-a-vitamin-d-supplement-for-covid-19-63d922f24953 . I have tried to engage him in discussion in various ways since then and nothing comes back.
The Guardian publishes his writings as if he is both an expert in the field and as if his perspective on such matters is all that is required to settle a question.
I am wary of criticising people in potentially public spaces, not least due to the potential legal repercussions. If I had anything positive to say about GMK I would say it here. I have nothing to say in this regard.
There are numerous noisy people who think themselves experts, who are frequently regarded as experts, and who may indeed be experts in all the relevant fields who complain about genuine good evidence (in my opinion) for the importance of vitamin D for the immune system, and/or for the safety and effectiveness of ivermectin as an early treatment for COVID-19. Their standard approach is some mixture of:
1 - Never actually mentioning or criticising the best evidence for the effectiveness of the nutrient or drug.
2 - Picking some weak or suspect study, pointing out its errors (perhaps unreasonably) and then portraying this as the best evidence, or representative of the best evidence, for the nutrient or drug.
3 - Portraying extreme resistance to new information as a virtue. This is usually in the form of insisting on RCTs, ideally not in third-world / developing countries, each showing splendidly positive results, to be covered by at least one and ideally more resoundingly positive meta-analyses.
There are good reasons for proposed new medical treatments need to surmount such hurdles before being widely implemented outside clinical trials - when the treatment is a new drug, where the safety is not known and is in fact difficult or impossible to research in the absence of millions of people having been given the drug over many years.
However, it is a mistake to insist on such high hurdles, which would take years and tens of millions of dollars to overcome, in the middle of a crisis, for very well researched nutrients such as vitamin D3 (or calcifediol, which what all immune cells need 50ng/ml of, and which is produced over days from D3 by hydroxylation in the liver), for a very well tested drug such as ivermectin, or for a very well researched and widely used (without prescription in the USA) hormone such as melatonin: https://c19melatonin.com.
The question of why so many physicians, immunologists etc. are so clueless about vitamin D is the most complex, perplexing, difficult and important problem I have ever encountered. One day I will write lots about it at https://nutritionmatters.substack.com .
Doctor's face extreme difficulties with the amount of knowledge and experience they are supposed to bring to bear on every clinical decision, often based on limited time and limited information. They can say X, have it misinterpreted as Y, and have Y cause harm or death to their patient or to someone else. They are very wary about changing their beliefs and are highly resistant to anyone pestering them to do so.
However, this whole global disaster would not be occurring at all if most people's 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were 50ng/ml (125nmol/L) or more. Doctors, collectively, could have and should have recognised the need for this over ten years ago. There's a chance that in that time, they could have convinced many or most people to supplement D3 to attain this. Then SARS-CoV-2 R0 rates would generally be below 1.0, there would be no pandemic, and very few people with such good 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels would be seriously ill, even without early treatment or vaccination.
They haven't recognised this, for a variety of reasons, and this is a single point of failure for all humanity, apart from a few people who have figured out the need for good D3 supplementation, or who have been advised to do so by their doctor or nutritionist. But every single person is trapped in the global disaster of the pandemic's direct effects and the effects of the numerous attempts (lockdowns, vaccines - but little or nothing in terms of nutrition or early treatment) to control it.
Returning to ivermectin, the question is not whether there are X number of glowing RCTs and Y number of positive meta-analyses, all served up in the manner to which some people have become accustomed. The question is whether it is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. This question can be converted into: 'How could it be unsafe and/or ineffective in a world in which the best available trials which seem to show its effectiveness actually exist?" Since it is not possible for all those research articles to be totally or even largely faked, a proper line if enquiry leads to scrutiny of the 7 most significant Early Treatment RCTs listed in the "after exclusions" table at https://ivmmeta.com .
Click on the left column for the studies named Espita-Hernandez, Bukhari, Elalfy, Mouyra, Merino, Faisal and Aref. There you will find links to the articles and the anonymous ivmeta.com people's assessment of these studies.
Don't complain about some being preprints or being in journals not indexed in PubMed. Don't complain about them not being done in Western nations. Be glad that some MDs and other researchers have gone to the trouble of conducting these RCTs, including knowingly harming and killing some of their patients in the control arms, for the benefit of people like us who keep asking for more and more evidence.
Also have a look at their assessment of the trials with red boxes on the right, Krolewiecki (non-significant negative results, somewhat significant positive result), Vallejos (similar, low risk patients, potential difficulty excluding patients who had not already used ivermectin) and Buonfrate (too late).
Don't complain about obviously professional meta-analysis work being done anonymously - these people need to earn a living.
Now, what is the chance, given the existence of these studies, that ivermectin is either unsafe or ineffective for early treatment of COVID-19? I think the chance is zero.
As far as I know, none of the noisy critics of Ivermectin deal with the best evidence like this.
My long suit is Monsanto's genetically engineered foods where Bill Gates has been a key investor and promoter of false claims and industry science that includes a vast network of front groups with media and academic shills that are featured as experts. This is more of the same.
Among the oldest and most abusive is original Big Tobacco/Petrochemical funded group ACSH who defend toxic profiteers with a stable of compromised sources. Sourcewatch has fab detail for ACSH which is worth a glance.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_on_Science_and_Health
First red flag for me is Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz — January 18, 2018 featured by ACSH to defend Red Bull energy drinks. Like most food PR he references "sugar" which is not an ingredient but is used as a blanket term to included high fructose corn syrup as substantial equivalent. That's an odd oversight error for a man centered on diabetes research.
https://www.westernsydneydiabetes.com.au/about-us/the-core-team/gideon-meyerowitz-katz
Defending Red Bull against negative study results at ACSH puts Gideon in the stable of writers who also find toxins in organic baby food alarmist.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/01/18/red-bull-not-going-destroy-our-youth-and-kill-us-all-12437
More ACSH focus - https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/10/06/heavy-metal-tainted-baby-food-congressional-report-omits-important-science-15855
Then we have the author Jack Goodman who has a series of lies in his reporting of COVID vaccines. This piece from 2020 Covid-19: What’s the harm of ‘funny’ anti-vaccine memes?
Goodman claims safety and efficacy for vaccines that is entirely baseless putting his "science" into question. https://www.bbc.com/news/55101238.amp
"Vaccines go through rigorous safety checks before they can be administered to the public, with side effects closely monitored. Covid vaccines: Who decides if they are safe?"
This links to an opinion piece that reads like PhARMA press release. False claims aren't debunked they are advanced.
"People will still be offered the jab even if they have had Covid-19 in the past. That's because natural immunity may not be long-lived and immunisation could offer more protection."
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55056016
Then Goodman adds "Vaccines must meet a high standard of safety and effectiveness before they are approved for use - it's misleading to call them experimental. "
Consider the source & follow the money.. his conclusion is revealing ""But the case can also be made that vaccines actually increase people's freedom to do things they otherwise wouldn't be able to, and can also contribute to safeguarding other people's personal freedoms too."
Couldn't be Bill Gates funding to media science helps bias of could it?
https://web.archive.org/web/20200414143731/https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/gates-foundation-awards-20-million-to-bbc-world-service-trust
The Mehra (“Surgisphere”) connection with the first IVM paper is intriguing. Could it be that Surgisphere planned to promote disinformation - but then it turned out (by chance) that IVM was actually effective?
Or perhaps there is there another explanation?
I'm glad you did devote that much space to it. Health Nerd seems like a piece of work, Sheldrick is more just a disappointment.
Always enjoy your articles, Matthew.
Ivermectin works being the problem causing the hassle.
I’d be damn curious to know who you’d arrest first? And who makes the top 10 most wanted list?
this article links to various articles, one about how IVM saved Louis Gossett Jr's life, quotes from his doctor, a letter to Rachel Maddow with links about IVM studies, an article that quotes Horowitz saying all the horse dewormer denial stories are crimes against humanity and more, https://celiasue.substack.com/p/dear-rachel-maddow
Thank you for your article Mathew.
I'm increasingly suspicious of Gideon M-K's ability to do proper statistical analysis. I'm sure he's a decent epidemiologist though. For instance in his Medium piece [1] about ivermectin (Part II) he tries to use Bedford's law on trailing digits of reported patient weight values in Cadegiani et a paper to asses whether data is fabricated or not. He writes
"a short summary — the data that is in the spreadsheet uploaded by the authors doesn’t look real. When you enter in real data, you expect that there are certain elements of randomness to it. One way of looking at this is to examine the trailing digits of numeric variables like age, weight, and height— we expect these to follow certain distributions as a matter of course. So, for example, if you have people with weights of 34, 56, 79, and 45kg, the trailing digits would be 4, 6, 9, and 5. While not perfectly random, this distribution is expected to follow fairly specific rules, with 0 appearing the most, followed relatively equally by the numbers 1–9. This is an application of Benford’s law that is slightly less well-known but still holds true for real datasets.
As you can see from the chart above, the trailing digits here look really quite odd. There are far fewer 4s and 6s than 5s, and 0, which should make up roughly 12% of the values, doesn’t appear very much at all. When you compare this to the expected distribution with a chi-squared test, you get a p-value of 0.002, which is a statistically significant difference with the distribution that we’d expect. It’s also not hard to see by eye — we’d expect roughly 12% of the numbers to end with 0, but instead only 48/585 = 8% of them do. Similarly, we’d expect about 10% of numbers to end in 5, but instead 13% do."
I find this reasoning rather suspicious, since Bedford's law applies when the observed values vary in several orders of magnitude, and adult weights is not among them. In short I think he's trying do the same as people trying to prove election fraud using Bedford's law when the law doesn't apply [2].
My best
[1] https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin-for-covid-19-based-on-fraudulent-research-part-2-a4475523b4e4
[2] https://youtu.be/etx0k1nLn78
BBC and Guardian are Gates money, as well as his other buys into other media. Also the Skeptic groups, which like to character assassinate, use the anti or pseudoscience and anti vax troupe for anyone questioning the corporate science, or chosen political narrative… and how that is now being expanded into the current covid arena.
I came across an article back in the spring, that detailed the tentacles of the BMGF. The article claimed they sponsor the Health section of the BBC. I can't find that exact resource (I now have 100s of bookmarks for C19 and the Great Reset), but here is one I found below. (By the way, I've found other articles about their "health" reporting funding, going back over a decade): https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/press/gates-hands-grants-to-media-to-support-his-views/
I think the peru way while using IVM is a deed of heros.
The paper putting this in naked numbers is
https://osf.io/9egh4/
"Ivermectin for COVID-19 in Peru: 14-fold reduction in nationwide excess deaths, p<0.002 for effect by state, then 13-fold increase after ivermectin use restricted"
Authors: Juan Chamie-Quintero, Jennifer A. Hibberd, David Scheim
I would like to beg for a "Peru's tale of Covid", as so much humanitarian action was undertaken early on by the peruanian officials, including military to distribute the packages including ivermecting throughout the wide spread and quite thinly populated country. Showing people how to use it. THIS is response to crisis, if one cocludes: real cirisis, let's respond.
And it started very early! I think in May 2020 !
(AND it shows how vain it is if corruption is taking over like in DE!
I would like to learn how the operation to turn this all back, to deprive a country again of early working interventions, could be untertaken. It must have been a well-organised mafia thing.
And I would like to know which mass formation took place to suggest NOT to just use anything, and if its walnut leafs and pine needles and birch tree bark (very efficient by the way ;).
Or CIO2(aq) 3ppm reducing secondary attack rate in families by 90%. HEck, 3ppmis homeopathy! Shown there: http://www.ijmra.in/v4i8/2.php
Or reducing absenteism in school classes using air disinfection by FACTOR 2.4:
(Just put up a glass 10ml 0.3% CIO2 - it is self distributing. In schools, dilute with 1.5L PET water bottle to have DRINKING WATER, legally, in EU up to 20ppm. Do a DIY gas-permeable lid from membrane of old rain jacket (drill holes in lid, screw membrane (PTFE from gore tex) under lid), or do not close lid tightly. DIY "light beam switch" using auto-correlation between muticolor led and phototransistor to measure the 20ppm through the PET bottle by 3$ electronics attached to wlan or smart phone USB, called extinctometry (CIO2 is greenish-yellow, thus concentration measurement is easy). Other paths involve wheatstone bridges of "paper drawn free chlorine sensors" also able to be adopted to measuring "free oxigene" which CIO2 is donating.
By effectively reducing spread, it takes longer to become immune, but is the more humane and less society-disrupting way. In all the months they treated, they had only achieved 1/14ths of immunity, as after 1/14ths reduction after stopping treatment, death rate went up 13x.
So I feel the time span to carry through "treat early" must be something like >2 years.
I think in africa we had close to the most speediest path to this state, and they are only endangered by newly released variants, mulnovirapir or in immunocompromised (80% : the vaccinated!) (distributed gain of function) bred variants, or new "pandemics".
As many more pathogens seem to loom in the tool box of the narcissictic empathy-deprived psychopaths, I want to generalise this approach with applicability to all kinds of pathogens.
So...
We come back to "infect-then-treat" thoughts of Geert vanden Bossche.
Or not so drastic: use passive immunisation.
(As shown very effective in conveying immunity by shedding, from eg recovered family members to the others, we can emulate by taking snot, blow in bowl, scrape, sterlisize, filtrate, put thinned in some nasasl sprays, give to the vulnerable. 4x/day, 1 week, emulating shedding, needing no adjuvans.
Give me some tip who to discuss this and on which site? Prof. Bossche?)
I think all countries were in panick mode, so did not do the obvious all mammals do since millions of years: UP-SELECT well behaving variants. By retreating when ill depending on symptoms, when better, coming back, shedding broken viruses, giving pre-immunity to family/group. When not ill at all, no-one retreats, for mild symptoms only, all get it and are through in no time. So Gaia again does it most efficiently...
Ony humans under lead of WHO do it the other way round, and EVERY measure prolonged the pandemic maximally.
Especially the MASKS, as they efficiently PREVENTED pre-immunity by shedding broken pathogens.
And the tests, by doing the same: all tested positive shall not donate immunity for free, but shall lock themselves up by PCR, not by infectiousity (measurable!), some suggested to even seclude from children, with an uproar of the people with the heart at the right place instictively feeling this kills children. (Bit it did kill the elderly not being visisted for months.)
As in waves ALL possible variants existing in current genetic setup are there in parallel, it takes no time to UP-SELECT a mild variant as mild as possible right now, but it takes effort to change immunity (instantly possible by (topical) interventions and immune system modulation) and behaviour of a whole country AGAINST the lies the CDC's told on account of the WHO
(1.5m instead 3m, omitting: 40sec. hovering time, omitting 1 droplet is infections, omitting 1 droplet always slips throgh a mask as 10,000-ths are emitted even by NOSE BLOW: totally underestimated, even soft ones: together with sneeze and cough: best OUTSIDES.
Or: disinfect upper respiratory tract by (best inorganic) antiseptic nasal spray, doing "4 rounds breathing in, spray to nose, throat RING (starting 4/5 there) and one under tongue for saliva glands (starts 1/5 there)".
This is emulating gargling, but has better coverage of the whole upper respriratory tract, and thus is a bit more efficient (1% start elsewhere) and is useable for smokers as well (paralysed cilial hairs make start of infection just more ... distributed, nose, upper trachea, where non-smokers have mostly a start at the throat ring, but the infectious variants escape there soon with force.
Re-found this article after reading about detractors of the study supporting Dr Marik's sepsis protocol. Dr Kyle Sheldrick said the numbers used were too similar, and it looked fake. So, of course, wanting to learn more about Mr Sheldrick, I first go to Rounding the Earth and search his name. Sounds like a crusader for data integrity, Hypocrisy Department.
Interesting stuff as usual. The amount of obfuscation is insane.
https://coronawise.substack.com/p/open-letter-and-challenge-for-rachel? also the Spartacus letter, https://celiasue.substack.com/p/spartacus-letter & 2, lists all of the sources of info
Gideon spends most of his time hyping a few questionable studies, but he did say this somewhat recently:
"4. The state of the literature as a whole. I'm getting a bit cynical, as I'm sure anyone would after seeing so much fakery, but it's important to remember that we haven't excluded modest benefits from ivermectin yet"
https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1442408443810177026