Skip to comments.Ivermectin for Covid-19: Are we trusting a handful of experts at the potential cost of human life?
Posted on 07/30/2021 8:32:32 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
With the degree of passionate debate surrounding the use of ivermectin for the treatment and prevention of Covid-19, it is hard to believe that a mere seven months ago, the term ‘ivermectin’ was entirely foreign to most people. Even more astounding is the fact that, despite the growing number of studies and credible meta-analyses that concur that ivermectin shows positive results when used as treatment for Covid-19, the recommendations doled out by a handful of experts still override these critical findings. In this article, Professor Colleen Aldous, a Geneticist and Clinical Researcher at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) in South Africa, argues that the placement of our trust in a small group of experts who advocate against ivermectin is being done at the potential cost of human life. – Nadya Swart
There is mindless repetition by all sorts of “experts” in the public domain, saying there is “insufficient evidence” on the efficacy of ivermectin on COVID-19. Have they genuinely engaged with the literature? Have they really read all 173 published articles on the subject? Are they aware of the 31 mechanisms of action papers, the 22 in vivo studies, and the 30 safety studies published already in peer review journals? I would hazard a guess that the answer is a NO.
The focus is only on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), a process ivermectin went through during its development under its parent company Merck in the last century. A process where the indications were for human, not animal, parasite diseases. Its safety for human use has already been established whilst under patent to Merck.
Yet colleagues still point out that there is “still no evidence to support claims that it is a miracle cure and say more studies must be carried out to prove its clinical benefits in the treatment of COVID-19”.
I concur that it is NOT a miracle cure for COVID-19. This kind of emotive description has its root in reports of the drug after it was used to improve the lives of so many people with parasitic diseases. It received the Nobel for Medicine in 2015 for its’ discoverers. Since then, the term ‘miracle’ has been used by the pro-ivermectin lobby to overextend its qualities and the anti-ivermectin campaign to express veiled contempt.
Regulators and academics who stick by their textbook training have narrowed down the only research to count for any drug implementation to randomised control trials, a method used in drug development mainly.
There is a single large randomised control trial still missing, according to them, and that qualifies the use of the term ‘insufficient’. We have 25 published relatively small RCTs. But they say they are all of poor quality. The meta-analysis scientist acknowledges in some trials and addresses it as they pool the data to find the signal. But those ignorant of the rigorous methodology of a top-quality meta-analysis discount even the best meta-analysis as rubbish-in-rubbish out.
If medical experts are now calling for a more comprehensive study to reach a conclusive finding on the use of Ivermectin in COVID-19, then consider the ethics of carrying out an RCT. Point no 5 of the Nuremberg Code states, “No experiment should be conducted where there is any prior reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur.” I cannot believe that all 25 RCTs that have been published and show a decrease in mortality cannot be ignored when considering this point, even if the academics believe them to all be of poor quality. The Wikipedia information on the Nuremberg codes has added to the above “except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.” I would agree that we should do an RCT with all the participants being the clinicians saying they need this study before acknowledging that ivermectin has even some effect.
The continued reference to ivermectin being an animal drug merely continues to exhibit wilful ignorance of ivermectin. The drug was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine, not for Science as it would have been if recognised for its role in veterinary medicine.
Pointing out contradictions from these experts preaching against ivermectin. They generalise that everyone is using ivermectin, but where is the data on this? What are the numbers? What are the doses etc? Throwing out this misinformation but demanding scientific precision is a false narrative.
The article ends with the statement, “The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority urged healthcare practitioners who’ve prescribed Ivermectin to report back to the regulator on the drug’s performance in managing the disease.” Will that count? It is anecdotal evidence. And doctors in SA have tried to publish their work to give it credibility. Still, our journals will not print because they are risk-averse to protect their reputations.
This battle will not be won by trials or insults or banning or dismissiveness. People will again start looking out for themselves. It’s time we realised we have put our trust in too small a group, all with a common goal to protect their ivory tower values at the potentially enormous cost of human life.
Ping for your interest
Ivermectin is as every good as, if not better than the Pfailing Pfizer jab.
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
And of course, it does not destroy your immune system either. Probably a trivial point.
I hear "experts" everyday from my local Talking Heads.
follow the money, big pharma doesn’t want an inexpensive substitute for the “JAB”
This is what I am using.
Prevention for COVID-19
Ivermectin Prevention for high risk individuals
0.2 mg/kg per dose (take with or after meals) - one dose today, repeat after 48 hours, then one dose weekly
Post COVID-19 exposure prevention
0.2 mg/kg per dose (take with or after meals) - one dose today, repeat after 48 hours
Vitamin D3 1,000 - 3,000 IU/day
Vitamin C 500 - 1,000 mg twice a day
Quercetin 250 mg/day
Zinc 30 - 40 mg/day
Melatonin 6 mg before bedtime (causes drowsiness)
If you trust anyone in or near this government ..
You are a fool.
Very good article, and perspective.
Silver is better
A harmless dewormer versus some mystery Frankenvac.
Gonna have to really think about that
What little I know about Ivermectin is that it is claimed to not produce blood clots.
"The choice is clear. Ivermectin is the safe, repurposed Nobel Prize-Winning drug that effectively reduces death up to 91% from COVID-19. It does not produce blood clots, heart attacks, or strokes. It does not cause violent immune reactions. And it reduced the COVID-19 cases in Delhi, India, by an astonishing 97% in five weeks. It costs pennies [emphases added]." --Ivermectin obliterates 97 percent of Delhi cases (6.1.21)
Noting that Intervectin costs pennies (expired patent), it is argued that Big Pharma is enjoying windfall profits from newer, patented experimental CV19 "vaccines" despite that they are being suspected of clogging capillary blood vessels with protein spikes, eventually possibly creating a life-threatening situation.
I suspect that some CV19 "vaccine" profits are ultimately going to be used to help some desparate Democrats get reelected.
And while it can be argued that FDA needs to test "vaccines" for three years instead of two in case blocked capillaries concern proves true, not making vaccines mandatory in the meanwhile, some herd immunity experts are satisfied that herd immunity has already negated need for vaccines.
Professor Sucharit Bhakdi: We already have antibody memory immunity to COVID19, 99% of us immune. Vaccination is unnecessary & re-vaccination potentially life threatening. (7.9.21)
In fact, kudos to Sweden for passing a milestone with respect to nearly putting a stop to spread of CV19.
We know that desperate Democrats like to throw away taxpayer dollars, but let's put questionable vaccines on back burner for now.
Corrections, insights welcome.
I add a daily bottle of tonic water containing Quinine available at supermarkets and CVS pharmacy.
Liberals only care about human life when it is their own, or maybe their children, and less if it is at least a relative, but everyone else is a useless consumer of resources. They like abortions because it keeps more people from being born, they like euthanasia because it helps get rid of the elderly who just won’t go away fast enough. The like earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes and volcanoes and pandemics because they have a net effect of decreasing the world’s population of humans. They like criminals and terrorists because they are more likely to kill other people.
They hate wars because they might have to go fight them and thereby die, but they love being involved in other countries because hey, maybe some people might die and reduce the worlds population. They hate Christian religions because they reproduce too fast and overwhelm the resource of the planet.
As it has been explained to me, drugs like hydroxichloroquine and ivermectin are like guns and the bullets are zinc. The zinc gets into the cells and fights the disease but it cannot penetrate the cells without a conduit to push it through the cell wall. That’s what these drugs do. So if you plan an ivermectin routine as I do, you have to also give it zinc in order to be effective.
If you take zinc without the conduit, it just passes through your GI tract. If you take the conduit without the zinc, you haven’t helped the problem. You need to take both to make it work.
My only concern is the flavorings.
Not sure if I’d be sensitive to them or not.
Apple seems to be most common.
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.