Posted on 01/19/2022 10:52:46 AM PST by Heartlander
A newly released study from Brazil of over 150 thousand subjects found that regular prophylactic use of ivermectin “was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.”
The largest ivermectin study to date was conducted in Itajaí, Brazil, between July 2020 and December 2020. It recently passed rigorous peer-review and was published this week, Dr. Pierre Kory noted on Twitter.
Background: Ivermectin has demonstrated different mechanisms of action that potentially protect from both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and COVID-19-related comorbidities. Based on the studies suggesting efficacy in prophylaxis combined with the known safety profile of ivermectin, a citywide prevention program using ivermectin for COVID-19 was implemented in Itajaí, a southern city in Brazil in the state of Santa Catarina. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of regular ivermectin use on subsequent COVID-19 infection and mortality rates.
Researchers invited the entire population of Itajaí to enroll in the program and compiled baseline, personal, demographic, and medical information on participants.
In the absence of contraindications, ivermectin was offered as an optional treatment to be taken for two consecutive days every 15 days at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day. In cases where a participating citizen of Itajaí became ill with COVID-19, they were recommended not to use ivermectin or any other medication in early outpatient treatment. Clinical outcomes of infection, hospitalization, and death were automatically reported and entered into the registry in real time. Study analysis consisted of comparing ivermectin users with non-users using cohorts of infected patients propensity score-matched by age, sex, and comorbidities. COVID-19 infection and mortality rates were analyzed with and without the use of propensity score matching (PSM).
The results showed a 6.6 percent infection rate for non-users of ivermectin, and a 3.7 percent infection rate for regular users of the drug, a 44 percent reduction in the COVID-19 infection rate.
There was also a 56 percent reduction in the hospitalization rate for ivermectin users (44 versus 99 hospitalizations).
The most striking result was the difference in the mortality rate. Of the subjects who were infected, those who regularly used ivermectin had a 70 percent reduction in COVID-19 mortality.
The study is just one of dozens that shows ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID. Dr. Kory, one of the drugs biggest advocates expressed frustration with the medical establishment’s refusal to approve early treatments for people suffering with COVID.
“People are dying because they’re being deprived of highly effective, cheap, widely available drugs that do not present as obscene profits to the pharmaceutical companies,” Kory said on Fox News earlier this month.
The corporate media meanwhile still refuses to challenge the medical establishment’s false narrative on early treatments, even when proven wrong by studies like this one. “Crickets from across the world’s major media. The global war on repurposed drugs marches on,” Kory Tweeted.
Kory is one of 33 guest speakers—including Doctors Peter McCullough, Robert Malone, Paul Marik, and Ryan Cole—who will participate in a “Defeat the Mandates” rally in Washington DC on January 23.
I am aware of your infatuation with non published non reviewed data. I assume you don’t have the reference as does not anyone else. I would actually like to read a peer reviewed paper as it might sway my judgment. That’s what people actually trained in science do.
---------------------(see below for more)
August 26, 2021 | Cureus
“Ivermectin as a SARS-CoV-2 Pre-Exposure Preventive in Healthcare Workers: a Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study”
a study from doctors who continued to use ivermectin to subdue COVID-19 with great success in the Dominican Republic.
IVM as a Covid Pre-Exposure Preventive.
June 15, 2021 | J Antibiot (Tokyo)
“The mechanisms of action” of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article.” reports overwhelmingly positive data for ivermectin’s use in the pandemic.
“100% of 36 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects… using the most serious outcome reported 79% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis respectively…Statistically significant improvements were 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, and 93% of all 28 RCTs.)… The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of cases has been remarkable. It is extremely unlikely that the observed results could have occurred by chance.”
Favorable outcome on viral load and culture viability using Ivermectin in early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19 – A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial can be found at the following link: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1
For an up-to-date overview of all published studies on ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 we recommend visiting c19ivermectin.com; in addition, a meta-analysis of all studies can be found at ivmmeta.com (constantly updated).
A majority of the studies (until January 12, 2021) were included in our comprehensive Review of the Emerging Evidence Supporting the Use of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19, and a brief summary of the studies at that time can be found in the accompanying One-page summary of the scientific review on ivermectin.
Update: The FLCCC Alliance’s “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19” has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and published on May 1, 2021, in the American Journal of Therapeutics!
So not published in a journal. Got it.
Thanks. For some reason I didn’t catch the hyperlink. Ok. Will read it
Much appreciated.
I am aware of your infatuation with non published non reviewed data
*****************************
I sent you the actual link that shows a single-digit death rate since this summer.
The fact that you send a perverse accusation instead of addressing the black and white statistical fact of the success Uttar Pradesh has had with Ivermectin speaks volumes about your character. Did you even look at that at the statistics? Aren’t you even a little bit curious for the sake of innocent Americans?
And let me ask you this about your ‘peers’ that you speak so highly of when it comes to peer-reviewed studies. Sounds like you really hold all of these studies in high regard. Well if you questioned every physician or scientist that ever took part in any of these peer reviewed studies, how many of them think that Joe Biden actually won the 2020 election?
Now you see the value of your peer reviewed studies? And the power of big pharma.
SoConPubbie wrote: “That’s because they are lying and making it up!”
Abstract
Summary
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
“but this is an “observational study”....same junk science used to support mask mandates.”
Observational studies are perfectly fine, if well thought out. They are valid for many things.
Not as high powered as rct’s, but rct’s are often not practical. Nobody in the science feild that is not an idiot ever said, “rct’s or nothing! No rxt? Let them die!”
Straw
Man
I’ve been on prescribed HCQ for 22 months, and horse paste (literally) for 18. No vax, no mask, don’t care, don’t subscribe to the fear game.
Seems to be just fine. Had some sniffles a couple times, other than that, nothing, for the entire scamdemic.
But I’m capable of doing my own in depth research, and have the background to sort through the bs. Not everyone is.
The Ivermectin may or may not have helped.
————————————————————-
Same could be said for the shots you advocate for.
Bookmark
“ It’s an interesting study but I don’t see the reference. Anyone have the publication reference. Which journal and the citation. I would like to read the actual publication.”
Nope, can’t have anything that shatters the bad information you’ve been hawking around here. Oh, you’ll believe Fauci, no matter what he says, but actual people being saved by Ivermectin and you brush it off.
So very thankful I’m not your patient. How many is it that you’ve lost now?
Why don’t you tell us how much income you’ve received following the Fauci/FDA/CDC protocols.
I’ll go first. I haven’t received a dime, and am fighting to retain my job because of mandates. I haven’t even had the sniffles during the entire time, and haven’t made a dime promoting ivermectin, which I’m using as a prophylactic. In fact, I’ve given some from my supply and healed friends without compensation.
Your turn. How much money have you made specifically from treating covid patients? How many have you lost? How many hospitalized? What are the numbers? If you want to be an expert here we need to see your success documented.
The covid cash is a very lucrative deal. One local volunteer fire department where I went to HS has made $187k doing tests and giving jabs. That’s enough to make them keep on keeping on and not rocking the boat by talking ivermectin. What is your cash to ethic ratio?
I am happy as well that you are not my patient. As an intensivist it is pretty bad by the time i get them. I have seen a lot of patients and families who tried HCq and ivermectin and ended up in the ICU anyway. I have tried ivermectin in late phase disease. No results.
So when I question a peer reviewed article and ask for its publication source I am genuinely interested in evaluating the study to see if it sways opinion. The fact that this is not punished in any journal of record snd it’s obscure to find means something. The fact that is observational means something.
I am looking for the truth. I am looking for actual studies that show something. I am ever willing to listen. This study as others have pointed it out really doesn’t move the needle all that much
Since the advent and easy distribution of monoclonals we have an excellent survival rate of those who were ok their way to catastrophe. The fact is that monoclonal therapy is superior in ever way to any other therapeutic. This article does nothing to change my position. So i will continue with my current practice of treatment.
The good news of course is that this is over thanks to omicron. I believe I read England is rescinding all Covid measure next weeks. We shouldn’t be far behind.
The other questions tou ask are simply emotional questions that have no bearing on much. They are designed to detract from facts and inculcate emotion which as a debate technique I choose not to take the bait. Raise the vast majority of physicians are salaries so your obtuse money making question is irrelevant.
So you tried Ivermectin late in the cycle with no result. That’s a lie. Everything has a RESULT. Let’s see the specifics, not some drivel. Number of patients, condition prior to starting, dosing regimen, results, results compared to patients not getting ivermectin, etc.. Perhaps you’re not doing it right. If you cared to actually read and comprehend the ivermectin studies, you would find it’s much better to get on the protocol early. Your facility seems intent on letting patients get bad. We know covid deaths are a financial windfall to hospitals.
You don’t mention how many patients you have lost. Tell us. You want us to believe you should be trusted, but to do so we need data. How many covid patients have you lost? What’s the percentage? Same for your facility as a whole. Let’s see the data. Can’t trust you without it. What are you hiding?
Next up, how much COVID based money have you and your facility received? I suspect you have a financial horse in this game and are only here to defend your gravy train. I know of a small town volunteer fire department who raked in $187k for giving jabs and doing tests. Please disclose your financial benefits related to coviD, as well as the same for your employer.
Let’s hear it. Defend your position with real life evidence. How many dead in your facility?
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.