Peer Reviewed Study = Ivermectin Works.

Well, this is a good one. A very nicely done Peer Reviewed Study finds that, no surprise to us, Ivermectin Works to stop Chinese Wuhan Covid. Even at a tiny dose given with far too long a gap between treatments, it is highly beneficial. IMHO, given in a larger dose and at least once a week, they would get to 100% protection instead of “Just” 70% reduction…

First, the Dr. John Campbell video:


The first referenced article (Patients admitted with Covid-19 and then treated):

Bolding done for emphasis by me.

International Journal of Infectious Diseases
Volume 116, Supplement, March 2022, Page S40
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
PS05.04 (947)

Treatment with Ivermectin Is Associated with Decreased Mortality in COVID-19 Patients: Analysis of a National Federated Database

I.Efimenko 1 S.Nackeeran 2 S.Jabori 3 J.A. GonzalezZamora 4 S.Danker 3 D.Singh 1
University of Miami, Plastic Surgery, Miami, United States
University of Miami, Urology, Miami, United States
University of Miami, Plastic Surgery, Miami, United States
University of Miami, Infectious Diseases, Miami, United States
Available online 28 February 2022, Version of Record 28 February 2022.


To evaluate the difference in mortality of patients treated with ivermectin vs patients treated with remdesivir with COVID-19 in United States using TriNetX Research network, a federated EMR network of over 44 healthcare organizations and 68 million patients from US, from 2009-2021.

Methods & Materials

We retrospectively identified adults (≥18 years) with a recorded COVID-19 infection between January 1, 2020 and July 11, 2021. We compared those with recorded use of ivermectin, but not remdesivir, against those with recorded use of remdesivir, but not ivermectin. We controlled for the following demographics, comorbidities, and treatments that may affect COVID-19 survival outcomes: age, gender, race, ethnicity, nicotine use diabetes mellitus, obesity, chronic lower respiratory disease, ischemic heart diseases, tocilizumab, glucocorticoids, or ventilator use. We measured association with mortality as the primary outcome, with significance assessed at p<0.05.


There were a total of 1,761,060 possible COVID-19 patients based on ICD-10 diagnostic terms and confirmatory lab results. Prior to controlling, our analysis yielded 41,608 patients who had COVID-19 resulting in two unique cohorts that were treated with either ivermectin (1,072) or remdesivir (40,536). Within the ivermectin cohort, average age was 51.9 + 17.8 years, 43% were male, 60% had glucocorticoids and 1% required ventilator support. In the remdesivir cohort, average age was 62.0 + 16.0 years, 54% were male, 64% had glucocorticoids and 2% required ventilator support. After using propensity score matching and adjusting for potential confounders, ivermectin was associated with reduced mortality vs remdesivir (OR 0.308, 95% CI (0.198,0.479)),Risk Difference -5.224%, CI (-7.079%,-3.369%), p <0.0001.


Ivermectin use was associated with decreased mortality in patients with COVID-19 compared to remdesivir. To our knowledge, this is the largest association study of patients with COVID-19, mortality and ivermectin.
Further double-blinded placebo-controlled RCTs with large samples are required for definite conclusion. In the future, if more publications are published with the similar result to the current analyses, the certainty of evidence will increase.

Dr. John Campbell says that the OR 0.308 means you are about 70% less likely to die using Ivermectin instead of Remdesivir. Think on that when you hear that Hospitals were forbidding treatment with Ivermectin and insisting on Remdesivir. Who will pay for those excess deaths?

2nd Paper (Ivemectin prophylaxis):

Cureus. 2022 Jan 15;14(1):e21272. doi: 10.7759/cureus.21272. eCollection 2022 Jan.

Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching

Lucy Kerr 1, Flavio A Cadegiani 2 3, Fernando Baldi 4, Raysildo B Lobo 5, Washington Luiz O Assagra 6, Fernando Carlos Proença 7, Pierre Kory 8, Jennifer A Hibberd 9, Juan J Chamie-Quintero 10

1 Medicine, Instituto Kerr, São Paulo, BRA.
2 Clinical Endocrinology, Corpometria Institute, Brasilia, BRA.
3 Clinical Endocrinology, Applied Biology Inc, Irvine, USA.
4 Animal Sciences, Universidade Estadual de São Paulo (UNESP), São Paulo, BRA.
5 Genetics, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, BRA.
6 Genetics, Centro Técnico de Avaliação Genômica – C.T.A.G., Ribeirão Preto, BRA.
7 Bioinformatics, Itajaí City Hall, Itajaí, BRA.
8 Internal Medicine, Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), Madison, USA.
9 Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, CAN.
10 Data Analysis, Universidad EAFIT, Medellín, COL.


Background: Ivermectin has demonstrated different mechanisms of action that potentially protect from both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and COVID-19-related comorbidities. Based on the studies suggesting efficacy in prophylaxis combined with the known safety profile of ivermectin, a citywide prevention program using ivermectin for COVID-19 was implemented in Itajaí, a southern city in Brazil in the state of Santa Catarina. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of regular ivermectin use on subsequent COVID-19 infection and mortality rates.

Materials and methods: We analyzed data from a prospective, observational study of the citywide COVID-19 prevention with ivermectin program, which was conducted between July 2020 and December 2020 in Itajaí, Brazil. Study design, institutional review board approval, and analysis of registry data occurred after completion of the program. The program consisted of inviting the entire population of Itajaí to a medical visit to enroll in the program and to compile baseline, personal, demographic, and medical information. In the absence of contraindications, ivermectin was offered as an optional treatment to be taken for two consecutive days every 15 days at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day. In cases where a participating citizen of Itajaí became ill with COVID-19, they were recommended not to use ivermectin or any other medication in early outpatient treatment. Clinical outcomes of infection, hospitalization, and death were automatically reported and entered into the registry in real time. Study analysis consisted of comparing ivermectin users with non-users using cohorts of infected patients propensity score-matched by age, sex, and comorbidities. COVID-19 infection and mortality rates were analyzed with and without the use of propensity score matching (PSM).

Do note that this dose is way way low. IIRC, I’m using about 2x that. Also note that it is given every 2 weeks. The FLCCC found a 90-someting% protection with their larger dose and a 2 week interval, but shortening the interval to every week went to 100% protection.

Reading my PDR (Physician’s Desk Reference) the half life of Ivermectin was about 16 hours (with some variation) and I figured my drug level was dropping to below protective at about day 12. That would leave 2 or 3 days of unprotected via prophylaxis, where you are hoping any virus that infected you on day 12 or 13 is stopped by the dose you get on the 14th day. Clearly at this low dose, that fails.

But even with those two flaws in the dose and schedule, they get spectacular success.

Results: Of the 223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered for the study, a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis: 113,845 (71.3%) regular ivermectin users and 45,716 (23.3%) non-users. Of these, 4,311 ivermectin users were infected, among which 4,197 were from the city of Itajaí (3.7% infection rate), and 3,034 non-users (from Itajaí) were infected (6.6% infection rate), with a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.53-0.58; p < 0.0001). Using PSM, two cohorts of 3,034 subjects suffering from COVID-19 infection were compared. The regular use of ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (25 [0.8%] versus 79 [2.6%] among ivermectin non-users; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.49; p < 0.0001). When adjusted for residual variables, reduction in mortality rate was 70% (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.46; p < 0.0001). There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (44 versus 99 hospitalizations among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63; p < 0.0001). After adjustment for residual variables, reduction in hospitalization rate was 67% (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 023-0.66; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

Keywords: coronavirus; covid-19; ivermectin; prevention; prophylaxis; sars-cov-2.

So 44% less likely to get it. IF you got it, a 56% reduction in hospitalizations (67% adjusted) and a 70% reduction in deaths. I’ll take a 70% reduction in deaths…

But spread the dose to once / week and you can do a whole lot better. Given that the PDR tells you the elimination rate of the drug (1/2 life) and it is not hard to calculate when you drop so low as to be essentially zero, why they went with such a low dose and every 2 weeks is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps using the dose / schedule for intestinal worms? Whatever.

So I’m very happy using the FLCCC dose / schedule, and have had zero viruses in over 2 years now. No colds, flu, nor Chinese Wuhan Covid. Despite several ‘cross the nation’ road trips spent almost entirely maskless and in large crowds.

Isn’t it time for the CDC to say it works and that their “Guidance” has killed millions of people?

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Covid, Science Bits. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Peer Reviewed Study = Ivermectin Works.

  1. AC Osborn says:

    The naysayers will find all sorts of problems with both studies and say the results are not reliable.
    Just as they have for all the other positive studies that they conduct “meta analysis” on.

  2. Simon Derricutt says:

    “ivermectin was offered as an optional treatment to be taken for two consecutive days every 15 days at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day.”
    For me, that would be 14mg each day for two days every couple of weeks. Yep, seems that this is a bit odd, since taking a single pill once a week would maintain a higher quantity in the body for a larger proportion of the time, and give a shorter period during which the level was too low to have an effect, and also a shorter period before that level was again raised to a sufficient level to neutralise any virus caught during the “off” time. I haven’t worked it out properly, but I’d expect that during the second week the level had dropped low enough to have little or no effect, so for half the time the people would have been unprotected.
    Also, if the person did become ill, they stopped the Ivermectin. Almost as if it was designed to fail….

    Yet despite this, it worked very well. Maybe interesting to see the data of when people noticed symptoms first relative to that two-week cycle, since I’d expect a large peak to occur just before they were due for their next dose. Incubation time is 3-5 days in general (though I think it was 8 days for me both times based on me only being in public spaces on Saturdays and noticing some symptoms on Sunday) so they’d probably have become infected around day 10-11 of the cycle and notice symptoms on day 14-15.

    Looks like it’s thus possible to use the same total quantity of IVM and get a better result as regards prophylaxis by taking that 0.2mg/kg once a week rather than twice in two weeks. Also seems reasonable to increase the dose if you see symptoms rather than stopping it altogether.

  3. DonM says:

    Seems any amount & time is better than none.

    If only we could get the medical establishment to agree on a one and only dosing system … of course this would entail discouraging/banning alternative dosing regimes.

    Anybody know how Gates is getting along with his Ivermectin patent?

  4. watersider says:

    This is just further evedince to add to the successful treatment in India.

  5. rhoda klapp says:

    Is there anyone who thinks just one more study will push it over the top? The lockout took place two years ago, it will not be released under any circumstances now.

  6. philjourdan says:

    There are 2 reasons the US leads the world in Covid deaths (well 3 actually).

    1. Lies – they counted people WITH covid as a covid death regardless of the real cause of death
    2. Intubation. The ghouls loved intubating patients so they could get more money from the government
    3. By Design. Even when faced with overwhelming evidence of the efficacy of drugs such as Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, the government (the same one the idiots look to for salvation) denied treatment with those drugs in deference to much more expensive ones that Faucci was getting a kick back on.

    And no, I have no illusions anyone will pay for the hundreds of thousands of useless deaths due to greed, malfeasance, and outright stupidity.

  7. H.R. says:

    @phil – You might want to add the heavy-handed threats to the licenses of those in the medical professions if they didn’t push the CDC/Government narrative or, heaven forbid, prescribed a verboten treatment.

    Very few had the courage to stand up to that pressure. Some did and lost their jobs and credentials. They were the honest, honorable few.

    Oh, and the one-size-fits-all ‘vaccine’. One size does not fit all.

  8. Lynn Clark says:

    There’s either a misprint or math error in the mortality results for the IVM-user group in the second paper. It reports a mortality rate of 0.8% for the IVM-using group and 2.6% for the non-IVM-using group. The number of infected persons in the IVM-using and non-IVM-using groups was reported as 4,311 and 3,034, respectively. The number of deaths in the IVM-using and non-IVM-using groups was reported as 25 and 79, respectively:

    IVM group: 25 / 4,311 = 0.0058 = 0.58% (0.8% reported in the paper)
    non-IVM group: 79 / 3,034 = 0.026 = 2.6%

    It is possible that they mistakenly used the same number as the denominator for both groups:

    IVM group: 25 / 3,034 = 0.0082 = 0.82% (0.8% reported in the paper)
    non-IVM group: 79 / 3,034 = 0.026 = 2.6%

    If my supposition is correct, it suggests that IVM is a tiny bit more effective than they reported.

  9. David A says:

    Ivermectin, or any good preventive early stage cure, is far better if used in mass in a population, then in a study like this.
    The reason is it breaks the RO, and the disease dies. So yes, the study actually, in my view, greatly under estimates the efficacy of Ivermectin. Ivermectin, plus zinc, plus sunshine would end it completely.

    However apparently Putin is the very best prophylactic, as Covid has disappeared since he entered Ukraine.

  10. AC Osborn says:

    “philjourdan says: 8 March 2022 at 12:59 am ”
    In the UK we have the same policies, but without the financial gains.
    We have no early treatment at all and use Intubation at the drop of a hat.
    So no 3 appears to be the main western world answer, that includes Australia and New Zealand.

  11. AC Osborn says:

    “David A says: 8 March 2022 at 9:46 am
    However apparently Putin is the very best prophylactic, as Covid has disappeared since he entered Ukraine.”

    No it has not gone away, just less reporting, COVID cases are increasing the UK.

  12. philjourdan says:

    @H.R – that is just part of #3. They could not get kick backs if old Doc Jones showed that the cheap stuff was better,

  13. H.R. says:

    @phil – Yup. That could go under #3. I was just adding a little detail.


    Globalist Evil Bastards
    Greedy Evil Bastards
    Government Evil Bastards

    Stupid, Useful Idiots (SUI) who think they’ll be the ones in charge until surprise! “Here’s the bill for the bullet we’ll use to shoot you.”

    Now all I have to do is figure out how to work SUI into GEB. That’s a toughie.

  14. David A says:

    AC, yes, for various reasons no longer the story of the day. Perhaps the failures of policy and vaccines are to difficult to hide.

  15. David says:

    Nuremberg trials for every last one who suppressed this for so long.

  16. cdquarles says:

    @David A,
    That’s part of it. The “Western State-controlled Media” also has a motto: “If it bleeds, it leads”, so what has more blood than war? There you are.

  17. another ian says:

    A bigger “peer”!

    “Who Changed the Scientific Conclusions of a Paper that Could Have Saved Millions? At Last, We May Have a Name.”

    Via Jo Nova

  18. another iuan says:

    Not good reading on the covid front

    “Coofie Finale”

    Unless Vitamin I works to clean the shit out

  19. another ian says:

    “Safe and effective” (/s)

    “Not informed, no consent: 1,200 people died in the first 3 months of Pfizer vax. Why was that data hidden?”

  20. H.R. says:

    YeeOwie!! 1200 people died?!?

    I would expect that some of those deaths were people whose number was up anyhow. How many people got the Pfizer vax in the first 3 months it was being administered?

    I’d expect a few dozen. Or maybe even a few hundred. But 1200?!? For those not going to die or those with a rare ixnay reason to not get jabbed, that still leaves a whole lotta people who died just because they got the jab. Had they not, I’d be inclined to think they would have had at least an average lifespan+/-.

    Yet another number I trust – 1200 people died – but without enough information to make some solid sense of that number. So, I’m still stuck with some facts and some voids in the facts.

    *sigh* It’s been that way all along.

  21. another ian. says:


    “1200 people died – but without enough information to make some solid sense of that number.”

    In the framework that we have one could punt that the number would be in lights if it was favourable

  22. AC Osborn says:

    That 1200 is mostly from VAERs which as we know captures 1% to 10% of actual mortality.
    The Insurance Company’s Excess Deaths gives a better picture because to get the cash they can’t hide the numbers.

  23. Glenn Lockwood says:

    miami study was withdrawn apparently selection bias

  24. Steven Fraser says:

    .E.M.: I’ve been following Dr. Cambell for a year or so. Outstandingly clear presentation style. A keeper!

  25. H.R. says:

    Ah! The insurance companies! Thanks, AC.

    I’ve not run across their (dry, but accurate) data. But there’s no hiding or burying the truth in their reports.

    They are obligated to report their payouts and the whys and wherefores. Otherwise, they are in deep, deep doodoo with the SEC.

    Now… where can we get this dry-as-toast information? I’m not sure exactly how to search on that. What… just search on SEC filings for the major insurers? I’ll have to play with that another day. I’m booked for the next several days.

  26. another ian says:

    “Open Letter To Atagi, TGA and Federal Health Department

    Open letter addressed to A/Prof Crawford, Dr Murphy, Prof Kelly, Prof Skerritt, Hon Minister Hunt, members of ATAGI and ACV

    Withdraw the experimental gene-based treatment to the general public and especially children
    Tuesday 8th March 2022

    We, the Covid Medical Network and co-signatories, are writing to you to follow up on prior correspondence to ATAGI, the TGA and the Health Minister, and FOIA requests to the TGA, where answers have either been not forthcoming or have indicated the TGA has lacked critical information for making its provisional approval of the gene-based vaccines, namely Pfizer’s BNT162b2 & Comirnaty, AstraZeneca’s ChAdOx1-S and Moderna’s Spikevax/mRNA-1273.”

    More at

  27. another ian says:

    Vitamin I again

    “Call me radicalised, given that I mistrust government, science and media. Which brings me to one of my biggest recent mistrusts of government, science and media, COVID. With Japanese encephalitis the virus du jour,

    will Ivermectin be released from purgatory:”


    Seems it keeps wanting to interact with viri!

  28. H.R. says:

    @another ian – The first meme of the day on newcatallaxy was really good.

    Vitamin I is truly amazing. In some ways, it seems to work as the anticovid.

    Covid is nasty because it finds and exploits weaknesses in its victims. It seems Ivermectin has a tendency to find and exploit the weaknesses in bad bugs.

  29. Power Grab says:

    @ HR:
    Ever heard of the hendra horse vaccine? You can find neutral articles about it, but here is an account that really made an impression on me because it says that vaccine did the same thing you pointed out.

    “What is happening now is reminiscent to the hendra Vax for horses. Horse owners were told that it was such a deadly virus and that just being near a horse you would contract it and die. We were threatened, coerced and bribed to inject the poison into our animals. 2 shots 6 weeks apart and then a booster every 6 months. Sound familiar? Vets refused to tend to a sick horse unless proof of v was provided. We weren’t allowed to attend shows unless vd. It too was an experimental injection that only received full approval in the last few years. Once injected with this poison horses died, became lame, had seizures, became mentally unstable etc, but none of this was listed as an effect of the Vax. Still sounding familiar? As more boosters were given, once healthy horses became sicker. Owners started to wake up and realise they were doing more harm then [sic] good. It also came to light that unless you’re [sic] horse was 100% healthy it should not be given the jab because, wait for it, it targeted the weakspots in the immune system and made them worse. There is now a massive class action against Zoetis (take a stab in the dark who the parent company is. That’s right pfizer). If you’re not familiar with the hendra v do some research and see the similarities. But this time they are doing it with humans.”

    This was a thing that happened in Australia. If any of our Aussies have heard of it, what do you think?

    I got that off Twitter . It’s supposed to be from a user called “A Step Back From The Herd 2.0” (Kelly Essex). People keep putting it up because it keeps disappearing.

    I’ve been reading up on the electric universe for quite a few years. More recently, I’ve been reading books that talk about what might be called “bioelectricity” (there’s probably a better term).

    I’m still reading “The Body Electric” (by Dr. Robert O. Becker). A lot of his book talks in detail about experiments they did on lizards and frogs, particularly trying to figure out how regeneration of limbs happens. While giving details about experiments, he mentioned that they tested electrical potential at various places on their bodies, and at various times during the procedures. IIRC, a freshly wounded body part will reverse its electrical potential for a few days, then reverse back. (Again, IIRC)

    Since many times I’ve read about people experiencing (post-vax) new troubles with past wounds or conditions they were supposed to have healed from…and the graphene hydroxide particles migrate quickly to parts of the body that either are strongly electrical in their functioning, or may have already been damaged…it makes me wonder if that’s how it works.

    If I were a GEB doctor, I might well devise a scheme where I manage to damage (and/or terminate) humans for fun and profit??? The fact that the recently-elevated EMF environment has a strong effect on graphene hydroxide would probably play a large part in my scheme.

    This is a bit OT, but I want to throw it out there: I got a tip from a fellow employee who was in the military earlier in his life and did radar as his job. He recommended doing what lots of people call “grounding”. He said to wait until 2-3 hours after sunset, then go outside and stand barefoot in bare soil. I said, “I think I’ve heard of that. How long do you have to do it?” He said, “Oh, about 10 seconds.”

    Since then, I’ve been doing that and also found out there’s a movie called “Earthing Movie” ( that puts more meat on the bones of that idea. There are researchers, medical doctors, teachers, and people who improved their health by earthing (grounding). They don’t say you have to wait until after dark. One of the scientists in the movie said that the grounding works so fast they can’t measure it. So the 10 seconds time isn’t unrealistic.

    I’ve been doing it. I won’t go into why I think doing that has benefited me because this is long enough already. Maybe later.

    I like fixes that are easy and free. :-)

  30. Eric Barnes says:

    Just got around to this and the youtube video has been taken down.
    Here’s the rumble link

  31. Eric Barnes says:

    @Glenn Lockwood says:
    12 March 2022 at 7:21 pm
    miami study was withdrawn apparently selection bias

    Untrue. The authors did analysis on past results which strongly imply that ivermectin is superior to remdesivir in treating covid. You know they are lying because of they won’t study ivermectins efficacy and insist on sticking with a more expensive and less effective treatment.

    The effectiveness of ivermectin will remain unclear while money is being made hand over fist. No government study will kill the golden goose.

    These people are evil precisely because they want to bury their heads in the sand despite this evidence. and Glenn is dishonest.

  32. another ian says:

    “How to design a study to fail to create bad PR on Ivermectin: Plus a lesson in white lies from the Wall Street Journal”

  33. Wayne Job says:

    Very good and handy medicine for a cheap sheep dip, for that was its initial use.

  34. YMMV says:

    White lie? That in itself is stretching the truth. Just for fun, I checked “white lie”.

    Cambridge Dictionary, that’s Cambridge UK, says:
    white lie = “a lie that is told in order to be polite or to stop someone from being upset by the truth”

    and they helpfully also give a US definition:
    “a lie that is about a subject that is not very important, or one that is told to be polite or kind”

    Other on-line definitions stress: “avoid hurting someone’s feelings”

  35. another ian says:

    That Jo Nova thread needs to get to Breitbart and soon! Because

    “Study: ‘No Indication’ Ivermectin Is ‘Clinically Useful’ Against Coronavirus


  36. Jon K says:

    Just a quick data point. My wife, a nurse on a covid floor at a suburban chicago hospital, told me that they haven’t given any patients remdesivir in the last two weeks. This has been the standard treatment for going on two years now. Not sure what changed, but it’s interesting.

  37. H.R. says:

    @Jon K – What… someone is finally sweeping the dirt under the rug? Remdesivir and $4.89 is good for a free cup of Starbucks coffee anywhere in the USA. Curing Covid? Not so much. Killing a few people (useless eaters anyhow)? Not too bad an option, but there are better options.

  38. p.g.sharrow says:

    Wayne Job must have never raised sheep. Sheep Dip was a creosote concoction that was applied after shearing to prevent infections from cuts and scratches as well as insects infestations. Screwfly maggots were the worse of these. Once the wool began regrowth the sheep wore their own protection. Ivermection was first used to protect People from worm infections.

  39. philjourdan says:

    @p.g. – Wayne is just a good little liberal. no knowledge, but lots of ignorant opinions, so they think they know it all.

  40. Erick Wodarz says:

    @Jon K says:
    22 March 2022 at 7:22 pm
    Just a quick data point. My wife, a nurse on a covid floor at a suburban chicago hospital, told me that they haven’t given any patients remdesivir in the last two weeks.

    Right. Our dear friends at the MSM, hospitals and medical associations who have our best interests at heart will be getting to the bottom of this one any day now. I mean it’s not like they are bought off by the endless money being printed. These are people of unquestionable ethics and morality!

  41. Pingback: Carping Comments Per Dr. John Campbell | Musings from the Chiefio

Comments are closed.