But they don't mention it's been approved to treat a number of ailments in humans for years...
There is something about don't get the stuff designed for cows & horses, but they do make packaged doses approved for human use that these articles seem to never mention...
This is the study that I read:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
The part about infections comes from having family members of patients take IVM and other families not, the difference in the amount of family members getting symptoms was getting close to 90%
That would be my best guess on where these people are getting that.
Extract:
Shouman conducted an RCT at Zagazig University in Egypt, including 340 (228 treated and 112 control) family members of patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 through PCR.44 Ivermectin (approximately 0.25 mg/kg) was administered twice, on the day of the positive test and 72 hours later. After a two-week follow-up, a large and statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 symptoms among household members treated with ivermectin was found, 7.4% versus 58.4%, P < 0.001.
Speaking of 1 variable at a time: I've noticed that numerous studies that "show" masks have a high efficacy against the spread of covid involved test cases that not only introduced masks but also introduced sunlight, additional distancing, therapeutics, and even used particles larger than covid.
It explained why it was my deep blue city had a big report on "25+ studies that show masks are effective" yet I was able to quickly DDG a collection of at least as many studies that show they are not.
Republican NPC types are basically hearing about IVM through the grapevine, and without ever going to the FLCCC site, they are basically just taking mouthfuls of the veterinary stuff when they have a cough or a fever.
But they don't mention it's been approved to treat a number of ailments in humans for years...
There is something about don't get the stuff designed for cows & horses, but they do make packaged doses approved for human use that these articles seem to never mention...
I mean, I am not persuaded that this helps, but this is clearly rank propaganda.
This is the study that I read: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/ The part about infections comes from having family members of patients take IVM and other families not, the difference in the amount of family members getting symptoms was getting close to 90% That would be my best guess on where these people are getting that.
Extract: Shouman conducted an RCT at Zagazig University in Egypt, including 340 (228 treated and 112 control) family members of patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 through PCR.44 Ivermectin (approximately 0.25 mg/kg) was administered twice, on the day of the positive test and 72 hours later. After a two-week follow-up, a large and statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 symptoms among household members treated with ivermectin was found, 7.4% versus 58.4%, P < 0.001.
Speaking of 1 variable at a time: I've noticed that numerous studies that "show" masks have a high efficacy against the spread of covid involved test cases that not only introduced masks but also introduced sunlight, additional distancing, therapeutics, and even used particles larger than covid.
It explained why it was my deep blue city had a big report on "25+ studies that show masks are effective" yet I was able to quickly DDG a collection of at least as many studies that show they are not.
Seems perfectly logical.