slowly getting closer, but still no cigar, I'm sorry to say!
news has come that Andy Hill's paper on ivermectin has come out.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93485
turns out IVM givs a 56% reduction in relative mortality risk.
One reviewer wrote "Of course, rolling out vaccination as quickly and widespread as possible would negate the need to use ivermectin as a treatment," he added. "So big picture, vaccines are the better solution."
It's a rather stupid comment, since it makes no attempt to address the doubts on the vaccine safety. I know some sceptics exaggerate the doubts as much as they can.
Right. So where are the double blinded, randomised trials? Presumably there'll be a few completed by now because ivermectin was identified as a potential treatment over 12 months ago.
Oh, that's right there aren't any. Despite spending vast amounts of money on the vaccines there's been relatively little spent investigating treatments and practically none spent investigating cheap and safe generic drugs as treatments.
Hill's meta-analysis identified an overall 50% or so reduction in mortality. This is broadly consistent with evidence that emerged 12 months ago.
So, they could have avoided 40,000 deaths out of the 80,000 or so covid deaths that we've had since last summer if only they'd used this treatment.
The authorities' insistence on not treating covid at the emergence of symptoms is rather extraordinary, frankly.
@amanuensis you do realise that the Pfizer BNT162b2 COVID-19 trial was not double blinded, don't you?
Wow, you're right. Only observer blinded. They used a non-reactive placebo, which is probably okay (I'd suggest reactive placebo for this sort of thing). Still, hardly the 'gold standard' hurdle that generic treatment trials have to jump.
The authorities' insistence on not treating covid at the emergence of symptoms is rather extraordinary, frankly.
I could not agree more.
Yet the real world data is showing highly positive results. Generally its a cocktail of drugs that is required, combining an anti-inflammatory, immune system booster and drug to treat the virus.
7 jun 2021
https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indian-bar-association-sues-who-scientist-over-ivermectin/article_f90599f8-c7be-11eb-a8dc-0b3cbb3b4dfa.html
"The Indian Bar Association (IBA) sued WHO Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan on May 25, accusing her in a 71-point brief of causing the deaths of Indian citizens by misleading them about Ivermectin. "
"Among the most prominent examples include the Ivermectin areas of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Goa where cases dropped 98%, 97%, 94%, and 86%, respectively. By contrast, Tamil Nadu opted out of Ivermectin. As a result, their cases skyrocketed and rose to the highest in India. Tamil Nadu deaths increased ten-fold."
28 may 2021 Mexico City
https://trialsitenews.com/widespread-distribution-of-ivermectin-proves-effective-in-mexico-against-covid-19 /.
Between the end of November 2020 and the end of January 2021, more than 200,000 people tested positive for COVID, and of these, nearly 80,000 used the ivermectin kits. Results showed up to 76% reduction in hospitalization in the group that was taking ivermectin.
For control studies you can look at Argentina, Peru, Brazil where some local states used it successfully compared against other states that refused it.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/epidemiologic-analyses-on-covid19-and-ivermectin /
8 dec 2020 Bangladesh
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/bangladesh-ivermectin-shows-promise-in-treating-virus/2068885
Patients who took only invermectin for 5 days 77% more likely to have early viral clearance after 14 days,
If it is such a deadly disease and they are so desperate to stop it wouldn't they be more likely to use something that at least gives highly promising results? It's a bit like saying, that when you've run out of bandages you wont use a torn cloth to stem a bleeding wound because the cloth is only effective some of the time.
