Back in January I wrote an article about four randomized controlled trials of ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19 that had at that time released their results to the public. Each of those four trials had promising results, but each was also too small individually to show any meaningful impact on the hard outcomes we really care about, like death. When I meta-analyzed them together however, the results suddenly appeared very impressive. Here’s what that meta-analysis looked like:
It showed a massive 78% reduction in mortality in patients treated with covid-19. Mortality is the hardest of hard end points, which means it’s the hardest for researchers to manipulate and therefore the least open to bias. Either someone’s dead, or they’re alive. End of story.
You would have thought that this strong overall signal of benefit in the midst of a pandemic would have mobilized the powers that be to arrange multiple large randomized trials to confirm these results as quickly as possible, and that the major medical journals would be falling over each other to be the first to publish these studies.
That hasn’t happened.
Rather the opposite, in fact. South Africa has even gone so far as to ban doctors from using ivermectin on covid-19 patients. And as far as I can tell, most of the discussion about ivermectin in mainstream media (and in the medical press) has centred not around its relative merits, but more around how its proponents are clearly deluded tin foil hat wearing crazies who are using social media to manipulate the masses.
In spite of this, trial results have continued to appear. That means we should now be able to conclude with even greater certainty whether or not ivermectin is effective against covid-19. Since there are so many of these trials popping up now, I’ve decided to limit the discussion here only to the ones I’ve been able to find that had at least 150 participants, and that compared ivermectin to placebo (although I’ll add even the smaller trials I’ve found in to the updated meta-analysis at the end).
As before, it appears that rich western countries have very little interest in studying ivermectin as a treatment for covid. The three new trials that had at least 150 participants and compared ivermectin with placebo were conducted in Colombia, Iran, and Argentina. We’ll go through each in turn.
The Colombian trial (Lopez-Medina et al.) was published in JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association) in March. There is one thing that is rather odd with this study, and that is that the study authors were receiving payments from Sanofi-Pasteur, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, and Gilead while conducting the study. Gilead makes remdesivir. Merck is developing two expensive new drugs to treat covid-19. Janssen, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, and Sanofi-Pasteur are all developers of covid vaccines. In other words, the authors of the study were receiving funding from companies that own drugs that are direct competitors to ivermectin. One might call this a conflict of interest, and wonder whether the goal of the study was to show a lack of benefit. It’s definitely a little bit suspicious.
Anyway, let’s get to what the researchers actually did. This was a double-blind randomized controlled trial that recruited patients with mildly symptomatic covid-19 who had experienced symptom onset less than 7 days earlier. Potential participants were identified through a statewide database of people with positive PCR-tests. By “mildly symptomatic” the researchers meant people who had at least one symptom but who did not require high-flow oxygen at the time of recruitment in to the trial.
Participants in the treatment group received 300 ug/kg body weight of ivermectin every day for five days, while participants in the placebo group received an identical placebo. 300 ug/kg works out to 21 mg for an average 70 kg adult, which is quite high, especially when you consider that the dose was given daily for five days. For an average person, this would work out to a total dose of 105 mg. The other ivermectin trials have mostly given around 12 mg per day for one or two days, for a total dose of 12 to 24 mg (which has been considered enough because ivermectin has a long half-life in the body). Why this study gave such a high dose is unclear. However, it shouldn’t be a problem. Ivermectin is a very safe drug, and studies have been done where people have been given ten times the recommended dose without any noticeable increase in adverse events.
The stated goal of the study was to see if ivermectin resulted in more rapid symptom resolution than placebo. So participants were contacted by telephone every three days after inclusion in the study, up to day 21, and asked about what symptoms they were experiencing.
398 patients were included in the study. The median age of the participants was 37 years, and they were overall very healthy. 79% had no known co-morbidities. This is a shame. It means that this study is yet another one of those many studies that will not be able to show a meaningful effect on hard end points like hospitalization and death. It is a bit strange that studies keep being done on young healthy people who are at virtually zero risk from covid-19, rather than on the multi-morbid elderly, who are the ones we actually need an effective treatment for.
Anyway, let’s get to the results.
In the group treated with ivermectin, the average time from inclusion in the study to becoming completely symptom free was 10 days. In the placebo group that number was 12 days. So, the ivermectin treated patients recovered on average two days faster. However, the difference was not statistically significant, so the result could easily be due to chance. At 21 days after inclusion in the study, 82% had recovered fully in the ivermectin group, as compared to 79% in the placebo group. Again, the small difference was not statistically significant.
In terms of the hard end points that matter more, there were zero deaths in the ivermectin group and there was one death in the placebo group. 2% of participants in the ivermectin group required “escalation of care” (hospitalization if they were outside the hospital at the start of the study, or oxygen therapy if they were in hospital at the start of the study) as compared with 5% in the placebo group. None of these differences was statistically significant. But that doesn’t mean they weren’t real. Like I wrote earlier, the fact that this was a study of healthy young people meant that, even if a meaningful difference does exist in risk of dying of covid, or of ending up in hospital, this study was never going to find it.
So, what can we conclude?
Ivermectin does not meaningfully shorten duration of symptoms in healthy young people. That’s about all we can say from this study. Considering the conflicts of interest of the authors, my guess is that this was the goal of the study all along: Gather together a number of young healthy people that is too small for there to be any chance of a statistically significant benefit, and then get the result you want. The media will sell the result as “study shows ivermectin doesn’t work” (which they dutifully did).
It is interesting that there were signals of benefit for all the parameters the researchers looked at (resolution of symptoms, escalation of care, death), but that the relatively small number and good health status of the participants meant that there was little chance of any of the results reaching statistical significance.
Let’s move on to the next study, which is currently available as a pre-print on Research Square (Niaee et al.). It was randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled, and carried out at five different hospitals in Iran. It was funded by an Iranian university.
In order to be included in the trial, participants had to be over the age of 18 and admitted to hospital because of a covid-19 infection (which was defined as symptoms suggestive of covid plus either a CT scan typical of covid infection or a positive PCR test).
150 participants were randomized to either placebo (30 people) or varying doses of ivermectin (120 people). The fact that they chose to make the placebo group so small is a problem, because it makes it very hard to detect any differences even if they do exist, by making the statistical certainty of the results in the placebo group very low.
The participants were on average 56 years old and the average oxygen saturation before initiation of treatment was 89% (normal is more than 95%), so this was a pretty sick group. Unfortunately no information is provided on how far along people were in the disease course when they started receiving ivermectin. It stands to reason that the drug is more likely to work if given ten days after symptom onset than when given twenty days after symptom onset, since death usually happens around day 21. If you, for example, wanted to design a trial to fail, you could start treating people at a time point when there is no time for the drug you’re testing to have a chance work, so it would have been nice to know at what time point treatment started in this trial.
So, what were the results?
20% of the participants in the placebo group died (6 out of 30 people). 3% of the participants in the various ivermectin groups died (4 out of 120 people). That is an 85% reduction in the relative risk of death, which is huge.
So, in spite of the fact that the placebo group was so small, it was still possible to see a big difference in mortality. Admittedly, this is a pre-print (i.e. it hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet), and the absolute numbers of deaths are small, so there is some scope for random chance to have created these results (maybe people in the placebo group were just very unlucky!). However, the study appears to have followed all the steps expected for a high quality trial. It was carried out at multiple different hospitals, it used randomization and a control group that received a placebo, and it was double-blinded. And death is a very hard end point that is not particularly open to bias. So unless the researchers have falsified their data, then this study constitutes reasonably good evidence that ivermectin is highly effective when given to patients hospitalized with covid-19. That’s great, because it would mean that the drug can be given quite late in the disease course and still show benefit.
Let’s move on to the third trial (Chahla et al.), which is currently available as a pre-print on MedRxiv. It was carried out in Argentina, and funded by the Argentinean government. Like the first trial we discussed, this was a study of people with mild disease. It literally boggles my mind that so many researchers choose to study people with mild disease instead of studying those with more severe disease. Especially when you consider that these studies are all so small. A study of people with mild disease needs to be very large to find a statistically significant effect, since most people with covid do well regardless. The risk of false negative results is thus enormous. If you’re going to do a small-ish study, and you want to have a reasonable chance of producing results that reach statistical significance, it would make much more sense to do it on sick hospitalized patients.
The study was randomized, but it wasn’t blinded, and there was no placebo. In other words, the intervention group received ivermectin (24 mg per day), while the control group didn’t receive anything. This is a bad bad thing. It means that any non-hard outcomes produced by the study are really quite worthless, since there is so much scope for the placebo effect and other confounding factors to mess up the results. For hard outcomes, in particular death, it should be less of a problem (although we wouldn’t expect any deaths in such a small study of mostly healthy people with mild disease anyway).
The study included people over the age of 18 with symptoms suggestive of covid-19 and a positive PCR test. The average age of the participants was 40 years, and most had no underlying health issues. A total of 172 people were recruited in to the study.
The researchers chose to look at how quickly people became free of symptoms as their primary endpoint. This is enormously problematic, since the study, as already mentioned, wasn’t blinded and there was no placebo. Any difference between the groups could easily be explained by the placebo effect and by biases towards treatment benefit among the researchers.
Anyway, the study found that 49% in the treatment group were free of symptoms at five to nine days after the beginning of treatment, compared with 81% in the control group. However, the lack of blinding means that this result is worthless. The methodology is just too flawed.
No data is provided on the number of people who died in each group. Since it isn’t reported, I think it’s safe to assume that there were no deaths in either group. Nor is any data provided on the number of hospitalizations in each group.
So, what does this study tell us?
Absolutely nothing at all. What a waste of time and money.
Let’s move on and update our meta-analysis. The reason we need to do a meta-analysis here is that none of the trials of ivermectin is large enough on its own to provide a definitive answer as to whether it is a useful treatment for covid-19 or not. For those who haven’t heard of meta-analyses before, basically what you do is just take the results from all different studies in existence that fulfill your pre-selected criteria, and then put them together, so as a to create a single large “meta”-study. This allows you to produce results that have a much higher level of statistical significance. It is particularly useful in a situation where all the individual trials you have to work with are statistically underpowered (have too few participants), as is the case here.
In this new meta-analysis, I’ve included every double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial I could find of ivermectin as a treatment for covid. Using only double-blind placebo-controlled trials means that only the highest quality studies are included in this meta-analysis, which minimizes the risk of biases messing up the results as far as possible. In order to be included, a study also had to provide mortality data, since the goal of the meta-analysis is to see if there is any difference in mortality.
I was able to identify seven trials that fulfilled these criteria, with a total of 1,327 participants. Here’s what the meta-analysis shows:
What we see is a 62% reduction in the relative risk of dying among covid patients treated with ivermectin. That would mean that ivermectin prevents roughly three out of five covid deaths. The reduction is statistically significant (p-value 0,004). In other words, the weight of evidence supporting ivermectin continues to pile up. It is now far stronger than the evidence that led to widespred use of remdesivir earlier in the pandemic, and the effect is much larger and more important (remdesivir was only ever shown to marginally decrease length of hospital stay, it was never shown to have any effect on risk of dying).
I understand why pharmaceutical companies don’t like ivermectin. It’s a cheap generic drug. Even Merck, the company that invented ivermectin, is doing it’s best to destroy the drug’s reputation at the moment. This can only be explained by the fact that Merck is currently developing two expensive new covid drugs, and doesn’t want an off-patent drug, which it can no longer make any profit from, competing with them.
The only reason I can think to understand why the broader medical establishment, however, is still so anti-ivermectin is that these studies have all been done outside the rich west. Apparently doctors and scientists outside North America and Western Europe can’t be trusted, unless they’re saying things that are in line with our pre-conceived notions.
Researchers at McMaster university are currently organizing a large trial of ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. That trial is expected to enroll over 3,000 people, so it should be definitive. It’s going to be very interesting to see what it shows when the results finally get published.
255 thoughts on “Update on ivermectin for covid-19”
“Researchers at McMaster university are currently organizing a large trial of ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation”.
Well, I won’t be holding my breath, considering who is funding the study, the greatest vaccine pushers on the planet.
Gates doesn’t want any competition. I’m willing to bet that the result will be “no benefit”.
Exactly my thoughts. And a plethora of unwanted side effects never noticed before.
Dr Rushworth: This has come out on preprint and expected to be published in Amer J of Therapeutics…I received from Dr Robert Malone
My thoughts also.
Let’s wait and see.
Definitely agree with others. The Gates study has only one purpose: to destroy reputation of ivermectin. The conclusion is something like “as lethal as arsenic. Must be banned everywhere”. Gates cannot have anything on the way of depopulation vaccines, vaccine passports and totalitarian state of wilful slaves of which everyone is a lifetime cash cow for Gates’ vaccine and pharmaceutical empire. I apologize my harsh description of the current affairs but that’s the truth deep down in this “pandemia”.
I agree Sofia. Gates studying Ivermectin is laughable. It is so obvious to those who have resisted the brainwashing, that the whole purpose of the Covid19 Scamdemic was to impose Dictatorships instead of Democracies and make plenty money for Big Pharma from their very suspect vaccinations. Also to remove all privacy and liberty from us by imposing vaccine passports.
Spot on. Don’t believe the leaders of media, govt and those forcing agendas.
It’s interesting with Gates. Seemingly because of his “association” with Epstein, his wife is leaving him. Divorce is no big deal, unless you’ve been in one, but the MSM is beginning to divorce itself from Gates uber alles. We’ll see if his gold can continue to buy him favor. Funny how things can take a turn. On a side note, I really appreciate Doctor Rushworth’s perspective and the well moderated comments – thank you.
I agree Sofie. The more I read about this guy, the more I am convinced he is ruthless. A year ago, I would have rolled my eyes but now I’m convinced. The work done via the “tetanus” shot in Kenya has produced significant infertility.
Check this out about the current shot and what the lipid does to ovaries.
LOL, is there a betting site out there that gives odds on the Gates-funded study finding Ivermecting completely useless? I am willing to bet my life-savings.
Science and advocacy often don’t play well together.
The role between the two should be made clear so that any bias is made known. A large percentage of studies are funded as advocacy reports; a preferred outcome being desired.
Fact: The Gates Foundation IS a well funded advocacy group.
If Ivermectin were to be approved as a treatment for covid-19 ,
then the FDA would need to revoke its EUA for the mRNA vaccines .
So ; Gates would be motivated to suppress the efficacy of Ivermectin .
See the article published by Halifax Examiner on June 4th, 2021
which is entitled ” What’s the deal with Ivermectin and COVID? ”
URL : https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featured/whats-the-deal-with-ivermectin-and-covid/
The Halifax Examiner interviewed Professor Edward Mills who is leading the RCT at McMaster University .
Mills shows his bias towards the study which was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation .
Mills is also the senior principal scientists at Cytel which is also funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation .
Where can a person get a chart that gives the amount of Ivermectin to take take per a person’s body weight? Let us say the Ivermectin is that of 1% sterile solution and being 50 ml. Is there any type of chart for the Ivermictin amount just mentioned or for a chart of any kind for Ivermectin used what so ever?
Thank you, Mark Greene.
Sebastian, I would like to raise the following points:
1. On 9th April South Africa unbanned the use of ivermectin to treat Covid 19. “Cases” and deaths are both now low despite a low vaccination roll out.
2. Zimbabwe, Slovakia are another two (there are several) who since starting using ivermectin have also seen cases and deaths decline.
3. India is now advising using ivermectin in the early stages of disease and there is already credible data showing a decline in cases.
4. Dr. Pierre Kory of the FLCCC has published data/articles on both the efficacy and treatment protocol of ivermectin.
5. Dr. Tess Lawrie, director of the Centre for Evidence Base Medicine has completed a meta analysis over 16 trials and published her team’s results. She has also set up the British Ivermectin Research Development group (BIRD) who recently held an international conference. Her empowering closing speech at this conference should be heard by all scientists, medics & members of the public who would like to make informed choices and save lives.
As Dr Lawrie & Dr Kory (to mention just a few) state: this is not about data.
Thanks for the link Julie. Glad to hear South Africa unban Ivermectin. Any idea why?
Lawyers and doctors fought to get it approved, especially Bongali Luthuli.
Their physicians sued the government and won.
I’ve seen the studies and the results, we have the issue that India’s COVID 19 case went on the increase when they stopped using ivermectin and vaccinated the people.
The question that needs to be answered, why?
Why not have it available for people who don’t want the vaccine.
P.s I know the answers, but sheep need to ask these questions.
This is the document that Dr. Tess Lawrie’s organization made for the UK.
This is a link to the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC.net), Dr. Pierre Kory’s organization, on Ivermectin.
I share everyone’s skepticism about Gates. Why do so many trust a billionaire psychopath who’s been talking about overpopulation and pushing vaccines for decades? They are enrolling children in trials for these experimental genetic “therapies”, even though children have almost zero risk.
Something is very wrong in the world right now. Greed, power, hubris, and stupidity don’t seem enough to explain it.
Gates & and his foundation have single-handedly revived Polio in Africa and the Indian subcontinent by distributing his “anti-Polio vaccine” with the result it induce the debilitating disease in hundreds of thousands of the innoculants rather than protect them. The guy is a menace.
It is a misleading title. to the organisation of Dr Lawrie in Bath UK, which is nothing to do with that based in Oxford University chaired by Carl Heneghan. The latter is a proper academic organisation with that will be subject to the rigour of academic discussions etc within the university. The proper title of the organisation of Dr Lawrie is the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd. They are a commercial company.
The Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy Ltd is a commercial company whose main clients are the WHO and the NHS. Dr Lawrie MBBch, Ph.D. its director, is an extremely qualified and specialist evidence synthesist whose work helps to underpin global health policy. She has written a meta-analysis in support of the FLCCC’s review. She developed the Evidence to Decision framework which recommended ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19 and has been sent globally to most health authorities. She convened the BIRD group (British Ivermectin Recommendation Development) which among many symposia has recently held a two-day international conference. She has recently co-authored the Bryant, Lawrie et al peer-reviewed meta-analysis soon to be published. The company employs highly qualified and regarded scientists in their specialties.
Her voluntary and unpaid work into ivermectin against covid is exemplary. She does this out of concern for humanity and is bound to her Hippocratic oath as a doctor. And very importantly, the company is independent and free of any conflict of interests, unlike many institutions which do not like to upset their sponsors or research funders.
This may well be an organisation of saints, but it may not be, we just do not know. I would be as suspicious of any commercial organisation that seems to hide behind an academic style company name as many are of the Gates Foundation motives. Suspicion of underlying motives can be held against any commercial organisation, you cannot have it both ways.
There are plenty of organisations that are not private in the UK that can do evidence based medicine, like the Cochrane reviews, the Royal Medical Colleges, NIHCE, Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, and are not subject to any hidden commercial interests.
I listened to Lawrie’s talk finishing up the inaugural BIRD conference. The first half I agreed with her totally. It was nothing really new, the corruption of medical science by commercial interests has been known for years. All I can say is in over 39 years of clinical practice and research, things have improved. The potential for bias, intentional or otherwise, is much better understood. Where I parted company with Dr Lawrie in the latter part of her talk was her suggestion to abandon ideas of a hierarchy of evidence. The solution is to run independent monitored RCT to answer important questions that are not addressed by the pharmaceutical companies. This is not impossible to do, but the solution of Dr Lawrie seems to be to admit uncontrolled non-randomised observational studies as evidence of similar strength to a RCT.
You may not have seen this study, or haven’t had time to review it:
A medical institution setup by act of parliament in 1952 in India. Gave ivermectin to health workers to see if it would prevent infection.
2 doses given to 62.5%
1 dose given to 5.3%
“HCWs who had taken two-doses of oral ivermectin have a significantly lower risk of contracting COVID-19 disease during the following month (ARR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23)
Two-doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduces the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month.”
All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Bhubaneswar, India, during September-November 2020
Thanks. I was only looking at ivermectin as a treatment in this article. It would have made the article too long to also look at it for prophylaxis.
Doctor, I appreciate your insightful comments, and informative advice on study limitations. However on the subject of Ivermectin, I find the presentations, data and recommendations by the FLCCC by Dr Pierre Kory and by Dr Tess Lawrie very clear and compelling. I would rather see doctors with an open mind throw support behind this focused attempt to allow doctors freedom to prescribe Ivermectin than continue a debate which only delays this measure.
Too poor for an excuse. You are kidding. Or are you a kid?
As a general member of the public, I look at the issue as a risk/benefit proposition both from a treatment and/or prophylaxis standpoint. The drug may “work;” it may not. Little is available to me of any downside or bad side effects, but there seems to be next to none. If that is the straight of it, then taking Ivermectin as prophylactic or treatment seems to me to be a No-Brainer, especially considering the low cost. What’s to lose here?
Why would you investigate Ivermectin as a treatment when the Uber qualified clinical pulmonologist Dr. Pierre Kory says it’s best use is as a prophylaxis? And why would you refer to the researchers being paid by drug companies as suspicious when the best description is disqualifying.
Ivermectin is inexpensive and harmless. It should be available to everyone, especially those of us who won’t take a rushed experimental vaccine.
Because as a hospital based physician I’m more interested in it as a treatment modality. Mass prophylaxis with ivermectin is never going to happen now that the vaccines are widespread. But it is still a realistic possibility that it will become part of the standard treatment regime for covid.
I don’t agree that conflicts of interest automatically disqualify research. If that was the case, then most of the research that is done would be disqualified. What matters is the specific method used.
looks like you made the big time:
>>>Because as a hospital based physician I’m more interested in it [Ivermectin] as a treatment modality.
Many of us would want you, as a hospital based physician, to be concerned with (a) advocating / helping people stay out of the hospital in the first place, and (b) advocating / helping your in-hospital patients to not get their family members sick, upon their release from hospital.
In the larger picture, hospital based physicians should always be striving to put themselves out of a job (ie, keep people healthy enough to not need hospitalization). That means, helping people gain freedom to access Ivermectin as prophylaxis.
>>>Mass prophylaxis with ivermectin is never going to happen now that the vaccines are widespread.
Mandated mass prophylaxis with Ivermectin is not something most of us want to see happen. We just want the freedom to access accurate data and information about Ivermectin as a prophylaxis. Then, we’ll be free as thinking adults to make up our own minds as to which prophylactic treatments we’ll take.
Perhaps you will be surprised at the large number of people who will opt for Ivermectin versus an experimental vaccine.
Great that you did not include this paper in your analysis. It has been found to be seriously flawed : https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns
Dr John Campbell has done a short YouTube vid on this.
“Perhaps you will be surprised at the large number of people who will opt for Ivermectin versus an experimental vaccine.”
I think there is a LOT of us. However, it now looks like government everyhave have more or less decided to force us to take the vaccine by discriminating against the non-vaccinated (with vaccine passports required for travel, access to good and services, etc.)
I do not really see how the populations get avoid this, unless there is massive pushback, which we do not see.
Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT trust anything the Guardian says.
It is paid to have an agenda! And truth does not come into it.
Hoppas att du kan få den här metastudien publicerad.
Here in New Zealand – Ivermectin is also banned for the treatment of Covid 19. Also banned is serology testing (unless testing is by the state).
can you please explain why?
Because the authorities want to force you to take The Vax, or at least, one of the three.
Good question for which I’d like answers. I’ve a science not medical background. In NZ , only the nasal swab PCR test is an authorised test. I wrote to the authorising body asking why we didn’t have the saliva test, antibody test and so on . First I was fobbed of with ‘look at the website’ and extracts from their website. When I pushed back I got they aren’t accurate…I just couldn’t be bothered pushing back further with PCR false positives and so on. All we are getting night and day is propaganda. A very few people try to question things and are vilified in the press- who are largely state funded now. Our early stats on our few Covid deaths are also VERY questionable ( ie 4 not even tested and so on). I’d love to know how our border ‘positives’ are treated- if anyone can help with that info I’d be fascinated. The population are supposedly very trusting of the government as ‘polls’ show…the vast majority either work for the state or receive handouts from them. I can’t reason how for example intelligent people can’t question how a positive case with the UK variant no less, who went on a holiday tour infected no one- not even her husband! The public were and are frequently scared by shock and awe statistics. For many reasons, it’s a scary time in NZ right now. The international press rhetoric about NZ should be questioned.
Deb, check out Kiwi doctor Samantha Bailey, co-author of Virus Mania. Her analyses of our plight all seem spot on. She should have your answers.
Thanks for the update Dr Rushworth. Keep up the fine work. I’ve been appalled but sadly not surprised by the active suppression of this lifesaving drug.
Sounds about right. We wouldn’t want to know what the immune status of the community is, now would we?
Too bad. And I understand that
Larry Banyash MD
Meanwhile in the UK the goverment is still trying to push the various vaccines on the younger portion of the population. This at stage when all the at-risk groups have already been jabbed, and with covid deaths running at around one per million per WEEK.
Currently influenza and pneumonia are killing more people than covid, but you can guess how much attention that nugget is getting. Mortality has been below the pre-covid 5-year average for over a month.
Oh, and we still have major restrictions for another 6 weeks, and will be forced to wear the magic masks after that indefinitely it seems.
Gavin– There have been numerous mask studies that conclude their efficacy is statistically insignificant; in fact, they do more harm then good. And those studies–virtually all of them–end up being retracted or just plain disappear.
Masks are a metaphor. They are used for virtue signaling and to identify those that are easily controlled (though, they are convinced they are ‘enlightened’). They are used to identify and foster division. The users have been told they are so intelligent for ‘following the science’ that they cannot see what a medieval and superstitious canard they are participating in. They are now an accoutrement to ones wardrobe and also status ($300 designer masks, etc).
Ever seen the videos of lemmings falling off the cliff? Someone needs to photoshop that and show the lemmings, masked…
You have great insight into the evils of the political class. In Australia they lock us down in a heartbeat. Those committed to our destiny are panicking/reacting to a single case to which we are never told the clinical status thereof. Of course, the mantra is to vaccinate at all costs.
Politically, our esteemed leaders may be committed to following the recently changed WHO definition of ‘herd immunity’. In October 2020 this organisation changed the description from, “the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection,” to ” a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached”. Looks like Big Pharma have rather large tentacles.
Now that is good humor.
I have made the point before that if there is evidence – any evidence – that definitively shows benefit of a preparation, especially if the rationale for use is solid, then in an emergency situation it ought to be brought into use without conducting clinical trials. This is especially true if the preparation has minimal risks. As an example – Covid-19 is a cytokine storm; we know that other cytokine storm conditions respond to steroids and interleukin antagonists; so use it in Covid-19. But no. Clinical trials were done, which despite being fairly rapid caused nonetheless a significant delay in introduction. They proved what was already obvious.
I have yet to see that there are any major issues, risk-wise, with ivermectin. It is very cheap. Even if the effect were marginal (which I doubt now) the potential benefit of use outweighs the risk, and the cost is magnitudes smaller than tocilizumab. In the context of the waste of money in the UK on the test and trace program expenditure is peanuts. That there appear to have been deliberate attempts to stop the use of ivermectin is a matter that will need discussing at a public enquiry, when it happens.
Can you provide us with a source for low cost Ivermectin in the UK.
Or from anywhere?
I’ve seen extremely exhorbitant prices…
Ivermectin is used to deworm horses, cattle, sheep, goats, etc. It should be available from a livestock supply store. I don’t know if the UK government has somehow banned its use in livestock or not. If not, you should be able to buy it and then figure out the correct dose for humans. The liquid I have used in the past comes with a table for determining the correct dosages for different animals based on their weight. I would be very leery of buying overpriced Ivermectin for fear of it being bogus.
You can find it easily at aliexpress (dot com).
It’s veterinary, which doesn’t matter.
And very, very cheap.
At the end of this document by Dr. Tess Lawrie, they include manufacturers by country. They also list some doctors.
Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCC.net), is a US organization. They list practitioners in the US who prescribe. I don’t know if they can legally prescribe outside the US…some are limited to certain US states…but, perhaps, they might be able to connect you with someone in the UK.
Tess Lawrie, MD, is from South Africa, but she lives in the UK. Maybe her organization can connect you with a provider who is willing to prescribe.
Good luck! I’m doing the same in the US.
Why Ivermectin works, and where to buy it
I have purchased it from that certified source some time ago.
However, as the post says “please note that some countries may not allow its importation.”
I think the tablets people are ordering from India online are a scam, I dont trust them. There is too much counterfit ivermectin right now. Your most sure and reliable bet is the vet. version. I take the Durvet Brand Horse paste, Apple flavor. I got the 12 pack from here in case they ban it, restrict the ingredients/APIs. or a new variant spreads rapidly and I need to treat many friends and family: https://www.smartpakequine.com/ps/b/ivermectin-apple-flavor-paste-6127. Not sure if they ship to the UK but you should be able to find it somewhere. Whatever brand you choose (check farm or feed supply stores) make sure the kind you get has ivermectin as THE ONLY active ingredient and youre good. Check the ingredients on the box, some dewormer paste combines ivermectin and other drugs, so do not get those obviously.
You squirt out a piece from a tube with measurement notches.. it’s like toothpaste consistency. Ive been taking 200mcg/kg (about 15mg dose) of the Durvet veterinary brand every two weeks since June 2020 and no side effects. It’s important to take it with a high fat meal/fish oil supplement to increase absorption. Here’s directions: https://www.maximpulse.com/permethrin/ivermectin-horse-paste-for-scabies.html The covid dose is the same, though alot of studies are now increasing the dosage up to 400mcg/kg which is what I currently take every 2 weeks, and here is a vid of how to measure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AexpeCn08n0 Hope this helps some of you
I have bought both ivermectin (12 mg) and HCQ (200 mg) from this website :
It took 2-3 weeks to get it. After placing your order, they call you from overseas to verify your address. I live in Tennessee and it ships from India.
at CVS pharmacy in the US $17 for 20 pills
I’ve gotten 3 orders from buyivermectinforhumans.us, and have been very happy with the service. They’re in India, no Rx is required (just ignore that box on the form), they also sell HCQ, AZM & other antibiotics, and they provide a tracking link for shipping, which takes 2 1/2 – 3 weeks.
Yes, and I hope that the evidence presented by Dr Lawrie and wilfully ignored by Johnson, Hancock, Whitty, Valance, Van Tam et al is brought to the public enquiry, with an estimate of how many lives have needlessly been lost. My worry is that it (the enquiry) will focus on lack of PPE, and lockdowns were not hard, soon or long enough.
“Needlessly lost” is in the eyes of the beholder. If those lives are part of the revolution one seeks that allows you to acquire enormous wealth and power, then so be it. That is the only reason to ban a product that “may help” for one that is experimental and “may help and may harm” but pays multi-billions of dollars for the producers and keeps the masses under control. The goalposts keep moving. Fauci just said that masks may be a permanent condition for flu seasons. We are seeing health fascism. Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and others of the same ilk didn’t worry one bit about “lives lost” to implement their utopias.
“Covid is a cytokine storm” in about 24% of deaths _from_ covid, from what I have read from pathology reports. Systemic organ failure is the most common cause of death and stroke and heart attack also factor in heavily in deaths _from_ covid.
The pathology reports show massive coagulopathy in all those deaths so that it’s apparent that even the heart attacks and strokes are not the vanilla flavor.
Im in the uk and total agree, but like everything else they will get away with it, like Tony Blair did. What happened to my body my choice.
In my opinion conducting clinical trials of perfectly safe and inexpensive prophylactics like HCQ and Ivermectin during a pandemic is unethical. Everyone in the control group is being deprived of a potentially life saving drug.
And these drugs should be available to every patient who has a doctor willing to prescribe them.
Malaria also kills by its cytokine storm overwhelming the patient. Hydroxychloroquine is used to abate the cytokine storm at a standard dose of initially, 800 milligrams taken as a single dose followed by 400 mg taken 6 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours after the first dose. So far, this drug (HCQ) has been banned in most Western countries for use in dying patients. Surely there is no downside to its use.
HCQ is very effective at annulling cytokine storms. That is how and why it is used in cases of malaria. Why it wouldn’t work for certain cases of covid, I do not know. As you indicated, dexamethasone is certainly not registered for use in viral disease ; some would say it is contraindicated. However, it has proven to be very effective in many circumstances.
Also, it has been published that up to 20 percent of medicos in the USA use drugs on an off-label basis – it is both necessary and very common. But with a potential cure for covid? Ah… that is a different matter. We have vaccines to sell and politicians are always mining for votes.
Check this, results of large test and treat campaign in Mexico city with ivermectin and low dose aspirin https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/r93g4/
Hi Sebastian from the U.K.
Your book about Covid19 and what we think we know is excellent. As is your continuing work.
Personally I am pig sick about how a nasty flu has been used here to impose a Dictatorship of a one Party State.
Our local election results suggest the people have been successfully brainwashed. So everything you and others do to counteract that is very important.
Freddie Sayers, editor of Unherd has discussed our local election results with Stockholm Syndrome. I think he might have a point!
funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation……this is a joke right?
How can I get a prescription for Ivermectin? I am not comfortable getting any of the vaccines and am getting lots of pressure to do so. Not sure I want to take as a precautionary measure but would like a prescription to have on hand in case I get COVID. I’ve been out and about since last May so think my immune system is working, I’ve already had COVID and didn’t know it, or my 4000 daily units of Vit. D is helping. I’m 72 with no comorbidities.
7,000 D3 IUs would be better, which is about 50K once a week.
I live in Ireland, my GP gave it to me.
Mind you he is one of the enlightened ones.
7000IU vit D3 daily – 4000 in the am , 3000 in the pm
Ginko balobal (Quercetin derivative) capsule
(quercetin to open the channels for the zinc to go intracellular, magnesium for D3 metabolism)
oh ya one last thing, 2 fingers of Napoleon brandy every night before bed
56 and completely healthy for the last 16 months (while working in healthcare in Canada)
I understand the confounder of the brandy…but I make no apologies
Go to America Frontline Doctors and search their website. They have a link that will take you to a doctor in your state that will provide the medications. You will need to make an appt for telemedicine call which is 90 dollars. I received mine within 5 days but it came from a pharmacy in Florida (Arizona prohibits prescriptions is it for Covid).
go to the FLCCC webpage , They list doctor willinf to prescribe,
the key is to get your overall blood level above 50ng/ml, which means you have to take roughly 7-8K units/day. A dose of magnesium is also needed, which is a cofactor of D. K2 is optional but can help by directing excess calcium into the bones (caused by taking extra D) instead of going anywhere. Your T cells depend on D to be able to work. That 4000 number is a physician prescribed number, unfortunately that amount will keep you underdosed. It’s not easy to overdose on D, you have to make an effort. If you stood outside in the midday sun with little clothing on in the summer when the UVB light is strong enough for us to make vitamin D, you could make up to 20,000 units of D in ~ half an hour. 7-8K units are less than half of that and like I mentioned, there’s little chance of OD.
There is a vit D, hydroxy form of D3 made in Chicago—called d.velop that is 3x more potent and a half life of one month ( also the same formula called Fortaro from Australia)…… but slow as molasses on delivery. Reg D3 half life is around one day. The generic name being calcifediol.
I have been on ivermectin for over one year—-Krogers gave it to me on Rx until they didn’t as the pharmacist said to my face she did not know what this drug really is…..ain’t not kidding bout that. An enlightened provider from Las Vegas now provides my rx. So my recipe: ivermectin, potent Vit D3, and elderberry gummies has I truly believe kept me COVID free. Age 74 with obesity and heart disease.
Larry W Banyash MD, retired
So… Is it then ethical for Doctors to not use Ivermectin for Covid19? If there is enough data and science to suggest its efficacy and safety….
Dr Rushworrh, I dont know if you work actively with Covid19 but would you use it to treat your patients?
In my opinion, yes, it is unethical for doctors to refuse to try Ivermectin or any of the other treatments that are being used with success. This is what happens when politics becomes enmeshed with science, the same thing we are seeing with the faux Climate Emergency as well. Hatred of Donald Trump encouraged a disregard of any treatments he suggested. There was no attempt to test them just an outright refusal to even consider them.
I read in a book which said, “when science and politics come together, its not science anymore”
As above, Gates funding a trial into ivermectin? Joke. Like others I have listened to Dr Tess Lawrie and Dr Pierre Kory in several different videos and don’t know how anyone could fail to be convinced by them. Why aren’t governments taking notice of them? The truth is coming out slowly but surely.
A larger Ivermectin metanalysis (20 studies) found an 80% fatality reduction with early use. Early use is the key success factor with HCQ also; 65% improvement over 29 early-treatment trials.
So why have the media consistently covered these results up? That’s the big question. Are they truly in Pharma’s pocket? (Ivermectin and HCQ are old drugs, so not very profitable) And if the media is a Pharma shill, are healthcare and MDs and WHO and all the governments shills?
Is there anyone left who’s not now a Pharma shill?? That’s the jugular question.
You say that researchers at McMaster university are currently organizing a large trial of ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
That last fact, in itself, will tell you what the findings are likely to be.
The current vaccines against Covid-19 only have emergency authorisation. This emergency use is only granted when there is no other treatment available. So finding that ivermectin works to reduce illness and deaths (or hydrochloroquine, or the MATH+ protocol etc.) would remove the need for a vaccine.
Not what Mr. Gates wants to see!
“Mortality is the hardest of hard end points, which means it’s the hardest for researchers to manipulate and therefore the least open to bias.”
True, but _cause_ of death is very much open to bias and so is the belief about the particular ILI being treated.
Systematic error from PCR tests without viral culturing sneaks in so many places.
I fully agree with John Castleman above. The work of Dr. Tess Lawrie and Dr. Pierre Kory along with lots of others has shown the efficacy of Ivermectin against Covid 19. What is needed now is for Doctors to use Ivermectin to save lives and for Regulatory Authorities to do their job according “to the science”.
Your analysis is very close to this meta-analysis of 54 studies: https://ivmmeta.com/
The World Health Organization and CDC say we don’t have enough patients to recommend ivermectin. What they are ignoring is how much it improves outcomes. If a treatment is 1% better, you need 10s of thousands of cases to make sure the improvement isn’t just a random statistical chance. But when the treatment is 60%, or 80% better, you don’t need a lot of cases.
We currently have enough cases to say that the chance of ivermectin NOT being effective is 1 in 12,000,000,000. How much better does this have to get before we start recommending it?
My prediction is that ivermectin will not be the approved treatment until existing covid vaccines are granted full approval (versus the experimental use license currently).
Right on target.
If population reduction is your ultimate goal you wouldn’t want people taking Invermectin.
New York courts order hospitals to use COVID cure ivermectin against FDA’s misleading advice
Dr. Rushworth, could you please comment on Ivermectin use in Sweden. Are you, or other physicians you know, currently using it to treat Covid-19? If so, what are the (admittedly anecdotal) results? If not, why not?
Thanks. I really appreciate your work. I live in the US and am currently doing what I can, locally, to increase the awareness and availability of Ivermectin.
No, ivermectin is not available for use in humans in Sweden. So doctors are not able to prescribe it even if they want to.
Firstly, given the amount of credible evidence from several sources around the world, would you and your colleagues in Sweden consider starting to raise awareness with both the public health authorities and general public? Or, are they already (like the UK) aware and not acting on it?
Secondly, have you shared and compared your analysis with Dr Lawrie and team at the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine? I think it is very similar.
Would it be a bad career move for you to come out publicly in your hospital setting for ivermectin?
Sad, as I thought Sweden to be in the advance of medical therapy.
Larry Banyash MD, retired
Liz Brynin’s comment is correct – if ivermectin, or any other existing drug is approved to prevent/treat SARS-COV-2 developing into the disease CoVID-19 then emergency use authorisation of the ‘vaccines’ has to end. Follow the money.
Given the large number of studies that show the clear benefit of Ivermectin and the meta analyses of these studies that show an unequivocal benefit of Ivermectin, the McMaster University study would be unethical if the study had a placebo arm. Is would be unethical because the benefit of Ivermectin is so well established (if one actually takes the time to look).
It’s not hard to find the following information:
Summary of the Clinical Trials for Ivermectin in COVID-19 by Dr. Theresa A. Lawrie
Ivermectin reduces the risk of death from COVID-19 – a rapid review and meta-analysis in support of the recommendation of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. by Dr. Theresa A. Lawrie
Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 by Dr. Pierrre Kory et al
Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 54 studies
Research Summary Website: https://ivmmeta.com/
Recently, at the end of April, Dr. Theresa Lawrie and members of the BIRD group and the FLCCC group held an international conference over 2 days and it’s proceedings can be viewed at the following links:
There is a lot of useful information presented at this conference, including:
– 5 Mechanisms by which Ivermectin acts to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the resulting COVID-19 illness (presented by Dr Mobeen Syed). These mechanisms act across all phases of the COVID-19 illness, unlike most other medications which are only useful at specific phases of the disease.
– An Ivermectin Evidence Update – a presentation by Dr. Theresa Lawrie on the latest systematic review of the evidence published about the use of Ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.
– A presentation by Dr. Juan Chamie in which he presents his statistical analysis of evidence on the use of Ivermectin from all over the world over the course of the past year to the present.
– A presentation by Andrew Bryant, who works with Dr. Theresa Lawrie and whose expertise is in the systematic review of clinical trials.
– A presentation by Dr David Chesler who is a front line physician who is responsible for the health of geriatric patients in senior care homes. Dr. Chesler describes his successes with saving the lives of his patients and compares the outcome of his patients to the outcome of fellow doctors who did not use Ivermectin as part of their treatment.
– Additionally, a number of doctors present their experiences with the use of Ivermectin over the past year.
Below, is a link to an interview of a doctor from Zimbabwe that describes her experience with treating COVID-19 patients with Ivermectin. According to this doctor, Ivermectin turned out to be a real game-changer in that it greatly reduced the need to hospitalize patients. It also greatly reduced progression to serious illness and death to the point where Dr Jackie Stone says the pandemic in Zimbabwe is now over due to the wide use of Ivermectin in her country.
Bottom line: Given the available knowledge we have on Ivermectin’s safety and effectiveness, it is unethical to deprive COVID-19 patients of Ivermectin as a treatment. Any health agency that tries to claim that there isn’t enough data for using Ivermectin in treating COVID-19 is practicing willful blindness.
As someone who lived in Zimbabwe in the eighties when the health sector was inexorably deteriorating I greatly admired both the dedication of doctors and nurses. They are really working at the coal face and have to make do with so few resources so it is quite amazing what they are achieving.
Doctors across Europe and in the USA would do well to take a Sabbatical and go and work in these countries. On their return they would refuse to have politicians and government medical advisors dictating to them. They would demand to have all politics taken out of the health sector. This could have prevented all the covid tyranny.
The off label use of drugs is common in veterinary and human medicine. It has never been an issue, until now. Ivermectin is inoccuous, as reported by Dr. Rushworth. If dexamethasone can be used off label, then why not ivermectin? It appears to be all about dollars and egos; a 0most insidious duo. In Queensland, Australia,
a medico can be sentenced to 6 months gaol for prescribing Ivermectin to a covid patient. Such is the paranoia of the government and its medical advisors.
what is the rational behind that law?
Dollars and a complicit bureaucracy. Governments are in so deep now with their misinformation and bad choices that they do not want a simple cure for the disease under any circumstances. Much better to claim their vaccines are doing the job of naturally occurring mutations that trend towards a lesser virulence. This is the natural history of infectious disease.
When it is proven that Ivermectin could have save many, many lives I hope that a massive lawsuit for billions will be brought against the social media and mainstream media companies that discredited this medication.
Do you really think that will happen? Govts already buy the more expensive Remdesivir!, making that available for the public, most of whom can’t afford the drug, and it isn’t a proven cure, only to keep one out of the hospital, as I’ve read. Yes, I’d like to give my two cents worth as I see it. African-Americans, as well as persons of ‘colour’, although white is a colour too, but the darker skinned people seemed to have suffered severely from Covid ailments. If darker skinned people need, and are told, to boost their vitamin D level, or to make sure to take Vitamin D during the winter months, could they not have had a vitamin D deficiency, making their COVID symptoms more severe than in white-skinned people? I have noticed that medications seem to deplete the body of its necessary vitamins and minerals, (i think I’ve said this before) which needs to be replenished, that medications also cause severe leg cramps and gas. Gas moves around in the body, making one think they have heart problems, when all it is is gas most times. Hot teas, hot soups, or any hot drink helps to make one burp, getting rid of unwanted gas, giving relief. Drinking more and keeping the body hydrated also gets rid of leg cramps. I know it sounds simple, but this is something I’ve noticed in myself. Vitamins and minerals seem a necessary supplement especially for people taking all sorts of medication. The body is fighting all sorts of things at once, illness, and loss of vitamins and minerals through the use of medications. So we still need pharmaceutical companies minting money off humans, a never ending story.
I hope so.
“When it is proven that Ivermectin could have save many, many lives”
Alas, apparently the definitve study is funded by Gates, so that is is big “when”. Also, most judges are biased toward big pharma and big tech.
One quibble about your comment on the Argentinian study. You stated that the scope of the placebo effect was limited because there was no placebo group. I’d suggest that in hospitalized patients, they are receiving so many different drugs and different care activities that few of the patients would even notice if one more drug was added to the mix. The placebo effect of adding one more drug in a hospital setting should be about zero.
But the vast majority of patients in the study were not hospitalized. The study was of people with mild disease who were treating themselves at home.
The Chec Republic approved Ivermectin as treatment for covid 19 and the death rates went down.
Not North America, Eastern Europe is taking a lead. (Seen on YouTube by Dr. Campbell from the UK.)
“remdesivir was only ever shown to marginally decrease length of hospital stay, it was never shown to have any effect on risk of dying”
So, if dying isn’t part of the equation, kill them early and show great success. Length of hospital stay decreases dramatically.
Don’t trust anything Gates is involved with.
The Lopez-Medina (aka ‘the JAMA trail’) is flawed on so many levels it a disgrace that it has not been retracted. (https://jamaletter.com). The irony is that despite this designed-to-fail trial the data actually shows a positive effect for ivermectin!
It is exactly this type of disinformation and biased and selective publishing that being used by interested parties to discredit ivermectin and in doing so it is undermining the credibility of medical research and publications. (https://trialsitenews.com/are-the-independent-actually-dependent-is-cochranes-ivermectin-analysis-biased/) You try to get a peer-reviewed paper that shows a positive result for ivermectin accepted in an apex journal these days, well neigh impossible – yet if your trial happens to show a non-favorable result it is yanked from your hands and printed before you can say it hasn’t been peer-reviewed.
As for the TOGETHER trial let’s all start a wager on how many counts IVM is going to be gonged out! (Cmon… a University heavily sponsored by Bill and Melinda (McMasters) conducting a trial sponsored by Bill and Melinda who stand to lose billions if the result is positive! A quadruple blinded trail where not even the investigators, evaluators nor data analysts remain blinded… so who’s in charge of dosage and labeling?)
It is about time all good doctors stood together and denounced this blatant sabotage of science and allowance of death for the sake of profits.
Just noticed a typo. The sentence should read A quadruple blinded trial where the investigators, evaluators, and data analysts remain blinded…
The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is one of the largest funders of Vaccines https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2010/01/bill-and-melinda-gates-pledge-$10-billion-in-call-for-decade-of-vaccines. It is very unlikely that their funded research will be objective or conclusive. You are, in my opinion, hitting the nail on the head with regards to Ivermectin or any low cost generic drug that might be effective against the weak kneed Covid Pandemic. Globalists are not interested in health but interested in MONEY and POWER. They will stop at nothing to make sure they meet their supposed fiduciary responsibility. They might as well state the obvious, “We are Machiavellins and believe might makes right and the end justifies the means!”
This meta-analyses is super useful for informing us as to whether Ivermectin is worth trying. Thank you Dr. Rushworth!
Another Ivermectin meta-analysis that appears to be in the review process can be downloaded from the americasfrontlinedoctors dot org website’s ivermectin page from the button labelled The Science of Ivermectin. The title of the paper is “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19”.
As Leslie already pointed out in a comment, you can obtain a prescription for Ivermectin via tele-medicine (at least in the U.S.) from the americasfrontlinedoctors website.
Hi Sebastian, Interesting read on Ivermectin. Currently in Australia Ivermectin is very much out of favour and is banned for prescription in Covid patients in some States !.
Having been asked to do some similar analyses of various interventions I came to the conclusion that because deaths a rare … so the counts are low …. so the confidence intervals are wide …. I turned the hypothesis around.. What are the chances of you surviving given a choice of treatments ?
Would you be able to go back over the data you have reviewed and look at risks of surviving rather than dying ! Surely this is the outcome we are more interested in as ‘patients’. CErtainly if I got Covid and was advised by my doctor that various treatments were on offer … my question would be what are my chances of surviving each of the options ?
Dear Dr. Rushworth,
“It showed a massive 78% reduction in mortality in patients treated WITH covid-19.”
Did you mean, “treated FOR Covid-19”?
Thank you for your articles. I look forward to each and every one.
McMaster University is a prestigious university, and I cannot see them agreeing to a study unless there is complete separation of funder and researchers. Even the researchers are commonly not allowed to see the data nowadays. Anyway, it will be published and we can all assess the validity of the study for ourselves. If it is not published, that would be significant indication something has gone seriously wrong.
The state of world health is massively distorted against diseases of poor people. If there is no money in it, then big companies are not interested. The Gates foundation is a major influence on organisations that are attempting to fill this need. The problem is that individuals can accumulate such massive wealth and use it for their own agendas. I do not think there is anything particularly sinister about the work of the Gates foundation. It is to his credit he uses it for this purpose, compared with the Sacklers, for example. using their wealth for self-aggrandisement on the back of the Ocycontin scandal, or the Koch brothers, having made a fortune in oil, now set up foundations to specifically sow confusion about climate change.
It is ironic that many people who decry the possible bias because Gates is funding the study, then post links to all sorts of self-appointed experts, groups, and one man cranks and their dog posting YouTube videos as if they are credible scientific evidence. Dr Rushworth has a previous good post on scientific methodology that is well worth reading.
I think it is somewhat naive to believe that a University (McMaster) whose research funding is largely dependent on the largesse of a particular organization and who has been commissioned and paid by that same organization to perform a trial – which if shows a positive effect for the intervention arm, will kneecap that organizations profits and seriously question that organizations need to continue its relentless pursuit of profits, sorry, vaccinating the planet – even 12-year-old children who don’t need to be experimented on. Imagine that.
If the WHO (also a prestigious institution?) can commit scientific fraud in conjunction with another prestigious university (Liverpool) then why not McMaster? There’s so much to lose. (https://trialsitenews.com/scientific-misconduct-associated-with-ivermectin-meta-analysis/)
I would be very careful labeling people, especially concerned scientists, who have been denied a voice in the media as cranks. That reaction is intellectually lazy, is typical denialism, and indicative of the level of tolerance and understanding of what is actually happening to scientific debate and how science has become subservient to corporate and political needs – And as in the comment above the response is; if you don’t like someone’s opinion then malign them, it’s easy. Call them cranks, conspiracy theorists, etc. That will shut them up. Remember Galileo Galilei was labeled a crank in his day. It may help you to read this letter. (Or perhaps they are all just cranks…)
Gates made his money from Microsoft. The Foundation obviously has funds invested in the stock market, but their income does not go into his back pocket, so he will not benefit or suffer from any outcome of the trial. Ivermectin treatment will not displace vaccination, form which some pharmaceutical companies will make their money. The most effective treatment for severe covid in hospital is dexamethasone, already an off-licence cheap drug. Adding ivermectin to this treatment will have no effects on pharmaceutical company profits. If it proves useful in the community, so much the better, but again this will not displace any significantly profitable existing treatments
Marco Camion – thank you for your reply! My sentiments exactly.
I am tired of those who are opposed to the relentless pharmaceutical propaganda currently imposed on us being labelled as cranks or ‘self-appointed experts’. I consider a lot of them to be prestigious experts in their own fields, and if they have a counter-argument, I would like to hear it, not shut it down as FB and Twitter are doing with any argument that deviates from the official narrative.
Marco, thank you for your comments. As a geologist who has been actively working on sea levels since the early 1980s I have been the victim of name-calling and marginalization because my research does not support the IPCC models. It is shameful how we no longer have the honest and open discussion of different theories at conferences. Today, one must toe the “Consensus” line in order to get published. The similarities between the way climate change and covid have been presented are huge, lies, adjusted data, vilification of differing ideas, and misinformation rule both discussions. The politicization of science in general is not good for anyone except those who stand to profit from the promulgation of false information.
FYI, there is NO rapid rise in sea level, it has been rising gradually at about 1.5-2mm/year since the end of the last glaciation. There ARE treatments for covid that work despite what so many governments are claiming.
Dear Ian, one of my children attends McMaster. Notwithstanding, and based on research projects I have undertaken with two other leading Canadian universities, the results of studies are not necessarily afforded full disclosure. Disappointing. Yes. Should Ivermectin win, You-know-who is in hot water and the world is saved without lockdowns and vaccines and whatever. If he’s human, any response is possible. I do not hold that man on a pedestal. I’ve shuddered at his impacts on the world since the late 80’s, starting with lazy software. I hope my gut is wrong and honesty prevails.
CC, Bill Gates is an arrogant man and capable of causing a lot of harm with his money and his ideas. Most recently, he proposed shooting chalk dust up into the atmosphere to block the sun and cause cooling. He believes that the Earth is in danger of becoming too hot because of a small increase in CO2. What he proposes to do is similar to what happened when Kratoa exploded and shot tons of sulfur dioxide and ash into the atmosphere. This resulted in The Year Without a Summer. Gates wants to do this to Earth right now despite the fact that temperatures are currently falling and a Grand Solar Minimum is on the way. The last time we had a GSM we had the Little Ice Age, not a good time for humans. Gates wanted to do a test run in Sweden and the Swedish Government wisely declined him permission to launch his sack of chalk dust into the atmosphere.
A bloated and slow OS is the least of his crimes against humanity!
If Ivermectin and HCQ protocols had been employed in March 2020, there would have likely been no scamdemic and millions would have been saved?
And trillions in economic damage.
I have followed ivermectin and read the reviews from both university of liverpool, Hill et al [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348610643_Meta-analysis_of_randomized_trials_of_ivermectin_to_treat_SARS-CoV-2_infection] and dr Kory et al don’t have the link handy right now.
As a physician this has pussled me to no end the last 6 months, why there is basically no studies going on about this medicine in the western world. If the first results from their reviews and also yours can be verified in larger studies than it would be a revolution in Covid care. I think as a doctor, that if that is the case, then this supression of ivermectin that has been seen, has to be considered one of the biggest scandals in medical history. I tried to race awarness in the swedish doctors covid-19 discussion group on facebook, but my message was deleted (I think couldn’t find it after a day).
I’d like to ask if you have a link to a pre-print of the study from macmaster that you discuss in the end? I’ve tried to find info on it but can’t find any.
As a tip we Swedish doctors can actually prescribe ivermectin but it is a “lisenspreparat” for certain worm deseases [https://www.internetmedicin.se/behandlingsoversikter/infektion/maskinfektioner-diagnostik-och-behandling/], so most likely it will be hard to get a prescription through for covid treatment, if one isn’t a specialist of infectious deseases.
We can however proscribe it a as cream for skin treatment, but of course you’d probably get in trouble it you asked a patient to take the cream orally 😀
The McMaster trial is ongoing, so there is no pre-print out yet. I’m not sure how far along they are in gathering data.
Haha, thanks for the tip. Yes, I don’t think ingesting the ivermectin skin cream is a good idea!
I agree with you, probably THE largest scandal in medical history. I’ve been following the IVM topic since April 2020. IVM will be supressed until the end, you can all imagine the concequenses for all medical authorities, and medicin in general if it turns out that we had a cheap, safe and effective treatment available from the start. In some countries I can even think of more violent concequenses for those in charge for the medical malpractice. The stakes are too high now, no one on the top would admit IVM being effective.
Avslutning på svenska för läkare, bara att kavla upp ärmarna och gör det du ska, ingen annan kommer att lyfta ett finger för att förse just dig och dina patienter med IVM.
I predict that IVM will be approved for COVID as soon as the vaccines get full licensure.
I hope you have noticed this Together trial is partially funded by the Bill Gates foundation. Presumably therefore the result is already known and can be dismissed.
Ian, I hope not, but a tactic the tobacco industry used in the 60’s and 70’s, after beginning to lose public opinion on health issues, was to start to fund ‘studies’ into the effects of tobacco. Remember that those who control the study design and the data control the outcome.
So it’s not surprising that the ivermectin is part of this trial. I just pray that there remains some integrity among the scientists conducting the trial – but hang on, it is quadruple blinded – so they will not know who gets what and how much. I’m not exactly sure on the protocol but I suspect only a very select few, and from which organization? will know and administer the allocation of the intervention or placebo.
The trouble is that with all the institutionalized disinformation pitched against ivermectin, so many institutions have, often unfairly, lost their credibility. Thats what happens when one sacrifices integrity for finance. How sad for science.
Are drug companies required to take the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm”? I hope Invermectin is never taken off the market, and that patients have the choice to request it from their Doctors.
Since you are looking for effective treatments for COVID for potential late symptom onset, here is a non-placebo study of Dr. David Brownstein’s treatment protocol that was used at the height of the pandemic with 100% success. One of these patients was sent home from the hospital who said they couldn’t help him. He couldn’t breathe well at all and called Dr. Brownstein saying he was going to die. The Dr. said, no your not. And he didn’t.
He tells the story here, and explained it would be unethical to do a double blind study because he knew this protocol worked.
He wanted to publish this in a medical or science journal but the government prohibited it.
I am not a Doctor, just an ordinary retiree, who have not had the vaccine, but I wanted to be sure Invermectin is available for all who are serious about getting help. Every time I hear the symptoms of Covid, which attacks the respiratory system, it reminded me of my own experiences to food allergies, a build up of phlegm and mucus and coughing I was hospitalized in 2018 because my calcium level was very low, (after having the rest of my thyroid removed) and that caused tension in my body, lack of appetite, loss of taste and smell. Food didn’t taste good, and what I cooked I threw out! All due to a low calcium level. I was also having painful leg cramps that made me almost pass out. Wine made me sick, also caused leg cramps and dehydrated me. I was having the same leg cramps with Symbicort as I had with alchohol. From what I understood, other people taking Symbicort experienced leg cramps. Hearing all the news of people’s reactions to Covid-19, and the similarities to my reactions to food allergies, I felt certain that Covid was a respiratory virus. I also felt that drugs dehydrated the body and depletd it of vitamins and minerals, which I need to replenish, and to drink enough water and keep hydrated, especially if taking medication. I also have asthma which was very bad this winter. Another reason for not taking the vaccine. I did some research to find what herbs helped the respiratory system and asthma. Since then I have brewed fresh Oregano, Thyme or Sage and drink it as tea every day. I was amazed at the results. I felt stronger, in my back especially, and able to work with energy I haven’t had for years, and I haven’t had leg cramps for months. It has given me strength and stamina, that makes me feel younger too! I’m just concerned about vaccines becoming mandatory, and if it does, I can at least know there is a good, affordable drug like Invermectin I can request for my health. I’d like to thank you for the detailed reports and the work you put into compiling important information, the general population need to know, even if the majority don’t seem able to research or feel the need to question more. Thank you.
The steadfast refusal to consider and sometimes very intense condemnation of any anti-Virus medication other than The 3 Vaxes is really striking. There’s a real concerted effort to keep us away from anything but what they’ve concocted. We have good reason to be suspicious.
Can anyone here explain what’s happening in India? Why so many deaths and now the deadly fungal problem they are having? Is it too much smoke from too many pyres? If Ivermectin is guaranteed to save lives and less costly, why send Remdesivir to India, who is asking for Invermectin as said on the news? On May 7, the Ontario Science Table says antiviral drug Remdesivir MAY save lives and keep moderately ill patients off ventilators! Why promote an expensive drug, when Invermectin, cheaper by far, is a better guarantee to save lives? People like Bill Gates with his money, should consider it a privilege to be able to help humankind in positive ways, instead of trying to get rid of people he thinks overpopulate the planet. Governments who want to rule should keep in mind that it is people they want to govern and, being human, people are liable to illnesses of all kinds. If they want to cut costs look else where and not at the medical profession nor the military, two important professions countries need the most.
Thank you. Good to have news on Invermectin and Kudos to those countries using it. It may be considered a parasitic drug but, if it works in other cases, all the more better for it. I was using Tapazole for my thyroid at one point, and heard that vets prescribed it for dogs too! What’s the difference if it works in both cases? It benefitted two species for the better, and humans have been known to have parasites too! I hope India is able to resolve the deadly fungal problem in COVID patients. This pandemic seems unreal in so many ways, I’m beginning to wonder if Trump wasn’t right after all!
Slightly off topic, but has anyone compared the much vaunted drop in UK mortality from Covid this year with that of Sweden last year? I was prompted to this by a BBC journalist blandly stating that the UK’s drop in cases since February was down to “lockdown and vaccination”. And I thought how can you say this? It could be both or it could be either, no real way to say, the Beeb is presenting speculation as fact. And of course you can compare the UK with a country that didn’t lockdown and didn’t vaccinate, eg Sweden in 2020. And you’ll find that Sweden had the same death rate in the 100 days (actually, 8%lower)after their April peak as the UK experienced after it’s February 2021 peak. Which suggests that vaccination and lockdown did nothing.
We are simply being lied to – see this article by Dr Mike Yeadon
And very interesting to see the comparison between the states in the USA that chose to lock down and the rest. They were amongst the top performers in terms of minimizing deaths per capita. In fact, the most draconian states such as New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Michigan, where the governors even banned the selling of seeds, are the worst-performing states. Whereas states like Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, and North Dakota, which did not lock down are amongst the best overall in terms of deaths per capita.
Have you been to these places? Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, and North Dakota are already in effect locked down. They are sparsely populated rural states, with the population effectively well spread out apart from one or two towns per state. Lockdowns would make minimal difference in these places. New York , New Jersey etc are all densely populated urban areas; there is no comparison to be made here.
Ian kerstin: Good point. Comparisons between high-density and low-density population places are pretty meaningless. As most of these comparisons are that are trying to make simple connections between policy and Corona deaths. Too many factors there to make simple connections. The only correlation that I can think of that seems pretty consistent is between general health (notably obesity rate) in the population and Corona deaths. Correct me if I am wrong.
I meant a comparison between the states that chose NOT to lock down vs the ones that did.
It could actually be neither.
The meta-study is certainly strong enough to persuade an unbiased reader to revise the prior expectation that Ivermectin would be ineffective. It is interesting that the more sober opponents of its use (that I have read, anyway) start from its intended use against parasitic infections and from theories as to its mode of action. As it was not designed to stop coronaviruses, and the way it deals with parasites seems irrelevant to viruses, why expect it to be effective in treatment of Covid? However, the gathering weight of all these underpowered studies from far-away places should be dispelling some of the prior scepticism by now. Only it hasn’t, at least in the rich West. An interesting counterpoint is Mexico, where only 10% of the population has been vaccinated, but confirmed cases per million has declined since February 4th from a peak 135 to 18 yesterday (lower than the UK) and deaths have declined by three-quarters. It may be a coincidence that Mexico is part of the LatAm region that has bought into Ivermectin, but what you would expect to see, if of the orthodox view, is that countries with low vaccine penetration and high reliance on off-label drugs would do much less well than those which take the mirror-approach, and Mexico seems to be a counter-example.
Emerging respiratory viral disease behave like most infectious disease. They tend to mutate towards a less virulent form as herd immunity develops. Eventually they become endemic with very little consequence as the ‘herd’ adapts to its presence. That has been the history of infectious disease. The outrageous behaviour of governments reacting to this ‘pandemic’ has necessitated them pushing for vaccination of the masses to cover up their gross incompetence by claiming the success of vaccination when the real trend has been that of natural selection. No wonder these culpable governments of the world mandate against anything that looks like a cure for covid. Their fear campaigns, lies, spurious death statistics and PCR testing of an ignorant, non-symptomatic public beggars belief.
You are the man. Very concise and well written. Thank you.
Thank you. It’s important to know you doctors understand the situation, hidden from the general public who don’t care to know.. I’m reminded of a comment by Miss Marple in Agatha Christie’s book, The Moving Finger, to Flight Commander…. We are not put into this world to avoid danger/evil. Hard though it seems, you are already fighting against people like Bill Gates, whose thoughts and ideas can get out of hand promoting mass murder, like Hitler did, using drug companies, corporations and others who think money is the be-all and end-all of everything, and that people’s lives don’t matter. The world suffers the consequences of decisions by people like Bill Gates, and we are caught in his mad schemes with governments trapped into doing nothing to help the governed.
I’m not a doctor, but I’d like to give my observations as I see it. COVID looks to me to be a severe case of influenza, from which people die every year. I noticed every January-February, I came down with a cold and to break the cycle, I refused to go anywhere, the following year. I didn’t catch the cold. I haven’t had a cold since then. I’m allergic to dairy products among other things, and would get a severe cold if I drank milk or ate cheese. What I’ve noticed is that the flu season seems to be in Jan-Feb, right after Christmas, when the majority of people consume quantities of eggnog made with raw eggs. Some people have a sensitivity to milk and if consumed in large doses, especially in eggnog, it would trigger a cold/flu, which is then passed on to family members and friends, and you have the seasonal influenza epidemic. I never take the flu shot, because I react to it and I’m not going to get the COVID shot either. If I contract Covid or the flu/cold naturally, that is fine. At least I know what can be done to help me recover. We are all humans liable to illnesses, and we need doctors and the medical profession, no matter what kind of society, and how we choose to conduct or live it.
Well I am a doctor. Covid is not a severe influenza. Influenza is a respiratory disease; covid is a systemic disease that may be limited to the respiratory system, but can cause multi-organ failure affecting every system of the body.
I have never read that the cause of flu epidemics is the consumption of eggnog at Christmas! You should try and get this published. Readers will be pleased to have learnt this first here.
ian kestin: Why so snarky? While the comment was not exactly an article for the Lancet, I would bet that if you compare one group that stays inside and drinks eggnog with another one that exercises outside and drinks water, one would have more influenza symptoms than the other. Disagree?
Thank you Rene V. Those are my own observations. I try to make sense of what’s going on when I see certain situations being repeated year after year, and many reports speak of respiratory problems due to Covid-19. I am more observant because of allergies, and the results of my reactions to them. The military reported in Ontario Canada, that patients in a Long Term Care home died of dehydration, not of COVID, while fèces were found on the floor and vomit on the walls of another home, due to lack of neglect. I do feel for nurses burdened with looking after elderly patients, having to change them day in and day out, being overworked with limited staff. So when something like a pandemic hits, everything goes haywire, and deaths are said to be COVID based. Then take the case of Indians dropping dead in the streets of India as shown in the news, where everyone is calling for oxygen, a respiratory problem. How can they account for that? Patients who recovered and were recovering developed a fungal problem? Is this all Covid related too? With my limited knowledge, I am just as concerned as everyone else, and I want to know and understand what’s happening. I, and many others, appreciate you doctors taking a stand for what is right and speaking your truths, even though it could jeopardize your careers or reputations as trustworthy doctors.
Some people may be sensitive to eggs and egg products.
But my bet is on sugar consumption (or carbohydrates generally). This goes through the roof at Christmas, and represents a terrible assault on the body, unbalancing the gut microbiome and causing bad bacteria to flourish, thereby lowering immunity. No wonder flu cases rise.
No wonder January is such a depressing month!
Some doctors appear to agree that the extensive systemic range of effects of Covid that you mention – are most unlike the viral ones they are familiar with.
Instead, the common denominator with all these serious symptoms – is blood…leading them to believe that all along Covid has been a vascular issue. Something appears to have been traveling in the blood, affecting both blood vessels and organs.
That “something” appears to be (an adapted?) spike protein. Could it be that we’ve been looking at the problem back to front the whole way through…that rather than the spike protein simply being a mechanism for the troublesome virus – it was rather that the relatively harmless virus was simply a vector to distribute this particular spike protein? That it is this spike protein that has been doing all the various types of damage that you are seeing?
All the remedial effort has been addressing the viral problem – stimulating the production of antibodies? And the method to achieve this has been to artificially introduce more spike protein . But obviously if it is spike protein that has been culprit all along – surely that will simply increase the problem a 100 fold…or a thousand fold?
Quite apart from the possibility of this narrow, artificially induced immunity – overriding existing broader based immunity, or it’s exaggerated nature then causing a hyper-inflammatory response to future viral exposure.
My question is – when we’re finding this all out now…how can we think that the fiendishly clever people involved in developing all this medical biotech…did not know all this in advance?
How can it not be part of a systematic plan? And that there must also be some kind of ‘ethical system’ as part of that – not one that we we recognise and accept, but one, nevertheless – which is driving them?
Surely in order to address this, it will be vital know what that is?
What COULD it be??
Thank you Dr Kestin. I’m assuming you are a Dr? If I’d known at first, all these comments were from doctors, I would not have given my two-cents worth! It is interesting to read the comments and hear firsthand the views of doctors. I’m treading in unfamiliar waters and overstepping my bounds. Forgive me. But it is great to know there are doctors fighting the good fight. We certainly cannot do without all of you.
Interesting. I saw an article about research at the SALK institute that suggests the same:
Doesnt this deserve more research?
Yes. This is an interesting article, explaining the modus operandi of the spike proteins which shows that Covid is a vascular rather than a respiratory disease.
But I am sceptical of the claim they make about the spike proteins in the vaccine being harmless: “…the virus spike proteins….behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines..”
Safely encoded? It seems to me, on the contrary, that the adverse effects seen with the Covid vaccines, many of which are clearly connected to vascular problems, most probably are caused by the spike proteins in the vaccine.
Rather worryingly, nobody seems able to explain where these spike proteins go once injected, how many will be generated by those cells in our body which have been turned into spike protein-producing factories and worse still, how long this process will continue in the body.
Hi – yes, exactly as
Liz Brynin says:
24 May, 2021 at 23:53
Yes. This is an interesting article, explaining the modus operandi of the spike proteins which shows that Covid is a vascular rather than a respiratory disease.
But I am sceptical of the claim they make about the spike proteins in the vaccine being harmless: “…the virus spike proteins….behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines..”
Safely encoded? It seems to me, on the contrary, that the adverse effects seen with the Covid vaccines, many of which are clearly connected to vascular problems, most probably are caused by the spike proteins in the vaccine.
Rather worryingly, nobody seems able to explain where these spike proteins go once injected, how many will be generated by those cells in our body which have been turned into spike protein-producing factories and worse still, how long this process will continue in the body.
I’m sure now that in January last year I had Covid…the usual uncomfortable but relatively low level fever one would expect with flu…however the more unusual symptom which lasted for a week or so was an intense headache and a certain dizziness.
I’ve recently encountered a mRNA vaccinated person and immediately the next day re-experienced the same kind of headache and dizziness – but without the flu symptoms this time. The headache is not quite so intense – but very persistent…over 3 weeks now. It’s worrying. I have other symptoms…like greatly increased sensitivity in fingertips as I type. Have to be much more careful.
I’d say this indicates that the spike protein is being transmitted, now – and it’s different than before…extremely insiduous and dangerous, I’d say – not harmless at all. Trying to stay calm – hoping to get some Ivermectin soon.
Sugar is terrible for your health, and I have no doubt that there is a correlation between national sugar consumption per capita and Corona severity. Is there a statistic out there that includes that?
There is a strong correlation between obesity and severe covid. And obesity is more than 90% of the time caused by excessive carbohydrate consumption.
Thank you for your explanation,Liz Brynin. That does make sense to me and why after Christmas seems to be flu season. Much appreciated!
Great information, well presented, as always. Thank you Dr. Rushworth!
It’s very telling that so many of the Ivermectin studies are funded by organizations with an interest in undermining its use. Billions are spent on developing experimental mRNA therapies yet there is so little money available for unbiased research into off label use of existing drugs, alternative treatments or prevention.
The world has largely abandoned science and we will pay the price for allowing politicians and hucksters to sell us pseudoscience under the name of science. Worse yet, by claiming to be purveyors of science and lecturing us to “follow the science”, when someone confronts them with actual science, that person is shouted down and ridiculed as a dangerous science denier. It’s quite a scam, this politically motivated debasement of science.
A 100% COVID cure, and we are encouraged to become part of the solution, not the problem. See link provided:
Have you looked at the ISGlobal, double blind, placebo controlled trial published in 2-21? Carlos Chaccour is one of the authors. I wonder how that would affect your meta-analysis results…
If it’s the Lancet study I think you’re referring to, then it wouldn’t affect it, because it’s a tiny study with only 24 participants, and there were no deaths in either group.
There’s a recent and very good discussion on Ivermectin by Evolutionary Biologists Brett & Heather Weinstein on their podcast / YouTube site:
Bret and Heather 80th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream:
“What Covid Reveals About our Leaders”
Thank you all, I do appreciate the time you’ve taken to explain, so that I can understand, COVID-19 is primarily a vascular disease . The confusion could be that at the beginning, the pandemic started around the flu season, and the elderly were dying at an alarming rate in 2020, (I’m referring to Canada’s elderly in nursing homes), the deaths were said to be Covid related and it was a respiratory problem. The military recently reported that some of the elderly were dead before they arrived, and deaths were due to dehydration, and I believe, neglect. As a vascular disease, that would explain the blood clots even in healthy people after they were vaccinated. That said, my question is, what were people in India dying from when so many needed breathing apparatuses? People were seen dropping dead in the streets too! Now the problem with the black fungus in recovered COVID patients, which is reported to be from steroids given to help recovery! The coronavirus seems to cause multiple problems such as variants, blood clots, the need for breathing apparatus. On May 16, CTVnews reported that Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease were the most common Comorbidities associated with all of the COVID-19 deaths reported in 3020 according to a new report from Statistics Canada. Did COVID cause these problems?
My concern now is the withdrawal of N-A-C by the FDA in America, said to be a sure cure for Covid-19. Here is the link.
What I can’t understand is why would the FDA make this a prescription drug, making it difficult for people to get this drug known to help cure the disease? Do they want the Covid virus to remain in the body forever?
I’d like to divert here and ask about the controversies surrounding bioweapons. Are governments trying to control global populations by creating bioweapons? Is Covid-19 a bioweapon? See link:
Supposing there was such a thing as reincarnation? Yes, I mean when our soul/spirit (if you believe we have one) reincarnates back into the world? The whole world use to believe in reincarnation, not just the Hindus, but the Pope and Bishops decided at their meeting at Nicea, all those Centuries ago, how could one believe in something you can’t see? No one sees God, but every religion believes in God. No one has seen heaven, but everyone wants to go there when they die, but no one wants to die, at least not at this moment, but the requirement to go to heaven, is that you first have to die. So if you reincarnate, no one knows where in the world he or she will reincarnate, and what kind of life he or she will have. It is better by far to do good to others if we want a better life, instead of killing or maiming with guns or chemical weapons. Yes, we do need our military, but for ‘righteous’ wars. What goes around comes around. People know this saying, but they don’t understand the implications of harming others. I know. You must think I’m crazy. But no more than the people who create biological weapons to destroy others.
As doctors and probably scientists your work to help heal the citizens of the world is something the public could never thank you enough though I’m sure they appreciate all that you do to help us. Thank you.
“Rather worryingly, nobody seems able to explain where these spike proteins go once injected, how many will be generated by those cells in our body which have been turned into spike protein-producing factories and worse still, how long this process will continue in the body.”
I think that is exactly what Prof. Bhakdi has been asking, and he should be quite qualified to talk about these things (prev. head of dept. of virology at Mainz University). Strangely, he is usually deleted by the “fact checkers” at Big Tech social media.
I’d say this indicates that the spike protein is being transmitted, now – and it’s different than before…extremely insiduous and dangerous, I’d say – not harmless at all. Trying to stay calm – hoping to get some Ivermectin soon.
Seen the recent “Dark Horse” podcast by Bred Weinstein on Youtube? He took Ivermectin on video, carefully explaining the reasoning, the research he based it on and that it is his personal decision and not a recommendation for anyone. Still, I am counting down the hours until Youtubes pathetic “fact checkers” delete the video. It is probably gone already. Our Big Tech overlords do not allow wrongthing…
Thank you – I do follow them, and had seen the first part of the episode but not the bit where he takes it!
A meta analysis based on a small number of unreviewed, poor quality studies is never going to produce quality results. Garbage in, garbage out. You basically say that the trials are rubbish but somehow your meta analysis of them magically produces reliable data.
Why do people consider taking a drug, which has not had clinical trials for this specific treatment with associated safety data and which does not have a well defined dosage and treatment schedule, better than taking a vaccine which has gone through at least the majority of such trials.
Searching for ivermectin effectiveness all I find is uncertainty, opinions based on unreviewed studies and poor quality meta studies. I certainly won’t be taking horse worm medicine before it’s been proven in a quality study to be effective and approved for use.
Is the counterpoint to that not that Ivermectin is an old, very well understood drug with almost no risk, because dosage, risks, and long-term effects are so well known, while by definition NOTHING is known about the long-term effects of these mRNA vaccines, for the simple reason that they are so new?
So it does not seem to be a gigantic gamble to take something that is very safe and shows some promise?
The mechanism by which ivermectin acts as an antiviral is unknown, however, it has inhibited viral replication with other RNA viruses, including dengue virus and Zika virus. It has been approved for use in humans for the treatment of some parasitic worms such as intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis (river blindness). I see no reason not to use the drug off label (as with many other medications) in critical covid patients
I think you might find Bret Weinstein’s podcasts worth watching. This medication has been used on humans for decades. This is my main argument for not touching any jabs until the usual rigorous testing is completed and they are officially approved for use sometime in 2023. And the fact that anything manmade I can wait for the 2.0 version, like the 737Max and Jab 1.0. Until the jabs are approved I understand the actual ingredients can be altered without warning(fact or fiction, I don’t know, like almost everything I read).
Recent meta-analysis of IVM RCTs:
In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.”
“Severely flawed meta analysis. An open letter signed by 40 physicians detailing errors and flaws, and requesting retraction, can be found at . See also .
The authors state that they have no conflicts of interest on medRxiv, however Dr. Pasupuleti’s affiliation is Cello Health, whose website  says that they provide services such as “brand and portfolio commercial strategy for biotech and pharma”, and that their clients are “24 of the top 25 pharmaceutical companies”.
Authors cherry-pick to include only 4 studies reporting non-zero mortality and they claim a mortality RR of 1.11 [0.16-7.65]. However, they reported incorrect values for Niaee et al., claiming an RR of 6.51 [2.18-19.45]. The correct RR for Niaee et al. is 0.18 [0.06-0.55] (as below). After correction, their cherry-picked studies show >60% mortality reduction.
Similarly, for viral clearance and NCT04392713, they report 20/41 treatment, 18/45 control, whereas the correct day 7 clearance numbers are 37/41 and 20/45 (sum of clearance @72hrs and @7 days), or 17/41 and 2/45 @72 hrs.
The duration of hospital stay for Niaee et al. is also incorrectly reported, showing a lower duration for the control group.
All of the errors are in one direction – incorrectly reporting lower than actual efficacy for ivermectin. Authors claim to include all RCTs excluding prophylaxis, however they only include 10 of the 24 non-prophylaxis RCTs (28 including prophylaxis). Authors actually reference meta analyses that do include the missing RCTs, so they should be aware of the missing RCTs.
The PubMed search strategy provided is syntactically incorrect.
Only one of these errors has been partially fixed as of 5/29 – the Niaee RR was corrected, but the associated conclusion was not. Other errors have not been corrected. Comments on this article appear to be censored, with zero comments posted as of July 5.”
I’ve been taking 12mg/mo IVM for almost a year. So far, so good. I’ve been a few places, Hospitals, Nursing Homes etc, etc. Can’t hurt you.
There are several factual errors in your letter Simon. Firstly you state a “small number of unreviewed poor-quality studies” etc. OK, so 58 studies by 519 authors involving 18,776 patients, looking at ivermectin against covid-19 and all pointing in the same direction are a small number? Peer-reviewed and published papers don’t count? And this is during a pandemic when not one cent has been given by governments, PCBs let alone the WHO to do any trials. This DB-RCT fundamentalism is killing people and causing untold suffering – when only gold standard trials (that only big pharma can afford and therefore own) are good evidence. Observational trials, country case studies, and anecdotal evidence are as important in a pandemic as are RCT’s . The American 21 Century Act recognizes this as should any scientist worth their degree.
But what you really need to realize that it’s no longer about the data, the evidence is clear, ivermectin causes improvement of covid infections and prophylaxis by 70% overall.
It is all about money now.
Why is big pharma running so scared of ivermectin that they have to falsify evidence? Why is Merck (the lab that sold 3 billion doses of ivermectin to the world over 30 years) so desperate that they have to issue evidenceless PR statements against its safety!? Why does the WHO, the people who are supposed to protect public health have to interfere with scientific evidence and fraudulently manipulate their normal review process in order not to recommend ivermectin? (They are being taken to court for this as we speak. ) Why are the mainstream media, social media, medical journals conducting an orchestrated campaign of vilification against ivermectin? No wonder when you look it up all you get is uncertainty. That is what is intended. Have you thought about why?
Ivermectin is threatening a 150+ billion dollar industry, that’s why. So its profit over lives, business over suffering.
You say that this drug has not had clinical trials for this treatment! Again, are 58 not enough for you? You say there is a lack of safety data, so 3.7 billion doses (1/3 of the planet) is not good enough either? (16 reported deaths and 5443 adverse drug reactions in 32 years for ivermectin vs 5638 deaths and 999 303 adverse drug reactions in under 1 year for the novel vaccines given to fewer people -So which drug would you prefer your pregnant daughter/wife/sister/friend take? The vaccine trials that you are so impressed with only included healthy people with no underlying comorbidities nor other health conditions, no pregnant woman, no children. So you think that it is OK, after less than a year’s research, to jab a pregnant woman or a child with an experimental treatment of which there is no safety data? And you have the temerity to say ivermectin lacks safety data!) You say no dosage schedules; so dosage ranges from the 58 studies, including the peer-reviewed ones are therefore irrelevant despite saving hundreds of thousands of people, including healthcare workers in real life? Have you seen the I-MASK+ and the MATH+protocols and the ones by the C19 group among others? Inform yourself Sir!
You end off saying ‘poor quality meta studies’. For one they are not studies but analyses. Secondly, are you sufficiently qualified to judge their quality, or have you read this elsewhere? Do you specialize in evidence synthesis? The people who have conducted these analyses are independent professionals who work or have worked, among others, for the WHO, NHS, NIH, FDA, etc. That statement alone sums up the ignorance and prejudice being generally being perpetrated by those who do not bother looking at the evidence themselves. I highly recommend one watches this:
It is such a pity that this David vs Goliath fight is not being seen for what it is. But the truth will soon out. Roll out ivermectin I say, the worst that can happen is a worm-free population!
Call me cynical, but I think when the Bill Gates funded “gold standard” study about Ivermectin comes out, it will find it useless.
And that will be then the study that gets covered in the media and quoted as scientific consensus.
Some things are pretty predictable.
And now several months further Its no longer about Covid, vaccines or Ivermectin any more, its the whole horrific story and situation around it that scares the hell out of me. But very few are listening, you are preaching to the converted.
How does the withdrawal of Niaee et all. (https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-109670/v1) affect your meta-analysis of the evidence for the use of ivermectin? Do you still consider it ‘stronger than the evidence that led to widespred use of remdesivir earlier in the pandemic’?
The published article by Niaee can be found here: https://www.apjtm.org/article.asp?issn=1995-7645;year=2021;volume=14;issue=6;spage=266;epage=273;aulast=Shakhsi
I find no evidence there that it has been retracted. Where does it say that it’s been retracted?
It was removed from the preprint server:
‘EDITORIAL NOTE: Research Square has withdrawn this reprint.’ (version 4 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v4).
This seems to have been a response to Research Square being contacted regarding questions of ‘fabricated data’ and ‘plagiarism’ (https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19-just-retracted/, https://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2021/07/Some-problems-with-the-data-from-a-Covid-study.html, https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin-for-covid-19-based-on-fraudulent-research-5cc079278602).
You are conflating the study by Niaee with an entirely different study by Elgazzar. The Elgazzar study is not even included in my meta-analysis, thus its retraction doesn’t affect my conclusions.
Again, thanks for your solid thoroughness, Dr. Rushworth. It’s such tricky, easily-conflated territory we meander through these days. No wonder so many of us in the flock are confused. Have you heard of Dr. Samantha Bailey out if New Zealand? She’s of a similar focus, on the real truth, embellished with some tongu-in-cheek wit. Worth a subscribe, as she also looks at the data, the science, and explains things. Keep up the great work, fellow Truth Fighter!
There are a number of dissident scientists and medical professionals (up to the level of nobel prize laureates and even including the inventor of the mRNA technology) who doubt the narrative pushed by the WHO, big pharma, governments, Big Tech, and “mainstream” corporate media. However, they are all ignored and/or censored by the above. I really wonder how we got to this point. Is free exchange of information not the foundation of a modern society?
The new Delta variant is more contagious, Sydney is losing its battle for zero cases despite the lockdown and it now has spread to Melbourne that imposed its fifth lockdown. This was inevitable as, in my understanding the new variant makes the infected contagious pre-symptomatically hence a traveller from Sydney approved for arrival in Melbourne receives a negative PCR test, believes himself healthy yet he is contagious. The variant is less harmful, nearly no deaths or hospitalisations in both states despite a large number of cases and appears not to be seasonal, hence the resurgence of cases in the northern hemisphere.
Are there any studies on this variant available yet? I’m mostly interested whether vitamin D and Ivermectin are still effective against this variant and, most importantly, whether naturally acquired immunity is effective against it as well?
This is what virus pandemics do, especially those caused by rapidly mutating RNA virus such as corona a nd influenza. There is no value to a virus’s survival if it kllls its host. So, a favourable mutation (to the virus) is one that increases infectivity whilst lowering pathogenicity in the host organism. This what the delta variant is doing . This, along with a rapidly developing immune status of the population, is how pandemics come to an end.
All pandemics this and last century ended within 18 months. Covid is doing the same. That is why testing is a waste of time (and money). The only end point which is worth measuring is that of death; and from covid-19 itself, not a coincidental comorbidity or being hit by a bus.
Australian (and New Zealand) governments are shooting themselves in the foot. They have no plan except to eliminate the virus with each serial mutation it manifests. We should be happy the virus is not killing people (or is it because the vulnerable cohort are being protected?) and moving around the community so the ‘herd’ eventually becomes immune, naturally. Natural immunity to a less virulent variant should take care of the mainstream population without vaccination, using an experimental product, of the ‘mob’. Natural immunity is always better than injecting the antigen because of viral mutation, nonspecific protein products being injected, cross-protection immunity and the integration of the many adaptive immunities.
It appears governments ae being improperly advised by their, I believe, complicit advisors. They must know how viruses behave and how pandemics work or their political masters are not paying attention – being driven by their characteristic and pathological vote mining agendas. They maintain, nevertheless, a mantra of continuous fear campaigns which appears to be never ending. There is clearly no plan, from federal or state governments other than to vaccinate the population with questionable products which, it appears (from overseas Israeli data), is not working.
Governments are seemingly enjoying their power and control of the electorate (?) without suffering any personal hardship or, indeed, loss of their support base. I guess, at least we are finding out just how incompetent, non caring , absurd callous they collectively are.
At the beginning of the pandemic, Sadhguru , a Guru in India, explained that humans are made up of bacteria, and viruses, once harsh to humans, had mutated to gentler forms, in order to survive by not killing its host (humans) and itself. If the virus is mutating, it is getting gentler. I do believe that. I had said earlier that I would like to contract the virus naturally. Your explanation here is confirming my very thoughts. Will we all eventually be forced to get vaccinated? Are health officials aware of these facts and explaining these facts clearly to governments and giving them the proper advice? We are blessed to have a good drug like Invermectin to help in the cure. As far as I understand, for every illness, the Universe has provided a herb, plant, bush, mineral, something on Earth to effect cures. To deny anyone a cure is a blasphemy against humankind. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or maybe the better one is, what goes around will one day, come back around.
There have been some studies of the vaccines suggesting that they still have a high level of effectiveness against the variant. If that is the case, than natural immunity should also confer a high level of immunity (most likely higher, since natural immunity means immunity to many parts of the virus, while vaccination only means immunity to the spike protein). Vitamin D and ivermectin should be expected to be as effective against the delta variant as against other variant, since the fundamental way the virus functions and the immune system reacts to the virus hasn’t changed.
Thank you for the confirmation, this is what I thought although I was a bit uncertain about the vitamin D because this variant is not seasonal like the previous ones. My understanding is that we still don’t fully understand what causes the variant to be seasonal so perhaps it is not the sun exposure and the vitamin D that make it seasonal after all.
This variant, not being seasonal is of a great worry to us in Australia because it may mean that our lockdowns will continue into our summer and beyond, until enough people get vaccinated which in itself is a problem because most people now (me including) are not going to do that.
P.S. Our lockdowns both in Sydney and Melbourne just got extended.
Do we know that it isn’t seasonal? A year ago everyone thought that the original variant wasn’t seasonal. Even a seasonal virus can spread to a significant degree outside of its normal season if there is limited population immunity. The herd immunity threshold is likely much lower in summer than in winter, but there’s still a threshold even in summer.
The resurgence of cases in the northern hemisphere (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/france/) seems to point in that direction and so is this article: https://swprs.org/the-indian-variant-summer-wave/ but I don’t think that there is a definitive proof.
thank you for your balanced work. The two meta-analyses that used Elgazzar (Hill et al and Bryant et al) have rerun their data and the conclusions remain unchanged. Albeit the confidence intervals have broadened a bit.
Further news from Prof Elgazzar regarding his data is awaited.
The Ivermectin Debate
An objective and interesting article on concerns with the existing, low quality trials and the ongoing high quality trials. Could you provide your opinion?
What concerns me is that while the debates are ongoing, when a sick person with flu symptoms used to see a physician, she received a medical advice and possibly a prescription. Now, when a sick person with flu symptoms gets a negative PCR test result, she is asked to isolate herself at home. No advice, not even on vitamin D, no prescription, no early treatment. She is left to either recover by herself or get worse requiring hospitalisation.
The drug should be available for use as an off label medication. Every practicing medico and veterinarian use off-label drugs on a daily basis. Drugs are trialed many times a day. Dexamethasone is used as an antiemetic by most anesthetists post surgery to counter the effects of nausea brought on by the use of morphine. Ivermectin, initially a veterinary parasiticide came in to use in 1981, its efficacy extending to nematodes of the gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts, conjunctival sac and soft tissues at dose rates of up to 500 micrograms /kg. Long before it was registered as a formulation available for the prevention of heartworm disease caused by Dirofilaria immitis it was administered, by certain veterinarians, off label. It is now registered to use at 6 micrograms/kg once monthly during the mosquito season to control that infection. It is now mainstream and has no known side effects at that dosage.
According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, around 20% of all prescriptions in the United States are for off-label use. In other words, off-label prescribing is common. Admittedly, off-label drug use can put people at risk of receiving ineffective or even harmful treatment. However, to avoid these risks, doctors should only prescribe drugs off-label when they have solid evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks and , at the selected dose rate, they are non-toxic in the species .
At the prescribed dose rate, ivermectin is one of the least toxic medications available. Any downside risk is significantly over ridden by its upside potential. If there is significant clinical evidence of its efficacy and low toxicity, then there is no reason for governments banning its use for any purpose other than for pertinent political purposes.
I think the swprs article is very balanced and that their position on the evidence is sensible.
This is extraordinary! What other medical condition receives no early treatment? None! Why are doctors told not to treat Covid patients? Unless aspirin qualifies. “Isolate and if your lips turn blue call an ambulance” is the standard treatment protocol. Where does this ‘mandate’ come from? Who is telling the doctors not to treat covid-19?
This is hugely telling. Don’t doctors wonder why when we, and they know, that there is a myriad of early treatments available? Time to start to demand answers from the authorities.
Bill and Melinda Gates, again, direct competitors of Ivermectin and anything else outside of vaccination. Good luck getting an unbiased approach from them.
12mg/mo of IVM since 8/20. Spent months in hospital/nursing home. OK for me. 87 yo senile/crippled/crazy guy.
Hi Dr Rushworth,
What do you think of all the incoming data showing ivermectin not being useful? I draw your attention to mainly to the IVERCOR covid trial which seems to be a well designed trial (apart from the low dose given) and the Popp et al. paper on ‘Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19’ (Cochrane paper)? Do these papers, as well as other papers not mentioned here, alter your own meta analysis and conclusions?
I also would like to hear your opinion on nitazoxamide as a treatment for COVID-19 as this has a double blind placebo controlled trial in a nice amount of participants supporting its use:
Interesting article about the use of Ivermectin in India:
Together Trial found no positive value to Ivermectin in treatment for covid.
Given the rampant success of Ivermectin in India, Japan, and several African nations, I’d be more inclined to believe real-world country-wide experience with utilizing the drug than some “Study” motivated by unknown outside pressure. It’s impossible to argue with success – that’s why US media simply refuses to report it.
The TOGETHER trial was designed to fail, according to many experts who have analysed the study. It has not yet been peer-reviewed nor published so I’m not sure why you are using it as a conclusive evidence.
It was a medium sized study that only contributed to the knowledge base that if you administer ivermectin to cohort of young , otherwise healthy people diagnosed with covid, too late and with an insufficient dosage frequency than little difference is noted in the outcomes. (That is unsurprising as it would happen with most medicines. Virologists know that the earlier one treats a virus the better the outcome). The authors did not check if their placebo group had taken ivermectin which was rife in Brazil at the time of the study recruitment and available over the counter. This alone could have skewed the results in favour of the control group. We will never know so that hang sin the air.
The authors also reported that the study was under-powered.
When added to a meta analysis of all studies nothing much changes except the credibility of the trial.
It is a pity that lay people use these studies as proof of fact when they are not equipped to conduct a proper analysis of their own, especially when more and more pharmacy sponsored trials with design flaws, problematic evidence to conclusion reporting and plain false data manipulation are appearing more and more frequently, often in august medical journals. Predictably, all these trials are critical of ivermectin. One wonders why .
There is a meta-analysis for ivermectin at https://ivmmeta.com/
There is a very good peer reviewed and published meta-analysis by Bryant, Lawrie et al in the American Journal of Therapeutics. It has just been ranked #10 out of 18 million papers. It has also just been backed up by a Beyesian Hypothesis test conducted by the Profs Niel and Fenton of Queen Mary Hospital.
“Given the rampant success of Ivermectin in India, Japan, and several African nations”
India: Yes. Japan, it is not widely used afaik. That is why chairman of the Tokyo medical association said it should be available for doctors who want to use it, implying that it is not. About Africa, I am not sure how much you can trust data coming from there.
I trust the results from Africa a lot more than our censored and politicized data.
Im afraid your assessment of data coming from Africa is a typical bigoted colonial approach. (One cannot trust data from Africa!) There are very sophisticated medical schemes and data collection throughout Africa for your information. Perhaps consult the WHO and UNICEF, the B&MGF and countless agencies. Each African country has its own medical infrastructure and are managing covid far better that western countries. So criticism in that area is contrary to the truth. You only need to look at the WHO stats. But do not forget that the majority of equatorial Africa have been on ivermectin for decades so it is not surprising that covid is not an issue in those countries.
“But do not forget that the majority of equatorial Africa have been on ivermectin for decades so it is not surprising that covid is not an issue in those countries.”
–> Maybe. But also do not forget that the demographics in Africa are different from the developed world…. a huge number of young people as compared to the aging societies of Europe, US and Japan. Plus general population health, added by a lack of junk food, couch potato lifestyle and overmedication.
I am generally sceptical of comparing population statistics in a simple manner.
What, exactly, is this garbage?
If you cannot comment without resorting to ad hominem attacks, there is no reason to consider anything you say. Go bother your like-minded friends.
Hi Rene, fair enough, but you are OK with simply dismissing data from an entire continent because you don’t deem it reliable!
As you said; its not that simple. The fact remains that Africa has, by far, and by any comparison in any demographic, even in their elderly, a far lower degree of mortality from covid than Europe or the Americas. And just look at India, (or do you also dismiss data from there?) The provinces that have adopted ivermectin (Goa, Uttar Pradesh , Uttarakhand amongst others) have eliminated a pandemic, whereas provinces that did not (Tamil Nadu, Kerala etc) have similar incidences of infection and mortality as Europe and the US. And then there is Mexico, Peru, El Salvdor, Egypt, Zimbabwe etc. etc.
What does that say? These are real-world experiences, not RCT. If one examines, akin to a court of law, the whole body of evidence then one cannot but realise that ivermectin is the key. Especially as part of a multi-therapy early treatment approach.
Together Trial found no positive value to Ivermectin in treatment for covid.”
I did not see any trial results for Ivermectin on that site.
“If Ivermectin were to be approved as a treatment for covid-19 ,
then the FDA would need to revoke its EUA for the mRNA vaccines .”
–> Does that really follow? Maybe someone can explain. Afaic, the EUA is for a vaccine, and IVM is a treatment. It does not seem the same at all, one does not preclude the other. I thought the EUA would need to be revoked once a VACCINE had full FDA approval (the reason why the FDA went through these weird verbal acrobatics of approving Pfizer while simultaneously not approving it….)
So far as I can see every medico who is at the coalface in treating covid successfully, and there are many of them even in the West or in the richer Nations, is using multifaceted treatment regimes along with ivermectin. Unfortunately, evidence based medicine is very specific to a mono-treatment and accordingly, therefore assesses a molecular structure in isolation that characteristically does not indicate effectiveness on its own.
Medicine, however, does not ‘think’ like that so that a multiple convergent approach is is often the only methodology by which a cure, or at least patient relief, can be achieved. A consideration of certain musculoskeletal conditions comes to mind when a physician may direct the patient towards a regimen of spinal manipulation, acupuncture, massage therapy, exercise, diet change and supplementation, weight loss, lifestyle changes and a variety of drug therapies. This approach is not taught at medical schools as it requires many years of experience with critical self-analysis of the clinicians own trials and setbacks before he or she can ‘see’ their way through the maze of alternatives and disappointments that result in them being able to effect patient confidence and success in treating various conditions such as covid 19.
As with many other conditions that have a variety of chronicity, pathologies, presentations, age groups, severities of disease, bad outcomes and points of therapy initiations, covid is no exception. Experienced clinicians will usually have an insight into multi-faceted treatment methodologies that are not in the text books but, due to the phenomenon of drug synergy, work for them. I note that such physicians generally use a combination of, or at least include, some of the following: ivermectin, vitamin D, Vitamin C, quercetin, colchicine, doxycycline and aspirin.
Their success rates is a testimony to their initiatives and willingness to give their patients the best treatment combination possible. As is often/usually the case, working at the coalface over-rides the methodologies of pure academics working with their theoretical models in isolation. After all, that is how humanity has progressed in just about all endeavours – by attention to the brave and controversial. It appears to work every time.
Excellent reply. I find it unfathomable that early treatment for covid has all but been banned. The standard care for early infection is to isolate, take aspirin and if your lips turn blue call an ambulance. There is absolutely no attempt by authorities to advocate ANY treatment, be it improving ones immune systems, do more exercise, eat healthily, drink less alcohol, take vitamins (vitamins are now being discouraged and even maligned!). Why? Who on earth would advocate a no treatment protocol and why? Yet many countries are doing so despite many doctors around the world treating patients successfully with a multi-therapy approach. These patients get well soon and don’t go to hospital.
Something doesn’t smell right. Is this ‘non advice’ coming from the same quarter as the anti-ivermectin propaganda I wonder. People with vested interests in the pandemic being worse that it has to be?
The mind boggles.
Your questions may be answered by attention to the concept of herd immunity which, I am sure you know, how naturally occurring pandemics end, usually in about 18 months. But that was before the WHO in June 2020 changed the definition of herd immunity against COVID-19 from being achieved by natural exposure to a disease plus vaccination to being achieved by protecting people through vaccination only – not by exposing them to the pathogen that causes the disease. That is violating science and the way Mother Nature has looked after our ancestors in the past. “Immunity developed through previous infection” is the way it has worked since humans, animals and plants have been on earth. Our bodies, specifically our immune systems, are essentially designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent. Apparently, according to WHO, that’s no longer the case. We do know, however, that natural infection of most infectious disease provides a much better immunity than vaccines and also deals with variants by recognising them early as is the case of rapidly mutating RNA viruses such as influenza and corona.
Bill Gates is a significant and powerful financier of the WHO. He pulls a lot of strings and has invested significantly in vaccines. Otherwise, why would he not influence the WHO’s definition of herd immunity? He appears to simply love pandemics. In my view, he and his faceless cohorts have a massive vested interest in demonising a cheap and reliable treatment for a disease that his interests plan to vaccinate for. A proven and effective treatment bundle would negate the need for early vaccine intervention (until they were trialed adequately and approved in the normal manner) and ensure that such vaccination would be used mainly on the most vulnerable demographic whose end point was likely to be death.
I am similarly confused as to why no government on planet Earth has suggested healthy lifestyle choices to their populations when we know, for instance, that obesity is the most important predisposing factor to hospitalisation and death from covid. I guess if we simply “follow the money” all our questions should be answered even although such behaviour is the antithesis of what most of us believe. The other factor driving agendas is power and control of the hoi polloi by the political elite; yet another antipode to common decency and concern for all.
The people that “outlawed” ivermectin, etc., have a pecuniary interest in vaxes. For example, Fauci himself is a part-owner of one of the patents. These people are nothing more than criminals.
Well done Geoff, excellently argued. Experience matters but so does determination and spirit to find and do the right thing. Failures will occur but that is how learning is built up.
So many of us believe we can see the light but we are being ignored.
“And just look at India, (or do you also dismiss data from there?) ”
–> I did say “India: Yes”. I agree with with you. Please read before commenting. I am not arguing against IVM, I just wanted to correct some simplifications (in this case about Japan and Africa).
I completely agree that the data from Uttar Pradesh are very interesting and that it is strange the media ignores them.
Apologies, I didn’t see your India remark.
From not the.doctor…..it’s heartening to see Geoff Rankin’s comments, and understand many doctors’ hands are tied to a certain extent, and understand they will either be vilified, hounded, or be ousted from the profession if they speak out against what’s happening. It has already happened to a few. If the general public is smart they can do their own research and seek advice from various reliable sources. Natural immunity is the way to go. If we die, it just means it was our time to go, if we survive we’ll be better off for having had it. In this world it’s a privilege to have money, to be rich. How we use that resource , to help or hinder, is on the conscious of the individual if they have one. One day they too will die. I’m aware that you know we are all here to help each other, to make the world a better place for all, not just for a few. Doctors are in a better position to help because they know how, the majority of us don’t. We depend on you. If they tie your hands, we’ll just have to call on the Almighty for help.
I agree with you entirely. It ties in with Mr Gates’ GAVI’s relentless suppression of ivermectin, i.e. a threat to his profits and /or geo-political beliefs, and certainly a thorn in his flesh. GAVI actively advertise against ivermectin on their website. These are the sponsors of the McMaster together ivermectin trial! But you wouldn’t know that if you googled together trial website. All references to B&MGF are off the website now. I wonder why. Here one can see the announcement:(https://trialsitenews.com/bill-and-melinda-gates-fund-global-ivermectin-fluvoxamine-clinical-trial-targeting-covid-19-together-covid-19-trial/)
It is extraordinary to hear, from those whom I would consider scientists, say that ones immune system is not good enough to protect one after having had a viral infection, when all science I can find and history of the human species says the contrary. Where are they getting all this new evidence from?
Thank you for the link. Was Bill Gates put in charge of everyone’s health? Health Canada warned on the news, on 1 Sep, that Ivermectin is not to be use, it was a drug for parasites in animals. Are we humans so far above animals that it’s beneath us to use something formulated first for animals, when it is a known fact it has healed COVID patients in other countries? We need them. Do they need us? The world has managed epidemics before and people have bounced back stronger than ever. If something else is deliberately happening, humans will somehow or other survive it. If people read, took time to research, enquire and not panic, there are ways we can help ourselves, there are ways, even if we have to struggle in the process just to survive. That is what life is about. To build better living conditions for everyone and for us to survive.
The El Salvador government too distributes the dreaded horse dewormer:
Somehow I dont expect that to be mentioned at CNN or the NYT.
In June 2021, two different meta-analyses came out that had opposite conclusions about the effectiveness of ivermectin against COVID-19. One said it worked, and one said it didn’t. Both peer reviewed.
Then in July, another paper has come out to settle the issue using Bayes Theorem, a statistical way that describes the probability of an event based on prior knowledge of conditions that might be related to the event.
Conclusion? Ivermectin has a huge positive affect. For details see https://drjessesantiano.com/bayes-theorem-confirms-meta-analysis-of-ivermectins-effectivity-against-covid-19/
Since more studies have come out since your Ivermectin post from May 2021, I would love to see you post an updated article on your thoughts and analysis of the Ivermectin studies since then. It appears to me the studies show Ivermectin use still point to success, especially in early treatment, but would like to see your analysis.
Not too sure what to think, one of the most trusted sources, The Swiss Policy Research that was supported of Ivermectin and published a Covid treatment protocol has now changed their mind removing it.
[Update] Covid Early Treatment – Swiss Policy Research
It is being censored:
Ivermectin and the Promotion of Pharmaceutical Mass Murder
Of course the video is no longer available
Please do a serious comment of this:
The red flags I see is
1. Are they on a fishing expedition.
2. from the article it looks like the problem only refers to the pro ivermectin papers and you discusses obvious problems with under powered by having a young sample so this one sideness seam a little fishy.
They do seam to have found real issues, in some papers though.
“Please do a serious comment of this:
Right off the bat: Did anybody claim that Ivermectin is a “miracle drug”? I am suspicious when an article starts off with a strawman claim.
Also, after glancing through it (did not read it carefully), I notice that there is no reference to Uttar Pradesh, Goa, and other Indian states where they got the Corona problem rapidly under control after the introducing widespread use of IVM. Coming to think of it, when was the last time the BBC reported about India? What happened to the screaming headlines about that doomed continent?
Further on meta-analyses of dodgy studies of Ivermectin: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y
Why have so many Ivermectin “studies” with positive outcomes proven to have been based on faked data? GIGO.
One more: Recent Indian RCT found no benefit from ivermectin: https://www.jiac-j.com/article/S1341-321X(21)00239-7/fulltext
“Please do a serious comment of this:
Dr. Steve Campbell did, check here:
Seems that BBC article is fundamentally based on the opinion of one Twitter group.
Yes, looks like in their eagerness to discredit ivermectin the BBC has been taken for a ride. The article is pure opinion with no evidence. It is actually slanderous; they say that 1/3 of the studies are fraudulent with no proof whatsoever.
And, the irony is that one of the twitter group- who have no clinical experience- Is accused of fabricating evidence to discredit a study!
This article contravenes the BBC’s charter and is an appalling piece of biased journalism. TrialSite news has just written a rebuttal: https://t.me/birdgroupuk/811
Shouldn’t the article have postulated for quality trials instead of spending so much time on proving it an antivaxxers’ remedy?
I trust Swiss Policy Research that removed ivermectin from their recommended treatment protocol based on lack of quality trials and many available trials proved fraudulent. However despite the lack of quality trials there are signs in its favour.
1) WHO commanded 4 trials that were abandoned after the preliminary results of the first trial were promising, why?
2) Dr. Pierre Kory pleaded in the senate not for its use but a quality trial, not only he did not receive a response, the video of the session was removed from YouTube
3) All India got over the Delta variant quickly, however there was a significant difference in mortality between regions that correlates with the use of ivermectin
4) The article quotes Merck saying that there was no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against Covid-19 omitting that Merc also said that ivermectin is dangerous to use, the drug that they patented, sold for may years, and whose recorded deaths are lower than those caused by ibuprofen
No quality trials for ivermectin? Please, don’t get stuck in that tired old routine. There are plenty.
How is it that Remdesivir gets approved on the basis of 1 trial that shows marginal improvement in hospital stay but not in mortality. -and that the WHO does not recommend against covid – and two other trials which show no benefit at all. Yet ivermectin, with 32 RCTs and 7 meta analyses , 35 OCts, expert opinion and numerous country case studies , does not get an invite to the party. Something stinks to high heaven. I wonder if it had anything to do with money. It’s simple corruptions of the system.
India is not homogeneous on health issues and each province dictates their own policy. Uttar Pradesh has declared itself Covid free. Delhi and Goa very low infection rates. Meanwhile Kerala, Tamil Nadu and others have western type infections. Why. The former provinces treated with ivermectin and the others not. A clear case of its efficacy.
It’s extraordinary how a PR piece from a pharma company who is developing an expensive antiviral similar to ivermectin is taken as evidence! The cheek of Merck who have sold this drug for over 3O years to billions people to suddenly say it’s unsafe is beyond rich, I’d say it’s criminal, and they present no evidence that it doesn’t work. Because the can’t. Can’t you see the pattern?
Another thought. Is there the whole ivermectin debate really necessary now?
Data coming from Australia, especially Victoria shows very significant increase in the number of cases. Comparing to the previous wave of the original strain, the number of cases of the Delta variant is on average more than 5 times that of the previous wave and its constantly growing. At the same time the average number of deaths is over five time lower comparing to the previous wave. This means the Delta variant is 25 times less pathogenic than the original strain. The mortality of the original strain was that of a bad flu with a distinction of its mortality curve being the same as the natural mortality, the older and sicker you are, the more likely you’re to die from Covid. This was not the case with the previous flu pandemics. By comparison, the Delta variant’s mortality is that of a light flu. We didn’t need a drug for a light flu before and we do not need it now, especially a $700 molnupiravir from Merc.
Further on meta-analyses of dodgy studies of Ivermectin: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y”
–> this is the same debunked opinion article without references by a Twitter group that the debunke BBC article refers to.
Nothing “further” here, just circular logic. All you are doing is repeating the BBC article…
I wonder why Dr. Rushworth has been quiet about Ivermectin an COVID since May. I thought that there is so much evidence in RcT fir it’s benefit? In the meantime, in Austria people died from taking Ivermectin due to the high doses they took.
I’m waiting for the results of the big ivermectin trials (McMaster and Oxford) to come out. My hope is that they will conclusively settle this issue.
You have been waiting for this?
No idea how to interprete this:
Ivermectin is proven to work. http://www.ivmmeta.com. The body of evidence is overwhelming. Any study that is done will be assessed just like the rest and added to the evidence pool and systematically reviewed. Not long ago people were saying that they would wait for the Principal trial to come out to settle it. It has come out, ah, but yet to be published – what’s the hold up? – and condemned by scientists as set up to fail. (Mc Masters and Oxford are recipients of massive grants from BMGF who are also the largest investors in and instigators of GAVI, the vaccine alliance. GAVI actively campaigns against ivermectin. These universities are also massively invested in vaccines – that no longer seem to work very well – So does one honestly expect anything positive to come out for ivermectin?) Interesting to note that the newly announced ‘Pfizermectin’ shares some, but not all, mechanics of action as ivermectin, but at 700 dollars a shot – Thus showing that Pfizer recognizes that ivermectin may actually work!
Hi Sebastian and others,
What do you think about this study? https://www.togethertrial.com/trial-specifications
I didn’t notice any major flaws but am surprised that it seems to go against the results here. Can you please look into it?
The trial you link to is the trial discussed in my article.
There are many issues with this trial and to date remains unpublished.
Together Trial removes mortality and adverse event outcomes, and sublingual administration mid-trial.
The preliminary report from the Together Trial showing mortality RR 0.82 [0.44-1.52] and combined extended ER observation or hospitalization RR 0.91 [0.69-1.19].
The same trial’s results for a previous treatment were initially reported as RR 1.0 [0.45-2.21] [ajtmh.org], while the final paper reported something very different — RR 0.76 [0.30-1.88] [jamanetwork.com].
The trial randomization chart does not match the protocol, suggesting major problems and indicating substantial confounding by time. For example, trial week 43, the first week for 3 dose ivermectin, shows ~3x patients assigned to ivermectin vs. placebo [reddit.com]. Treatment efficacy can vary significantly over time, for example due to overall improvement in protocols, changes in the distribution of variants, or changes in public awareness and treatment delays. [Zavascki] show dramatically higher mortality for Gamma vs non-Gamma variants (28 day mortality from symptom onset aHR 4.73 [1.15-19.41]), and the prevalence of the Gamma variant varied dramatically throughout the trial [ourworldindata.org]. This introduces confounding by time, which is common in COVID-19 retrospective studies and has often obscured efficacy (many retrospectives have more patients in the treatment group earlier in time when overall treatment protocols were significantly worse).
According to this analysis [reddit.com], the total number of patients for the ivermectin and placebo groups do not appear to match the totals in the presentation (the numbers for the fluvoxamine arm match) — reaching the number reported for ivermectin would require including some of the patients assigned to single-dose ivermectin. Reaching the placebo number requires including placebo patients from the much earlier ivermectin single dose period, and from the early two week period when zero ivermectin patients were assigned. If these earlier participants were accidentally included in the control group, this would dramatically change the results in favor of the control group according to the changes in Gamma variant prevalence.
Time from symptom onset to randomization is specified as within 7 days. However, the schedule of study activities specifies treatment administration only one day after randomization, suggesting that treatment was delayed an additional day for all patients.
This trial uses a soft primary outcome, easily subject to bias and event inflation in both arms (e.g., observe >6 hours independent of indication). There is also an unusual inclusion criteria: “patients with expected hospital stay of <= 5 days". This is similar to "patients less likely to need treatment beyond SOC to recover", and would make it very easy to reduce the effect seen. This is not in either of the published protocols.
The trial took place in an area of Brazil where the Gamma variant was prominent. Brazilian clinicians report that this variant is much more virulent, and that significantly higher dosage and/or earlier treatment is required, as may be expected for variants where the peak viral load is significantly higher and/or reached earlier [Faria, Nonaka].
Treatment was administered on an empty stomach, greatly reducing expected tissue concentration [Guzzo] and making the effective dose about 1/5th of current clinical practice. The trial was conducted in Minas Gerais, Brazil which had substantial community use of ivermectin [otempo.com.br], and prior use of ivermectin is not listed in the excluson criteria.
Not a very good study, and
I am curious if anyone has a good explanation for the enormous difference between Japan and Korea.
In Japan, Corona is de facto over (for the moment at least). ICUs are empty and restrictions are lifted.
From Korea we read astronomic infection figures and thousands of hospitalizations.
The countries have similar demographics, living conditions, and climate.
The only difference that I can see is that after Dr. Ozeki from the Tokyo medical association recommend IVM, doctors around the country started prescribing it widely. (Alas, that is anecdotal… I keep hearing this, but see no statistics.) Is there another explanation?
Does this worry you?
“Dr Kyle Sheldrick, one of the group investigating the studies, said they had not found “a single clinical trial” claiming to show that ivermectin prevented Covid deaths that did not contain “either obvious signs of fabrication or errors so critical they invalidate the study”.
Major problems included:
The same patient data being used multiple times for supposedly different people
Evidence that selection of patients for test groups was not random
Numbers unlikely to occur naturally
Percentages calculated incorrectly
Local health bodies unaware of the studies
The scientists in the group – Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, Dr James Heathers, Dr Nick Brown and Dr Sheldrick – each have a track record of exposing dodgy science. They’ve been working together remotely on an informal and voluntary basis during the pandemic.
They formed a group looking deeper into ivermectin studies after biomedical student Jack Lawrence spotted problems with an influential study from Egypt. Among other issues, it contained patients who turned out to have died before the trial started. It has now been retracted by the journal that published it. “
Does this worry you?
–> I would say anything from the BBC worries me right off the bat. I do not think you can find a more biased propaganda source than that news organization. Did you see their hit pieces on Dr. Campbell (had has some brilliant replies to them, btw).
That said, I would of course like someone to look at these new studies and see them discussed…. I am not asking to ban the BBC, like the BBC demands for dissidents…