Ivermectin obliterates 97% of Delhi cases

[Averageman]

1) If this thing, COVID, is as bad as they say, then they should not be poo-pooing any treatment, and try almost every treatment. The fact that politicians and their bureaucracy are dictating what should and shouldn't be given has been troublesome.

That's just the thing, it never was that bad.
Follow the money and power games here.

[HKGuns]

I have a client who is a pulmonologist, and who describes himself as being "on the front lines" of treating the most severe Covid patients. He, like almost all physicians in the US, marched in lockstep with the WHO, NIH, CDC recommendations and treatment protocols. I recently sent him a link to the I-MASK protocol, and his reply was that they "have been using Ivermectin for the last several months now in severe cases." He works at a major metropolitan hospital in SC.

This gets to the larger issue. Why would anyone want more Government involvement in our healthcare system after this total debacle? It is senseless. We don't make doctors go to school for so long only to have them turn their brains off in favor of some un-elected bureaucratic mandate.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I have no horse in this race. Well, I do: I want to see providers--not politicians, not pencil-pushers--make the best decisions between them and their patients. They have been hamstrung from the beginning.

It's hard to tell what they are reluctant to do/not do these days. But we do know they do not have a crystal ball and change their tunes after time. I am good with this; you should be able to change your mind and change direction with new evidence. What I struggle with is their inability to change their tunes in spite of new data, seemingly digging in their heels.

NIH does change their tune, and have done so with Ivermectin. Earlier this year, NIH changed its recommendation against Ivermectin for treatment of Covid. The current recommendation is neither for or against its use, leaving the decision to physicians and their patients.

This is current NIH recommendation on Ivermectin:

Recommendation

There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.

Sources:

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelin...py/ivermectin/

You earlier asked why the controversy. Here's as good of an illustration as any. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/944440

[AndyLate]

The medscape article asks me to subscribe.

I find the idea disturbing that there was a known and widely used medicine that has shown potential to fight COVID-19 viruses since 2012 was not seriously and thoroughly tested for use against COVID-19 from the very beginning https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...__ffn_sectitle

Andy

[ChattanoogaPhil]

The medscape article asks me to subscribe.

January 20, 2021

Controversy Flares Over Ivermectin for COVID-19

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has dropped its recommendation against the inexpensive antiparasitic drug ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19, and the agency now advises it can't recommend for or against its use, leaving the decision to physicians and their patients.

"Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19," according to new NIH guidance released last week.

Passionate arguments have been waged for and against the drug's use.

The NIH update disappointed members of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), which outlined its case for endorsing ivermectin in a public statement on Monday. Point-by-point, the group of 10 physicians argued against each limitation that drove the NIH's ruling.

The group's members said that although grateful the recommendation against the drug was dropped, a neutral approach is not acceptable as total US deaths surpassed 400,000 since last spring — and currently approach 4000 a day. Results from research are enough to support its use, and the drug will immediately save lives, they say.

"Patients do not have time to wait," they write, "and we as healthcare providers in society do not have that time either."

NIH, which in August had recommended against ivermectin's use, invited the group to present evidence to its treatment guidance panel on January 6 to detail the emerging science surrounding ivermectin. The group cited rapidly growing evidence of the drug's effectiveness.

Pierre Kory, MD, president/cofounder of FLCCC and a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Aurora St. Luke's Medical Center in Milwaukee, also spoke before a Senate panel on December 8 in a widely shared impassioned video, touting ivermectin as a COVID-19 "miracle" drug, a term he said he doesn't use lightly.

Kory pleaded with the NIH to consider the emerging data. "Please, I'm just asking that they review our manuscript," he told the senators.

"We have immense amounts of data to show that ivermectin must be implemented and implemented now," he said.

Some Draw Parallels to Hydroxychloroquine

Critics have said there's not enough data to institute a protocol, and some draw parallels to another repurposed drug — hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) — which was once considered a promising treatment for COVID-19, based on flawed and incomplete evidence, and now is not recommended.

Paul Sax, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard and clinical director of the HIV Program and Division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, wrote in a blog post earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medicine Journal Watch that ivermectin has more robust evidence for it than HCQ ever did.

"[B]ut we're not quite yet at the 'practice changing' level," he writes. "Results from at least 5 randomized clinical trials are expected soon that might further inform the decision."

He said the best argument for the drug is seen in this explanation of a meta-analysis of studies of between 100 and 500 patients by Andrew Hill, MD, with the Department of Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Sax advises against two biases in considering ivermectin. One is assuming that because HCQ failed, other antiparasitic drugs will too.

The second bias to avoid, he says, is discounting studies done in low- and middle-income countries because "they weren't done in the right places."

"That's not just bias," he says. "It's also snobbery."

Ivermectin has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of onchocerciasis (river blindness) and strongyloidiasis, but is not FDA-approved for the treatment of any viral infection. It also is sometimes used to treat animals.

In dropping the recommendation against ivermectin, the NIH gave it the same neutral declaration as monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma.

Some Physicians Say They Won't Prescribe It

Some physicians say they won't be recommending it to their COVID-19 patients.
Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease expert and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security in Baltimore, Maryland, told Medscape Medical News that the NIH update hasn't changed his mind and he isn't prescribing it for his patients.

He said although "there's enough of a signal" that he would like to see more data, "we haven't seen anything in terms of a really robust study."

He noted that the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has 15 recommendations for COVID-19 treatment "and not one of them has to do with ivermectin."

He added, "It's not enough to see if it works, but we need to see who it works in and when it works in them."

He also acknowledged that "some prominent physicians" are recommending it.

Among them is Paul Marik, MD, endowed professor of medicine and chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk. A cofounder of FLCCC, Marik has championed ivermectin and developed a protocol for its use to prevent and treat COVID-19.

The data surrounding ivermectin have met with hope, criticism, and warnings.
Australian researchers published a study ahead of print in Antiviral Research that found ivermectin inhibited the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in a laboratory setting.

The study concluded that the drug resulted post-infection in a 5000-fold reduction in viral RNA at 48 hours. After that study, however, the FDA in April warned consumers not to self-medicate with ivermectin products intended for animals.

The NIH acknowledged that several randomized trials and retrospective studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have now been published in peer-reviewed journals or on preprint servers.

"Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use, whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations attributed to COVID-19, greater reduction in inflammatory markers, shorter time to viral clearance, or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo," the NIH guidance reads.

The NIH acknowledges limitations: the studies have been small; doses of ivermectin have varied; some patients were taking other medications at the same time (including doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, and corticosteroids, which may be potential confounders); and patients' severity of COVID was not always clearly described in the studies.

Nasia Safdar, MD, medical director of infection prevention at the University of Wisconsin Hospital in Madison, told Medscape Medical News she agrees more research is needed before ivermectin is recommended by regulatory bodies for COVID-19.

That said, Safdar added, "in individual circumstances if a physician is confronted with a patient in dire straits and you're not sure what to do, might you consider it? I think after a discussion with the patient, perhaps, but the level of evidence certainly doesn't rise to the level of a policy."

A downside of recommending a treatment without conclusive data, even if harm isn't the primary concern, she said, is that supplies could dwindle for its intended use in other diseases. Also, premature approval can limit the robust research needed to see not only whether it works better for prevention or treatment, but also if it's effective depending on patient populations and the severity of COVID-19.

[1168]

If you do not have a medscape subscription, you’re not prepared for this discussion.

The medscape article asks me to subscribe.

I find the idea disturbing that there was a known and widely used medicine that has shown potential to fight COVID-19 viruses since 2012 was not seriously and thoroughly tested for use against COVID-19 from the very beginning https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...__ffn_sectitle

Andy

[HKGuns]

Some Draw Parallels to Hydroxychloroquine

Critics have said there's not enough data to institute a protocol, and some draw parallels to another repurposed drug — hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) — which was once considered a promising treatment for COVID-19, based on flawed and incomplete evidence, and now is not recommended.

Wow, more misinformation. HCQ was the target of a "peer reviewed" intentional disinformation campaign and there were fraudulent papers and reports written to malign it. This is all part of the plan. Peer review is pretty much meaningless and only used as an excuse to suppress real information.

The Universities and their taxpayer funded projects are just as corrupt as the politicians writing the checks for them. Again, this is exactly what big government gets you and there is no way to turn it around.

https://defyccc.com/another-junk-ant...quine-study-2/

[Artos]

More HCQ 411...the fact some can't figure out the narrative is mind boggling. They have been burying the effectiveness of therapeutics since day one for politics (removing trump) & to make billions on the flu. So many people died needlessly by suppression of effective available cheap drugs.

We will eventually realize that Covid actually arrived for the jab.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BlaiseP59...68938639101955

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/...ship-fox-corp/

interview...

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...roquine-video/

[Arik]

Who knows... but I think it's fair to suggest that government heath officials might be reluctant to put their stamp of approval on something with an efficacy that is so hotly contested within the pharmaceutical and medical community.

Some among the public seem a bit more fickle. Pfizer alone conducted trials with over 40,000 adults. Yet, some are still screaming that the vaccines aren't sufficiently tested, biased reporting results, conspiracy... on and on. However, with limited and far smaller studies of Ivermectin (some appear promising) often not controlled and taken with other drugs, and highly contested efficacy for even from manufactures, many are screaming Ivermectin is a wonder drug for curing Covid infection and halting the spread.

If I was an anti-vaxxer and was convinced Ivermectin was the Covid cure-all and preventative, I'd call my local primary care guy today. He'd write me a prescription. By the way, how often and for how long does a person need to take Ivermectin tabs to keep all Covid variants away for a year?

Maybe they're reluctant to put their stamp of approval on something like Ivermectin but on the other hand a different Indian state banned ivermectin and it turned out because that governor signed a contract with the makers of Ravidasvir.

Pfizer may have tested 40k people but it's been less than a year. How often do you hear about lawsuits for a drug that was new only a few years ago? I don't think there's anything malicious going on. No magnetic chips or sterilization program or alien DNA....etc .. But I do think they're is an attempt to shut everyone up and push through only a select few.

Was that a peer reviewed article that showed the HQC to not be effective but failed to mention the test was done one patients who were already on their death beds?

I'm waiting for a peer reviewed article on why it's safe to go out in mass for a certain voting demographic.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

[SomeOtherGuy]

All of sudden it looks like RNA and DNA aren't as separate as previously thought:

https://scitechdaily.com/new-discove...le-in-biology/

That isn't focused on Covid-19 or the mRNA vaccines, but might (?) have implications for them.

Maybe they're reluctant to put their stamp of approval on something like Ivermectin but on the other hand a different Indian state banned ivermectin and it turned out because that governor signed a contract with the makers of Ravidasvir.

Wait, you're claiming that there could be corruption - in India??? - involving a politician and a wealthy drugmaker that sees profit??? Say it ain't so, bro.

Pfizer may have tested 40k people but it's been less than a year. How often do you hear about lawsuits for a drug that was new only a few years ago? I don't think there's anything malicious going on. No magnetic chips or sterilization program or alien DNA....etc .. But I do think they're is an attempt to shut everyone up and push through only a select few.

Malicious covers a range. Putting profits above lives is malicious, and doesn't require any tinfoil hat - major corporations around the world do that regularly. Remember Vioxx? Big tobacco denying the lung cancer connection?

Even non-malicious actions can be disastrous. Look up Thalidomide.

Was that a peer reviewed article that showed the HQC to not be effective but failed to mention the test was done one patients who were already on their death beds?

As I recall, they waited for patients to be on ventilators and getting worse, then gave them HCQ doses exceeding established safe doses for any other use. HCQ overdose contributed to the patient deaths, then they blamed HCQ. You could get the same result with almost anything using a massive overdose - aspirin, vitamin C, mRNA vaccines, etc.

I'm waiting for a peer reviewed article on why it's safe to go out in mass for a certain voting demographic.

The priesthood of "science" is so corrupted at this point that such a claim will no doubt be forthcoming.

I have a Bachelor's of Science and I am 100% a fan of real science. But there's a widening gap between real science and the institutions and figurehead celebrities that claim to be "science." Vox Day has been writing about this for years, and while his comments are thick in jargon and opinions, I think he has a valuable point:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/04/s...ciensophy.html

To simply call everything "science" is to be misleading, often, but not always, in innocence. Science has no authority, and increasingly, it is an intentional and deceitful bait-and-switch, in which the overly credulous are led to believe that because an individual with certain credentials is asserting something, that statement is supported by documentary evidence gathered through the scientific method of hypothesis, experiment, and successful replication.

In most - not many, but most - cases, that is simply not the case. Even if you don't use these neologisms to describe the three aspects of science, you must learn to distinguish between them or you will repeatedly fall for this intentional bait-and-switch. In order of reliability, the three aspects of science are:

Scientody: the process
Scientage: the knowledge base
Scientistry: the profession

We might also coin a new term, sciensophy, as practiced by sciensophists, which is most definitely not an aspect of science, to describe the pseudoscience of "the social sciences", as they do not involve any scientody and their additions to scientage have proven to be generally unreliable. Economics, nutrition, and medicine all tend to fall into this category.

If something is truly backed by science, its truth can be shown by a description of the facts, other observations, and theorized mechanism. This can then be read by anyone else versed in the field, and its validity debated intelligently. If some assertion relies on one or several "scientists" giving their personal support to it, it's "science" and should be viewed very skeptically.

Here's a 2015 post of his discussing clinical trials and dubious results:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/08/s...scientody.html


Other reading that might of interest:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/12/t...ientistry.html

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/03/o...d-science.html