Regular use of ivermectin led to a 100% reduction in hospitalisation rate, a 92% reduction in mortality rate and an 86% reduction in the risk of dying from a COVID-19 infection when compared to non-users, a major new study has found.
The study, published in the medical journal Cureus, analysed data from 223,128 people from the city of Itajaí in Brazil, making it the largest study of its kind and giving its findings a high degree of certainty. Senior author Dr. Flavio A. Cadegiani wrote on Twitter: “An observational study with the size and level of analysis as ours is hardly achieved and infeasible to be conducted as a randomised clinical trial. Conclusions are hard to be refuted. Data is data, regardless of your beliefs.”
The study compared those who took ivermectin regularly, irregularly and not at all prior to being infected with COVID-19 (i.e., as prophylaxis), and found a dose-dependent relationship, confirming that the difference in outcomes is very likely to be due to the drug and not other factors, such as differences between the groups.
The authors used a technique called ‘propensity score matching’ to control for confounding factors that may otherwise have biased the study in one direction or another. For example, those taking ivermectin tended to be older than those not taking it (average age 47 years vs 40 years), but by matching people of similar age in each group and comparing outcomes this confounding factor was controlled for.
Here is the abstract of the study, which summarises the methods and results.
Background
We have previously demonstrated that ivermectin used as prophylaxis for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), irrespective of the regularity, in a strictly controlled citywide program in Southern Brazil (Itajaí, Brazil), was associated with reductions in COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation, and mortality rates. In this study, our objective was to determine if the regular use of ivermectin impacted the level of protection from COVID-19 and related outcomes, reinforcing the efficacy of ivermectin through the demonstration of a dose-response effect.
Methods
This exploratory analysis of a prospective observational study involved a program that used ivermectin at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day for two consecutive days, every 15 days, for 150 days. Regularity definitions were as follows: regular users had 180 mg or more of ivermectin and irregular users had up to 60 mg, in total, throughout the program. Comparisons were made between non-users (subjects who did not use ivermectin), and regular and irregular users after multivariate adjustments. The full city database was used to calculate and compare COVID-19 infection and the risk of dying from COVID-19. The COVID-19 database was used and propensity score matching (PSM) was employed for hospitalisation and mortality rates.
Results
Among 223,128 subjects from the city of Itajaí, 159,560 were 18 years old or up and were not infected by COVID-19 until July 7th 2020, from which 45,716 (28.7%) did not use and 113,844 (71.3%) used ivermectin. Among ivermectin users, 33,971 (29.8%) used irregularly (up to 60 mg) and 8,325 (7.3%) used regularly (more than 180 mg). The remaining 71,548 participants were not included in the analysis. COVID-19 infection rate was 49% lower for regular users (3.40%) than non-users (6.64%) (risk rate (RR): 0.51; 95% CI: 0.45-0.58; p < 0.0001), and 25% lower than irregular users (4.54%) (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.66-0.85; p < 0.0001). The infection rate was 32% lower for irregular users than non-users (RR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.64-0.73; p < 0.0001).
Among COVID-19 [infected] participants, regular users were older and had a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes and hypertension than irregular and non-users. After PSM, the matched analysis contained 283 subjects in each group of non-users and regular users, [283] between regular users and irregular users, and 1,542 subjects between non-users and irregular users. The hospitalisation rate was reduced by 100% in regular users compared to both irregular users and non-users (p < 0.0001), and by 29% among irregular users compared to non-users (RR: 0.781; 95% CI: 0.49-1.05; p = 0.099). Mortality rate was 92% lower in regular users than non-users (RR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02-0.35; p = 0.0008) and 84% lower than irregular users (RR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04-0.71; p = 0.016), while irregular users had a 37% lower mortality rate reduction than non-users (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.40-0.99; p = 0.049). Risk of dying from COVID-19 [once infected] was 86% lower among regular users than non-users (RR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.03-0.57; p = 0.006), and 72% lower than irregular users (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.07-1.18; p = 0.083), while irregular users had a 51% reduction compared to non-users (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.32-0.76; p = 0.001).
Conclusion
Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin. This dose-response efficacy reinforces the prophylactic effects of ivermectin against COVID-19.
The authors draw particular attention to the dose-dependent relationship as confirming the efficacy of the treatment:
The response pattern of ivermectin use and level of protection from COVID-19-related outcomes was identified and consistent across dose-related levels. The reduction in COVID-19 infection rate occurred in a consistent and significant dose-dependent manner, with reductions of 49% and 32% in regular and irregular users, when compared to non-users. The most striking evidence of ivermectin’s effectiveness was the 100% reduction in mortality for female regular users.
The data in the study come from official government databases and, according to the authors, “conclusively show that the risk of dying from COVID-19 was lower for all regular and irregular users of ivermectin, compared to non-users, considering the whole population”.
The study, while not a randomised controlled trial (RCT), used a “strictly controlled population with a great level of control for confounding factors” and was larger than would be feasible in an RCT.
The authors highlight a “notable reduction in risk of death in the over 50-year-old population and those with comorbidities”.
They conclude that the evidence provided by the study is “among the strongest and most conclusive data regarding ivermectin efficacy”.
Many governments have suppressed the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, claiming there is a lack of evidence of efficacy. However, this purported lack of evidence often relies on poorly designed trials and biased conclusions. For example, a recent widely-reported RCT concluded the study “did not show adequate support for the effectiveness of this drug” – yet its own results showed statistically significant benefits for speed of recovery as well as large (though not, in that study, statistically significant) benefits for mechanical ventilation and death. Participants also were not given the treatment until over a week into having symptoms and the study may have been confounded by people in the placebo arm also taking the drug.
One of the new study’s authors and a seasoned proponent of repurposed treatments like ivermectin, Dr. Pierre Kory, made clear his thoughts on Twitter in April as he responded to an FDA tweet reminding the public that ivermectin is not approved: “Messaging BS with one corrupt study while ignoring 82 trials (33 RCTs) from 27 countries, 129K patients – sum showing massive benefits. Stop lying man, people are dying. #earlytreatmentworks.”
Social media companies have censored information about ivermectin, often considering any suggestion that it is an effective treatment for COVID-19 to be misinformation. Yet ivermectin is a cheap, safe drug that many studies have shown brings considerable benefit in treating and preventing COVID-19. The latest study impressively confirms this efficacy as a prophylactic, with a reduction in mortality of up to 92%.
Shockingly, most governments still do not have a protocol for early treatment or prevention of COVID-19. The NHS says treatment is only available for those at high risk of serious disease who have a positive test and symptoms that are not getting better. Its guidance on self-care for people ill at home only recommends paracetamol and ibuprofen. Yet here is a highly controlled study of over 200,000 people that shows huge benefit – 92% reduction in mortality, 100% reduction in hospitalisation – for the prophylactic use of a cheap, widely available drug, and which confirms the results of multiple earlier studies. What are our governments waiting for? What more do they need to approve drugs that have been shown to save lives?
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.
“Ivermectin Cuts Covid Mortality by 92%, Major Study Finds – Why is it Still Not Approved?”
But surely we all know the answer to this? Because it would undermine the legal basis for the mass administration of untested gene therapy drugs on an unsuspecting population, thus hitting the profits of the companies that fund governments and media. The same holds true for the rigged vitamin D trials. Don’t expect the Times muppets to report on this any time soon though, despite their journalist Oliver Wright previously having written this 2014 article on AZ and Pfizer corruption for the Independent.
Revealed: Big Pharma’s hidden links to NHS policy, with senior MPs saying medical industry uses ‘wealth to influence government’ | The Independent | The Independent
This would mean suppression of the use of Ivermectin would have resulted in 10,000s of needless deaths from COVID. Add to that deaths from adverse reactions to the gene therapy injections and unknown impacts to fertility and long-term damage to immune systems. Further add the deaths and other damage caused by lockdowns and the damage to health systems. It is hard to grasp the magnitude of the crime. My question would be: why have the arrests not yet started?
Arrests? If I were one of the criminals involved in this scam I wouldn’t be worried about getting arrested, I’d be (deservedly) more concerned about finding myself swinging from a lamp post upside down.
By the way, has there been any pushback in the Netherlands after that young man on a tractor being shot at by police?
It is difficult not to conclude that there are significant numbers of heads of state who it would be reasonable to conclude have colluded in causing massive numbers of deaths amongst their populations.
Am I mis-remembering the early days around April 2020 in France when suddenly there was a huge demand for Ivermectin but ample stocks mysteriously vanished, seemingly into the cupboards of dodgy physicians eager to cash in on the anticipated black market? (To be honest, I cannot recall whether it was Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine that disappeared.)
Thank you for sharing the Independent article. I even bothered to register in order to read it. It seems 10 years ago journalists were interested in the truth, which was not then censored and branded “misinformation”. This article is key in explaining the push for vaccination and suppression of alternative treatments for Covid, due to the hidden lobbying power of eg AstraZeneca and Pfizer.
For those who may not know, I bring this up sometimes because, some months back, an editor of the Times muppets dismissed commenters on this forum as anti-vaxxers. For our part, we want to know why the Times muppets are not vigorously holding to account the pharmaceutical industry for any possible corruption relating to experimental “covid” medication over the past two years despite having a journalist well qualified to do this. And if they expect us to believe that all big pharma corruption has now disappeared, despite having clearly been a serious issue relatively recently, and despite reports suggesting otherwise elsewhere, then that paper really is not fit for purpose.
N.B. for anyone who does not want to register, if you close the page and then open it up a second time, it seems to let you read without registering. At least, it does for me.
I think the No-win no-fee lawyers might have found an angle…
As has been said before there is no money in it for big Pharma as its an off patent treatment.The fact it appears to work well is just a minor detail !!!!
Funny, isn’t it, yet another thing, the proponents of which were (and still are) ridiculed and denounced, which has been proven, seemingly beyond reasonable doubt even long before the scamdemic, to be effective and beneficial.
The original reason for not using ivermectin may well be that it would have stood in the way of injecting hundreds of millions of people with a novel therapeutic which for decades had been deemed too toxic for use in humans and which Fraudci stated he was gagging to use.
At this point though, I think no government would dare use it, because if this cheap, safe drug is proven to work, I really do believe public health authorities and politicians who denied this treatment to people from the start will be at risk of being terminated with extreme prejudice by people who needlessly lost loved ones – all so big pharma could rake in more dosh. They have to keep the pretense up, otherwise they will have to start running and there is simply nowhere far enough on this earth for them to hide.
For those who have ever seen US tv, you will be familiar with the many ads pushing people to ask their doctor for any number of prescription drugs, whether they might need it or not, whether it will cause them harm or not. But this safe drug was not permitted due to health reasons? Right. Even if it did not work, it is safe enough to let people take, if the authorities were so convinced it wouldn’t work, they’d have let people take it and then said see, it doesn’t work.
It will, of course, come out at some point that ivermectin and HCQ would have prevented most of the devastation of the last 2 years. When enough people realise that, there will be hell to pay.
Interesting. Any news on what has happened in India with regard to the use of Ivermectin in some places?
https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/the-miracle-not-heard-around-the-fe9?utm_source=twitter&sd=pf
The success of Ivermectin in Uttar Pradesh.
“USOP”.
VG! What I was getting at though, is what has been the reaction in places like Kerala which responded with “mass ‘vaccination’ and the avoidance of Ivermoectin”. Presumably they know about Uttat Pradesh – or don’t they (which would be rremarkable enough in itself)? And if they do know, has there been any backlash against the course that Kerala adopted? (Incidentally, UP was also right about having enough water and sleep).
Looking at Worldometer, very low COVID related deaths relative to size of population since the beginning of March. I’m sure that’s just coincidence though.
The RPTB and their acolytes should, in any sane world, be charged with murder/manslaughter of probably hundreds of thousands of people.
Why?
The answer is quite simple. They deliberately withheld drugs from the public which they knew (murder) or ought to have known (manslaughter) given their level of expertise which would certainly have saved those lives.
Why did they do this?
Again the answer is simple – no emergency use authorisation would have been granted for the gene therapies..
Why were/are they still so anxious to promote/mandate the jabs when there is plenty of evidence to show they are toxic, useless and unnecessary?
That’s not so easy to answer. Money (bidpharma), power (those behind the great reset, control.
One thing though is for sure, we’ve got the fight of our lives on our hands to stop this because no matter what, the bastards still control the media.
And may I remind everyone – They still want kids jabbed.
May They Rot in Hell.
They certainly do control the media. There is a reason why the Times muppets won’t allow their journalist Oliver Wright to write articles like this one he wrote in 2014 about the experimental “covid” medication.
Revealed: Big Pharma’s hidden links to NHS policy, with senior MPs saying medical industry uses ‘wealth to influence government’ | The Independent | The Independent
Is it looking like mass murder has been committed?
Two thoughts here.
First, I greatly respect. Alex Berenson. But he says ivermectin is not much use against covid. Yet we have studies like this … I’m struggling to know wht to believe
Second, if the results of this study are correct – and one way or another this will eventually be proven – the individuals and organisations who have worked to suppress ivermectin’s use are surely guilty of manslaughter on an absolutely massive scale.
Just checked, and latest worldometer’s figures on covid deaths are 6.5 million.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Certainly this is overstated in the Western world, but probably underestimated elsewhere. Let’s say the two cancel each other out, so we are left with 6.5 million dead. If 92% of these could have been saved, that’s a nice round 6 million dead who shouldn’t be.
That figure sound familiar?
And it’s still rising, and then there’s the lockdown and vaccine deaths still to be counted.
The people responsible for this are the biggest criminals in history.
I am a fan of Berenson, but I tend to think he is wrong on this. Pierre Kory, and many other doctors would seem to have used it very successfully, over a long period…I don’t know why they would hang themselves out to dry if it weren’t so….they’ve been some of the most reviled, while also losing their livelihood….?
If you’ve read The Real Anthony Fauci..it just seem impossible that if Ivermectin and HCQ didn’t have any effect they would have gone to the trouble they did, to first of all remove them completely from the shelves, so no one at all could access them….then stop doctors from prescribing them..ask yourself when has a Government body interfered with what a doctor sees fit to prescribe to a patient? Then repeatedly falsifying and hampering studies into them…I think that one in Oxford was halted, “because they couldn’t get hold of any Ivermectin!”…….Why go to all that trouble?
It has long been the case that there is now a much bigger body of studies for the effectiveness of Ivermectin than there is for the clot shot…so you do the maths!
https://ivmmeta.com/ real-time meta analysis of 90 studies.
Regarding Alex Berenson, I’m not sure what evidence he’s using, but I expect he’s looking at the mainstream line which is essentially that there’s “not enough” evidence, even though many aspects of the vax programmes have been pushed through on far less evidence. Some of the earlier IVM trials were underpowered because the test subjects were healthy and young, so the adverse COVID events were too few to show a statistically significant effect, and the media/”experts” spun this as “IVM does not work”. The Gates-sponsored Together trial of IVM did recruit at-risk patients but there have been a number of concerns about that trial https://c19ivermectin.com/togetherivm.html; some highlights:
Would it be reasonable to conclude potentially mass murder?
Hmm. Properly conducted large scale study vs. Alex Berenson opinion? Hard to choose.
Yes but Berenson has scientific credibility, and appears to go by evidence. He doesn’t appear merely to make things up because it suits him.
His stance on ivermectin goes back a long way now, but as far as I know he’s never put forward any evidence for his assertions.
In 2020, the Australian Chief Medical Officer, Prof Paul Kelly, stated “The jury is out- ivermectin doesn’t work”.
Not only did he demonstrate an egregious lack of scientific accumen and openness to ongoing research, he couldn’t even get his cliches correct.
Absolutely! He obviously was supposed to say “The Science Is Settled”. Perhaps he needs to stick to his script rather than improvising?
Observational study – a sceptic’s paradise.
Meanwhile if the ‘study’ is valid, we now have prevention and cure for the Common Cold and Influenza.
‘Shockingly, most governments still do not have a protocol for early treatment or prevention of COVID-19. ‘
That is because ‘shockingly’ people don’t get it that ‘CoVid-19’ is just the brand name given to the Common Cold caused by a specific coronavirus to instil the belief it’s ‘novel’ a never before encountered dangerous virus. Whereas it’s just another coronavirus that cause respiratory disease which can develop in some to be serious and fatal.
There are four other coronavirus and a number of other respiratory viruses which all cause symptoms from among the same set of symptoms = disease.
Unless a sufferer is tested, it is impossible to determine which virus is causing their Cold.
These viruses all work in about the same way and despite decades of research no cure or safe & effective vaccine has been found.
So if we are to believe Ivermectin works, it should be easy enough to set up a study to see how effective it is against Colds. If it doesn’t prove effective against Colds, why would it be effective against a brand-name Cold?
Many people have been manipulated by the terms used, as you say. It is probably not well understood that a large proportion (~25%) of “common colds” are thought to be caused by various coronaviruses – such as 229E, HKU-1 and a couple of others. They don’t want to explain that. The rest are often caused by a shed load of other rhinoviruses.
One of the historic issues that they prefer to sweep under the carpet is the fact that the term “coronavirus” was actually invented by the “Common Cold Unit (CCU)” in Salisbury, which closed down around 1989.
The other problem is that the trade seems to have tweaked the definition of what a “vaccine” actually is. Traditionally, many of them really do seem to perform the function of preventing infection by xyz, but now some of them, notably in the ‘flu domain, and indeed the C-19 product, do not achieve that. At best, they might mitigate the symptoms. After all, there’s a fair bit of guessing, or forecasting in the design of annual ‘flu jabs. Some might be better than others, in any year.
We’ve all been conned. None of the previous 2 years or so is anything to do with health, but everything to do with money and power. I think covid (just a common, rather nasty cold) was introduced and its danger needlessly magnified to push the global warming agenda along a bit quicker, which is a plan that’s been hanging around for years, but people were not taking it seriously enough for TPTB.
I really do wonder sometimes if the ultimate goal is mass extermination, because, let’s face it, that’s one way (perhaps the only way) that net zero could be implemented. Perhaps my imagination is running away with me, but I am now very suspicious that the government is seeking to harm a large proportion of the population simply by doing nothing – not sorting out the power situation, not sorting out the NHS or GP system, allowing criminals to run riot, actively importing lots of fit, healthy, angry and acquisitive illegals, and now vaccinating AGAIN with something that has only been tested on mice.
The use of Ivermectin would have spoilt the big plans, wouldn’t it? They never wanted a decent treatment for covid at all.
The Public Health Bureaucrats and Governments, who denied the efficacy of Ivermectin and refused to permit its use so they could licence the mRNA jabs under emergency authorisation and push their use, are guilty of mass murder.
Or to be more precise, in the pharmaceutical trade, money said no to the idea of using any existing drug, in favour of a brand new one, with the icing on the cake of being granted financial immunity for any damage caused.
Why? That is a simple one to answer – there is no profit in it! The modern mantra is “Profit before Principles”.
This debacle has been being on-going since July 2020 with HCQ and then ivermectin. No new news here…just more evidence which will be ignored.
Meanwhile, the real shocking news is here…Denis Rancourt and collaborators find NO LINK BETWEEN COVID DEATHS AND AGE but a near statistically certain direct proportionality to poverty. Groundbreaking stuff…
https://denisrancourt.ca/entries.php?id=116&name=2022_08_02_covid_period_mass_vaccination_campaign_and_public_health_disaster_in_the_usa