Stillness in the Storm

An Agent for Consciousness Evolution

New Meta-Analysis Finds “A Large Reductions In COVID-19 Deaths” Possible Using Ivermectin

By Leave a Comment

Spread the love

() Working in independent media is not what it used to be. During the beginning of the pandemic we’ve been severely punished by third party Facebook fact-checkers for having discussions about the possible lab-origins of COVID-19. For example, we published an article about Dr. Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. Boyle drafted the Biological Weapons Act and gave a detailed statement sharing his opinion that COVID-19 originated in a lab, designed as a Biological Warfare Weapon. He claimed that the World Health Organization (WHO) knew about it. All of Boyle’s video interviews at the time were taken off of YouTube, and any article written about him and his beliefs were labelled as “false news” by Facebook. As a result, independent media outlets were demonetized and had social media reach reduced so audiences could not see content.

Related Not Only Did Google Fund Bioweapons Research, It Also Censored Information About Covid’s Lab Origins

Source – Collective Evolution

by , June 28th, 2021

Facebook has already removed at least 16 million pieces of content from its platform and added warnings to approximately 167 million others. YouTube has removed nearly 1 million videos related to, according to them, “dangerous or misleading covid-19 medical information.”

Fast forward to today, and the lab origin debate has hit the mainstream media after ‘they’ have changed their mind about it being a “conspiracy theory” not worthy of discussion.

Now let’s talk about Ivermectin, another highly censored discussion. For over a year you could not write about Ivermectin without being subjected to the wrath of Facebook fact-checkers, unless of course the narrative shared in the article was that Ivermectin is completely useless for treating COVID-19.

To be honest, this article may also be flagged as “false”, “misleading” or “missing context” despite the fact that it’s quoting a study that was good enough to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

This is confusing to many, especially journalists because many publications, doctors and scientists have been urging the need to examine the use of Ivermectin to treat patients ill with COVID-19.

At the start, we don’t know if something is useful, but when we test and examine results, we can find out. Journalists help share those stories with the world. But instead, that discussion has been completely shut down, censored, and again labelled a “conspiracy theory.”

The silver lining is that this censorship alone has served as a catalyst for people to really question what’s going on here. How can we as a society truly examine whether or not something can be useful for COVID-19 if we are not even allowed to discuss it openly and transparently? What type of thinking is leading us to accept this level of censorship?

Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH (source)

A new meta-analysis was recently published in the American Journal of Therapeutics states the following:

The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials….Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggests that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

This isn’t the first time Ivermectin has been empirically supported. For example, as the meta-analysis points out, a review by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance summarized findings from 27 studies on the effects of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection, concluding that ivermectin “demonstrates a strong signal of therapeutic efficacy” against COVID-19.

Despite this fact, the National Institutes of Health in the United States is of the opinion that “there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19,” and the WHO recommends against its use outside of clinical trials.

According to Facebook fact checker Health Feedback,

There are design flaws and methodological limitations of the clinical studies that support the use of ivermectin against COVID-19… Overall, given the lack of evidence supporting ivermectin’s efficacy and safety, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn’t recommend the use of ivermectin for COVID-19. The Infectious Diseases Society of America also doesn’t recommend the use of ivermectin against COVID-19…On the 22nd of March 2021, the European Medicines Agency released a statement advising against the use of ivermectin for prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outside randomised clinical trials.

You can read another review regarding Ivermectin from Health Feedback, here if interested.

Yet the authors of the new meta-analysis used the following methods,

We searched the reference list of included studies, and of two other 2021 literature reviews of ivermectin, as well as the recent WHO report, which included analysis of ivermectin. We contacted experts in the field (Drs. Andrew Hill, Pierre Kory, and Paul Marik) for information on new and emerging trial data. In addition, all trials registered on clinical trial registries were checked, and trialists of 39 ongoing trials or unclassified studies were contacted to request information on trial status and data where available. Many preprint publications and unpublished articles were identified from the preprint servers MedRxiv and Research Square, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. This is a rapidly expanding evidence base, so the number of trials are increasing quickly. Reasons for exclusion were recorded for all studies excluded after full-text review….

Other key findings from the paper,

Meta-analysis of 15 trials, assessing 2438 participants, found that ivermectin reduced the risk of death by an average of 62% (95% CI 27%–81%) compared with no ivermectin treatment [average RR (aRR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.73; I2 5 49%]; risk of death 2.3% versus 7.8% among hospitalized patients in this analysis, respectively (SoF Table 2 and Figure 3).

There is also evidence emerging from countries where ivermectin has been implemented. For example, Peru had a very high death toll from COVID-19 early on in the pandemic.128 Based on observational evidence, the Peruvian government approved ivermectin for use against COVID-19 in May 2020.128 After implementation, death rates in 8 states were reduced between 64% and 91% over a two-month period.128 Another analysis of Peruvian data from 24 states with early ivermectin deployment has reported a drop in excess deaths of 59% at 30+ days and of 75% at 45+ days.

The paper is quite detailed and goes much more in-depth than the summary I have provided. Be sure to review it for more information and if you want a deeper understanding of their findings.

It’s also noteworthy to mention that  The University of Oxford in the UK has added ivermectin to the Platform Randomised Trial of Treatments in the Community for Epidemic and Pandemic Illnesses (PRINCIPLE) study for the treatment of Covid-19. PRINCIPLE is a large clinical trial designed to assess potential Covid-19 therapies for non-hospitalised patients, including at-home recovery, who are at higher risk of progressing to serious illness.

Ivermectin is broad spectrum antiparasitic used commonly to treat parasitic infections worldwide. The drug, which is known to exhibit antiviral properties, reduced SARS-CoV-2 replication in laboratory studies. In small pilot studies, early use of ivermectin was able to lower viral load and the duration of symptoms in some mild Covid-19 patients.  (source)

Ivermectin has not been the only therapeutic to show promise, there have been many others, including intravenous vitamin C, for example. Yet, we’re not allowed to discuss these nor have any scientific discussion about it. In the mainstream these types of treatments have been completely ridiculed. Why?

Fight viruses, remove heavy metals and microplastics, and restore your gut all at once with 

Humic and Fulvic Acid from Ascent Nutrition. 

MUST HAVE DETOX POWERHOUSE!

Save 10% and get free shipping with a subscription!

About The Author

I joined the CE team in 2010 shortly after finishing university and have been grateful for the fact that I have been able to do this ever since :) There are many things happening on the planet that don’t resonate with me, and I wanted to do what I could to play a role in creating change. It’s been great making changes in my own life and creating awareness and I look forward to more projects that move beyond awareness and into action and implementation. So stay tuned :) arjun@collective-evolution.com

Stillness in the Storm Editor: Why did we post this?

The news is important to all people because it is where we come to know new things about the world, which leads to the development of more life goals that lead to life wisdom. The news also serves as a social connection tool, as we tend to relate to those who know about and believe the things we do. With the power of an open truth-seeking mind in hand, the individual can grow wise and the collective can prosper.

– Justin

Not sure how to make sense of this? Want to learn how to discern like a pro? Read this essential guide to discernment, analysis of claims, and understanding the truth in a world of deception: 4 Key Steps of Discernment – Advanced Truth-Seeking Tools.

Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammatical mistake? Send an email to corrections@stillnessinthestorm.com, with the error and suggested correction, along with the headline and url. Do you think this article needs an update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at sitsshow@gmail.com. Thank you for reading.

Source:

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2021/06/28/new-meta-analysis-finds-a-large-reductions-in-covid-19-deaths-possible-using-ivermectin/

DIRECT DONATION

Support our work! (Avoid Big Tech PayPal and Patreon)

Notices and Disclaimers

We need $2000 per month to pay our costs. Help us one time or recurring. (DONATE HERE)

To sign up for RSS updates, paste this link (https://stillnessinthestorm.com/feed/) into the search field of your preferred RSS Reader or Service (such as Feedly or gReader).

Subscribe to Stillness in the Storm Newsletter

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle

This website is supported by readers like you.

If you find our work of value, consider making a donation. 

Stillness in the Storm DISCLAIMER: All articles, videos, statements, claims, views and opinions that appear anywhere on this site, whether stated as theories or absolute facts, are always presented by Stillness in the Storm as unverified—and should be personally fact checked and discerned by you, the reader. Any opinions or statements herein presented are not necessarily promoted, endorsed, or agreed to by Stillness, those who work with Stillness, or those who read Stillness. Any belief or conclusion gleaned from content on this site is solely the responsibility of you the reader to substantiate, fact check, and no harm comes to you or those around you. And any actions taken by those who read material on this site is solely the responsibility of the acting party. You are encouraged to think carefully and do your own research. Nothing on this site is meant to be believed without question or personal appraisal.

Content Disclaimer: All content on this site marked with “source – [enter website name and url]” is not owned by Stillness in the Storm. All content on this site that is not originally written, created, or posted as original, is owned by the original content creators, who retain exclusive jurisdiction of all intellectual property rights. Any copyrighted material on this site was shared in good faith, under fair use or creative commons. Any request to remove copyrighted material will be honored, provided proof of ownership is rendered. Send takedown requests to feedback@stillnessinthestorm.com.

What is our mission? Why do we post what we do?

Our mission here is to curate (share) articles and information that we feel is important for the evolution of consciousness. Most of that information is written or produced by other people and organizations, which means it does not represent our views or opinions as managing staff of Stillness in the Storm. Some of the content is written by one of our writers and is clearly marked accordingly. Just because we share a CNN story that speaks badly about the President doesn’t mean we’re promoting anti-POTUS views. We’re reporting on the fact as it was reported, and that this event is important for us to know so we can better contend with the challenges of gaining freedom and prosperity. Similarly, just because we share a pro/anti-[insert issue or topic] content, such as a pro-second amendment piece or an anti-military video doesn’t mean we endorse what is said. Again, information is shared on this site for the purpose of evolving consciousness. In our opinion, consciousness evolves through the process of accumulating knowledge of the truth and contemplating that knowledge to distill wisdom and improve life by discovering and incorporating holistic values. Thus, sharing information from many different sources, with many different perspectives is the best way to maximize evolution. What’s more, the mastery of mind and discernment doesn’t occur in a vacuum, it is much like the immune system, it needs regular exposure to new things to stay healthy and strong. If you have any questions as to our mission or methods please reach out to us at feedback@stillnessinthestorm.com.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *