Posted on 09/28/2021 10:23:54 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Recently, Dr Satoshi Omura, the Nobel co-laureate for the discovery of IVM, and colleagues conducted a comprehensive review of IVM clinical activity against COVID-19, concluding that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated major reductions in mortality and morbidity [2]. Our review of that evidence, updated with consideration of several new studies, supports the same conclusion.
An objection that had been raised earlier in 2021 to the preponderance of clinical evidence for the efficacy of IVM treatment of COVID-19 as summarized above was that none of these RCTs had been published in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals [23]. Closing that gap, however, was the publication in 2021 in journals from major scientific publishers of five such RCTs for COVID-19 treatment [[24], [25], [26], [27], [28]], each showing multiple clinical benefits for IVM vs. controls, most of these to statistical significance at p < 0.002. Also published in 2021 were three other RCTs for IVM treatment of COVID-19: one that reported briefer hospital stays for IVM treatment short of statistical significance (p = 0.08) [29], another that compared IVM with two other drug treatment groups but not a placebo group and found no benefit [30], and an additional study conducted in Cali, Columbia with mix-ups between treatment and placebo doses as described below.
Another objection that has been raised to the RCT evidence supporting IVM efficacy was that study populations were too small [31]. Yet, it is well known in clinical trial design that highly effective drugs will establish statistically significant results with smaller sample sizes, with larger study populations required for minimally effective drugs [32,33]. But for a drug with a more modest RR of 75%, for example, the treatment and control arms would need more than 3800 subjects each to yield the same statistical significance [33]. Although large study populations are useful to screen for adverse effects (AEs) of new drugs, IVM has been used safely in 3.7 billion doses worldwide since 1987 [2,3] and is well tolerated even at much greater doses than the standard single dose of 200 μg/kg [34,35]. It has been used in RCTs for COVID-19 treatment at cumulative doses of 1500 μg/kg [36], 1600 μg/kg [22] and 3000 μg/kg [37] over 4 or 5 days with only small percentages of mild or transient adverse effects.
Among these RCTs that established safety for high-dose IVM treatment of COVID-19 was one conducted in Cali, Columbia, with generally mild COVID-19 cases, median age 37, having only one death in the control group [36]. The study found no statistically significant symptom improvements with IVM treatment yet reported a striking anomaly: AEs distinctive for its high IVM dose, described in the study protocol as ‘security parameters’ for its IVM use, occurred at almost identical rates in its IVM and placebo arms. These included transient incidences of blurred vision (11.3%, 11.6%) and dizziness (35.6%, 34.3%). These indications of IVM use in controls occurred as over-the-counter sales of IVM surged in the study region during the study period (Supplementary Table 1). Further questions as to the study’s treatment/control boundaries were raised by the mistaken substitution of IVM for placebo for 38 patients, discovered by the lead pharmacist a month after the fact (study, p. 3; study protocol supplement, p. 43). In addition, blinding was breached by the use of the dextrose-saline solution as the placebo for 64 control patients (IVM tastes distinctively bitter), while the composition of the replacement placebo solution was not specified [38].
Supporting the findings of IVM efficacy in COVID-19 treatment as summarized above were indications of activity against SARS-CoV-2 in prevention studies. Three RCTs evaluated the prophylactic effect of IVM administered to cohorts of 100 [22], 117 [39] and 203 [40] subjects exposed to COVID-19 patients. These studies, all using IVM in doses of at least 150 μg/kg per week, reported statistically significant reductions in COVID-19 incidences, with respective RRs of 20%, 26% and 13% as compared with controls, and greater reductions in incidences of moderate and severe cases. Another RCT for COVID-19 prevention administered just one dose of IVM at 12 mg (about 150 μg/kg) to 617 subjects on day one of a 42-day observation period, while three other preventative regimens were each administered daily over that period [41]. IVM at that single low dose yielded the best results of these four regimens, with highly statistically significant reductions of close to 50% in both symptomatic COVID-19 and acute respiratory symptoms vs. controls.
Fig. 1. A) Excess all-cause deaths (all ages), the national population of Peru. These decreased 14-fold from 1st August through 1st December 2020; then, after IVM use was restricted, increased 13-fold through 1st February. For A and B, y values are 7-day moving averages; for B and C, ages ≥60. Data are from Peru’s National Death Information System (SINADEF). (B) Drops in excess deaths for all states of operation MOT, an army-led program of mass IVM distributions, but Pasco, which had them on three dates. • MOT start date; ▴ peak deaths; ▪ day of peak deaths +30 days. Junin distributed IVM through local channels 13 days before MOT start. (C) Reductions in excess deaths at +30 days after peak deaths for the 25 states by extent of IVM distributions: maximal-MOT (Image 1), mean -74%; moderate-local distributions (Image 2), mean -53%; and minimal-Lima (Image 3), -25%. The absolute value of these reductions by state correlated with extent of IVM distributions with Kendall τb = 0.524, p < 0.002 (Spearman rho = 0.619, p < 0.001). All these data are from publicly accessible Peruvian national databases, with associated frozen datasets available from the Dryad data repository [42].
Reductions in excess deaths by state (absolute values) correlated with the extent of IVM distribution (maximal-MOT states, moderate-local distributions, and minimal-Lima) with Kendall τb = 0.524, p < 0.002, as shown in Fig. 1C. Nationwide, excess deaths decreased 14-fold over four months through 1st December 2020. After a restrictive IVM treatment policy was enacted under a new Peruvian president who took office on 17th November, however, deaths increased 13-fold over the two months following 1st December through 1st February 2021 (Fig. 1A). Potential confounding factors, including lockdowns and herd immunity, were ruled out using Google community mobility data, seropositivity rates, population densities and geographic distributions of SARS-CoV-2 genetic variations and by restricting all analysis except that for Fig. 1A to ages ≥ 60. Excess deaths were used in all analyses rather than COVID-19 case fatalities as gross underreporting of pandemic deaths by case fatalities was known to the Peruvian Ministry of Health since July 2020 [43]. This disparity has been consistently manifested in the national health database figures for COVID-19 case fatalities vs. all natural-cause deaths since that date [42].
The curative potential of combination therapy was demonstrated in a medical breakthrough of three decades prior for another disease, peptic ulcers, for which the discovery of its underlying bacterial cause, Helicobacter pylori, was honoured with the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2005. In 1990, Dr Thomas J. Borody published the original clinical trial of a combination treatment for H. pylori, achieving a 96% cure rate for a triple therapy consisting of three repurposed drugs, bismuth subcitrate and two antibiotics [46]. Between 1990 and 2015, an estimated 18,665 deaths were prevented by the timely application of this triple therapy for peptic ulcer disease in Australia [47]. After the expiration of the patents for two palliative drugs for this condition, Tagamet and Zantac [48], which had each earned billions of dollars, triple therapy became the standard of care for peptic ulcers in the rest of the world by the late 1990s.
Thanks for this. Ivermectin is an FDA-approved drug for humans, so there’s no reason not to try it. As former President Trump said, albeit in a different context, “What have you got to lose?”. Ultimately I trust the guys and gals with medical degrees far more than I trust the politicians.
About the Authors:
1) A.D.Santin
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
2) D.E. Scheim
US Public Health Service, Inactive Reserve, Blacksburg, VA, USA
3) P.A. McCulloagh
Texas A & M College of Medicine, Dallas, TX, USA
4) M. Yagisawa
Ōmura Satoshi Memorial Institute, Infection Control Research Center, Kitasato University, Tokyo, Japan
5) T.J. Borody
Centre for Digestive Diseases, New South Wales, Australia
About the Authors:
1) A.D.Santin
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
2) D.E. Scheim
US Public Health Service, Inactive Reserve, Blacksburg, VA, USA
3) P.A. McCulloagh
Texas A & M College of Medicine, Dallas, TX, USA
4) M. Yagisawa
Ōmura Satoshi Memorial Institute, Infection Control Research Center, Kitasato University, Tokyo, Japan
5) T.J. Borody
Centre for Digestive Diseases, New South Wales, Australia
Thanks for posting.
Ping for your interest
Bttt
Anyone fortunate enough to have their physician prescribe Ivermectin for them?
Ivermectin:
The avermectin family of compounds was discovered by Satoshi Ōmura of Kitasato University and William Campbell of Merck. In 1970, Ōmura isolated unusual Streptomyces bacteria from the soil near a golf course along the south east coast of Honshu, Japan.[7]
Ōmura sent the bacteria to William Campbell, who showed that the bacterial culture could cure mice infected with the roundworm Heligmosomoides polygyrus.
[7] Campbell isolated the active compounds from the bacterial culture, naming them "avermectins" and the bacterium Streptomyces avermitilis for the compounds' ability to clear mice of worms (in Latin: a 'without', vermis 'worms').[7]
Of the various avermectins, Campbell's group found the compound "avermectin B1" to be the most potent when taken orally.[7]
No.
Humble beginnings, from something found in dirt to a multi-use drug with many important applications..
Penicillin had a similar birth.. from mold growing on cantaloupe rinds in a laboratory sink to indispensable antibiotic miracle drug. Although it would be a sub-optimal choice for treating pneumonia today it was once basically the only treatment... the choice now would be something like Doxycycline.
It’s the cure for most people, for early covid. And it works prophylactically. I’m on it, the horse paste lol.
I found a doctor that was willing to prescribe Ivermectin, but so far I haven’t found a pharmacist that will fill it. Many pharmacists are willing and even sympathetic. However, they are being overridden or directed at a higher level to not prescribe. They cite safety, which can clearly be shown to be untrue. When pointed out that the drug has been around for 35 years with no safety issues, they then shift to claim there has been no trials showing Ivermectin to be effective for covid. That’s not true either. There are trails that show effectiveness. They just don’t want to look at them.
Welcome to the Brave New World where medical personnel surrender their professional integrity to become cringing cowards in the face of the political agenda of an insidiously corrupt, self-appointed elite. Utopia is surely just around the corner.
Yes, my older daughter's physician did. She's a PureBlood, like me. My own Primary Care Physician declined, but pointed me to a nearby hospital that is offering the monoclonal antibody treatment.
Neither of us have managed to catch the bloody virus, however
Lmao. I went to tractor supply and they are plastering the shelves with warnings against human use and that it does not treat covid.
My niece in Georgia has doctors who have prescribed it. With the certain knowledge that our communist overlords in the medical industrial complex are lying to us at every turn, they use concierge providers.
I’m not sure, but I think that even with prescriptions, having pharmacists turn it over is becoming a problem.
The key to Ivermectin working is to have Ivermectin at a level of greater than 160 nanograms / liter in the blood. (One billionth (10−9) of a gram.)
Ivermectin taken with food,has been discovered to be very effective at killing the virus at this level of dosage , which in this study is 6 mg per kilo of body weight :
“High Dose Ivermectin And COVID-19: High Doses, Systemic Concentrations, And SARS-CoV-2 Viral Loads!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsJPZPB93Qc
************************************
Be prepared:
The vaccine is a dead end path to coping with Covid.
Eventually it will not work at all.
Immunity is 27 times more effective than any Vax.
So how do we get immunity? We use drug therapy once infected, and we all sooner or later will be infected, its like the common cold, unavoidable.
The best so far is Ivermectin based drug therapy.
The proper approach to conquering the virus is one like we use for malaria.
Ivermectin therapy should be over the counter, non prescription, and used according to established protocols with which we can educate the public.
If you cannot get a physician’s prescription, you can order it here:( Use Pay Pal)
1) Zivirdo Kit:
https://dir.indiamart.com/search.mp?ss=Zivirdo&prdsrc=1&countryiso=USA ( get enough to make sure your dosage is right for your weight...carefully read the protocol linked below )
2) Ivermectin Tabs ( get 12 mg tabs)
***************************
Protocols to follow for both Prophylaxis and Therapy for Infection:( read it in detail before ordering)
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-I-MASK-Protocol-v4-2020-11-22.pdf
Ivermectin is no longer a banned treatment by the CDC. They are just “not recommending” it.The reason that the government is so afraid of Ivermectin is that it likely clears the circulation system of ALL stick proteins whether generated by the VAX or by the Virus. So it will likely reverse the effect of the jab.
You will need over the counter Zinc, Vitamin D and Quercetin supplements.Available on line or at larger drug stores.
Hundreds of Feepers stocked up over the last 6 months.
********************************
There is reasonably solid evidence that ivermectin docks to the spike protein itself to prevent binding to the ACE2 receptor which is the primary pathology causing the tissue damage and clots related to SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, this is also an implication that this ability of ivermectin to disable the binding of the Spike protein including the vaccine-produced spike proteins. This binding of ivermectin to disable the spike protein is also preserved even with the newer spike protein mutations, but its activity against the original Wuhan spike protein,(the one vaccines were designed to produce) is fairly well studied at this point.
Abstract:
Background/Aim: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). One drug that has attracted interest is the antiparasitic compound ivermectin, a macrocyclic lactone derived from the bacterium Streptomyces avermitilis. We carried out a docking study to determine if ivermectin might be able to attach to the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain bound with ACE2. Materials and Methods: We used the program AutoDock Vina Extended to perform the docking study. Results: Ivermectin docked in the region of leucine 91 of the spike and histidine 378 of the ACE2 receptor. The binding energy of ivermectin to the spike-ACE2 complex was -18 kcal/mol and binding constant was 5.8 e-08. Conclusion: The ivermectin docking we identified may interfere with the attachment of the spike to the human cell membrane. Clinical trials now underway should determine whether ivermectin is an effective treatment for SARS-Cov2 infection.
The following video [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Bl2v3BR2M ] explains the multiple mechanisms of the activity of Ivermectin including the ability of the body to maintain its basic defense of the cell nucleus in preserving the body’s ability to produce antiviral proteins, inhibition of RNA dependant RNA polymerase which inhibits the replication of viral RNA (possibly including that from the mRNA vaccine package), the stat 3 human signaling pathway which inhibits the production of blood clots also possibly mitigating some of the vaccines most dangerous side effects. Also discussed is the inhibition of the CD147 pathway by Ivermectin which again may block the clumping of platelets due to spike protein either from the virus or possibly the vaccines.
Note: Ivermectin therapy likely will gradually rid the body of spike proteins altogether, something to remember for those who might have residual side effects from mRNA vaccine.
******************************************************
Effective dosage of Ivermectin is 0.6 mg per kilo of body weight instead of the 0.2 recommended in the IMASK protocol.
Protocols to follow for both Prophylaxis and Therapy for Infection:( read it in detail )
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-I-MASK-Protocol-v4-2020-11-22.pdf
The study is here:
“High Dose Ivermectin And COVID-19: High Doses, Systemic Concentrations, And SARS-CoV-2 Viral Loads!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsJPZPB93Qc
*************************
( 0.6 mg per kilo of body weight yields greater than 160 nanograms of Ivermectin per liter of blood, at that level it eliminated the virus...side effects. rarely a rash, or rare salt deficiency ( NaCl).
**************************************************
See my post # 19 below, Sources of Ivermectin.Order takes about 30 days to arrive.
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.