News
Featured Image
 HJBC/Shutterstock

(LifeSiteNews) — A massive pre-print study released in December showed that low preventive dosages of ivermectin, taken every two weeks, reduced mortality by 68%. This apparent good news was not welcomed by Twitter, which immediately moved to censor the paper, slapping it with a “Misleading” warning label without explanation.

The study, involving 220,517 subjects, was conducted in the Brazilian city of Itajaí, where all of the citizens were invited to participate. Its objective was to measure the impact of regular ivermectin use against COVID-19 infection, severe symptoms, and mortality rates in a real-world setting.

After the collection of each subject’s baseline personal and medical information, ivermectin was offered as an optional preventive treatment to each person, consisting of light dosages of 0.2 mg per kilogram of body weight for two consecutive days every 15 days. 133,051 (60.3%) participants accepted the treatments and 87,466 (39.7%) declined, providing the study with exceedingly large sample sizes for both the treatment and control groups.

As a result, the study reports that the “regular use of ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality,” which following adjustments for “residual variables,” reached 70%. Further, the hospitalization rate of the treatment group was 56% lower, and after similar adjustments, 67%.

“These results indicate that medical-based optional prescription, citywide covered ivermectin can have a positive impact in the healthcare system,” the study’s authors concluded.

One of the nine authors, Dr. Pierre Kory of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, described the study as the “world’s largest” on the repurposing of the Nobel Prize-winning drug for the treatment of the novel coronavirus. It “meticulously collected data from hundreds of thousands of patients [and found] massive reductions in hospitalization & death,” he tweeted, promoting a webinar on the subject. The “‘Controversy’ [is thus] over.”

Though this “miraculous” drug, ivermectin, has been shown to be consistently effective in dozens of studies and applications across the globe at both preventing and treating COVID-19, this information continues to be the subject  of widespread suppression and misinformation from global health institutions, big tech corporations and mainstream media.

On the heels of the Brazilian study’s release, Twitter slapped a warning label on its distribution, calling it “Misleading” and preventing the document from being “replied to, shared or liked.”

Jennifer Cabrera, an editor of the Alachua Chronicle, retweeted another user’s promotion of the study, noting the seeming arbitrary exercise of censorship. “Wow, Twitter can’t be bothered to explain why they disagree with the methodology of this research paper. They just label it misinformation. That probably means you should read it.”

RELATED: 

‘Miraculous’ ivermectin approved for use in the US for the treatment of COVID-19
Ivermectin works – it’s that simple
The biggest crime committed during the vaccine heist is the censorship of Ivermectin
Doctor defends ‘80 clinical studies’ showing ivermectin ‘89% effective’ at preventing COVID
After Mexico City introduced ivermectin plan, COVID hospitalizations and deaths disappeared
Number of COVID cases in Delhi crashes after mass distribution of ivermectin

Comments

Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.

17 Comments

    Loading...