This was done on a controlled population of 88,102 subjects, which is a gigantic sample size for a scientific study.
Here’s the quick rundown.
Among 223,128 subjects from the city of Itajaí, 159,560 were 18 years old or up and were not infected by COVID-19 until July 7, 2020, from which 45,716 (28.7%) did not use and 113,844 (71.3%) used ivermectin. Among ivermectin users, 33,971 (29.8%) used irregularly (up to 60 mg) and 8,325 (7.3%) used regularly (more than 180 mg).
So what they were looking for here was a dose-dependent enhanced effect. As the dose increases, do we see a greater and stronger effect? That is the greatest evidence that ivermectin is not an anomaly — that it actually works, and that's exactly what they saw in this study.
And here’s the conclusion.
“Mortality rate was 92% lower in regular users than non-users…”
“Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin. This dose-response efficacy reinforces the prophylactic effects of ivermectin against COVID-19.”
“That’s Gigantic, folks.”
As Del Bigtree puts it.
“And it is sitting on top of a pile of studies we’ve already showed you. We showed you the Tess Lawrie zoom calls that revealed that there were lies taking place around the meta-analysis study that was done around the world.”
Let’s revisit that Zoom Call for a moment.
Just to grasp the scale of magnitude that the suppression of ivermectin had on the world.
Tess Lawrie: So how do you think the stalemate will go on for? How long do you think you'll —
Andrew Hill: Well, okay. From my side, every single new trial that comes through, we’re going to be aggressively adding it on, and I think end of Feb., we’ll be there. Six weeks.
Tess Lawrie: How many people die every day?
Andrew Hill: Well, there is a whole group of people who think that ivermectin is complete rubbish —
Tess Lawrie: I’m not talking about them. I’m not talking about them. I’m saying we know the evidence. How many people die every day?
Andrew Hill: Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day.
Tess Lawrie: 15,000 people a day times six weeks?
Andrew Hill: Yeah, sure. No, I get it.
Tess Lawrie: First, we have to try to get it into the UK because at this rate —
Andrew Hill: My goal is to get the drug approved. And to do everything I can to get it approved —
Fifteen thousand deaths per day times six weeks equals 630,000 deaths. The conclusion of that meta-analysis never changed. And that zoom call occurred nearly two years ago…
Now think about this…
Del Bigtree, asks.
“You have Francis Collins at the head of the NIH.”
“You have Tony Fauci at NIH inside of NIAID.”
“And so, these two guys have come out strongly against ivermectin; they were pushing the vaccine. And as we pointed out many times, you could not get the emergency use authorization to rush the vaccine out if there was a product that could protect you from this illness, which this [study] shows prophylactically, it completely does.
And so they needed to squash it. So now, when we look at really one of the only studies found on the planet Earth that show that ivermectin was not effective, it goes and is led by the two guys who literally could go to jail if we prove that their denial of ivermectin got a half a million people killed in the United States of America, got doctors fired for no reason, whatsoever, and then put their patients who would have been saved in peril.
Do you realize how massive this story actually is? I’ve been thinking about this. We keep watching these headlines go by. You keep tuning into the Highwire, and we’re really getting numb to what are horrific stories, outrageous stories of government interference when it comes to living humans in the United States of America. Is it possible Tony Fauci is responsible for over a half a million deaths within two years in the United States of America? Do you realize where that will put him in human history amongst perhaps the dictators of the world?”
“And then how many people around the world followed our mandates? How many millions didn’t use ivermectin because of this study done at the NIH? Now, I’m not saying the study is fraudulent. But what I am saying is there’s no way that we can use that as the only study, especially given the fact that we recognize the sheer bias that has to be taking place at NIH to protect their own butts.
So that against the mountain of evidence that has come up against ivermectin. This is one of the greatest stories of our lifetime, and we’re not going to let it go.”
Exactly, Del. We CAN’T let it go. Because if their actions — their negligence (at best) or deliberate suppression of ivermectin to push a vaccine agenda (at worst) gets brushed to the side and called a “whoopsie,” what precedent is that going to set?
That you can get away with deliberately squashing life-saving medications in order to serve the interests of the pharmaceutical industry? That is no world that I want anyone to live in, but sadly, that is the world we seem to be in, and it has to change.
If you want justice — if you want accountability for these criminals, please sign the petition below. Dr. Henry Ealy and his team are hoping to raise 1 million signatures to bring forth to a judge to demand a Grand Jury investigation against the CDC.
And if that goes through, it opens the door for Fauci & Friends. Please sign the petition below and share it with all receptive family and friends.
Share this post