Awaited Ivermectin Review Is Out

— Findings are positive, but critics still want a randomized controlled trial
Boxes and blister pack of Ivermectin Tablets USP Boxes and blister pack of Ivermectin Tablets USP and a prescription bottle.a

Proponents of ivermectin for COVID-19 have long been talking about an expected review and meta-analysis led by Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool.

These results were finally published this week in Open Forum Infectious Diseases, and they’re positive — but they haven’t escaped criticism, and most researchers still want results from a randomized controlled trial.  (See link for article)



The following was found from the review:

  • There was a 56% reduction in mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.44, 95% CI 0.25-0.77, P=0.004), with 3% of patients on ivermectin dying compared with 9% of controls
  • A 70% improvement in survival (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.15-0.58, P=0.0004)
  • A reduction in time to recovery of 1.58 days compared with controls (95% CI -2.8 to -0.35, P=0.01) 
  • A shorter duration of hospitalization (-4.27 days, 95% CI -8.6 to -0.06, P=0.05).
But this still wasn’t good enough for critics.

And there’s been 32 randomized controlled trials done to date, but that still isn’t good enough for critics.

The key for this is found in the following quote:

“Of course, rolling out vaccination as quickly and widespread as possible would negate the need to use ivermectin as a treatment,” he added. “So big picture, vaccines are the better solution.”

This is completely backwards.

Rolling out effective treatments as quickly and widespread as possible negates the need for a vaccine!  But history is being rewritten to state natural immunity will only be achieved through vaccines – the magic bullet for mankind.

Despite what mainstream news and medical rag journals like Medscape state, current research shows:

isummarySource: Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies – – (constantly updated)

For the backstory on how Remdesivir obtained EUA status despite lack of effectiveness, while Ivermectin languished on shelves see this article for the sordid history.

In what can only be described as “shennanigans,” researchers changed the primary outcome measures in the study for Remdesivir to make it appear more successful.  Go here for more info.

For more on Ivermectin:

“We now have four large randomized control trials totaling over 1,500 patients each trial showing that as a prophylaxis agent [against COVID-19] it is immensely effective,” Kory said. “You will not get sick. You will be protected from getting ill if you take it in early outpatient treatment.”

Please see FLCCC’s COVID-19 treatment protocols for every stage of illness:  as well as the research on it:

Lastly, the following was written about the Medscape piece:

I have years of experience with Ivermectin in the Brazilian Amazon. The drug in general, has acceptable safety profile. Ivermectin has few established mechanisms of action; chief among them are its immunomodulatory and antiinflammatory properties. Recently, Australian scientists conducted an in vitro study of the MOA of Ivermectin with respect to SARS-CoV-2 replication. The Australian study showed it interferes with a specific protein product which is essential in the viral replication cycle. Considering the benefit of this drug outweighs the risk, Ivermectin is a reliable and practical solution in resource-limited countries where access to COVID-19 meds is scarce. It is commonly understood that in the western countries, the Big Pharma resists prescription of Ivermectin for COVID19 cases.  – Prof. Dr. Nassiri, July 9, 2021

%d bloggers like this: