Posted on 05/07/2021 7:13:14 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Although the ongoing vaccination campaign shows promise in turning the tide against the coronavirus, gaps in access and acceptance persist, posing a particular threat to underserved populations and developing nations.
I have worked on the front lines during both of South Africa’s Covid-19 waves, and seen first-hand that the drug ivermectin is effective in preventing and treating the disease, with great potential as a supplement when vaccine administration lags. South Africa has recently cleared the way for that approach. Other nations and institutions should follow suit.
On April 6, a high court order determined that as ivermectin is an active ingredient in a medicine registered by the nation’s health products regulatory authority, this allows it to be prescribed “off-label”, that is, for uses other than those on the label of the registered medicine. I’m proud of the work I did with civil rights group AfriForum to obtain this victory. And I’m confident that it’s grounded in sound science and proper public health policy.
Off-label prescriptions are nothing new. Indeed, they’re a key tool for doctors to assess and treat emerging health threats. Once a drug is known to be safe and effective for one use it is entirely reasonable for healthcare providers to use that drug for other purposes where there’s sufficient evidence of efficacy. That’s precisely the case here.
In my work in South Africa, I’ve treated dozens of Covid-19 patients daily. I’ve prescribed and administered ivermectin to hundreds of people, and tracked more than 50 patients who were moderately to severely ill, including several with severely compromised immune systems. I’ve seen ivermectin make a difference in their outcomes — and the research backs this up.
Extensive study shows ivermectin can reduce the risk of getting Covid-19 by 92.5%. This is based on seven controlled trials conducted on thousands of healthcare workers and family contacts. Six were prospective trials, not retrospective studies like those criticised by opponents of other preventative treatments. And three were also randomised, meeting anyone’s standard for a credible study. These trials were designed by various institutions in multiple countries, and they all show the same thing: ivermectin substantially reduces the chance of infection.
On February 20, the technical working group of the British ivermectin recommendation development (Bird) group presented a comprehensive assessment of existing ivermectin trials to their recommendation development panel. They laid out a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ivermectin on more than 2,500 patients. The panel was made up of more than 65 GPs, specialists, researchers and patient representatives, representing more than 15 countries.
The Bird panel followed a process consistent with World Health Organization (WHO) standards. It reviewed not only the RCT data but also a summary of studies and numerous epidemiological analyses. This research showed positive effects on population-wide rates of excess death from distribution and treatment adoption of ivermectin.
A three-quarters majority of panel members found moderate to high certainty of this comprehensive evidence base. Importantly, the panel identified no conflicts of interest among the trials. The panel consensus chose the strongest recommendation option for ivermectin to be adopted both to prevent and treat Covid-19.
This is in keeping with a trend across many national and local health authorities around the world. Bulgaria and Slovakia have approved ivermectin for nationwide use. India, Egypt, Peru, Zimbabwe and Bolivia are distributing it and registering rapid decreases in deaths. A growing number of regional health authorities have advocated for or adopted ivermectin across Japan, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and SA. And it is now the standard of care in Mexico City.
Universal vaccination may be the appropriate end goal, but too many gaps in access and acceptance persist, particularly in developing nations or among underserved populations, even in developed ones. Health agencies and professional bodies should encourage doctors to use their discretion in selecting from every appropriate, available measure to stop this infection, rather than discouraging this practice.
The WHO has unfortunately refused to recommend the use of ivermectin outside clinical trials. While the worldwide effort to rollout vaccines is taking hold, I simply cannot understand why it and other professional and regulatory bodies disregard this promising treatment, which could be saving lives around the world right now.
The WHO and others need to endorse an “all of the above” solution to win the fight against this scourge. And frontline doctors should use their best professional judgment to treat patients, in line with the research and the best traditions of our profession.
• George Coetzee is a practising physician in Pretoria.
Ping for your interest
Where does India stand on Invermetim[sic]?
Widespred distribution, > 400,000 cases a day. Looks like a pretty good study to me.
Bkmk
RE: Widespred distribution, > 400,000 cases a day. Looks like a pretty good study to me.
Really? Widespread distribution where? Not in the states with those high cases that you mentioned.
Because it’s about the end game of power and control under a one world government. The last thing they are really concerned about is our health.
It is always nice to hear some sane voices.
I guess it was just a bridge too far to come out and say the WHO is on the take.
When a political body fails to take an obvious course of action, follow the money. It is power seeking or money seeking, probably both.
A triple amen to your post, aside from that you forgot to mention that pharmaceuticals can’t make any money on Ivermectin. Those pharmaceuticals zeroed in on a goldmine and they are not about to let it slip from their hands. There will be never ending booster shots, that’s what they are counting on, and good old uncle Fauci will do everything in his power to make it happen.
No...because it does not work to the level necessary to end the pandemic.
And how many people have you treated with Ivermectin? What phase of disease? What was the results?
I am eager to hear of your clinical experience. Not the third hand experience of someone else.
Interesting article on India.
https://covexit.com/the-covid-crisis-in-india-an-interview-with-dr-dhananjay-bakhle/
“4. Today, are there states where early treatment is being given more pro-actively?
This is clearly the case looking at the example of Uttar Pradesh, which has double the population of Maharashtra but 2.5 times less the number of active cases as seen from the graph below: This is simply because UP is providing home treatment kits containing Ivermectin to each positive case.
Goa is another state, though much smaller than any of the 7 states listed above, that is providing Ivermectin home treatment kits as shown in the picture below.
This has made it possible for both states to avoid lockdowns whereas Maharashtra is in full lockdown. Even as compared to Mumbai, its twin metropolis of Thane has a much wider use of Ivermectin and lower fatality rates.”
But, of course, you NEVER rely on on second or third hand experience of someone else.
Everything you do and endorse has been all your own doing and experience, right?
They, BIRD, do not claim that it's a magic bullet. They say that their meta-analysis of all of the published data shows that there are "positive effects on population-wide rates of excess death from distribution and treatment adoption of ivermectin."
That is a very different claim, which also has to be understood in context of the third-world nations in which those studies were undertaken. It will be years before vaccinations in those places are widespread, and their health systems, shaky in the best of times are collapsing under the current strain.
Tess Lawrie's group could be dead wrong, though that seems unlikely, with the real debate being about how effective the drug is, not whether it has some positive effect. Nor is it relevant to consider what an American intensivist with a fully equipped ICU might provide, as none of those measures are available in any meaningful numbers in India: they can't even keep oxygen in the hospitals. Even if this turns out to be weak beer, it appears to be their best bet at the moment.
India has a plethora of localities.
Analysis is very “nuanced”, but quite geramin.
****And how many people have you treated with Ivermectin? What phase of disease? What was the results?
I am eager to hear of your clinical experience. Not the third hand experience of someone else.****
Show us your license to practice “Doctor”.
This “pandemic” would end on its own with or without mankind’s actions, just like the Spanish flu did, and that was far more deadly.
This has been an overhyped cold virus that mainstream medical science has negligently refused to try to treat until the people were so sick that hospitalization was required.
Just go home, self-isolate, and if your lips turn blue or you have trouble breathing go to the hospital.
No recommendation for early intervention or treatment. It has been unconscionable and reprehensible.
It was not allowed because if something was found to actually work, big pharma could not have gotten the EUA for its experimental injections disguised as vaccines.
Further to Post #13, Please note that Uttar Pradesh ( which allows distribution of Ivermectin ) as opposed to many other states which do not, has a lot of migrant workers who work in Mumbai ( which does NOT allow widespread ivermectin distribution ).
When the Second wave hit Mumbai, many rushed back home to Uttar Pradesh to escape the lockdown in Mumbai, and also because they could not work. They have to go home rather than starve. A huge number of those migrant workers who rushed back to their home state were already infected with the mutant virus.
Have a look at Uttar Pradesh ( Population 250 Million, the size of 10 European countries combined ) and you will see how well they have coped with the Covid wave despite the huge migrant worker influx compared to the other states that have not distributed Ivermectin.
Dr. Pierre Kory has been monitoring the Indian situation and he gave a report last week. Watch this video to answer some of your questions:
FDA will ban it. There is not enough money for the “Right” people there.
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.