Brand New Tube
GeeGeeTee
GeeGeeTee 18 Apr 2021
1,927
watermark logo

Up next

NHS Staff Are Speaking Out  now They have Realise the Goverment Are Coming For Their sons & daug
17 May 2021
NHS Staff Are Speaking Out now They have Realise the Goverment Are Coming For Their sons & daug
Veritasshow · 175 Views

Ivermectin Ban: Did Hancock SAGE NHS Cause 60k UK Deaths? Dr Tess Lawrie Evidence Based Consultancy

551 Views

⁣Tony Gosling of https://politicsthisweek.wordpress.com/ with Dr Tess Lawrie
British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Panel – Response to EMA Statement on Ivermectin for Covid-19

https://www.e-bmc.co.uk​

On 22 March, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued a statement [0] that, after reviewing the evidence, they recommend against the use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of covid-19, outside of ‘well-designed’ clinical trials. The EMA claims evidence from laboratory studies, clinical trials, observational studies, and meta-analysis, but provides no sources, specifics or citations. We fill these omissions below. The British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel was set up in January 2021 by Dr Tess Lawrie of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd (E-BMC), an independent medical research company based in Bath, UK. A systematic review and meta-analysis of ivermectin for covid-19 was recently conducted by Dr Lawrie, the director, with a team of expert systematic reviewers. A preliminary report was released in the public domain on 3 January [1]. A comprehensive paper including 21 RCTs has been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, and meanwhile is available on two pre-print servers [2 ,3]. Moreover, on 20 February 2021, a panel of 65 clinicians, researchers and patient representatives from 16 countries attended the BIRD panel meeting, convened by Dr. Lawrie and her team, to evaluate the evidence on ivermectin for covid19. Following the standard “DECIDE” Evidence-to-Decision framework [4] for clinical recommendations, BIRD concluded that there was enough evidence to recommend the rapid implementation of ivermectin for covid-19 [5, 6]. This recommendation is by implication global and not restricted to the UK or the EU. Indeed, the low cost and widespread use make ivermectin uniquely placed to tackle covid-19 worldwide, including very low income countries. BIRD provides a detailed response to the EMA statement, with citations to the evidence. EMA advice against ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19: 1. Review of the evidence EMA has reviewed the latest evidence on the use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and concluded that the available data do not support its use for COVID-19 outside welldesigned clinical trials. … Results from clinical studies were varied, with some studies showing no benefit and others reporting a potential benefit. Most studies EMA reviewed were small and had additional limitations, including different dosing regimens and use of concomitant medications. EMA therefore concluded that the currently available evidence is not sufficient to support the use of ivermectin in COVID-19 outside clinical trials. 2 Ivermectin's potential therapeutic utility has expanded over the last decade as broad-spectrum anti-viral and even anti-neoplastic properties have been discovered [7, 8]. Since April 2020, the evidence base of observational and randomised trials of ivermectin for covid-19 has accumulated. A review [9, 10] by the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) summarised findings from 27 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 16 observational studies on ivermectin both for prevention and treatment of covid-19. They conclude that ivermectin “demonstrates a strong signal of therapeutic efficacy.” Moreover, ivermectin is the sole therapeutic so far to have demonstrated efficacy at all stages of the very complex clinical course of the covid-19 disease, from prophylaxis through to critical care. A systematic review and meta-analysis [2, 3] was subsequently conducted by Dr Lawrie and a team of experts. Twenty-one RCTs involving 2741 participants met review inclusion, according to strict criteria, and subsequent meta-analysis of 13 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death (compared to no ivermectin) with an average Risk Ratio 0.32 [ 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.72; n=1892; I 2 =57% ] with “low to moderate-certainty.” Low certainty evidence found ivermectin prophylaxis reduced the risk of covid-19 infection by an average of 86% [95% CI 79% to 91%]. Adverse events were rare and usually attributable to other adjunct medications. In practical terms this means that ivermectin reduces the risk of death from covid-19 to about one-third of the risk of death without using this medication. In the long run, of every nine patients who would otherwise die from covid-19, six can now be saved by using ivermectin. Similarly the risk of contracting covid-19 is reduced to one-seventh of the risk faced by other healthy people with similar exposure, when using ivermectin as prophylaxis. For every seven people who would catch covid-19 from an infected person, only one is likely to catch the illness, when using ivermectin.

Show more
12 Comments sort Sort By


JakeJacob
JakeJacob 28 days ago

⁣No Mask. No Vax. Be Free. Go Outside ⁣https://youtu.be/rRr9Xfhuqmw

   0    0
EvoLabs
EvoLabs 28 days ago

Of course Ivermectin is marginalised...because it doesn't maximise profit. Other than that, capitalism is awesome! 😂

   1    0
63Baggies
63Baggies 19 days ago

This is one more point of proof that there is a conspiracy. I've tried to inform the Maskholes and human livestock about this; but no one seems to listen; it's rather like trying to stop people jumping of a cliff and be trampled by the stampede.

   1    0
Bob_Enough
Bob_Enough 29 days ago

I am sure this is good, but I have no patience now - so I need to see stuff. Tell me facts.

   0    0
betjar1
betjar1 29 days ago


So
you believe you are electing new MEMBERS of PARLIAMENT to represent
you? The members of parliament are actually DIRECTORS of a
CORPORATION. This is what you are electing, directors of a
corporation. This is why nothing will ever change. The DIRECTORS will
keep heading in the same direction forever, no matter who is elected.
It's politics, but it's not what you think it is.



Parliament is a theatre. Members of
Parliament are ACTORS. LAWS are not real. It is all an ACT. A RULE is
a COMMAND. REGULATIONS are DIRECTIVES. LEGISLATION
is RIGHTS and OBLIGATIONS.




COMMON LAW is NATURAL LAW cause no
HARM, cause no LOSS. COMMON LAW is used in court to make a JUDICIAL
PRECEDENCE eg. Using
common law to explain, to cause no harm to oneself, and to cause no
harm to ones family. To protect the privacy of oneself and ones
family. To cause no harm to others and to cause no LOSS to others.




If
you were to do business with a corporation or a company in the world,
you can use DUN&BRADSTREET where corporations worldwide register
their business. You can use this to find out if that corporation does
good business. Does the business have any debts? Does the business
have any county court judgement against it? This is a register of
corporations and companies, and the members of parliament are a
company.

POLITICS
is pertaining to POLICY or the ADMINISTRATION of the GOVERNMENT.
POLICY
is a plan or course of action, as of a GOVERNMENT, POLITICAL PARTY,
or CORPORATION. A WRITTEN CONTRACT or CERTIFICATE of INSURANCE.
ACTS
of PARLIAMENT becomes STATUTES, PRIMARY LEGISLATION which in turn are
ENACTED and ENFORCED by STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS which are SECONDARY
LEGISLATION.

When
we look at a STATUTORY INSTRUMENT we find it is a created written
LEGAL CONTRACT. It is not law.
STATUTORY:
is CREATED, defined, or relating to a statute; required by statute;
conforming to a statute.
INSTRUMENT:
is a WRITTEN LEGAL document such as a CONTRACT, lease, deed, will or
bond.
Any
corporation has employees. UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION LTD has
EMPLOYEES.
The
EMPLOYEES are not just CIVIL SERVANTS, but EVERYONE.

If
you have a NATIONAL INSURANCE NUMBER, that means you too are an
EMPLOYEE of this CORPORATION.
COMPANY
POLICY of this CORPORATION requires you, as an EMPLOYEE, to pay TAX
and follow all the LEGISLATIVE RULES of that CORPORATION in this case
STATUTES.
As
in any COMPANY, if you break the RULES, you will be DISCIPLINED under
that COMPANIES LEGISLATION.




Policeman
(Human Being) – Duty is under Common Law of this land is to Serve
and Protect every individual on this land and never delay the right
of justice to every individual on this land. And also the policeman
must Uphold Common Law. This is the policeman's job. The policeman
protects individuals. But they have a fiction attached to them called
a police officer. Police Officer comes from the corporate world. Eg a
CEO is a chief executive officer.




Police
Officer (Fiction) – is a Corporate Employee, a Revenue Collector,
and to enforce Statutes on individuals. All police officers are
trained to be CORPORATE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.




The
police authorities are trading for profit. The police officer needs
to generate that profit for their Directors and Shareholders. How
they generate that profit is by forcing statutes on individuals. This
is not the law. It is policy.




Individuals
who give their name and address to a POLICE OFFICER will enter into a
contract with the police. The police can only force fines on
individuals if the individual gives their name and address, to enter
into a contract because its the world of contracts. Remember, the
STATUTORY INSTRUMENT is a LEGALLY CREATED WRITTEN CONTRACT. For
individuals who refuse to give their names and address, the POLICE
OFFICER will be unable to force legislative rules, because the POLICE
OFFICER needs to act on your PERSON, not the man or the woman. The
POLICE OFFICER is a CORPORATE ENFORCEMENT POLICY AGENT.



WHAT
IS LEGALESE – the LANGUAGE of the CORPORATE EMPLOYEES.



A
language can be created and used by a SOCIETY. A CORPORATION can be
such a SOCIETY.




LEGALESE
is such a LANGUAGE. It is English, but some words have VERY different
meanings. LEGALESE is the LANGUAGE of the LAW SOCIETY.




Example:
MUST is synonymous with MAY. When a CORPORATION say you MUST. They
are actually giving you a choice because they can not FORCE you. They
are not allowed to because it is not law. It is only policy.




Example:
SUMMONS is synonymous with INVITATION. When you get a summons from a
court of law, you are actually being invited to a place of CORPORATE
business to discuss how much money to give that corporation of
business.




Example:
UNDERSTAND is synonymous with STAND-UNDER. If a police officer says
“Do you understand” and the individual says “Yes”, that means
that the individual stands-under the police officer. The individual
has given the police officer authority over the person. This is a
language that individuals do not know because it is the language of
LEGALESE.




MINISTRY
OF JUSTICE, Also Traded as Magistrates Courts are trading as a
COMPANY. Every single magistrate's court in the UK is trading as a
corporation, running for profit.




The
true reason why these FIXED PENALTY NOTICES are FORCED upon your
PERSON is simply to maintain the ILLUSION that they have control over
your LIFE, FORTUNE and FREEDOM, because you FEAR their ABILITY to
take from you something you deem VALUABLE, which is MONEY.



Do
you believe MONEY is valuable? We use money every day. We believe
money has some worth. Pieces of paper and coins have some worth,
because you can take it somewhere and use it in exchange for goods
and services.




MONEY:
A 'PROMISE': What's that worth?



“I
PROMISE TO PAY THE BEARER ON DEMAND THE SUM OF TWENTY POUNDS”



Have
you ever noticed it is all in CAPITALS and have you ever asked
yourself: “TWENTY POUNDS OF WHAT!!!! Written in capitals, it means
paper money is fictional. The real truth is, individuals are the
currency, not money, you are the currency, because without you, the
UK will grind to a halt because the principal workforce, of any
machine, or any company are slaves. They have to give you something
to believe in, so you can do that work you will not question. To make
it valuable, fines are issued, to make you give over a worthless
piece of paper to another corporation just so you believe money is
real.




QUOTE WRITTEN BY ANONYMOUS
"Do you understand the charges
against you?" You say yes, you've just created the legal
nexus/joinder they require to lower your legal standing (where you
stand above them with inherent rights as a man or woman) to that of a
legal fiction which has only privileges (to do something otherwise
illegal) and immunities (from prosecution for doing something
otherwise illegal). In their jurisdiction everything from getting
married, having a baby, driving, working, owning a business, even
having a dog are all illegal without permission via license, permit,
registration, certification, application, etc.). When you say, "Yes,
I understand the charges against me, " you've just agreed to
them and created a contract or an "understanding". It's a
racket, but we're catching on!




RIGHT OF BODILY INTEGRITY & LEGAL
TERMS
Common law recognized the right of an
individual to refuse medical treatment, even life-sustaining medical
treatment. Some state courts have incorporated the right to refuse
medical treatment as an aspect of the constitutional right of
privacy. The courts, however, have drawn the line at
physician-assisted suicide, refusing to accept it as part of the
constitutional right of privacy. Some of the earliest cases
recognizing a right of individual autonomy concerned the right of a
person to ingest food, beverages, or other substances. These early
cases, though, were an exception to the prevailing rule that
individual liberty could be regulated in any way necessary to promote
the general welfare.
Personal
rights
held by an individual which are not bestowed by law, custom, or
belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to
another person, are referred to as “inalienable
rights.”
Inalienable
rights
are natural rights
with which all humans are born; governments might wrongfully violate
them but can
never take them away.
Act to do no harm.
European Convention on Human Rights,
Article 8 of which protects the right to private and family life.
That was the first time there was a generalised right to privacy
recognised by law in this country.

Infringement
of inalienable rights on free speech, bodily integrity, and the
right to travel is a breach.
Infringement
by police can be charged under the police act 1996.
There
is very little difference between malfeasance, misfeasance
and, nonfeasance as malfeasance in the law of tort is the
commission of an unlawful act while misfeasance is the
commission of a lawful act in an improper manner and nonfeasance
means failure to perform an act where there is a necessity to perform
the act.

   1    0
Heisenberg11
Heisenberg11 29 days ago

As long as twatt hancocks shares are doing OK then he doesnt give a f.f.

   5    0
Show more

Up next

NHS Staff Are Speaking Out  now They have Realise the Goverment Are Coming For Their sons & daug
17 May 2021
NHS Staff Are Speaking Out now They have Realise the Goverment Are Coming For Their sons & daug
Veritasshow · 175 Views