Posted on 05/06/2021 4:02:09 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The article concludes: "ivermectin should be globally and systematically deployed in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19." Unlike the vaccines, it is not an experimental drug and is known to be safe for all but a few with other conditions.
I expect the corporate media will ignore as much as possible the findings of a peer-reviewed study just published in the American Journal of Therapeutics that concludes the readily-available, inexpensive (off-patent) drug ivermectin is effective in treating existing cases of Covid-19 and in preventing coming down with the illness. Unlike the experimental vaccines that we are being ceaselessly urged to take, ivermectin has been around for many years and is safe for all but a few people. From the article:
Numerous studies report low rates of adverse events, with the majority mild, transient, and largely attributed to the body's inflammatory response to the death of the parasites and include itching, rash, swollen lymph nodes, joint paints, fever, and headache.75 In a study that combined results from trials including more than 50,000 patients, serious events occurred in less than 1% and largely associated with administration in Loa loa.76
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Oh No! An effective treatment means no more population control. Put this report in the circular file!
IMO the reason the FDA has not recognized the value of ivermectin is that if the do, the EUA for the mRNA and rDNA prevention approaches must be rescinded.
Good morning. An interesting article indeed. There are a couple of standard critiques. First this is a met analysis. Usually this is not considered gold standard but retrospective. Although they give some passing reference to RCT there is no presentation of such data that allow a deeper analysis. My gestalt from the treating side is that there is some improvement with ivermectin as prophylaxis. As a treatment is is underwhelming. It does not rise to the level of effective treatment.
Ivermectin could probably be used where distribution chains are weak. But this does not suggest this should replace vaccine as prophylaxis. Perhaps a bridge.
At this point there is no argument as to choice of vaccine (get it don’t get it). If there are physicians autonomously writing for ivermectin provided RBA are explained let’s get the show on the road and get thjngs normal.
“PEER REVIEWED” versus the rash of “PREPRINTS” that we saw last year that were rushed through without critical review, without confirming results.
Ivermectin has a very similar mechanism of action that Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has. It binds with the ACE-2 receptors on cells, effectively shutting the entrance door to cells.
What is needed additionally is an agent to help Zinc get through the pores of the cell’s surface because Zinc will be swooped up into the cell nucleus and bind to areas of DNA that the virus uses to replicate itself. Think of Zinc molecules taking up all the reserved parking spots in the cell’s garage. Virus has no place to park so it gets flushed out.
HCQ not only binds the ACE-2 receptor, it also helps open the small pores for Zinc to enter a cell.
Credit to Dr. “Zev” Zelenko in New York who is dying of cancer. May God comfort he and his family. He should be awarded a Nobel Prize for Medicine.
But this does not suggest this should replace vaccine as prophylaxis.
___________________________________
Of course not. Nothing must stop the vaccine.
Vaccine good. Anything suggesting otherwise is bad.
About as good and effective as hydroxychloroquine I’d wager.
Better by my reading of what’s out there.
Same group doing the meta-analysis.
How hard is ivermectin to come by in the US? Will a Dr prescribe for this off-label use?
It’s an indictment of government dictators, who continue their ban on Ivermectin, that some people are going to their agricultural store to obtain veterinarian Ivermectin. You can see personal accounts on YouTube. We are now living in a third world dictatorship where people have to devise ways around the tyrants. What ever happened with the ‘Right to Try?’
IMO the reason the FDA has not recognized the value of ivermectin is that if the do, the EUA for the mRNA and rDNA prevention approaches must be rescinded.
Is this from the FDA website? I know that EUA cannot be granted if there are approved therapies which is why hydroxy and ivermectin were demonized. I had not read that the EUA could be rescinded.
It is a commonly available de-worming medicine for horses and dogs that is sold over the counter at pet supply houses.
The purpose of meta analysis is to combine findings s from a number of methodologically satisfactory empirical studies. No single study by itself would or should be considered a “gold standard.” A common misunderstanding among those who don’t understand inferential statistics.
Some will. If yours won’t, you can get it via telemedicine.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/guide-for-this-website/how-to-get-ivermectin/
Or you can go the veterinary horse paste route. Not that I would recommend that. But I might do it.
Teledocs will prescribe. Local pharmacy, or mail pharmacies they know, will send Rx to your home.
Bookmark
You are the zealot here. Analyze the article. Analyze the data. I read snd analyses the whole thing. The data are scant. The recommendation is I think a little over exuberant but as I said should it be a bridge. Probably. It’s imperfect but of some weak benefit.
As I have said nothing is new with this pandemic except for the politicization. Which you have fallen victim to.
A meta analysis is only as strong as its weakest study. I am sure we could look at each study and evaluate the type one and two errors. Are their any biases in the studies from a statistical standpoint.
Meta-analysis tends to smooth over studies that may or may not be well designed but assimilating into a bigger data set. I’ll always look at a meta of multiple RCT of good design. But the real difference is in clinical science prospective data under RCT conditions are the gold standard. Surely you are not arguing with this?
I’m not sure where I read that...and possibly read what you posted, and interpreted it into what I wrote.
I thought no EUA if there is an approved treatment or prevention.
In my mind that meant rescind, but now that you ask, I have to look at the actual source. This will take me some time.
Thanks for asking the clarifying question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.