JAMA Article (With Interpretation): Ivermectin Works Better than Vaccines! By Mrs Vera West

Steve Kirsch details how a new paper published in JAMA, establishes, contrary to the abstract, that the “horse deworming” drug Ivermectin, works like a charm. Actually, the abstract says the opposite, but a sober analysis of the paper indicates that for the unvaccinated, Ivermectin reduced the risk of death by 72 percent, making it more than three times more effective than the vaccine. As the risks of adverse effects from Ivermectin are negligible, so it has a more favourable risk-benefit ratio.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-jama-paper-show-ivermectin-blows?utm_source=url

 “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 data

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:

1. 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 Evidencefor details on this.
2. 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 the clear choice. It’s the only rational choice.
3. 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.
4. If we want to reduce deaths, ivermectin is the way to go. Avoid the vaccine entirely.
5. 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.

Summary

It doesn’t get much better than this. A paper published in JAMA showing ivermectin is three times better than the 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.”

https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/the-disinformation-campaign-against?utm_source=url

“There are really three main problems with this study and its aftermath;

1) Publication Bias: given my personal knowledge of a number of researchers whose profoundly positive ivermectin studies were rejected by JAMA, they, for the second time in a row, reveal a profound publication bias. It is a well-known disinformation tactic for high impact journals like JAMA to somehow only publish studies without “statistically significant benefits” for medicines that Pharma does not want to see in play (generally generic medicines), as they similarly avoid publishing studies of “harms” associated with Pharma favored products (i.e tobacco studies last century and/or vaccine studies this one). What is fascinating is that JAMA’s (“PHAMA’s”) ivermectin papers actually all report important benefits, but most importantly for JAMA, none that reach “statistical significance." 

2) Study Conclusion: JAMA saw fit to ensure inclusion of this phrase at the end of the conclusion, “the findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19,” despite what could arguably be called a compellingly supportive study based on a number of important, near statistically significant reductions in secondary outcomes like death. An absurdly obvious reason why statistical significance was not reached was that, in this population of patients, like many other upcoming trials (NIH’ ACTIV-6, U Minnesota’s COVID-OUT, Oxford’s Principle trial etc) they allowed patients to enter the trial up to 7 days from first symptoms. It is well known anti-virals efficacy is strongest.. earlier. In this trial, the average time from first symptoms was 5.1 days with a confidence interval of 1.3, meaning, pretty much nobody got treatment within 3 days of symptoms. Yet, this critical feature of this trial gets ignored in the conclusion (many conclusions will include important limitations of the study’s findings, unsurprisingly, not this one).

JAMA, per their strict criteria, also consistently avoids mention in conclusion statements of large differences in massively important secondary outcomes. Best example of this behavior by JAMA was the IV Vitamin C in ARDS trial. Read the conclusion. Then read the paper, and look at Table 2 and Figure 3... you find a massive, statistically significant reduction in mortality in those treated with IV Vitamin C. Hard to find.. but it is there. If JAMA wouldn’t allow those authors to mention it in that paper’s abstract conclusion, no surprise they did it again here.

3) the masses of doctors and media who simply propagate and disseminate that sentence and abstract without reading the actual study or reviewing the actual data while ignorant of the findings from the highest level of medical evidence.. the “meta-analyses” of ivermectin (summary analyses of all trials).

The way that sentence was written and where it was placed and in what journal it appeared was highly strategic (and very effective) as the entities who have been trying to suppress and distort the evidence of efficacy of ivermectin know exactly how to further stoke the smug arrogance and trigger the “I told you so’s” from all those doctors with propagandized, deeply ignorant bias against ivermectin, a proportion which likely includes well over 90% of academic physicians.

Although the above attack strategy on ivermectin is effective, to most of “us” it is really easy to see how crazily the conclusion departs from not only the study’s own data, but the totality of the published evidence (and every single “comprehensive” meta-analysis) which all show repeatedly shorter times to viral clearance, clinical recovery, fewer hospitalizations, and far less death when COVID patients are treated with ivermectin. Note not one of these were cited in the JAMA manuscript. Weird no?

All you have to do is read the study to understand a few simple things, namely that the primary outcome was not patient-centered (need for oxygen while in hospital?), while the “important” patient centered outcomes were “secondary” ones (death and need for mechanical ventilation), and although these two events happened so few times that a statistically significant result was near impossible to achieve.. the differences they found came very, very close to statistical significance! The ”p” value (probability the findings were due to chance) for the mortality reduction in IVM treated patients (the control groups deaths were over 3X as much as the ivermectin group) was… 0.09! Statistical significance is generally accepted (but often debated!) as a p value less than 0.05, meaning that there must be less than a 5 percent probability that the study findings were “due to chance.” In this study there was a 9% probability that the differences were due to chance. Conversely, this means that there was a 91% probability that the difference in death was REAL and reproducible. Note the p value for the need for mechanical ventilation was also quite low despite so few events observed, p = 0.17.

What is even more fascinating (disturbing) is how the authors and JAMA avoided including this analysis by my colleague Massimaux which found a massive, highly statistically significant result when looking at the subgroup of “severe” patients only:

Find me one patient who wouldn’t take any of the above odds while ill in a hospital with COVID with a drug as ridiculously safe as ivermectin. My god. Find me one patient who would worry about developing a need for oxygen more than developing a condition called death.

The reason why I say the standard p value of .05 is often debated is that many scientists and physicians like myself feel strongly that lower p values should be required only when the drug is either high risk, high cost, novel or other data are few. Further, many of us also recognize that over-relying on p values leads to critical signals of efficacy being ignored, especially when event rates are low. Ivermectin has an incredible safety record and is low cost, with, as mentioned above, a massively positive data signal from 78 controlled trials and numerous health ministry treatment programs around the world. A 91% chance that the massive reduction in death they found was real and repeatable with ivermectin should convince almost anyone to want to take ivermectin if ill with COVID. Summary (meta-analysis) data of ALL trials actually represent the highest and strongest form of medical evidence.. not just one trial.

Yet the obsessiveness with p values of a single study in modern, “evidence based medicine” (I call it evidence based maniacisim (EBM) is literally killing people. And that is why one of the most popular scientific papers in the last decade is a paper in Nature called “Scientists Rise Up Against Statistical Significance.” I wish every doctor would read (and understand) the deep meaning and massive implications of what that paper teaches those of us in the medical sciences whose patients fate is often in our hands.. rather than the overly stringent p values the EBManiacs demand. Docs will literally let someone die if a study of a medicine that found an important benefit does not have an associated p value of less than .05. When it is .09 and a secondary outcome? Too arbitrary, not rigorous enough to use the medicine, even in the dying. Even if it is the safest, most benign, and lowest cost medicine in the world. Now do you understand why I have effectively left institutionalized medicine?”