Posted on 06/01/2021 7:59:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In defence of its decision to administer Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medicine for the use as prophylaxis, to Covid-19 patients, the Goa government, in a statement, has claimed that the mortality rate is much lower in patients who take the medicine than those who don’t.
In a statement filed before the Bombay High Court at Goa, which had asked the Goa government to explain its stand on Covid-19, the government referred to reports which said that the advice of the World Health Organization to not experiment with Ivermectin, as its efficacy is yet to be proved, is “flawed”.
“Various studies conducted in different countries have shown that the medicine has a positive effect on prevention and treatment/cure of patients. I say that the studies and reports are available on the website ivmmeta.com... There are some reports which have found that the analysis by WHO on this medicine is flawed and that the mortality rate is actually much lower if the said medicine is used for early treatment as well as prophylaxis,” Goa joint secretary, health, Vikas Gaunekar said in a statement before the Court.
Gaunekar said that the Goa government decided to hand out Ivermectin tablets as prophylaxis on the advice of its expert committee.
“This aspect was discussed by the State Expert Committee for Covid in the meeting held on May 13 under the chairmanship of the health minister [and] also comprising different expert doctors from government and private institutions. I say that after deliberations, it was recommended to use the said medicine once daily for five days to the population over 18 years. However, pregnant/lactating women, as well as those persons with allergy and those having liver/kidney are advised to consult a doctor before taking the medicine,” he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Ping for your interest
Merck, a company that manufacturers Ivermectin have also advised against its use in Covid-19 situations.
“Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified: No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against Covid-19 from pre-clinical studies; No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with Covid-19 disease, and; A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies,” the company said in a statement earlier this year.
RE: Merck, a company that manufacturers Ivermectin have also advised against its use in Covid-19 situations.
Of course, Merck is developing a similar ( and better, they claim ) drug called MOLNUPIRAVIR. Now in Phase III trials.
Merck’s hold on Ivermectin expired a long time ago and there are many generic manufacturers now.
That’s why Dr. Fallacy opposed HCQ and Ivermectin. No profit for him and his Big Pharma friends like at Moderna.
The science vindicates the Government of Goa:
Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19
Kory, Pierre MD1,*; Meduri, Gianfranco Umberto MD2; Varon, Joseph MD3; Iglesias, Jose DO4; Marik, Paul E. MD5Author Information
1Front-Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, Madison, WI;
2Memphis VA Medical Center—University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Research Services, Memphis, TN;
3University of Texas Health Science Center, Critical Care Service, Houston, TX;
4Department of Medicine, Hackensack School of Medicine, Seton Hall, NJ; and
5Eastern Virginia Medical School, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Norfolk, VA.
*Address for correspondence: Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, Front-Line Covid-19 Critical Care, 2002 L St NW, Suite 500, Washington, D.C 20036. E-mail: pkory@flccc.net
G. U. Meduri’s contribution is the result of work supported with the resources and use of facilities at the Memphis VA Medical Center. The contents of this commentary do not represent the views of the US Department of Veterans Affairs or the US Government.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
P. Kory and G. U. Meduri have contributed equally to this work.
Study conception and design: P. Kory and G. . Meduri. Acquisition of data: Paul Marik and Jose Iglesias. Analysis and interpretation of data: Paul Marik, P. Kory, and Jose Iglesias. Drafting of manuscript: P. Kory. Critical revision: G. U. Meduri and Joseph Varon.
Off-Label Use: This manuscript includes discussion of off-label use in COVID-19 of the FDA-approved medication ivermectin.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
American Journal of Therapeutics: May/June 2021 - Volume 28 - Issue 3 - p e299-e318
doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001377
Abstract
Background:
After COVID-19 emerged on U.S shores, providers began reviewing the emerging basic science, translational, and clinical data to identify potentially effective treatment options. In addition, a multitude of both novel and repurposed therapeutic agents were used empirically and studied within clinical trials.
Areas of Uncertainty:
The majority of trialed agents have failed to provide reproducible, definitive proof of efficacy in reducing the mortality of COVID-19 with the exception of corticosteroids in moderate to severe disease. Recently, evidence has emerged that the oral antiparasitic agent ivermectin exhibits numerous antiviral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms with trial results reporting significant outcome benefits. Given some have not passed peer review, several expert groups including Unitaid/World Health Organization have undertaken a systematic global effort to contact all active trial investigators to rapidly gather the data needed to grade and perform meta-analyses.
Data Sources:
Data were sourced from published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts posted to preprint servers, expert meta-analyses, and numerous epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution campaigns.
Therapeutic Advances:
A large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes. Numerous prophylaxis trials demonstrate that regular ivermectin use leads to large reductions in transmission. Multiple, large “natural experiments” occurred in regions that initiated “ivermectin distribution” campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns.
Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
Of course, Merck is developing a similar ( and better, they claim ) drug called MOLNUPIRAVIR. Now in Phase III trials.
Merck’s hold on Ivermectin expired a long time ago and there are many generic manufacturers now.
Exactly.
Ignore the BigPharmabots.
They’re blatantly following FRAUDci 💰cience.
We’d be using it here if Gates and Fauxi were big shareholders.
Defend is the key word Defend against WHAT?
Like I know the Indians have been using silver and gold for that matter for thousands of years to combat viruses bacteria and other pathogens
To me during this whole “crisis” which is merely a communist plot the media has gone all out trying to suppress inexpensive and widely available unpatentable and non-injectable carriers for COVID-19 such as intervention and hydroxychloroquine
Colloidal silver has been completely suppressed doesn’t even get mentioned in the media is much more effective and has been around for many many more hundreds and thousands of years combating affectively all viruses in all bacteria
Having been making this for over 40 years myself I watch the Internet completely change back to a complete suppression and the federal government tried to jump in anytime you would do a search for colloidal silver online
They cant stop the truth. Indians know the truth
Like I know the Indians have been using silver and gold for that matter for thousands of years to combat viruses bacteria and other pathogens
To me during this whole “crisis” which is merely a communist plot the media has gone all out trying to suppress inexpensive and widely available unpatentable and non-injectable carriers for COVID-19 such as intervention and hydroxychloroquine
Colloidal silver has been completely suppressed doesn’t even get mentioned in the media is much more effective and has been around for many many more hundreds and thousands of years combating affectively all viruses in all bacteria
Having been making this for over 40 years myself I watch the Internet completely change back to a complete suppression and the federal government tried to jump in anytime you would do a search for colloidal silver online
They cant stop the truth. Indians know the truth
That is true, Merck did issue that statement.
It’s also irrelevant.
At this point, ignoring the unambiguous and overwhelming evidence for the efficacy of ivermectin is as irrational as the worst of the anti-vax fearmongering.
absalom01 wrote: “At this point, ignoring the unambiguous and overwhelming evidence for the efficacy of ivermectin is as irrational as the worst of the anti-vax fearmongering.”
Now why would Merck issue a statement denying the efficacy of their product, costing them sales, profits, etc., if the statement was incorrect? If things have changed, then why hasn’t Merck issued a correction? You’ll note that almost all major health organizations deny the efficacy of Ivermectin.
Rather being particularly effective, it’s possible that Politicians in India have to do something and their solution is Ivermectin. It doesn’t matter if it works as long as the politician can claim they’ve done something. In fact, the politicians can claim it works even if it doesn’t.
You cant take it 5 days every day
You can take a loading dose ( 3-5 days depending on protocol selected)
Then take one dose biweekly
For prophylaxis
Usually recommended only if high risk
Well, if we’re going to assume bad intentions on the part of one party, shouldn’t we be even handed?
Why would Merck run down the off-patent generic drug ivermectin? What possible motivation could they have? Well, one motivation is money. Their anti-viral Molnupiravir is entering phase III trials, and that would be a patented, potentially highly profitable drug, whereas no one, including Merck will be making any money with a cheap generic.
Fortunately, we don’t need to rely on the candor of any politicians in Goa or Uttar Pradesh, or the scientific disinterest of Merck.
We can look at the epidemiological data from the places in the world that have widespread early distribution of ivermectin, and those that don’t. We can look at the results of over 20 RCT’s, and many observational studies. The signal is overwhelming.
There is a legitimate debate at the margins regarding the exact effectiveness — it could be 70%, it could be 90%, but the best information available at this time is that it’s at least as good as the current vaccines, and has the immeasurable advantage of actually being available in places where the VAX are either unavailable, or available only to the well connected and wealthy.
I’m sure that you have seen the links, but I’ll provide some here for those who might want to follow up.
Tess Lawrie’s “BIRD” group is here: https://bird-group.org/
Paul Marick and Pierre Kory’s FLCCC is here: https://covid19criticalcare.com/
Dr. Andrew Hill’s findings from late last year are summarized here: https://covidcalltohumanity.org/2021/04/01/who-sponsored-preliminary-review-indicates-ivermectin-effectiveness/
And for the record, I find the extreme “vax v. therapeutic” straw man to be beneath contempt. It is intellectually dishonest, and fundamentally lazy. Having both for use, where available and appropriate, along with natural immunity by those who have suffered the disease and recovered is obviously superior to having only one or the other.
One hopes that we’ll be able to stop foolish arguments among ourselves, and to turn our collective attention to the author of this global disaster, the Communist Party of China.
RE: it’s possible that Politicians in India have to do something and their solution is Ivermectin. It doesn’t matter if it works as long as the politician can claim they’ve done something.
Highly unlikely. Goa was one of the few of India’s 28 states and 8 territories to have recently adopted Ivermectin for their masses and if the excuse is they have “to do something” as you said, then it’s not going to do squat for the politician if the solution doesn’t work.
But the fact is, the death and hospitalization curves have gone dramatically down since Goa adopted the Ivermectin protocol through widespread distribution. This has been observed not only in Goa, not only in India, but also OUTSIDE of India.
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.