Ivermectin - A useful treatment for COVID-19 coronavirus? Some discussion and studies...

[Shiloh]

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchama...h=6b81cd2f7237

Jun 23, 2021,06:55am EDT|38 views
Oxford Launches New Trial Of Ivermectin For Covid Treatment
JV ChamaryContributor

Oxford University has launched a clinical trial to test whether Ivermectin works in treating Coronavirus Disease.

The drug is typically used to treat diseases caused by parasite infections, including onchocerciasis or 'river blindness' from the nematode worm Onchocerca volvulus.

But the use of Ivermectin for Covid treatment is controversial, and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) advises against its use outside randomized clinical trials.

Although it's promoted as a cure for Covid in some countries, such as Brazil, most scientific studies on its effectiveness have involved poorly-controlled experiments or a small number of participants. There's little evidence the drug definitely works....

[Vibrant62]

I hope you are correct. This analysis seems pretty robust https://journals.lww.com/americanthe...6kcamlsO18X7sg .

[JJackson]

"Meta-analyses are supposed to be the highest form of evidence"
Vibrant Meta-analyses can be useful but only if the the trials included are comparable and adequately powered. The problem with ivermectin is I do not think these criteria are met. I do not know if it is going to be a useful therapeutic but hope there will be a solid large scale trial soon (I heard there is likely to be) but I do not think the trials to date have been big enough to be conclusive and not standardised in a way that allows a really useful meta pooling of the data.

[Vibrant62]

A very good article is here that provides insights into the debate.

Covid-19: Ivermectin’s politicisation is a warning sign for doctors

BMJ 2021; 373 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n747 (Published 01 April 2021)Cite this as: BMJ 2021;373:n747

The drug ivermectin has divided the medical community in South Africa and elsewhere, with some arguing it can both prevent and treat covid-19. Bibi-Aisha Wadvalla explains how the case encapsulates the central argument: do doctors or scientists know best?

[Vibrant62]

I think that the primary issues here are nicely highlighted by Dr. John Campbell in his video here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of5_oiuqDp8

The issues raised are equally applicable to ALL repurposed drugs that have potential benefits, and are off-patent. There appears to be some very serious systemic failings of health and regulatory authorities at present that are allowing this situation to perpetuate, and this is becoming increasingly apparent and the evidence more stark as each day goes by. This is not a good situation for any country and its health authorities, the pharmaceutical companies themselves, nor their populations - if there are legal snags that mean acceptance of these repurposed drugs would compromise EUAs, then change the legislation to provide room for both/all approaches.

Fairly soon I hope that the penny will drop that no country can afford the ongoing economic damage caused by the pandemic, and to limit treatments to vaccines alone OR to solely go for novel treatment interventions under emergency use is simply unaffordable and if there are significant failures (severe long term effects) anywhere, then the backlash at every level will be severe.. The numbers of Long Covid sufferers is up to 30% of those affected, and there is NO indication that vaccination can protect from Long Covid, as mild and asymptomatic infections will still occur. In addition to all the other costs of actual infections, the costs of repeated vaccinations and the many subsequent interventions required to tackle the known sequelae of Covid infection (long term lung damage, myocarditis, type 1 diabetes, ME/CSF type conditions to name a few, not to mention the current concerns of neurologists over a potential avalanche of Parkinson's type disease, and the possibility of a huge uplift in cancers directly caused by the oxidative stress caused by active Covid infection, independent of severity of infection) are enough to bankrupt every country, including those in the West, not just from the direct costs but from the costs of losing a large chunk of your economically active populations. We need to throw everything at this - vaccination, PLUS (cheap) repurposed drugs PLUS novel interventions - there will still be needs for more specialist approaches where Pharma can make their profits, not to mention all the specialist meds that are / will be needed for long covid and its sequelae where no current treatments exist.

Surely there is more than enough profit to allow room for all these approaches at the same time, and everywhere across the globe.

I would like a decent explanation and justification from the NIH, the UKs MHRA and the EMA (not to mention the WHO) as to why they continue to block these interventions. Meta-analyses are supposed to be the highest form of evidence, and these are now consistently on the side of ivermectin use in Covid 19. Why are these being ignored? See https://c19ivermectin.com and hit the ivermectin tab. Why have studies not been conducted, completed and reported on in the US /UK/ EU if that was the objection - the evidence has been there for a long time now? Where are these studies? The perpetuation of the current situation cannot be justified - this is peoples lives at stake, their livelihoods and more... not just a simple thought exercise. These problems are a real and present danger, and this is not a game or a profit/loss exercise; if a novel variant arises with a total vaccine escape we need a darned sight more to hand than vaccinations alone, now, and we do appear to have options in a number of repurposed drugs (if they were not being blocked).

[Shiloh]

It's been peer reviewed and published: https://journals.lww.com/americanthe..._of.98040.aspx

[Shiloh]

COVID Patient in Coma Gets Ivermectin After Court Order
By Marcia Frellick
injection

May 6, 2021 -- A 68-year-old woman with COVID-19, who has been in intensive care in an Illinois hospital for a month, started receiving the controversial drug ivermectin (Stromectol) this week after her family sued the hospital to have someone administer it, according to a report in the Chicago Tribune.

Nurije Fype's daughter, Desareta, filed suit against Elmhurst Hospital, part of Edward-Elmhurst Health, asking that her mother receive the treatment, which is approved as an anti-parasite drug but not approved for the treatment of COVID-19. Desareta Fype has been granted temporary guardianship of her mother.

The FDA has warned against ivermectin's use for treating COVID-19, but a high-profile group of doctors has spoken passionately in favor of it.

The FDA has published guidance titled ,"Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19" on its website. The National Institutes of Health said there is not enough data to recommend either for or against its use in treating COVID-19.

On Friday, DuPage County Judge James Orel ruled Fype should be allowed to get the treatment.

Three days later, according to the Daily Herald, the lawyer for the hospital, Joseph Monahan, argued the hospital could not find a hospital-affiliated doctor to administer the ivermectin.

The Herald reported the judge told the hospital to "get out of the way" and allow any board-certified doctor to administer the drug.

When Fype's doctor was unable to administer it, the legal team found another doctor, Alan Bain, DO, to do it. Monahan said Bain was granted credentials to work at the hospital so he could administer it Monday evening...

Read more: https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2021...er-court-order

[Shiloh]

Why Has "Ivermectin" Become a Dirty Word?
At the worst moment, Internet censorship has driven scientific debate itself underground
Matt Taibbi
17 hr ago


On December 8, 2020, when most of America was consumed with what The Guardian called Donald Trump’s “desperate, mendacious, frenzied and sometimes farcical” attempt to remain president, the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on the “Medical Response to Covid-19.” One of the witnesses, a pulmonologist named Dr. Pierre Kory, insisted he had great news.

“We have a solution to this crisis,” he said unequivocally. “There is a drug that is proving to have a miraculous impact.”

Kory was referring to an FDA-approved medicine called ivermectin. A genuine wonder drug in other realms, ivermectin has all but eliminated parasitic diseases like river blindness and elephantiasis, helping discoverer Satoshi Ōmura win the Nobel Prize in 2015. As far as its uses in the pandemic went, however, research was still scant. Could it really be a magic Covid-19 bullet?

Kory had been trying to make such a case, but complained to the Senate that public efforts had been stifled, because “every time we mention ivermectin, we get put in Facebook jail.” A Catch-22 seemed to be ensnaring science. With the world desperate for news about an unprecedented disaster, Silicon Valley had essentially decided to disallow discussion of a potential solution — disallow calls for more research and more study — because not enough research and study had been done. Once, people weren’t allowed to take drugs before they got FDA approval. Now, they can’t talk about them.

“I want to try to be respectful because I think the intention is correct,” Kory told the committee. “They want to cut down on misinformation, and many doctors are claiming X, Y, and Z work in this disease. The challenge is, you’re also silencing those of us who are expert, reasoned, researched, and extremely knowledgeable.”

Eight million people watched Kory say that on the C-SPAN video of the hearing posted to YouTube, but YouTube, in what appears to be a first, removed video of the hearing, as even Senate testimony was now deemed too dangerous for public consumption. YouTube later suspended the Wisconsin Senator who’d invited Kory to the hearing, and when Kory went on podcasts to tell his story, YouTube took down those videos, too. Kory was like a ghost who floated through the Internet, leaving suspensions and blackened warning screens everywhere he went.

One of the challenges of the pandemic period is the degree to which science has become intertwined with politics. Arguments about the efficacy of mask use or ventilators, or the viability of repurposed drugs like hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, or even the pandemic’s origins, were quashed from the jump in the American commercial press, which committed itself to a regime of simplified insta-takes made opposite to Donald Trump’s comments. With a few exceptions, Internet censors generally tracked with this conventional wisdom, which had the effect of moving conspiracy theories and real scientific debates alike far underground.

A consequence is that issues like the ivermectin question have ended up in the same public bucket as debates over foreign misinformation, hate speech, and even incitement. The same Republican Senator YouTube suspended for making statements in support of ivermectin, Ron Johnson, has also been denounced in the press for failing to call the January 6th riots an insurrection, resulting in headlines that blend the two putative offenses.

“You have these ideas about the need to censor hate speech, calls for violence, and falsity,” Kory says, “and they’ve put science on the same shelf.”...

Read more: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/why-ha...become-a-dirty

[JimO]

Thanks for posting these Vibrant.

[Vibrant62]

For those interested, a summary of Ivermectin data can be found here, including a summary and links to the latest large Meta-Analysis

https://c19early.com - just click on the tab that says 'Ivermectin'. Other repurposed drugs / intervention data summaries can be found under other tabs for those interested.

Key findings of latest Meta-analysis

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 59 studies

97% of 38 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects (95% of all 59 studies). 28 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation. Random effects meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported shows 77% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.23 [0.14-0.39] and 0.15 [0.09-0.25]). Results are similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis: 78% and 87% (RR 0.22 [0.16-0.30] and 0.13 [0.07-0.25]), and after restriction to 34 peer-reviewed studies: 78% and 88% (RR 0.22 [0.14-0.36] and 0.12 [0.05-0.30]). 81% and 96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.19 [0.07-0.54] and 0.04 [0.00-0.58]). Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 100% of the 18 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 70% and 83% respectively (RR 0.30 [0.22-0.42] and 0.17 [0.05-0.61]), and 93% of all 30 RCTs. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 59 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 17 trillion (p = 0.000000000000059). Heterogeneity arises from many factors including treatment delay, patient population, the effect measured, variants, and treatment regimens. The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of cases is remarkable. Heterogeneity is low in specific cases, for example early treatment mortality. While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 27% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm. Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Not doing so increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage. Many studies do not specify administration, or specify fasting. Administration with food may significantly increase plasma and tissue concentration. All data to reproduce this paper and the sources are in the appendix. See [Bryant, Hariyanto, Hill, Kory, Lawrie, Nardelli] for other meta analyses, all with similar results confirming effectiveness. Improvement Studies Authors Patients Early treatment 77% [61‑86%] 24 243 3,341 Late treatment 46% [29‑59%] 21 175 6,760 Prophylaxis 85% [75‑91%] 14 108 8,789 Mortality 70% [53‑81%] 22 205 7,690 RCTs only 64% [50‑75%] 30 317 5,275 All studies 71% [63‑77%] 59 526 18,890 Evidence base used for other COVID-19 approvals Medication Studies Patients Improvement Budesonide (UK) 1 1,779 17% Remdesivir (USA) 1 1,063 31% Casiri/imdevimab (USA) 1 799 66% Ivermectin evidence 59 18,890 71% [63‑77%]

[Vibrant62]

The censorship going on is horrifying. Since when is it OK to censor discussion of science, even if one does not agree with the viewpoints or interpretations of the data expressed? The science should be followed to wherever it leads - surely that is THE founding principle of science and especially in the field of medical science.

Youtube also have removed another very interesting DarkHorse discussion (even if one of the panel is highly irritating IMHO, but passionate and has been funding trials) that needs airing. Its long, but for those interested discusses the problems that repurposed drugs have getting authorised or used in the US (I think the same problems exist everywhere however) as well as covering some of the genuine concerns and issues with current Covid vaccines.

Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of mRNA Vaccine technology.
Mr. Steve Kirsch is a serial entrepreneur who has been researching adverse reactions to COVID vaccines and funding trial work into repurposed drugs in an effort to get these used to counter this pandemic..

A back up of the interview can be found here https://www.bitchute.com/video/TH2HAmTp40xq/

This censorship goes way beyond YouTube, and it is terrifying. It is also censorship of science itself and the universal burying of interventions that are low cost or off patent that could help people in third world countries as well as the developed world. This is allowing people to die who do not need to.

I am not sure what can be done about it, but the issues go way beyond the pandemic and the current crisis; it seems to me that the pandemic is being perpetuated unnecessarily, at great cost to individuals, countries and society as a whole.

There is also a real and serious risk that SARS-Cov-2 could recombine in either non-human hosts, or even in humans e.g. MERS and/or the host of other coronaviruses that exist in companion and farmed livestock. We (as in the world and society) cannot afford to have this situation continue, where viable 'adjunctive' treatments are being buried DESPITE Gold Standard meta-analyses and RCTs showing clear benefits. No pharmaceutical company will ever support these drugs UNLESS they are in patent. They will not fund the necessary trial work. The WHO should be taking the lead here funded by governments, but it seems our health institutions - both national and global - are terminally sick and irreversibly bound to the Pharma sector and their interests.

It also should be noted that no country - not even those in the developed western world - can possibly afford to solely use 'new' and highly expensive drugs to treat all the manifestations of long covid, or covid itself if and when escape variants or novel viruses arise. Vaccination is 'a' tool in the armoury, and for those at risk, the risks outweigh the benefits in my opinion - but it cannot be the 'one size fits all' panacea. We need to throw everything at the problem of Covid and Long Covid. Vaccination alone wont work, as the evolution of novel variants on a near daily basis shows. And the risk (and probability) of further novel evolutions with high mortality and morbidity are very high. We also know that vaccination does not necessarily protect against infection; we also know that even mild or asymptomatic infection can lead to Long Covid, and that this arises in between 10-30% of those infected, and predominantly occurs in younger (economically active) age groups. In other words, vaccination probably does not protect people from development of long covid. What country can afford to lose that amount of economically active adults - possibly permanently? Never mind the treatment costs - no country's healthcare system can possibly cope with the sheer numbers of long covid sufferers that have already been generated, and we still do not understand wholly what is occurring here, much less what on earth we can do about it.

I really hope and pray that the media start asking the right questions of the powers that be, and that Governments' and national health organisations - the CDC, the WHO, the European equivalents etc etc start looking beyond the immediate strategy and face up to the clear issues we have going forward. The Pharma sector is already doing very well out of this, and will continue to do so, even with the addition of repurposed drugs such as Ivermectin.

[Shiloh]

The discussion between Dr. Weinstein and Dr Kory has been censored by Youtube. To view the discussion go to: https://www.bitchute.com/video/qHjNQIynVb5O/

[Gert van der Hoek]

Am. J of Therapeutics - Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

https://assets.researchsquare.com/fi...6cc8f79d54.pdf

Abstract

Background
Re-purposed medicines may have role in combating the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic medicine ivermectin, which has anti-viral and anti-inammatory properties, has been tested in numerous clinical trials with promising results.

Methods
We assessed the ecacy of ivermectin treatment and/or prophylaxis among people with, or at high risk of covid-19 infection. We searched bibliographic databases up to February 2021 and 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 GRADE approach.

Findings
Twenty-one RCTs involving 2741 participants met review inclusion. Meta-analysis of 13 trials found ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average Risk Ratio 0.32, 95% condence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.72; n=1892; I2=57%; low to moderate-certainty evidence. Low-certainty evidence found ivermectin prophylaxis reduced covid-19 infection by an average 86% (95% CI 79% to 91%). Secondary outcomes provided very-low or low certainty evidence. Low certainty evidence suggests that that there may be no benet with ivermectin for ‘need for mechanical ventilation’, whereas effect estimates for ‘improvement’ and ‘deterioration’ favoured ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare and evidence of no difference was assessed as low to very lowcertainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty.

Interpretation
Low to moderate-certainty evidence suggests reductions in covid-19 deaths and infections may be possible by using ivermectin. Employing ivermectin early on may reduce the number of people progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin could have an impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

[GardenSpider]

Dark Horse also discussed the censorship of this site by Big Tech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COyQVUhtMDQ
due to its advocacy for Ivermectin.

Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance
Prevention & Treatment Protocols for COVID-19. See treatment protocols for hospital, home care, as well as prevention. There is also a section on recent studies and clinical trials.

https://covid19criticalcare.com

Recent studies and clinical trials on ivermectin

Favorable outcome on viral load and culture viability using Ivermectin in early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19 – A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial can be found at the following link: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....31.21258081v1

For an up-to-date overview of all published studies on ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 we recommend visiting c19ivermectin.com; in addition, a meta-analysis of all studies can be found at ivmmeta.com (constantly updated).

A majority of the studies (until January 12, 2021) were included in our comprehensive Review of the Emerging Evidence Supporting the Use of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19, and a brief summary of the studies at that time can be found in the accompanying One-page summary of the scientific review on ivermectin.

[Shiloh]

On this very special live broadcast of the DarkHorse podcast, Dr. Bret Weinstein (Ph.D) and Dr. Pierre Kory (M.D.) will discuss the ongoing pandemic, the care of COVID-19 patients, and the incredible story of Ivermectin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn_b4NRTB6k