Posted on 07/23/2021 10:17:39 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
An ICU specialist at a South African teaching hospital has hit back strongly at claims made by a respected pulmonologist that ivermectin is of no use in treating Covid-19.
Prof Nathi Mdladla, head of the ICU at Dr George Mukhari Academic Hospital and Sefako Makgatho University, said the claims made by Dr Emmanuel Taban that the drug offered little benefit and had contributed to liver failure in a number of patients were “scaremongering at its worst”.
“I have treated more than 200 Covid-19 outpatients including relatives and friends and their contacts,” Mdladla said in a rebuttal sent to TimesLIVE.
“Between myself and other colleagues who’ve been managing outpatient Covid-19 with ivermectin we have thousands of patients with very few who have progressed to hospitalisation and even fewer who had liver failure.”
Mdladla noted that his hospital was the only academic one using ivermectin to treat Covid-19 patients during the third wave and were seeing “phenomenal results”.
Mdladla also took aim at Taban's claim that patients were presenting with liver failure caused by ivermectin.
“We have not observed a disproportionate increase in cases of liver failure, but we have saved hundreds of patients with the drug,” he said.
Mdladla said a peer-reviewed meta-analysis published in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy in April 2020 on safety of high doses of ivermectin offered the “highest level” of evidence examining safety issues around the drug.
“In their discussion they note that side effects were not any worst even with high doses with ivermectin, and interestingly, severe liver affectation or liver failure is not something they have picked up,” he said.
Other safety studies also concluded that the side effects experienced by patients on ivermectin were no different to those taking the placebo, he added.
Liver dysfunction in Covid-19 patients who were also taking ivermectin was more likely a result of the disease itself, he said.
“We have been doing liver function tests on patients admitted with severe Covid-19 since the first wave and we have always known that some patients present with severe derangements in their liver functions and sometimes failure,” he said.
The specialist also warned that people using ivermectin meant for animals were at higher risk of dangerous side effects than those using pure grade ivermectin as verified by the SA Health Products Regulatory Authority (Sahpra) and available in tablets supplied legally by dispensing and compounding pharmacists.
Due to the “obstructive nature” of Sahpra's compassionate use programme, along with media disinformation, many patients were still using animal products which contain excipients — binding and storage compounds such as ethylene glycol — that are known to cause liver failure in high doses, he said.
Mdladla said people wishing to use ivermectin should seek out doctors who would be able to prescribe ivermectin supplied from legal sources.
“This is what I have been prescribing and perhaps why we have not seen what he [Taban] is claiming,” he said.
As SA's vaccine rollout continued, Mdladla noted that even the jabs were failing in some patients who needed to be hospitalised.
“I have treated a number of these with ivermectin,” he said, “yet I will never say patients should not get vaccinated.”
Ping for your interest
So let me ask a question of logic. There is quite clearly a lot of division in the ranks of medicine whether Ivermectin works of not. If it were a sure fire cure and worked well, wouldn’t every physician be using it? I know I would be.
Thus the point that for some to proffer that there is some conspiracy that ivermectin is being withheld intentionally means that every physician except a few vocal ones are in on the con job.
We are not — the reason there is divergence of opinion is because there is equivocal data.
i think the key point is that a number of possible therapeutics or combinations of older drugs have been proposed and some put into implementation in some countries, but no major western country has even done a broad survey or study, at all, on the main ones.
what i have seen is very small studies which in some cases seem to defy common sense or be designed to fail.
the ivermectin problem could have been conclusively examined with a very large sample size last year. the fact this has not been done with ivermectin, hcq/az/zinc, etc., should be extremely alarming to everyone paying attention.
aren’t some of these drugs keyword-banned on social media?
I dont know about social media — I am not on social media. Even the studies are equivocal. The large meta of Ivermectin had to exclude the largest pro Ivermectin study for pretty profound flaws in the methodology and recording of data. That left a meta-analysis that was as clear as mud in Rocky Mountain spring.
So, I suppose of the meta has little correlation, this is why we see such divergent opinion based on individual experience. I think it gets to my point that by now the consensus is that there is no consensus. Does it hurt to try? Probably not, except some would proffer it is a cure and therefore delay other treatment. If you are not turning around within a day of administration, I would proceed right to monoclonal antibodies. That being said, I would skip the ivermectin step and go right to monoclonals were I to contract the disease.
***I dont know about social media — I am not on social media.***
SMH.
I know, I know. Just yankin’ your chain.
When there are ten billions doses + of thousand dollar a dose ‘vaccines’ planning to be sold, the thought of using fifty cent a dose non-prescription alternatives is an anathema to even generally honest health professionals, much less the propagandists that run the information from the ‘vaccine’ manufacturers and the government / media propagandists that love the power and control they get from the plannedemic.
RE: That being said, I would skip the ivermectin step and go right to monoclonals were I to contract the disease.
I believe that Monoclonals are the best treatment for Covid-19.
Here’s the problem: They are
1. Not approved by the FDA, therefore, like the vaccines, are in the EUA stage.
2. Not widely available. Not all hospitals are clinics have them. And we’re talking the USA where we have them more than any other dcountry in the world.
The problem is, we are in a pandemic.
Most countries in the world don’t have it available nor do they have enough staff who can administer them.
3. Limited manufacturing and distribution.
4. Given the above conditions, I see no reason why, given hundreds of doctors like yourself around the world swear by its efficacy, Ivermectin should not be tried for patients, especially in the early stage of the disease.
Currently what I’m seeing is when a patient has Covid, most doctors just tell them to take Tylenol, isolate and rest, hoping that the disease does not progress to a severe stage.
The ideal solution would be for the patient to immediately go to a hospital or clinic to have Monoclonal Antibodies administered ASAP, but that is easier said than done. The reality is in MOST PLACES, Hospitals don’t have it, and logistically, there are not enough healthycare workers to administer it.
Given this, Ivermectin is still the most practical solution.
RE: The large meta of Ivermectin had to exclude the largest pro Ivermectin study for pretty profound flaws in the methodology and recording of data
Yes, you’re talking about the Egyptian study. But EVEN WITH this study taken out of the picture, the American FLCCC and the British B.I.R.D group still maintains that the meta analysis worldwide supports the efficacy of Ivermectin.
Why have doctors - who have been doctors for decades - and promoted Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine been removed from their positions and fired?
What was the treatment that President Donald Trump received when he was diagnosed with COVID, went into the hospital for treatment, and came out of the hospital 3 days later?
As a dodtor, do you know what President Trump was treated with? And if you do, why don't you promote that treatment for all who contract/diagnosed with COVID?
I like the approach of the So. African doctor who is pro-Ivermectin as well as Dr. Gas’s comments, among the others.
That is why this FR “sounding board” is so valuable and of use.
I also like the articles that are posted on studies from around the world, esp. since I have to make a choice as to whether I want to get any vaccine (and risk some possible side-effects) and just toughing it out using common sense and a mask in crowded places.
I also constantly talk to my Oncologist, Gastroenterologist, cardiologist and GP about what I should do. As my medical condition changes, I continual let them know what’s going on and ask for updates on their opinion.
However, if some people have faith in their doctors and the use of Ivermectin, then let them decide what to do.
A late friend of mine lost his wife to cancer, yet when traditional medicines (in the 1970’s) failed to help her improve, he went to Laetrile because they had nothing to lose. She didn’t make it and we lost a lovely woman, but she knew that her husband cared enough about her to try anything to save her. That was true love and devotion. I just wish she had survived.
On the other hand - in the USA - the political and legal data on COVID is absolute.
If you advise your patients to get the experimental COVID vaccine and one of them is harmed, you have zero professional and financial liability.
If you advise your patients to take Ivermectin - a FDA approved drug with a 40 year history - and one of them is harmed, you will lose your medical license, your money, and maybe even go to jail.
Bottom Line...
There may be many USA physicians who believe Ivermectin is helpful and low risk, but most of them, quite reasonably, are afraid to take the personal risk.
Not if you were being paid by Big Pharma!
But I am pretty sure you already knew that.
You pro vaccine whores are a very deceitful lot!
Its obvious the 3 vaccines are worthless.
You are one of the so-called docs doing the con
It doesn’t hurt people to take Ivermectin, Vitamin D3, Vitamin C and Zinc. So it’s pretty shocking that hospitals refuse it to patients - just put them on a ventilator and hope they cure themselves.
I have watched. Agree. Most Plants need water. It has been provided. Allowed to grow like kudzu.
“If it were a sure fire cure and worked well, wouldn’t every physician be using it?”
__________
Actually, no, not in today’s professional disciplinary environment.
__________
“I know I would be.”
____________
Either you are suffering from tremendous naiveté, whistling past the graveyard, or actively perpetuating a false narrative.
__________
Thus the point that for some to proffer that there is some conspiracy that ivermectin is being withheld intentionally means that every physician except a few vocal ones are in on the con job.
__________
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. The bravest and most honest doctors still speaking on the record are admitting that the initial phrase of the Hippocratic Oath, “Furst, do no harm.”, has crashed, burned, and is now in ashes.”
__________
“We are not — the reason there is divergence of opinion is because there is equivocal data.”
__________
You have no credibility, Gas Dr. Your words are no longer having any persuasive effect.
A cloud of condescension surrounds everything you say. Kindly ply your flimsy wares elsewhere.
you cannot get an EUA for a vaccine if there are approved drug therapies
the FDA is ignoring any possible drug therapies
So let me ask a question of logic. There is quite clearly a lot of division in the ranks of medicine whether Ivermectin works of not. If it were a sure fire cure and worked well, wouldn’t every physician be using it? I know I would be.
Thus the point that for some to proffer that there is some conspiracy that ivermectin is being withheld intentionally means that every physician except a few vocal ones are in on the con job.
We are not — the reason there is divergence of opinion is because there is equivocal data
~~~~~~~~~~~
From onset of Covid, physicians were reprimanded for prescribing Ivermectin off label, something they had done in the past without a problem.
I read the intimidating ‘releases’ and updates by the coordinating agency for AMerican pharmacies, that hinted heavily any pharmacist filling a prescription for Ivermectin would be seen as unprofessional and in need of extra attention. It was prohibited there for quite awhile, and doctors are still afraid to prescribe it even though there was slight softening of the ‘against’ to ‘neutral’ status of the FDA/CDC toward Ivermectin.
IN the meantime, those agencies and academic research organizations crank out fake studies wherein they simply refuse to prescribe Ivermectin and recommended levels during early stages of the illness. As foreign countries report astonishing success with Ivermectin, the US runs limited trials, often will doses too small, for Ivermectin before publishing that it was ineffective.
The CDC/FDA are still running interference and while some physicians will prescribe it, many are still afraid to do so, even though they feel it works.
The ‘unequivocal’ only exists in MSM and Fauci approved circles. Internationally, countries are reporting success and some in the US pine for the old days when they could be trusted to write off label as they deemed fit. It’s all a political scam now.
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.