Similar Posts

8 Comments

  1. I am intrigued by their mention of "artemisia annua" as a treatment — as that is something I have been wondering about for awhile now. When I got malaria in west Africa about 15 years ago, the diagnosis was delayed to the point that I was getting well into the danger zone. Then finally I took a course of "coartem" (a commercial formulation of artemisinin), and the effect was nearly miraculous. Within 48 hours my symptoms had resolved and I was back among the living again. In any case it is/was a very effective anti-malarial treatment, much much better than chloroquine, etc. As both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are anti-parasitics that appear to have some effectiveness in the treatment of covid infection, this document from Swiss Policy Research suggests that artemisinin may also be useful as well. Readers may find one source available as "sweet wormwood tea" (more accurately a tisane ;>). It appears to be readily available from multiple vendors online, and may also be in stock at some of your better natural food stores. Many Africans I know grow their own artemisia bushes to have some on hand. I would be most interested to hear about any other active research in this area. Meanwhile, it may be a good idea to source some of this stuff — before it is "outlawed" as well! Thank you again Dr. Nass.

  2. What's been clear to me for a long time now is how many different ways there are to prevent and treat COVID-19 – i.e., this disease is both preventable and treatable in the overwhelming majority of people, and all without vaccination. What's also clear is that the underlying health of a person seems to be the principal determinant of outcome. So, I don't think artemesia is any more of a silver bullet than is ivermectin, the chloroquines, NAC, zinc, quercetin, melatonin, ozone/peroxide, the various homeopathic or herbal remedies touted as effective, and all the rest. It's just one more way to maintain or restore health in the face of viral invasion.

  3. At this point no one is saying that artemisinin is a "silver bullet". It is also unreasonable to suggest that all the various remedies and therapies available are equivalent in their effectiveness. The problem in our current environment is that open scientific dialogue and medical collaboration are suppressed. In this way we are simply not being allowed to discover which treatments are the most effective and under what circumstances.

  4. To Anonymous September 15, 2021 at 4:42 PM:

    Actually the Swiss website denigrates ivermectin, saying any benefit from it is negligible or at best “limited.” Quote:

    “… once low-quality studies are excluded from the analysis, the benefit is no longer statistically significant, although a limited benefit might still be possible.

    “Due to a lack of large high-quality trials, the WHO, the US FDA and the European EMA do not recommend using ivermectin against covid outside of clinical trials.”

    The article then links to “The Ivermectin Debate” to support that statement.

  5. Here is why I think ivermectin works:

    1. The studies show a very large effect.
    2. The fake studies that deliberately tried to sabotage it–if it didn't work there would be no need to sabotage it.
    3. Some people say they feel it working immediately
    4. Today several people told me I "saved the life" of a pretty sick, weak 90 year old with one lung, and all I did was prescribe ivermectin, some prednisone, and push fluids about 2 weeks ago. They say she is all better now.

  6. To be clear, based on what Dr. Nass has said and what other reputable doctors have said, together with seeing the patent nonsense put out by their opponents, I disagree with the Swiss website regarding ivermectin.

    Because the issue is outside my fields of expertise I cannot directly judge the efficacy of ivermectin for treating covid, the research papers are over my head, but I think I can judge who is or is not reliable.

    I just wanted to make sure people new to this subject were aware that the Swiss website is flawed.

  7. "It is also unreasonable to suggest that all the various remedies and therapies available are equivalent in their effectiveness. "

    Here's why I think it is reasonable to group all of these … let's call them interventions together when it comes to the prevention and early treatment of COVID: because most people who encounter this virus for the first time either don't become ill at all (just shy of 5 out of every 6 cases were asymptomatic in the NIH's own serologic survey from the spring-summer of 2020) or they recover with just the symptomatic treatments we used for common colds and flu before COVID – including fluids, rest, and a little time.

    I'm an equine veterinarian; in our branch of the profession, we often refer to the tremendous power of Dr Green and Dr Time. Those two work absolute wonders – although it's really the patient's own body that works the wonders. We're all designed to be self-maintaining and self-repairing.

    I think we've all been overstating the effectiveness of these interventions in the vast majority of patients. Where the effects are most compelling are in the seriously ill and in those with long COVID.

  8. First you say you are an equine veterinarian. Then you say, "I *think* [emphasis added] we've all [you presume to speak for who exactly???] been overstating the effectiveness of these interventions…". This is simply more of the same data-free effluvium that is already clogging up the dialog, from another random somebody not particularly qualified to make such generalized personal commentary. Your kind of dismissive hand-waving, referencing the "Dr. Time and Dr. Green" of children's literature, is not helpful in the present instance. The value of Dr. Nass, Dr. Kory, Dr. Lawrie, Dr. Mercola, Dr. Martin, and others, is that they are fully engaged in providing in-depth, fact-based, verifiable commentary based on actual research, citations, and copious direct experience.

Comments are closed.