Avoiding upper respiratory illnesses
I thought you might be interested to read my comment on the FLCCC substack “Why aren’t we tapping into the FDA’s ‘back catalog’?” Remember as you read it that I am not a medical doctor and am just sharing my own experience.
Multiple comments, especially on the graphic from c19early.org
That graphic understates the effectiveness of the non-establishment medicine re-purposed drugs. The website has additional graphics under the headings prophylaxis and early treatment. In addition, the all studies data, the prophylaxis data, and the early treatment data can be further specialized to examine reduction in mortality. In each case, HCQ and IVM look better and better, especially when coupled with the low cost.
I go further in studying the meta-analyses. The point estimate in the confidence intervals can be misleading when we consider the width of some of those intervals. The wide intervals occur for relatively new drugs for which few studies have been performed. In some cases, the upper end of the CI shows that the data is consistent with the drug having negative efficacy.
Thus, I rely not on the point estimate in the middle of the interval, but on the lowest estimate of efficacy (the right side of the interval on the graph, or the minimum risk reduction). Here, IVM is the clear winner on prophylaxis mortality; HCQ is the second best on early treatment mortality (beaten only by a drug that costs $2100 per dose).
In our home, we don't wait to get sick. Every time I go out, I take a C-D-zinc-elderberry gummy, and use Xlear nasal spray. If we come home and feel we're getting sick, we escalate to Enovid nasal spray and banlangen Chinese tea. No jabs since fall 2019, and we've had far fewer URI's than we used to, even with compromised immune systems.
Here are the graphics I referenced in my comment.
With 95% confidence, I can assert that prophylaxis with IVM reduces mortality by at least 50%, and early treatment with HCQ reduces mortality by at least 60%.