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.”
RE: That was one of the most well done explanations on the topic that I have seen from an anti Covid vaccine believer.
I Am the initiator of this thread and of other Ivermectin threads in FR.
My purpose is this - to determine the safest and best treatment approach and/or preventive against our common enemy — SARS-COV-2 or Covid.
My main concern is getting at the truth, I’m not interested in scoring rhetorical points. I’ll be even glad if someone, with reason and science can convince me that my understanding is wrong.
One of the best ways to get at the truth is to raise the right questions. That’s what I try to do.
Game over...90% or more of doctors will treat Ivermectin as radioactive.
———as they are being coerced to do, but privately, i gave two tubes of ivermectin paste (6 doses each) to my GP for her and her MD husband’s “horses”, and she gladly took them and hid them. There was no way that she was going to get anything unnoticed from a feed store.
If you are so worried about Covid that you are willing to experiment with horse medicine, get the vaccine.
——And if you have been immunized, and still get sick, take the horse medicine (paste , not gel)
Please dispense with the strawman argument.
——-You’re no fun/ sarc. Dispense pun was clever.
“———as they are being coerced to do, but privately, i gave two tubes of ivermectin paste (6 doses each) to my GP for her and her MD husband’s “horses”, and she gladly took them and hid them. There was no way that she was going to get anything unnoticed from a feed store.”
Reminds me of when the cartels started smuggling freon from Mexico for cars, since it was outlawed in developed countries.
Ivermectin is NOT an antibiotic. If it is not, your argument is contradicted
Saw the same flub on the part of quack_dr. It is antimicrobial agent. It is an antiviral agent. Yet to refer to Ivermectin as an antibiotic, without explanation...? NFN, but this looks like the medical version of stolen honor.
Ivermectin is an antibiotic. Seriously. Its a macrolide.
Properly it is a macrocyclic lactone produced by S. avermitilis. It is considered to be a macrolide endecrocide and has shown activity against atypical baceerial infections such as mycoplasma.
How is this not an antibiotic? Please understand what we are and are not dealing with.
How is this not an antibiotic? Please understand what we are and are not dealing with.
“Ivermectin proposes many potential effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug. It is highly effective against many microorganisms including some viruses. In this comprehensive systematic review, antiviral effects of ivermectin are summarized including in vitro and in vivo studies over the past 50 years.”
so yes, IVERMECTIN is many potential things INCLUDING ANTIBIOTIC. And yes, you knew that.
You don’t need it if you are vaxxed unless you have other immune issues
If ivermectin were found to cure the wuhan flu, a bunch of very powerful companies with lots of money would be severely adversely affected, as their experimental drugs would no longer have a legal basis for 'emergency use'. I really think it is as simple as that.
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.
The same is true for other treatments. The wuhan coronavirus problem could have been easily solved a long time ago.
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.
Most people who use Ivermectin use it with something else.
Many also use Quercetin.
Note that groups at high risk for the wuhan coronavirus have more stored iron. Some claim quercetin removes iron from the body.
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 problem is lack of research. Research funding goes to things that can be patented. If something is natural, it’s unlikely to increase sells for one specific company, so people don’t research natural things.
(*) sales
C’mon folks. If it doesn’t enrich the big pharma’s it has to be unacceptable. That has been the objective since day one.
RE: The math changes downward somewhat but the figures are still good enough to recommend its use.
Everyone agrees that Random Controlled Tests (RCTs) represent a high standard. In an RCT, patients are divided into two groups. One gets the drug under investigation; the other gets a placebo. The study is double-blind in that neither patient nor doctor knows who is getting which, so expectations cannot influence the outcome. If the results for the groups are significantly different, one can be confident that the drug is beneficial. And if side-effects in the treated group are rare, one can also be confident of safety.
But total reliance on RCTs runs into immediate problems. They are expensive, so their number is inherently limited. In particular, no private company will fund one for any off-patent drug, which is why Big Pharma is opposed to research on ivermectin. No one owns it.
Performing research on off-patent drugs should be a major task of government health agencies, but these appear to be under the thumb of Big Pharma and not interested.
Recruiting for an RCT can be a big problem. Identifying relevant population sub-groups is difficult, and the more possible sub-groups that exist, the more expensive the trial and the more difficult its design and interpretation.
Dosages must be determined, as must timing and possible interaction with other drugs. That RCTs adequately identify side-effects, especially for sensitive groups such as the elderly, is disputed.
In the real world, RCTs are one component of a complex system for collecting knowledge. A lot of preliminary works is necessary before one gets to the point of doing an RCT, and that work in itself produces evidence of varying strength.
Lab workers have looked at mechanisms of action and formulated and tested various hypotheses. As clinical research and experience accumulate, lab and clinical work cross-fertilize.
However, RCTs are NOT the only way to determine whether a drug works on not for a disease.
Clinicians have also observed diseases, formed ideas about what might work, consulted colleagues, and tried things out. To a high degree, medical progress depends on crowd-sourcing by doctors.
Once the FDA approves a drug for any purpose (which provides good information about safety), any M.D. can prescribe it for any other purpose. Then they go to medical meetings and compare notes. Repeated clinical experience, especially from multiple doctors, and subjected to devil’s advocate review, can be as good as an RCT.
A patient also serves as his own control group. If a doctor gives a drug to a patient who has a longstanding condition and it immediately clears up, the doctor thinks, “Hmm.” This is an anecdote. If it happens with a second patient, the doctor thinks, “Wow.” A third time and we are getting into the realm of “studies.”
Yet another source of knowledge is epidemiology. If a disease is prevalent in a population, a drug is distributed, and the disease recedes, this is evidence, especially if the disease remains in comparable populations that did not receive it.
Some of the best evidence of the efficacy of ivermectin comes from several states in India and some cities in Mexico, which pass it out freely.
In my view, To reduce this complex system of producing knowledge down to a reliance on “nothing but RCTs” is not just limiting; it can be fatal.
RE: The problem is lack of research. Research funding goes to things that can be patented. If something is natural, it’s unlikely to increase sells for one specific company, so people don’t research natural things.
___________________________
Everyone agrees that Random Controlled Tests (RCTs) represent a high standard. In an RCT, patients are divided into two groups. One gets the drug under investigation; the other gets a placebo. The study is double-blind in that neither patient nor doctor knows who is getting which, so expectations cannot influence the outcome. If the results for the groups are significantly different, one can be confident that the drug is beneficial. And if side-effects in the treated group are rare, one can also be confident of safety.
But total reliance on RCTs runs into immediate problems. They are expensive, so their number is inherently limited. In particular, no private company will fund one for any off-patent drug, which is why Big Pharma is opposed to research on ivermectin. No one owns it.
Performing research on off-patent drugs should be a major task of government health agencies, but these appear to be under the thumb of Big Pharma and not interested.
Recruiting for an RCT can be a big problem. Identifying relevant population sub-groups is difficult, and the more possible sub-groups that exist, the more expensive the trial and the more difficult its design and interpretation.
Dosages must be determined, as must timing and possible interaction with other drugs. That RCTs adequately identify side-effects, especially for sensitive groups such as the elderly, is disputed.
In the real world, RCTs are one component of a complex system for collecting knowledge. A lot of preliminary works is necessary before one gets to the point of doing an RCT, and that work in itself produces evidence of varying strength.
Lab workers have looked at mechanisms of action and formulated and tested various hypotheses. As clinical research and experience accumulate, lab and clinical work cross-fertilize.
However, RCTs are NOT the only way to determine whether a drug works on not for a disease.
Clinicians have also observed diseases, formed ideas about what might work, consulted colleagues, and tried things out. To a high degree, medical progress depends on crowd-sourcing by doctors.
Once the FDA approves a drug for any purpose (which provides good information about safety), any M.D. can prescribe it for any other purpose. Then they go to medical meetings and compare notes. Repeated clinical experience, especially from multiple doctors, and subjected to devil’s advocate review, can be as good as an RCT.
A patient also serves as his own control group. If a doctor gives a drug to a patient who has a longstanding condition and it immediately clears up, the doctor thinks, “Hmm.” This is an anecdote. If it happens with a second patient, the doctor thinks, “Wow.” A third time and we are getting into the realm of “studies.”
Yet another source of knowledge is epidemiology. If a disease is prevalent in a population, a drug is distributed, and the disease recedes, this is evidence, especially if the disease remains in comparable populations that did not receive it.
Some of the best evidence of the efficacy of ivermectin comes from several states in India and some cities in Mexico, which pass it out freely.
In my view, To reduce this complex system of producing knowledge down to a reliance on “nothing but RCTs” is not just limiting; it can be fatal.
In my view, To reduce this complex system of producing knowledge down to a reliance on “nothing but RCTs” is not just limiting; it can be fatal.
There were a lot of RCTs done, they were not done on natural things likely to work.
I just finished watching Drs. Mobeen Sayed and Joseph Varon on YouTube. They have treated hundreds if not over a thousand patients. Both work with the FLCCC. They do, with great success, what you have described. Neither one is an anti-vaxxer. Both use Ivermectin.
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.