A new peer-reviewed study by Dr Pierre Kory and colleagues on Ivermectin has been published in the American Journal of Therapeutics. Entitled “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19“, it provides a new authoritative overview of the evidence to date and calls for the widely available drug to be “globally and systematically deployed in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19”.
The study summarises the impressive evidence base for the use of Ivermectin.
1. Since 2012, multiple in vitro studies have demonstrated that Ivermectin inhibits the replication of many viruses, including influenza, Zika, Dengue, and others.
2. Ivermectin inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication and binding to host tissue through several observed and proposed mechanisms.
3. Ivermectin has potent anti-inflammatory properties with in vitro data demonstrating profound inhibition of both cytokine production and transcription of nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB), the most potent mediator of inflammation.
4. Ivermectin significantly diminishes viral load and protects against organ damage in multiple animal models when infected with SARS-CoV-2 or similar coronaviruses.
5. Ivermectin prevents transmission and development of COVID-19 disease in those exposed to infected patients.
6. Ivermectin hastens recovery and prevents deterioration in patients with mild to moderate disease treated early after symptoms.
7. Ivermectin hastens recovery and avoidance of ICU admission and death in hospitalised patients.
8. Ivermectin reduces mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19.
9. Ivermectin leads to temporally associated reductions in case fatality rates in regions after ivermectin distribution campaigns.
10. The safety, availability, and cost of ivermectin are nearly unparalleled given its low incidence of important drug interactions along with only mild and rare side effects observed in almost 40 years of use and billions of doses administered.
11. The World Health Organisation has long included ivermectin on its “List of Essential Medicines.”
The quality of the evidence for Ivermectin has been challenged, leading many countries including the U.K. and U.S. not to recommend its use for COVID-19. The study takes this criticism head-on.
Although a subset of trials are of an observational design, it must be recognised that in the case of ivermectin (1) half of the trials used a randomised controlled trial design (12 of the 24 reviewed above) and (2) observational and randomised trial designs reach equivalent conclusions on average as reported in a large Cochrane review of the topic from 2014. In particular, OCTs that use propensity-matching techniques (as in the Rajter study from Florida) find near identical conclusions to later-conducted RCTs in many different disease states, including coronary syndromes, critical illness, and surgery. Similarly, as evidenced in the prophylaxis and treatment trial meta-analyses as well as the summary trials table, the entirety of the benefits found in both OCT and RCT trial designs aligns in both direction and magnitude of benefit. Such a consistency of benefit among numerous trials of varying sizes designs from multiple different countries and centres around the world is unique and provides strong, additional support.
A hint of the politics around Ivermectin can be gleaned in the discussion section, where the authors wonder how much more evidence a cheap, safe drug like Ivermectin needs in an international emergency before it can be approved.
The continued challenges faced by health care providers in deciding on appropriate therapeutic interventions in patients with COVID-19 would be greatly eased if more updated and commensurate evidence-based guidance came from the leading governmental health care agencies. Currently, in the United States, the treatment guidelines for COVID-19 are issued by the National Institutes of Health. Their most recent recommendation on the use of ivermectin in patients with COVID-19 was last updated on February 11th, 2021, where they found that “there was insufficient evidence to recommend for or against ivermectin in COVID-19”. For a more definitive recommendation to be issued by major leading public health agencies (PHA), it is apparent that even more data on both the quality and quantity of trials are needed, even during a global health care emergency, and in consideration of a safe, oral, low-cost, widely available and deployable intervention such as ivermectin.
The authors add that further evidence is on its way and express an earnest hope that “if the above benefits in clinical outcomes continue to be reported in the remaining trials … this almost doubling of the current supportive evidence base would merit a recommendation for use by the WHO, NIH, and other PHAs”.
The study includes two striking graphs, from Peru and Uruguay, illustrating the strong association of Ivermectin use with reduction in Covid infections and deaths.
Considering how quickly vaccines using novel technology with unproven long-term safety records have been authorised for use, the failure to approve a known safe drug with considerable evidence to suggest clinical benefit is almost inexplicable. Some have suggested the resistance has been motivated by a wish among pharmaceutical companies to prioritise more profitable medicines like the vaccines. If so, this is a criminal example of putting profits before people.
It is good to see this study make it to publication. (There are rumours that some journals rejected it, not for any technical reason but because it would be controversial, possibly with their sponsors.) It is to be hoped there will be many more such studies, and a sea-change in regulators’ attitudes to repurposed medicines like Ivermectin.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I wouldn’t be too blasé saying “Gov inevitably lost..”, but it does increase my confidence in the judges! Also reported on GBN recently.
Call me paranoid but my guess is the judges’ motivation is to expose evil Tory incompetence and corruption rather than getting to the real truth about covid.
“unredacted”….. Highly unlikely.
BREAKING.. the Daily Sceptic has received the first glimpse of Johnson’s papers.. verdict.. clear as mud..
Squeaky bum time for Gove, Cummings and Sunak me-thinks.
I wish I could believe that, but the whole premise of the inquiry is that there was a pandemic, so the focus will be on poor execution of the stupid, evil rubbish they made up pretending it was to do with public health. The basic lie will not be exposed in our lifetime because there are too many vested interests who were all in on it in some way or another. In fact, name a powerful institution in the rich world that wasn’t an enthusiastic supporter of the covid scam.
Yes TOF.. name one indeed.. I certainly can’t..
We were lied to about the efficacy and safety of the jabs just like we were lied to about the severity of the pretend ”pandemic”. The maniacal obsession with getting everybody jabbed, using whatever means necessary ( not just the PsyOp, remember the crazy examples of bribery from all around the world? Remember when they did that for previous years’ flu vaccines? Nope, me neither! ) looks even more sinister now doesn’t it? That’s why I’ve personally done a 180 and now think no world leaders and no people with real influence took the damn things at all. They’d have just had placebos, I’m convinced of it. Because they *knew* the whole thing was a hoax and the death jabs were both unnecessary and highly risky, in a dangerously ‘mass global human experiment using novel technology’ kind of way.
”Drug regulators and public health agencies have saturated the airways with claims that serious harms following COVID-19 vaccination are “rare.”
But there has been very little scrutiny of that claim by the media, and I couldn’t find an instance where international agencies actually quantified what they meant by the term “rare” or provided a scientific source.
The best evidence so far has been a study published in one of vaccinology’s most prestigious journals, where independent researchers reanalyzed the original trial data for the mRNA vaccines.
The authors, Joseph Fraiman et al., found that serious adverse events (SAE)—i.e., adverse events that require hospitalization—were elevated in the vaccine arm by an alarming rate—1 additional SAE for every 556 people vaccinated with Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine.
According to a scale used by drug regulators, SAEs occurring at a rate of 1 in 556 are categorized as “uncommon” but are far more common than what the public has been told.
In response to the criticism, Fraiman, an emergency doctor and lead author on the reanalysis said, “To be honest, I’m not that surprised that agencies have not determined the rate of SAEs. Once these agencies approve a drug, there’s no incentive for them to monitor harms.”
He said it’s hypocritical for health agencies to tell people that serious harms of the COVID-19 vaccines are rare when they haven’t even determined the SAE rate themselves.
“It’s very dangerous not to be honest with the public,” said Fraiman, who recently called for the mRNA vaccines to be suspended.
“These noble lies may get people vaccinated in the short term, but you’re creating decades or generations of distrust when it’s revealed that they have been misleading the public.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/sorry-but-serious-harms-from-the-vaccine-are-not-rare_5373840.html
We still have the core question: why? To me the elephant in the room is that only the (gullible) people of the collective west were given deadly mRNA, while China’s sphere of influence were given what I assume were basically placebos. This seems incredibly significant to me. If the shots are a bioweapon, which I think they are, and the mRNA tech is owned by China, which Naomi Wolf and others have shown, what does that suggest? To me it suggests that world war 3 is a biological war…
Anyone else having probs with the site being slow or not loading tonight? I posted something over an hour ago and it’s disappeared into the ether. Oh well…just some friendly neighbourhood gremlins perhaps…
From Peter McCullough’s Telegram;
”After high volumes of downloads overnight @TheLancet censored our paper. They don’t want the truth to get out on autopsies in C19 deaths. Why not let people read it and make their own conclusions?”
No wonder the shady buggers censored it. Look at the authors and you’ll see at least six names of doctors/experts who have been outspoken and opposing the narrative from the start. You can still access it here;
https://www.zenodo.org/record/8120771
All a pantomime for those that believe any of this stuff still matters.
The fact is that during the “deadliest virus the world has ever seen” members of the govt, opposition, civil service and expert class were swanning around drinking and screwing while they told the rest of us it was too dangerous to sit in a cold church 20 feet from someone else. If you can’t work out what that means then you need to listen to a little more “London Calling”.
Described brilliantly AMAT..
Never mind, the waste of yet more taxpayers’ money is par for the course of all governments.
Nothing like this happens by accident. I suspect they want to paint the picture of the chaotic response to Covid by our elected government so that they can push the line that we need to hand over our sovereignty to unelected technocrats at the WHO.