Dear Media,Please retire the use of the term “Anti-vaxxer.” It is derogatory, inflammatory, and marginalizes both women and their experiences. It is dismissivemy simplistic, highly offensive and largely false. We politely request that you refer to us as the Vaccine Risk Aware. pic.twitter.com/WtAyFOhLuvDecember 1, 2019
Just one minute there.
While it is true that some anti-vax posters have tried to make the case that ivermectin is a preferable alternative to vaccines, that claim has not been raised on this thread, nor does the posted article make that claim.
The epidemiological data keep pouring in, and combination therapeutics that include ivermectin are showing significant prophylaxis effects, and meaningful efficacy in early treatment. In these third world countries, this is the only effective option that exists at the moment. The alternative is a great deal of needless suffering and death.
I had been of the opinion that Pierre Kory was overstating his case that this could “end the pandemic”, but these reports are showing that, from a public health perspective, he’s correct. It appears that this isn’t as effective as the vaccines developed in the US an Europe, but it does radically reduce demands on the already shaky hospital infrastructure in those places.
Therapeutics and vaccines are not in competition. They are complimentary, and both are needed. Being pro-therapeutics does not automatically make one anti-vax.
There is nothing New Age about using Ivermectin against Covid. Using that sort of rhetoric is the kind of crap I would expect from the Big Government and Big Pharma allies that have suppressed its use to the detriment of millions. I consider their actions a crime against humanity.
So why do you push that line?
Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 55 studies
Covid Analysis, Nov 26, 2020 (Version 81, May 15, 2021 — Mahmud journal version)
@CovidAnalysis Share Tweet PDF Studies Adoption Submit Feedback
•100% of 36 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects (96% of all 55 studies). 26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.
•Random effects meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported shows 79% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.21 [0.11-0.37] and 0.15 [0.09-0.25]). Results are similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis: 81% and 87% (RR 0.19 [0.14-0.26] and 0.13 [0.07-0.25]), and after restriction to 29 peer-reviewed studies: 82% and 88% (RR 0.18 [0.11-0.31] and 0.12 [0.05-0.30]).
•81% and 96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.19 [0.07-0.54] and 0.04 [0.00-0.58]). Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance.
•100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively (RR 0.27 [0.18-0.41] and 0.17 [0.05-0.61]), and 93% of all 28 RCTs.
•The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 55 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 23 trillion (p = 0.000000000000043).
•Heterogeneity arises from many factors including treatment delay, patient population, the effect measured, variants, and treatment regimens. The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of cases is remarkable. Heterogeneity is low in specific cases, for example early treatment mortality.
•While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 29% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm. Multiple approaches are required to protect everyone from all existing and future variants.
•Many studies do not specify administration, or specify fasting. Administration with food may significantly increase plasma and tissue concentration.
•All data to reproduce this paper and the sources are in the appendix. See [Bryant, Hill, Kory, Lawrie, Nardelli] for other meta analyses, all with similar results confirming effectiveness.