Overwhelming evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19. Latest update 2021

As I have indicated over and over again, until it is  recommended by the CDC, WHO or at the very least the Ministry of Health in this country,  this is  irrelevant.

Over and over we are told DO NOT SELF MEDICATE.   SO please do not.

planner wrote:

As I have indicated over and over again, until it is  recommended by the CDC, WHO or at the very least the Ministry of Health in this country,  this is  irrelevant.

Over and over we are told DO NOT SELF MEDICATE.   SO please do not.

I bet you didn't know Dr. Pluto Arias, the Minister of Salud, prescribes ivermectin to his patients?

Yep, the same doctor who says don't use it when he's wearing his govt. shoes.

Well it may relieve symptoms but it is not the cure for covid19 infected people that some are promoting according to the findings of a peer reviewed study posted in The Lancet today. So without more research it will probably not get approved by the WHO or any country including DR anytime soon.

It looks like this is no miracle cure rather a medication to relieve symptoms just like we have for flu.

Background

Ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro at concentrations not readily achievable with currently approved doses. There is limited evidence to support its clinical use in COVID-19 patients. We conducted a Pilot, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of ivermectin reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when administered early after disease onset.

Methods

Consecutive patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors for complicated disease attending the emergency room of the Clínica Universidad de Navarra between July 31, 2020 and September 11, 2020 were enrolled. All enrollments occurred within 72 h of onset of fever or cough. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive ivermectin, 400 mcg/kg, single dose (n = 12) or placebo (n = 12). The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA by PCR from nasopharyngeal swab at day 7 post-treatment. The primary outcome was supported by determination of the viral load and infectivity of each sample. The differences between ivermectin and placebo were calculated using Fisher's exact test and presented as a relative risk ratio. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04390022.

Findings

All patients recruited completed the trial (median age, 26 [IQR 19–36 in the ivermectin and 21–44 in the controls] years; 12 [50%] women; 100% had symptoms at recruitment, 70% reported headache, 62% reported fever, 50% reported general malaise and 25% reported cough). At day 7, there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positive patients (RR 0·92, 95% CI: 0·77–1·09, p = 1·0). The ivermectin group had non-statistically significant lower viral loads at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) and day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) post treatment as well as lower IgG titers at day 21 post treatment (p = 0·24). Patients in the ivermectin group recovered earlier from hyposmia/anosmia (76 vs 158 patient-days; p < 0.001).

Interpretation

Among patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors for severe disease receiving a single 400 mcg/kg dose of ivermectin within 72 h of fever or cough onset there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positives. There was however a marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia, a reduction of cough and a tendency to lower viral loads and lower IgG titers which warrants assessment in larger trials.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ecli … S2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext


Has anyone asked if the Ivermectin available here in DR is approved for human oral use or is it for animals. Or at very least, have those who are planning to self medicate -  have they investigated?

For me the solution remains using masks, social distancing and good sanitary procedures until we have a vaccine at least. Personally I think even with a vaccine we will have to take precautions for a long time and there will be drugs to illeviate symptoms if we get infected - like flu another coronavirus - but they need approval first. At the hospital care level they will have a cocktail of drugs to deal with suppressing the cytokine storm in the more serious patients and ivermectin is not one of those that is approved to date.

Until we have more peer reviewed findings or approvals - that is it for me.

Ivermectin (Ivermectina in the DR) has traditionally been used for over 40 years as an antiparasitic but it's also known to have antiviral properties. The inventor been awarded Nobel peace prize for his contribution to world health. Incidentally Ivermectin is FDA approved although not for covid19 treatment and covid 19 vaccines are not. Vaccines for covid19 are approved as emergency use only. There is plenty of information on studies carried out in different countries on line to investigate for ones self.

VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting system) a federal data base has reported 55 deaths, 96 life threatening events, 24 permanent disabilities, 225 hospitalizations and 1388 emergency room visits.

I am sure that one day I will be forced to take the vaccine if I want to travel, until that day I will hold off as long as possible.

StanR wrote:

The inventor been awarded Nobel peace prize for his contribution to world health. Incidentally Ivermectin is FDA approved although not for covid19 treatment and covid 19 vaccines are not.

1) The scientists who discovered ivermectin were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, not the Peace Prize

2) Ivermectin is FDA approved as an antiparasitic, not as an anti-viral.

I stand corrected. Thanks. I encourage everyone to investigate and decide for themselves.

That's of course your choice.  I'm having mine tomorrow.

Good for you. I will be getting one as soon as I qualify!

A little bit of brain is enough

https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1122 … al/details

That tells you a lot - As for the idea of anyone getting hold of any potentially dangerous drug and taking it without seeing a doctor - drrrrr

ducketts wrote:

That's of course your choice.  I'm having mine tomorrow.

Good for you ducketts.

It is a no brainer if you want to be able to travel internationally freely going foward irrespective of your dislike for vaccines.

University of Liverpool, England doctor Ivermectin meta-analysis:

VIDEO here >> Ivermectin meta-analysis by Dr. Andrew Hill

World Health Organization (WHO) to probe use of Ivermectin for Covid-19 treatment after 'promising' results in trials

https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa … f695b9fbed

I usually try to stay out of posts like this, but I have to ask why are you pushing this drug? Just to make a point, or some other reason?

Rocky, have you heard the saying, think outside the box. I believe that is what Luis is trying to do. Unfortunately not many are prepared to do that, instead they follow the mainstream narrative. 
We all follow our own path to the final destination. Some of us will get there sooner depending on the road we take.

https://youtu.be/k8RyV3VEDKI

RockyM wrote:

I usually try to stay out of posts like this, but I have to ask why are you pushing this drug? Just to make a point, or some other reason?

Not pushing just passing along information.  Showing members of this community about options for prophylaxis or early treatment of COVID-19.

Not to dissuade from the vaccine but showing that this could be a great option as a complementary bridge to vaccination until the vaccines are made available to all those in need.

The health and the lives of people are at risk.

5 minute video. Update by Christy Risinger, MD

VIDEO >> Ivermectin for the Treatment of COVID - UPDATE 1/20/2021

Sorry..."pushing" was not the right word for me to use, but you understood. Just curious.

A recent and very interesting interview of a doctor from Orlando Florida:

Interview >>> Great news on Ivermectin: Interview #3 with Juan Suarez, MD

I find it very interesting that you are only   educating us on this and nothing else though!   Why is that?  Is this  the only treatment?    I am asking a serious  question.

Its awesome that the WHO is looking at it.   That is progress.

planner wrote:

I find it very interesting that you are only   educating us on this and nothing else though!   Why is that?  Is this  the only treatment?    I am asking a serious  question.

Its awesome that the WHO is looking at it.   That is progress.

It seems like, compared to all other treatments, has the most promise and the benefits of taking Ivermectin versus the risks of not taking it seems like it would be an easy choice to make.

I'm with you, Luis.

It was first considered back last April and then discounted. Interest from Southern Africa and South America roused internet social media interest.

The article that mentioned WHO looking at is again was a Zambian newspaper. Nothing from the WHO website nor any other mainstream media.

More peer reviewed research to justify it is helpful against covid19 is needed still ten months on. And of course regulatory approval. That is when people will take notice.

Approved vaccines should be more readily available and demanded for for travel before this drug gets any limited regulatory approval imo. It is cheap to produce (3usd) but is being retailed at huge profit in some countries which raises a red flag

My wife recently required surgery here in Cabarete.  During her stay we discussed COVID and it's treatments.  Staff here at the hospital confirmed widespread off the book use of this drug and lauded its effectiveness.

And perhaps that could explain why Puerto Plata province has high incidence of transmission if folks are using a drug that suppreses symptoms but not the actual virus and so remain carriers thinking they are cured as the peer reviewed Lancet article suggested.

It can be dangerous for communities if. individuals act without the medical approval That has been the grave error to date in managing this pandemic by persons/leaders who ignored medical adivice and consensus and promoted their ideas instead.

It is interesting to note Dr. Plutarco Arias, the Minister of Health in his official capacity says not to use it, but privately prescribes it to his patients.

Eye opening article by investigative journalist Mary Beth Pfeiffer

Not Using Ivermectin, One Year In, Is Unethical And Immoral

https://twitter.com/marybethpf/status/1 … 0381703180

Lots and lots of speculation and START of testing.  Until its widespread and actually recommended  then WE CANNOT recommend it and you are pushing the boundaries with some of these posts.

UNTIL  the longer term properly done  studies show its effectiveness AND its recommended by the appropriate body or bodies this  needs to stop!   NONE of us are qualified to say what is a good or bad test. NONE of us are epidemiologists or actual  scientists. 

Talk about the studies all you want. DO NOT RECOMMEND IT TO ANYONE.  Do what you want privately.

RockyM wrote:

Sorry..."pushing" was not the right word for me to use, but you understood. Just curious.

Perhaps not, but perhaps yes.

John 8:31-32
English Standard Version
The Truth Will Set You Free

I swear by [substitute Almighty God/Name of God (such as Jehovah) or the name of the holy scripture] that[7] the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (Thanks for the text, wiki)

The truth can be a lie if you miss out the bits of the truth.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ecli … S2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext

Overwhelming evidence? More like underwhelming evidence ... unless you have a reason to want it to be overwhelming evidence.
It's not always what is said, but sometimes what is missed out. So, what are the pushers of this miracle drug missing out?

On a more serious note - I'm not that scared by covid, but niether am I anti-vac or a conspiracy nut. I tend to look at things in a logical fashion, ignoring utter, evidence free, rubbish posted on facebook, more trying to examine quality reports in the hope of getting a clue.
I'm no doctor, nor am I especially intelligent, but I know pushing wonder drugs with minimal evidence, believing crap on social media, and following sites with agendas, are silly ideas.

“People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.”
― Blaise Pascal, De l'art de persuader

luisenriquereyes wrote:

[b]Dr. Pierre Kory gives latest Ivermectin Update (2021-01-16) on the evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19.[/b]
/

Evidence is what is said .. and who says it.
Before believing evidence, look at who said it, why they said it, who who they said it for.

This particular bit of evidence doesn't stand up very well when you examine those questions. I'm not going to bother with the politics, or at least party politics, but such transparent politically motavated rubbish isn't worth the youtube time.

Chloroquine was the great cure for covid, but that turned out to be a French idiot sitting in a comfy chair, and an American idiot sitting in a comfy office, both of whom wasted a lot of time, and very probably killed a good few people because of their utter stupidity. Tell you what, let's all have a good drink of bleach - a good number believed that rubbish as well.
Best I can tell with Ivermectin, it may have some minor potential in some people with mild symptoms, but has been jumped on by some political interests, a bunch of people wearing tin foil hats, Facebook qualified doctors, and anti-vac fools.

Quite why people push total crap in favour of science and common sense is a bit hard for me to understand, but I did miss religious nuts from my list of idiots. That isn't knocking religion, just idiots using religion as an excuse for idiocy.

My uncle used to be a fun sort of chap, but he joined a religious group and went nuts. He scrapped Christmas, refused to go to his daughter's wedding because it was in a church, and has now gone anti-covidvac because he's terrified it was developed from blood products. It seems at least a portion of his religious group are deliberately against covid vaccinations because they fear it was developed from antibodies harvested from blood samples.

He pushes miracle cures as well. I blocked his number because I got sick of listening to his crap rants.

Fred wrote:

My uncle used to be a fun sort of chap, but he joined a religious group and went nuts. He scrapped Christmas, refused to go to his daughter's wedding because it was in a church, and has now gone anti-covidvac because he's terrified it was developed from blood products. It seems at least a portion of his religious group are deliberately against covid vaccinations because they fear it was developed from antibodies harvested from blood samples.

He pushes miracle cures as well. I blocked his number because I got sick of listening to his crap rants.

Just to push my agenda

My uncle doesn't bug me because he chose his religion, more because he refuses to tell the truth. He pushes his 'cures' whilst claiming not to be anti vac, but he's really anti-vac because his religion forbids blood transfusions or blood products, and he believes at least some covid vaccines are derived from blood products.

Sadly he's too much of a coward to be open about his reasons. Probably because he knows anyone with a brain will tell him to sod off.

We are all intelligent people capable of making choices that suit our interests. If you believe in something, great; if you don't, great; but let's not turn this into a forum to espouse our personal interests. Many people seek information that will help them with the questions they have about DR and that's it, nothing more. Let's support each other, help each other, and do so absent the rhetoric. Too soapboxey? Oh well. C'est la vie.

davidebennett wrote:

We are all intelligent people capable of making choices that suit our interests.

True, unless someone pushes a point under false pretenses. My uncle being a prime example.

Ivermectin: A Reflection on Simplicity

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medic … l/lecture/

luisenriquereyes wrote:

Ivermectin: A Reflection on Simplicity

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medic … l/lecture/

So, you're saying a 2015 lecture about a drug being effective against parasites is proof the same drug works against coronavirus?

Utter rubbish.

Why not, instead of posting utter total crap, tell the forum the truth about why you don't want to consider using a vaccine that might involve a blood derived product?

And I think that's enough on this. 

Until it's approved by one of the actual authorities I am shutting this down.

Good idea, thank you.