Out of 241 patients who took ivermectin, a total of 52 progressed to severe disease during their hospital stay. In the placebo group, 43 patients progressed to severe disease. CNN’s Ana Cabrera used this detail to publicly claim that “Ivermectin doesn’t prevent severe disease from covid-19 any more effectively than a placebo.” Her statement couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, the 241 patients who were treated with a five-day course of ivermectin fared better than the 249 patients in the placebo group in the two most important metrics: ventilator prescription and death.
A total of four patients in the ivermectin group were deferred to mechanical ventilation; in the placebo group, 10 of the patients were deferred to mechanical ventilation. A total of three patients in the ivermectin group passed away during the study period, while a total of 10 patients passed away in the placebo group.
In this small study, ivermectin helped save approximately SEVEN lives. If this Nobel prize-winning drug would have been administered to the placebo group, another seven lives would have been saved (according to the data). Ivermectin clearly reduced the worst outcomes (ventilators and deaths), so why did CNN and other naysayers disparage the study? It’s as if the corporate media truly believes that there is nothing anyone can do to help their situation. It’s as if CNN does not believe in the science of immune-modulating drugs, anti-virals or phytochemicals. The public is brainwashed to believe that everyone is helpless, that their immune system is incapable, and hospitals only exist to facilitate certain deterioration and death.
Naysayers claimed that ivermectin had no effect on primary outcomes, such as oxygen use. However, oxygen is typically used early on as part of a standard protocol for managing severe disease in obese patients with comorbidities. Patients are often started on oxygen a day after they are hospitalized, before the five-day course of ivermectin is administered. The primary outcomes that should be focused on are: ventilator use and death.
The under-powered study included a very small cohort of people, so the statistical significance for the different rates in ventilation and death among the two groups turns out to be a P value of .19 and .09, respectively and is “NOT statistically significant.” The number of lives saved in this small pool does not reach the P<0.05 criteria for statistical significance.
However, due to the under-powered nature of this study, the P standard of .05 is statistically irrelevant because it does not take into consideration risk versus benefit. A P value of .09 means there is a 91% chance that the effect of ivermectin on the outcome of the patients was reliable and NOT by chance. Because the drug posed very little side effects, demonstrably reduced the risk of death by 70%, and its effects were 91% reliable for saving lives, then this study proves that ivermectin can save many more lives if it is used early on in hospital treatment protocols.
Its effects could be even greater if it were paired with liposomal vitamin C and vitamin D, along with other immune-modulating nutrients. As this study shows, even if the patient is hospitalized with severe comorbidities and is denied a full spectrum anti-viral, nutraceutical treatment protocol, ivermectin can still save lives!
Due to their persistent denial of the evidence-based science on ivermectin, CNN ranks as the number one spreader of covid-19 misinformation. Because the organization is hesitant to recommend a single treatment that works, they are therefore "anti-science" and complicit in human rights violations.
For more data, visit C19Ivermectin.com.