Posted on 04/02/2021 9:37:51 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
One of the first reactions to the new WHO guideline over Ivermectin came from the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, which issued a statement on the very same day, highlighting major flaws in the new guideline. (see article in French)
FLCCC is “disappointed” by “what appears to be a deliberate omission of data by the World Health Organization in arriving at its decision to not recommend ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19.”
“The latest guidance from WHO ignores several large clinical trials where ivermectin was proven to prevent mortality by more than 68%.”
FLCCC’s statement warns countries about following the new WHO guideline:
“If the WHO guidance is followed, it will result in a further deprivation of a lifesaving drug and will only prolong the pandemic as it will continue to threaten the health of the global population.”
“I am deeply troubled that the WHO made this hasty decision on guidance before reviewing all available data,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPH, president and chief medical officer of the FLCCC.
“Their recommendation ignores the evidence, creates more controversy, and will only lead to continuing suffering and death from COVID-19.”
“There are now over 24 randomized trials results that have been reported to the Unitaid/WHO team yet todays guidance was inexcusably based on a faulty analysis of just 16 of the available trials.”
“Further, these erroneous findings directly conflict with numerous other peer-reviewed expert analyses that have found the data overwhelmingly demonstrates that ivermectin saves lives from COVID-19. There is no reason not to recommend it for everyone as a safe drug for prevention and treatment.”
“To ignore the data the way the WHO has, does a disservice to science and to public health. It is time that as physicians we trust our own knowledge on how best to treat our patients.” said Kory.
“Allowing large, conflicted bureaucracies to do the thinking for us will only lead to continued and unnecessary suffering from the pandemic.”
See full FLCCC Alliance Statement dated March 31.
Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance Statement on Weak Guidance on Ivermectin from the World Health Organization (WHO)
WHO ignores significant data, including several large clinical trials, while claiming insufficient evidence to recommend the use of ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), a group of highly published, world-renowned critical care physicians and scholars, is disappointed by what appears to be a deliberate omission of data by the World Health Organization in arriving at its decision to not recommend ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19. The latest guidance from WHO ignores several large clinical trials where ivermectin was proven to prevent mortality by more than 68%. If the WHO guidance is followed, it will result in a further deprivation of a lifesaving drug and will only prolong the pandemic as it will continue to threaten the health of the global population.
The latest guidance from the WHO is out of alignment with many national and local health
authorities around the world where ivermectin has been proven to prevent and treat COVID-19.
These countries include, Bulgaria, Slovakia, India, Egypt, Peru, Zimbabwe, and Bolivia, and in several regions a growing number of health authorities have advocated for, or adopted ivermectin across Japan, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa and it is now the standard of care in Mexico City.
“I am deeply troubled that the WHO made this hasty decision on guidance before reviewing all available data,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPH, president and chief medical officer of the FLCCC.
“Their recommendation ignores the evidence, creates more controversy, and will only lead to continuing suffering and death from COVID-19. There are now over 24 randomized trials results that have been reported to the Unitaid/WHO team yet todays guidance was inexcusably based on a faulty analysis of just 16 of the available trials. Further, these erroneous findings directly conflict with numerous other peer-reviewed expert analyses that have found the data overwhelmingly demonstrates that ivermectin saves lives from COVID-19. There is no reason not to recommend it for everyone as a safe drug for prevention and treatment.”
The recent results of a comprehensive assessment of existing ivermectin trials demonstrated that it reduces the risks of transmission of COVID-19 by more than 90%. The Technical Working Group of the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) group presented the results to their Recommendation Development Panel and the presentation laid out the detailed results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ivermectin on over 2,500 patients.
“To ignore the data the way the WHO has, does a disservice to science and to public health. It is time that as physicians we trust our own knowledge on how best to treat our patients.” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPH, president and chief medical officer of the FLCCC. “Allowing large, conflicted bureaucracies to do the thinking for us will only lead to continued and unnecessary suffering from the pandemic.”
The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance
Pierre Kory, MD; Keith Berkowitz, MD; Paul E. Marik, MD; Howard Kornfeld, MD; G. Umberto Meduri; MD Fred Wagshul, MD; Joseph Varon, MD; Scott Mitchell, MBChB; Jose Iglesias, DO; Eivind Vinjevoll, MD; Eric Osgood, MD.
Visit the alliance website: https://covid19criticalcare.com/
See the WHO March 31 Statement.
WHO advises that ivermectin only be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials
The current evidence on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients is inconclusive. Until more data is available, WHO recommends that the drug only be used within clinical trials.
This recommendation, which applies to patients with COVID-19 of any disease severity, is now part of WHO’s guidelines on COVID-19 treatments.
A guideline development group was convened in response to the increased international attention on ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. This group is an independent, international panel of experts, which includes clinical care experts in multiple specialties and also include an ethicist and patient-partners.
The group reviewed pooled data from 16 randomized controlled trials (total enrolled 2407), including both inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19. They determined that the evidence on whether ivermectin reduces mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, need for hospital admission and time to clinical improvement in COVID-19 patients is of “very low certainty,” due to the small sizes and methodological limitations of available trial data, including small number of events.
The panel did not look at the use of ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, which is outside of scope of the current guidelines.
Ping for your interest
WHO ignores significant data, including several large clinical trials, while claiming insufficient evidence to recommend the use of ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19....
....because there is a) NOT enough money in it and b) if you PREVENT China virus.....there is NO NEED for the WHO/FRAUDci developed/associated mNRA/experimental ‘vaccines’.
Well now, if the WHO recommends it only be used for clinical trials, then to be sure it should be used as a front line treatment. Rumor has it that it can wipe our all their covid mutants! 👏👏🤣 Which is why they want to limit it’s use.
How DARE you print something here that may upset the resident medical gasbags here!
[[“The latest guidance from WHO ignores several large clinical trials where ivermectin was proven to prevent mortality by more than 68%.”]]
Hmm, that % number sure has dropped since early reports on ivermectin. Last I knew it was approved 85% or so effective, with it reaching near 95%+ if taken every week
WHO ignores significant data, including several large clinical trials, while claiming insufficient evidence to recommend the use of ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19....
....because there is a) NOT enough money in it and b) if you PREVENT China virus.....there is NO NEED for the WHO/FRAUDci developed/associated mNRA/experimental ‘vaccines’.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ll add c) because if they approved Ivermectin or any other drug, they could never have implemented their vaccines. EUA requires that no other treatments be available - hence, the WHO and CDC let people die by denying them treatments until they could force their ‘vaccines’ on people. People still report being told when ill, “Go home and come back if you require hospitalization.”
Ivermectin (in use since the 80’s) and HCQ (in use 60 years for chronic patients like lupus) are fully FDA approved with good safety records and the CDC took the extra step of specifically prohibiting off-label use (letting doctors prescribe it for illnesses not specified when off label use is normally up to the physician.
They leveraged pharmacies and pharmacists not to fill prescriptions - I read content where they overarching agency over pharmacy practice warned sternly that to fill such a prescription would mark the pharmacists as unprofessional and subject them to additional oversight over such concerning behavior.
The CDC could have granted time tested safe medications like HCQ and Ivermectin an Emergency Use Authorization so that people didn’t have to face covid without treatment.
What would the death toll for Covid be like if you were allowed treatment? How many other illnesses in the US would be declared a ‘pandemic’ if all treatment were denied to lay the groundwork for a fake vaccine a year or two down the road?
So there’s a D) the WHO/CDC ignored significant data, including large clincial trials, in order to drive up the death toll to meet the second criteria for granting faux ‘vaccines’ an EUA. There has to be an emergency - people dying in significant numbers. If they had allowed available, FDA approved drugs to be administered as soon as the person became ill, the death toll would align with seasonal flu fatalities - no lockdowns, no masks, no dangerous biowarfare agents to label “vaccines”
WHO is not as conscientious about the vaccine that gets injected into a body and cannot be removed, as they are about a pill you can swallow and passes out of your system in a couple days at most.
And that they didn’t is a HUGE red flag for me and tells me there’s more to this so called vaccine than meets the eye.
And so, I will NOT be taking it.
You hit the nail on the head; put the vaccine ahead of the preventatives so as to get more for research, distribution, and administering.
...follow the money.
[[“The latest guidance from WHO ignores several large clinical trials where ivermectin was proven to prevent mortality by more than 68%.”]]
~~~~~
Hmm, that % number sure has dropped since early reports on ivermectin. Last I knew it was approved 85% or so effective, with it reaching near 95%+ if taken every week
Tells you that the WHO is compromised, Bob.
Rumor has it that it can wipe our all their covid mutants! 👏👏🤣
Which is why they want to limit it’s use.
👍🏻👍🏻
it doesn’t look like it was the who that downgraded the % numbers i don’t think? looks like the clinical trial’s results?
of course those clinical trials likely didn’t use zinc along with it
All they have to do is run enough*studies* and eventually they’ll get the results they want and then tell us that studies prove........
How to lie with statistics.
Just saw a CREEPY ad, on MLB/Dodger game..
Cue the sentimental....I’ll Be Seeing You song...enter the grandkids running through Grandma’s door....hugs....
Announcer: It can soon be like this, for all, when you take your “vax”.
Just appalling.
Don’t forget...time is running short! Their “window” is closing.
flccc is the one making the claim that it’s 68% now- I’m guessing the studies didn’t include zinc as well?
My understanding is that zinc is critical.
It’s been known to be anti-viral for some time.
OK, I followed the comments upthread and got the gist of the conversation that I missed the first time around.
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.