Recently, Medpage Today made sure to feature an article on how Reuters faced backlash after publishing an article stating that ivermectin was “effective” against Omicron in phase III trials, when what really happened was a Japanese company issued a press release stating ivermectin showed an “antiviral effect” against Omicron and other variants in joint non-clinical research.
The article further pigeon-holes ivermectin by calling it an “anti-parasitic drug” when research HAS shown it’s potent anti-viral effects by blocking importin, thereby preventing nuclear import and inhibiting viral access to cell nuclei. Many drugs currently on the market have multiple modes of action. Ivermectin is one such drug. It is both antiparasitic and antiviral.
The complete truth just isn’t convenient as an effective treatment would nullify COVID gene therapy injections.
They then bemoan that Twitter users state the uncorrected version will live-on on COVID conspiracy sites, as if Twitter is the fount of all knowledge.
The information that didn’t make the article is the fact that a city-wide, prospective, observational study of over 200,000 subjects found ivermectin substantially lowered infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.
The regular use of ivermectin led to:
- a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (25 [0.8%] versus 79 [2.6%] among ivermectin non-users; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.49; p < 0.0001)
- a 70% reduction in mortality when adjusted for residual variables (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.46; p < 0.0001)
- a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (44 versus 99 hospitalizations among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63; p < 0.0001)
- a 67% reduction in hospitalization rate when adjusted for residual variables (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 023-0.66; p < 0.0001)
While this study focused on prophylaxis, it’s important to note ivermectin’s obvious anti-viral qualities, which is the important take away. Proponents of ivermectin and HCQ have been quite clear that the earlier the treatment is initiated, the better the outcome (similarly to Lyme/MSIDS). This well written article called the Spartacus Letter explains:
- the pathophysiology of COVID
- the vast majority of COVID-19 cases are mild and do not cause significant disease
- ventilation is killing patients
- correct treatment for severe COVID-19 related sepsis is non-invasive ventilation, steroids, and antioxidant infusions
- N-acetylcysteine, melatonin, fluvoxamine, budesonide, famotidine, cimetidine, and ranitidine are all antioxidants
But the most important information contained in the Spartacus Letter is the following:
Because of the way they are constructed, Randomized Control Trials will never show any benefit for any antiviral against COVID-19. Not Remdesivir, not Kaletra, not HCQ, and not Ivermectin. The reason for this is simple; for the patients that they have recruited for these studies, such as Oxford’s ludicrous RECOVERY study, the intervention is too late to have any positive effect.
So there you have it. RCTs will NEVER show benefit for ANY antiviral due to the way the studies are constructed.
Corrupt public health agencies know this. They are banking on it.
To make their narrative work, they must ignore research that isn’t a RCT, like the aforementioned and numerous others: https://ivmmeta.com/
- Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. All remain significant after exclusions.
- 50 studies from 46 independent teams in 21 different countries show statistically significant improvements in isolation (38 primary outcome, 35 most serious outcome).
- Meta analysis using the most serious outcome shows 63% [53‑72%] and 83% [74‑89%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis, for primary outcomes, for peer-reviewed studies, and for RCTs.
- Results are very robust — in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 62 of 78 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.
Multiple treatments are typically used in combination, which may be significantly more effective.
No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Denying the efficacy of treatments increases mortality, morbidity, collateral damage, and endemic risk.
|Evidence base used for other COVID-19 approvals|
|Remdesivir (USA EUA)||1||1,063||31%|
|Casirivimab/i.. (USA EUA)||1||799||66%|
|Ivermectin evidence||78||85,743||64% [57‑70%]|
As is clearly seen from the table, the evidence for ivermectin utilizes 78 studies and nearly 86,000 people vs. only ONE study and a fraction of the patients for drugs receiving emergency use authorization (EUA). It is also clear that ivermectin gives greatest improvement over those pushed by mainstream medicine and corrupt public health ‘authorities’.
Please see this excellent video on the powerful players colluding together to suppress ivermectin, as well as a revealing transcript of a conversation with Dr. Andrew Hill, who admitted to caving to pressure to downplay the benefits of ivermectin as a COVID treatment.
The clinical studies that do exist, and the consilience of the real-world data (RWD), show that early use of ivermectin reduces mortality by somewhere between 50 and 85%. ~ Dr. James Lyons Weiler
As the World Tribune reports:
In a recent Zoom call, Dr. Pierre Kory of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance outlined numerous details showing the World Health Organization (WHO) knowingly suppressed data on the effectiveness of ivermectin against the virus in order to benefit the vaccine interests of Big Pharma.
“It’s criminal,” Kory said. “It’s literally criminal.” The drug “could have saved half a million lives this year if it had been approved.”
The WHO, Kory contends, is simply taking part in the tactics of a time-worn “Disinformation Playbook.” The term was coined by the Union of Concerned Scientists 50 years ago to describe the strategies corporations have developed over decades to “attack science when it goes against their financial interests.”
According to the Tribune, this disinformation strategy has five parts:
- The Fake – Conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research. Please see this excellent article showing 5 studies where researchers present conclusions that don’t match the data.
- The Blitz – Harass scientists who speak out with results reviews inconvenient for industry.
- The Diversion – Manufacture uncertainty about science where little or none exists.
- The Screen – Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies.
- The Fix – Manipulate government officials or processes to influence policy inappropriately.
Medpage Today misses the point entirely and is only serving as a Big Pharma shill to the demise of sick patients. It is actively taking part in the disinformation strategy outlined above.