https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2021/01/17/dr-pierre-korys-slides-from-unbreakingscience/

http://  Approx. 1 hour

Jan. 16, 2021

Ivermectin 2021 Update with Dr. Pierre Kory

Dr. Jack and Dr. Pierre Kory discuss NEW SCIENCE on Ivermectin – prophylactic efficacy, effective across populations – Fact Checkers take NOTE – this is NEW science, NEW information that cannot be “Fact Checked” using OLD INFORMATION.

Dr. Kory, medical director at the Trauma & Life Support Center and a faculty member in the Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine in the Department of Medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, is President of FLCCC (Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance).  

Dr. Kory’s slides on Ivermectin: Kory-Slides-1-16-2021

  • Similarly to HCQ, Ivermectin’s been used for nearly 40 years, has an incredible safety record and is on the WHO’s list of essential medicines:  https://list.essentialmeds.org
  • Kory’s paper he began writing in April, took attempts with SIX journals to get published, that states COVID-19 is NOT a viral pneumonia.  They are not finding cytopathic changes on autopsy in the vast  majority of cases. COVID-19 is an organizing pneumonia, which is not infectious but a response or exposure to something causing inflammation/injury in the lungs. The primary treatment for organizing pneumonia is corticosteroids.  Paper here:  https://bmjopenrespres.bmj.com/content/bmjresp/7/1/e000724.full.pdf  Important excerpt:  

Given this likely high prevalence of OP, AFOP or both in early COVID-19, a concern is that the increasingly adopted RECOVERY trial protocol (6mg dexamethasone daily for up to 10 days) may be insufficient given that treatment of secondary OP often requires higher doses, prolonged duration of treatment, and a careful and monitored tapering.9  Thus, additional studies comparing corticosteroid type, dosing and duration should be conducted along with the use of other immunosuppressive agents. 

FLACCC came up with the MATH+ protocol in early April and received a lot of flack for it, but they’ve been proven correct.  For more on MATH+ treatment for hospitalized patients:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/02/successful-covid-19-critical-care-stonewalled-by-cdc/ and https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/26/math-protocol-shows-profound-impact-on-survival-from-covid-19/

For Dr. Kory’s testimony to the Senate on Ivermectin:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/12/09/i-cant-keep-doing-this-pleads-wisconsin-medical-director/

For Dr. Weiler’s testimony at the Freedom Press Conference on the COVID-19 medical device (it’s not a vaccine):  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/12/04/medical-freedom-press-conference-must-see-video/

_________________________

Study Finds ‘No Significant Beneficial Effect’ of Restrictive Lockdowns

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13484

Abstract
Background and Aims: The most restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID-19 are mandatory stay-at-home and business closures. Given the consequences of these policies, it is important to assess their effects. We evaluate the effects on epidemic case growth of more restrictive NPIs (mrNPIs), above and beyond those of less restrictive NPIs (lrNPIs).
Methods: We first estimate COVID-19 case growth in relation to any NPI implementation in subnational regions of 10 countries:
  • England
  • France
  • Germany
  • Iran
  • Italy
  • Netherlands
  • Spain
  • South Korea
  • Sweden
  • US

Using first-difference models with fixed effects, we isolate the effects of mrNPIs by subtracting the combined effects of lrNPIs and epidemic dynamics from all NPIs. We use case growth in Sweden and South Korea, two countries that did not implement mandatory stay-at-home and business closures, as comparison countries for the other 8 countries (16 total comparisons).

Results: Implementing any NPIs was associated with significant reductions in case growth in 9 out of 10 study countries, including South Korea and Sweden that implemented only lrNPIs (Spain had a non-significant effect). After subtracting the epidemic and lrNPI effects, we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country. In France, e.g., the effect of mrNPIs was +7% (95CI -5%-19%) when compared with Sweden, and +13% (-12%-38%) when compared with South Korea (positive means pro-contagion). The 95% confidence intervals excluded 30% declines in all 16 comparisons and 15% declines in 11/16 comparisons.
Conclusions: While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions.
_______________________
**Comment**
We can be very thankful Sweden and South Korea stood up to the concerted bullying or there would have been no control group to compare lockdowns to!
For more:  
%d bloggers like this: