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.”
You missed a whole lot of steps that happen in hospitalized treatment.
You have offered nothing except confirmation of conspiracy theory, I will proffer my opinion, feel free not to read it. It is very big governmentesq to attempt to silence someone who disagrees with you as you are trying to do.
And yet I have been able to prescribe it freely — so appreciate your getting your information correct as well. I choose not to because there are better and more effective treatments.
RE: I you are so worried about Covid that you are willing to experiment with horse medicine
I am more than willing to read about the pros and cons of using Ivermectin as a prophylaxis or treatment against Covid... but please, misinformation like this has no place in an intelligent discussion.
Firstly, Ivermectin was NOT originally developed for animals but for humans.
Secondly, no licensed doctor I know is going to prescribe the horse version of ivermectin.
Please dispense with the strawman argument.
RE: I had one case in the hospital in later phase disease that I gave it and it seemed to turn things around.
How many prescriptions have you given to those who are diagnosed as Covid positive, have early symptoms, and are not yet hospitalized?
Your above example is precisely the reason why a lot of these Ivermectin studies fail to show the efficacy reported by most doctors who believe in it. You are applying it to the later phase of the disease where results are mixed.
The same results are true for Hydroxychloroquine.
Also, how many have you prescribed for prophylaxis?
“We are not — the reason there is divergence of opinion is because there is equivocal data.”
To the informed, but not medically educated person, there is equivocal data on every tiny aspect of this virus, from determining how many people have or have had it, to effective treatment, to its real mortality rate, everything. That’s without even getting into the “vaccines”. There is contradictory information about everything. There seems to be no facts regarding this virus.
I prescribed HCQ for prophylaxis early on — and a lot when on to get ill (the South Korean protocol was loading dose of 800 mg day one then 400 mg a week x 8 weeks). Didn’t do much.
As for Ivermectin, I do not think prescribing an antibiotic for prophylaxis is good medicine in terms of this disease. I treated dozens and dozens early on with the Ivermectin, did little to turn the course of the disease. It certainly did not cure people in 18 seconds like some have said.
I stopped with Ivemectin and moved on to monoclonals and have excellent success with it. But I advocate for my patients to get it and work diligently where necessary to get to yes on the treatmen and have not been turned back.
HCQ and Ivermectin are weakly useful in this disease. Not that I say weakly useful — not useless, but we have so much better so I am unclear why we still mess around with inferior treatments except for a narrative that has nothing to do with actual clinical medicine.
I actually had hope that ivermectin would stop late phase II disease — but it does not. However, I am impressed with tocilizumab as treatment for late phase II or early phase III disease, I have seen this work with results skewing toward favorable instead of mixed or unfavorable.
If I had someone in the hospital who is starting to fail at about day 8 - 11, I would insist on early tocilizumab (actimera I think its trade name)
If you wish to carry on in this vein, it seems as if you’re going to have to forego all anonymity and prove your credentials at this point. The specificity of your contrary scientific and medical assertions in condemnation of a therapeutic drug from which millions are indisputably benefiting during the current fight against the novel Coronavirus make such a next step unavoidable if you wish to shed the label of cipher. This is only fair because it appears that, as your credibility visibly wanes toward zero, the noted asserions are beginning to arrive in a form that is more and more markedly strident, including, most recently, stripped of all nuance and limitation. This bespeaks desperation on your part. Unless, or course, you are in a position to divulge from where your certainty stems, why it is so rare, how it came to be so fully-formed given the normal time-unfolding nature of science, and what makes your related advice so uniquely reliable in the face of so many outside sources of reliable data and analysis that tempt us here at FR to deem it to be indistinguishable from the worthless last-minute rantings of a medical Baghdad Bob.
RE: Ivermectin does not do that nor does HCQ, even on the best data published that you site, it does not reduce death into the greater than 95% range and stop the disease like monoclonals.
OK, I am seeing conflicting observations. On the one hand, I am reading about tons of testimonies and watching many videos from doctors like yourself (including the South African ICU doctor in this article ) who swear that Ivermectin works ( this particular doctor in the article thread has administered it to over 200 patients ).
One the other hand, I am reading your particular experience telling us that it does not work.
I am not going to say that either one of you is lying. I assume that you and the other ICU doctors are both telling the truth about your personal observations.
However, nature does not change, there has to be something that the successful doctors are doing right that you’re not in terms of dosage, protocol or stage of the disease or some other overlooked item.
I am not ready to dismiss the work of all the doctors who have successfully used Ivermectin to treat Covid just because you are telling us that it doesn’t work in your particular case.
Among these doctors are experienced, licensed, established, well published Doctors like Pier Kory, Andrew Marick and Thomas Borody. I’m not ready to conclude that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Look, I am a software developer and sometimes, my code doesn’t work as I expect. Often, it took other developers like myself to eyeball my code or even consider other factors like the operating system, software or framework version to inform me how I can modify things to make it work. Nature does not change.
Same principle applies to Ivermectin. We all want to know why scores of experienced doctors worldwide tell us that it works and why in your particular case, it doesn’t. There has to be the missing ingredient that you have not identified.
The problem as I see it is this — NO COMMUNICATION. Doctors who succeed and doctors who don’t succeed are talking past each other without exchanging notes. The truth is out there, we must find out what it is.
The only way to find out is via a free and open exchange of case observations between doctors. This unfortunately is not happening now.
NOTE: This has nothing to do with monoclonals, which I believe works well. I’ve seen it work on Donald Trump himself
The issues that I have with monoclonals is their relative unavailability in many hospitals clinics and the need for trained healthcare workers to apply it. The reality is, we just do not have the logistical resources for it to be practically available in a pandemic compared to a possible oral and widely available treatment like Ivermectin.
“I prescribed HCQ for prophylaxis early on — and a lot when on to get ill (the South Korean protocol was loading dose of 800 mg day one then 400 mg a week x 8 weeks). Didn’t do much.
“As for Ivermectin, I do not think prescribing an antibiotic for prophylaxis is good medicine in terms of this disease. I treated dozens and dozens early on with the Ivermectin, did little to turn the course of the disease. It certainly did not cure people in 18 seconds like some have said.
“I stopped with Ivemectin and moved on to monoclonals and have excellent success with it. But I advocate for my patients to get it and work diligently where necessary to get to yes on the treatmen and have not been turned back.
“HCQ and Ivermectin are weakly useful in this disease. Not that I say weakly useful — not useless, but we have so much better so I am unclear why we still mess around with inferior treatments except for a narrative that has nothing to do with actual clinical medicine.”
________________
Gas Dr., right? This would presumably mean that you are an anasthaesiologist, no? All of a sudden you’re a front line general practitioner or Internal Medicine specialist?
What gives? What book of fiction are you reading from? What kind of quack are you?
Are your patients already admitted to the hospital? Just curious.
Look up the specialty of critical care medicine and critical care anesthesiology. And early on those of us intensivists were happy to work to prevent hospitalization.
It’s amazing that you who don’t like the narrative attack the person.
It’s ok. Doesn’t really bother me or is as a specialty.
That was one of the most well done explanations on the topic that I have seen from an anti Covid vaccine believer.
Seriously.
You didn’t lose your mind and go insane.
The mannerism was polite and professional.
You laid out the facts in a very convincing way.
Just wanted to give credit where credit is due.
If others would approach the topic with such a demeanor they may more people to understand them or agree………..
Thanks for posting.
Looked it up.
Found a fair amount of jargon seemingly designed to puff up an anasthaesiologist’s role to sound something like the “hub” doctor surrounded by spokes of other disciplines, or a quarterback.
Any seriously ill person with half a brain finding themself in a bizarro-world hospital in which an anasthaesiologist is functioning in that way or posing as if he has that function would run, not walk, straight out the door to try to rejoin the land of the living.
Something truly pathological seems to be going on between your ears, my good man. Please seek help.
RE: I stopped with Ivemectin and moved on to monoclonals and have excellent success with it.
I’m still waiting for you to respond to the points I brought up in Post #8 above. These points are important if as you say, monoclonals are the way to go in terms of therapy and the protocols presented by doctors affiliated with FLCCC and B.I.R D for Ivermectin don’t work.
You said you are not in Social Media. Fair enough. I personally am.
In Facebook everytime I sign in and scroll down, I inevitably see drug companies advertising about the advantages of using monoclonals to treat Covid, even from giants like Ely Lilly.
I cannot help but ask myself... WHY? WHY ON FACEBOOK?
Why isn’t their marketing department going directly to the doctors and hospitals? Why is a non-doctor like me seeing advertisements on monoclonals in my page?
The only reason I can think of is in order for me to TELL THE DOCTOR that I want that treatment should I get Covid. I can’t think of any other reason for targeting me in their ads.
But this is bizarre. If as you say, monoclonals are the best treatment for Covid, I, the patient, should not need to have to tell my doctor that. The doctors should all be knowing about it by now.
It should be STANDARD TREATMENT for anyone having Covid. That they need to advertise in FACEBOOK tells me that this treatment is not widely available.
Apt description.
Well most hospitals have intensivists. Which specialty in your judgment is best fit for running ventilators, vasoactive infusions, sedation for critically ill patients.
You have little understanding of modern hospital care and treatment my friend. I am so sorry that you continue to wish to bathe in your own bad judgments.
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.