Tag Archives: Ivermectin

Two More Honest-to-God Scientific Articles In Favor of Ivermectin

From sciencedirect.com (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452318621000350?via%3Dihub), RCobos-Campos, AApiñaniz, NParraza, JCordero, SGarcía, and EOrruñ, Potential use of ivermectin for the treatment and prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection”:

Abstract

Purpose of the study

Currently no treatment has been proven to be efficacious for patients with early symptoms of COVID-19. Although most patients present mild or moderate symptoms, up to 5-10% may have a poor disease progression, so there is an urgent need for effective drugs, which can be administered even before the onset of severe symptoms, i.e. when the course of the disease is modifiable. Recently, promising results of several studies on oral ivermectin have been published, which has prompted us to conduct the present review of the scientific literature.

Methods

A narrative review has been carried out, focusing on the following four main topics: a) short-term efficacy in the treatment of the disease, b) long-term efficacy in the treatment of patients with post-acute symptoms of COVID-19, c) efficacy in the prophylaxis of the disease, and c) safety of ivermectin.

Results

The reviewed literature suggests that there seems to be sufficient evidence about the safety of oral ivermectin, as well as the efficacy of the drug in the early-treatment and the prophylaxis of COVID-19.

Conclusions

In the view of the available evidence, the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) recommends the use of oral ivermectin for both prophylaxis and early-treatment of COVID-19. Further well-designed studies should be conducted in order to explore the efficacy and safety of invermectin at low and high doses, following different dosing schedules, in both, the short and long-term treatment.

Continue reading→

AND

From the American Journal of Therapeutics at journals.lww.com (https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx), Bryant, Andrew MSc; Lawrie, Theresa A. MBBCh, PhD; Dowswell, Therese PhD; Fordham, Edmund J. PhD; Mitchell, Scott MBChB, MRCS; Hill, Sarah R. PhD; Tham, Tony C. MD, FRCP;  “Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines”:

Abstract

Background:

Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials.

Areas of uncertainty:

We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection.

Data sources:

We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion.

Therapeutic Advances:

Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian–Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff–Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%–91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for “need for mechanical ventilation,” whereas effect estimates for “improvement” and “deterioration” clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty.

Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Continue reading→

El Salvador Not Beholden to Big Pharma

A picture and a graph are worth 2,000 words. From theburningplatform.com:

https://twitter.com/Covid19Crusher/status/1428600968518807552?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1428600968518807552%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theburningplatform.com%2F2021%2F08%2F22%2Fel-salvador-not-beholden-to-big-pharma%2F

In a 3rd world country of 6.5 million people, and only a 35% vaccination rate, they are averaging 7 deaths per day. This is about 70% lower than the U.S. on a per million basis. Since the beginning, they rank 103 in deaths per million at 435. The U.S. ranks 21st at 1,935 per million.

By the way, Sweden, which used to rank in the low 20s is now 39th at 1,439 – with no lockdowns, no mandatory masking, schools open, and a low vaccination rate. I don’t see anyone in the MSM applauding their success.

If you want to see all the 3rd world countries that have achieved far better results than Big Pharma USA, see for yourself:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Covid Will Prevail As Long As The Known Cures Are Against Protocol, by Paul Craig Roberts

There are safe, effective, and cheap cures for Covid, but were established medicine and the government to recognize them, it would invalidate the Emergency Use Authorizations of the vaccines, which are contingent on there being no available cures. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:

Since the NIH, CDC, FDA, WHO and the presstitutes began mass marketing their Covid vaccine campaign a year and a half ago, the dirty lying scum have been telling you that the vaccine is safe, bad reactions are “very rare,” the vaccine is 97.5% effective in its protection, and other outrageous lies.

The entirety of the Western world’s public health bureaucracies have not spoken a single word of truth.  The vaccine does not protect you.  To the contrary, it makes you ill.

Adverse reactions are not “rare,” they are commonplace.

The vaccine offers no protection against the virus.

Reports from everywhere are that the vast majority of new Covid cases are among the fully vaccinated.

The US, EU, and UK databases of adverse vaccine reactions show tens of thousands of deaths and over 5 million health injuries associated with the Covid vaccine. As the databases only capture between 1% and 10% of the adverse effects, the vaccines have done more harm than the Covid virus.

For the entirety of the time that the “pandemic” has been upon us, the official protocol enforced by CDC, NIH, FDA, and WHO has prevented known preventatives and cures—HCQ and Ivermectin—from being used to treat patients.  Eli Lilly has announced a new cure, but it has “been put on hold,” that is, blocked from usage.  Why has the medical establishment blocked treating Covid patients with known safe cures?

In clear words, the official medical protocol is entirely responsible for the Covid deaths. It was the lack of treatment, not the virus, that killed people.

Why were people not treated?  They were not treated because the absence of any known treatment is the sole legal basis for the use of an untested, unapproved, experimental “vaccine.”  The law is clear.  Unapproved vaccines cannot be used if there is a cure. 

Continue reading→

India’s Ivermectin Blackout, by Justus R. Hope

The two ways the mainstream media treats India’s apparent success treating Covid-19 with Ivermectin is to ignore it or claim that India’s numbers are fake. From Justus R. Hope at thedesertreview.com:

Ivermectin Wins in India

News of India’s defeat of the Delta variant should be common knowledge. It is just about as obvious as the nose on one’s face. It is so clear when one looks at the graphs that no one can deny it.

Yet, for some reason, we are not allowed to talk about it. Thus, for example, Wikipedia cannot mention the peer-reviewed meta-analyses by Dr. Tess Lawrie or Dr. Pierre Kory published in the American Journal of Therapeutics.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/wikipedia-and-a-pint-of-gin/article_22ffa0d8-dde9-11eb-be75-d7b0b1f2ff67.html

Wikipedia is not allowed to publish the recent meta-analysis on Ivermectin authored by Dr. Andrew Hill. Furthermore, it is not allowed to say anything concerning www.ivmmeta.com showing the 61 studies comprising 23,000 patients which reveal up to a 96% reduction in death [prophylaxis] with Ivermectin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AIvermectin

One can see the bias in Wikipedia by going on the “talk” pages for each subject and reading about the fierce attempts of editors to add these facts and the stone wall refusals by the “senior” editors who have an agenda. And that agenda is not loyalty to your health.

The easy way to read the “talk” page on any Wikipedia subject is to click the top left “talk” button. Anyone can then review the editors’ discussions.

There is a blackout on any conversation about how Ivermectin beat COVID-19 in India. When I discussed the dire straits that India found itself in early this year with 414,000 cases per day, and over 4,000 deaths per day, and how that evaporated within five weeks of the addition of Ivermectin, I am often asked, “But why is there no mention of that in the news?”

Continue reading→

Israeli scientist says COVID-19 could be treated for under $1/day, by Maavan Jaffe-Hoffman

The cheaper and more effective alternative remedies and preventatives are than the vaccines, the more they are either ignored or denigrated by the mainstream. From Maavan Jaffe-Hoffman at jpost.com:

Double-blind study shows ivermectin reduces disease’s duration and infectiousness • FDA and WHO caution against its use

Ivermectin (photo credit: REUTERS)
Ivermectin
(photo credit: REUTERS)
Ivermectin, a drug used to fight parasites in third-world countries, could help reduce the length of infection for people who contract coronavirus for less than a $1 a day, according to recent research by Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer.
Prof. Eli Schwartz, founder of the Center for Travel Medicine and Tropical Disease at Sheba, conducted a randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial from May 15, 2020, through the end of January 2021 to evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin in reducing viral shedding among nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.
Ivermectin has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since 1987. The drug’s discoverers were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in medicine for its treatment of onchocerciasis, a disease caused by infection with a parasitic roundworm.
Over the years, it has been used for other indications, including scabies and head lice. Moreover, in the last decade, several clinical studies have started to show its antiviral activity against viruses ranging from HIV and the flu to Zika and West Nile.

Continue reading→

Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug? by David R. Henderson and Charles L. Hooper

The FDA, in bed with big pharma, is going to attack ivermectin, a cheap alternative to the drug companies’ vaccine, regardless of ivermectin’s merit as a preventative or a remedy. From David R. Henderson and Charles L. Hooper at theburningplatform.com:

Ivermectin is a promising Covid treatment and prophylaxis, but the agency is denigrating it.

The Food and Drug Administration claims to follow the science. So why is it attacking ivermectin, a medication it certified in 1996?

Earlier this year the agency put out a special warning that “you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.” The FDA’s statement included words and phrases such as “serious harm,” “hospitalized,” “dangerous,” “very dangerous,” “seizures,” “coma and even death” and “highly toxic.” Any reader would think the FDA was warning against poison pills. In fact, the drug is FDA-approved as a safe and effective antiparasitic.

Ivermectin was developed and marketed by Merck & Co. while one of us (Mr. Hooper) worked there years ago. William C. Campbell and Satoshi Omura won the 2015 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for discovering and developing avermectin, which Mr. Campbell and associates modified to create ivermectin.

Ivermectin is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines. Merck has donated four billion doses to prevent river blindness and other diseases in Africa and other places where parasites are common. A group of 10 doctors who call themselves the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance have said ivermectin is “one of the safest, low-cost, and widely available drugs in the history of medicine.”

Continue reading→

Biologist to Tucker: If Ivermectin proven effective against COVID, it moots vaccine push

An emergency use authorization can only be granted if there are no alternatives. From Charles Creitz at foxnews.com:

Bret Weinstein says he and others have been ‘censored’ for their analyses that run counter to the medical establishment

An evolutionary biologist claimed Friday that, should the anti-malarial drug Ivermectin be proven effective against the coronavirus, it would moot the usage of and potentially the ability to administer the U.S. coronavirus vaccines currently active under the Food & Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization.

Bret Weinstein – who previously made headlines after being pressured out of his biology professorship at Evergreen State College in Washington State for criticizing an anti-White “day-of-absence” – told Fox Nation’s “Tucker Carlson Today” that he has been analyzing the vaccines, and has summarily been censored for raising concerns about the shots and the medical establishment’s opposition to alternative treatments.

“[I]f Ivermectin is what those of us who have looked at the evidence think it is … then the debate about the vaccines would be over by definition, because the vaccines that we have so far were granted emergency use authorization,” Weinstein said, noting that the coronavirus vaccines are not formally “approved” treatments by the FDA and instead administered under the rarely-delineated category of EUA.

According to the FDA’s own definition, an EUA is “is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic.”

Continue reading→

Early COVID-19 Therapy with azithromycin plus nitazoxanide, ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in Outpatient Settings Significantly Improved COVID-19 outcomes compared to Known outcomes in untreated patients, by Flavio A.Cadegiani, AndyGoren, Carlos G.Wambier, JohnMcCoy

Real science. Argue with the authors on their terms, which is how real science works, or shut up. From Flavio A.Cadegiani, AndyGoren, Carlos G.Wambier, and JohnMcCoy at “New Microbes and New Infections” via sciencedirect.com:

Highlights

Subjects with early COVID-19 treated with azithromycin combined with nitazoxanide, ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine showed overwhelming improvements compared to sex-, age-, disease-, and comorbidities-matched untreated patients.

Improvements with early treatments include reduction of up to 36.5% in viral shedding (p < 0.0001), 85% in disease duration (p < 0.0001), 95% in post-COVID symptoms, and 100% in respiratory complications, hospitalization, mechanical ventilations, deaths (p < 0.0001 for all). For every 1,000 confirmed cases for COVID-19, at least 140 hospitalizations, 50 mechanical ventilations and five deaths were prevented with treatment.

Because of the unquestionable benefits of the combination between early COVID-19 detection and early pharmacological approaches and the well-established safety profile of the drugs employed in the treatment regimens for COVID-19, it has become ethically questionable to conduct further studies employing full placebo arms in early COVID-19.

Abstract

In a prospective observational study (pre-AndroCoV Trial), the use of nitazoxanide, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine demonstrated unexpected improvements in COVID-19 outcomes, when compared to untreated patients. The apparent yet likely positive results raised ethical concerns on the employment of further full placebo84 controlled studies in early stage COVID-19. The present analysis aimed to elucidate whether full placebo-control randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on early-stage COVID-19 are still ethically acceptable, through a comparative analysis with two control87 groups. Active group (AG) consisted of patients enrolled in the Pre AndroCoV-Trial (n = 585). Control Group 1 (CG1) consisted of a retrospectively obtained group of untreated patients of the same population (n = 137), and Control Group 2 (CG2) resulted from a precise prediction of clinical outcomes based on a thorough and structured review of indexed articles and official statements. Patients were matched for sex, age, comorbidities and disease severity at baseline. Compared to CG1 and CG2 AG showed reduction of 31.5-36.5% in viral shedding (p < 0.0001), 70-85% in disease duration (p < 0.0001), and 100% in respiratory complications, hospitalization, mechanical ventilations, and deaths (p < 0.0001 for all). For every 1,000 confirmed cases for COVID-19, at least 70 hospitalizations, 50 mechanical ventilations and five deaths were prevented. Benefits from the combination of early COVID-19 detection and early pharmacological approaches were consistent and overwhelming when compared to untreated groups, which, together with and well-established safety profile of the drug combinations tested in the Pre-AndroCoV Trial, precluded our study to continue employing full placebo in early COVID-19.

Continue reading→

The Media May Be Responsible for Countless COVID Deaths, by Annie Holmquist

Information is paramount in any scientific endeavor, and the media’s suppression of information about Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectine may be a life and death matter for some people. From Annie Holmquist at chroniclesmagazine.org:

Late last year I wrote how a personal bout with COVID-19 changed my perspective and gave me hope that the pandemic wasn’t as dire as many made it out to be. My perspective changed in part thanks to a private practice doctor who had great success in treating COVID. According to him, COVID, if treated early and with a cocktail of various drugs, isn’t the death sentence we’ve been told it was.

As time goes on, it becomes apparent that my doctor friend isn’t the only physician who has this knowledge. The now well-known “COVID Hunter,” Dr. Joseph Varon, has been interviewed hundreds of times on various media networks highlighting the good doctor’s faithfulness and success in saving patients infected with COVID.

Those interviews, however, left out a key component of Varon’s success, and not because he has tried to hide his secret from the public. Instead, Varon’s experience shows how both the news media and social media platforms censor truth, spinning stories away from good news and toward fearmongering.

Varon’s story came to light in an interview done by former Fox News reporter Ivory Hecker. Hecker recently blew the whistle on her Fox station, documenting how she was reprimanded for reporting on positive news regarding drugs such as Hydroxychloroquine. Not surprisingly, Hecker was fired for this whistleblowing action, and now has produced an in-depth interview with Varon in order to present the truth she was not allowed to report on months ago.

According to Hecker, the death rate for patients under Varon’s care is about half that of the in-patient hospital death rate reported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The reason for this success is credited to Varon’s use of the MATH+ Protocol, along with the drugs-which-must-not-be-named, otherwise known as Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. While Varon has begun to phase out the former due to pressure over its political disfavor, he recently co-authored peer-reviewed research in the American Journal of Therapeutics on the effectiveness of Ivermectin. One of his co-authors, Dr. Pierre Kory, says that “the United States is in a media lockdown” over the potentially lifesaving information presented in this research, even though there is much interest among the general public.

Continue reading→

Conflict of Interest in WHO Recommendation Against Ivermectin, by Andrew Bannister

Conflict of interest is nowhere near a strong enough term for a situation in which WHO is basically bought lock, stock, and barrel by interests dead set against Ivermectin. From Andrew Bannister at trialsitenews.com:

Conflict Of Interest in WHO recommendation against Ivermectin

All dangerous diseases are best treated early. A major failure of the global COVID-19 strategy has been to wait a week for the disease to become dangerous, when breathing becomes a problem. Early treatment of COVID, even for those with mild symptoms, prevents later hospitalization. There are several early treatment drugs showing promise but ivermectin leads the pack regarding safety, effectiveness and price. Unfortunately, the biggest players in Western mainstream media are members of the Trusted News Initiative (TNI). The TNI is a story for another day but it’s remarkable that big media companies barely report that they have agreed to promote global vaccination and to make sure any “disinformation myths are stopped in their tracks”[i]. Unfortunately, as a result early treatment seems to be seen as a disinformation myth and is not mentioned. Early treatment is vital in treating serious diseases and COVID-19 is no exception.

Considering the human and economic cost, the avoidance of early treatment with a very safe, effective and off-patent drug is a criminal tragedy of immense proportions and a winning lottery ticket for some pharmaceutical companies that are designing and selling novel patented drugs that could not compete with ivermectin in a free market. Mercks’ molnupiravir, for instance, is seeking an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA and “Merck will receive approximately $1.2 billion to supply approximately 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir to the United States government.”[ii]

Ivermectin doesn’t need an EUA because it passed trials in 1986. It just needs to be recommended to treat COVID-19. However, if ivermectin was officially recognized as an effective treatment, it would legally prevent molnupiravir’s EUA until it passes trials and thus delay or endanger the $1.2 billion deal. An aggravating factor is the fact that molnupiravir (EIDD-2801) could cause harmful genetic mutations. [iii]

Continue reading→