Science of Interest About Ivermectin

Submitted by Granma on Fri, 07/16/2021 - 1:55pm

This article reads like a short story. What began as an assignment for a university student became something much bigger. It is worth your time to read the article from beginning to end so that you can follow what happened and how. It reads fast.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-iv...

Tags:

ivermectin

Covid 19

Science

Vote

Comments

Submitted by QMS on Fri, 07/16/2021 - 6:30pm

reads like another hit piece

*ethical concerns* ??
tear down any information opposed to the vaccine ethics
there are more than one way to deal with this flu
most of which have no support from CDC, WHO, etc.

anything that works is valid, imo

Submitted by doh1304 on Fri, 07/16/2021 - 6:54pm

If it can't be patented it must be stopped

@QMS
Who cares about lives? It's all about profit and control. If you can't kill people by denying them medicine what's all that money for?

—

On to Biden since 1973

Submitted by Granma on Fri, 07/16/2021 - 7:29pm

Did you read the article?

@QMS There were multiple problems with that particular paper, which was a pre-print, not yet peer reviewed? There is a very large study in progress which is mentioned and described in the article.

Submitted by Granma on Fri, 07/16/2021 - 7:51pm

I have zero desire to defend or attack here.

@Granma What matters to me is that a science paper, often referred to, is based on faked data. We need good, quality information. I am glad it is being sought.

If this post is seen as something to quarrel over, I'll take it down. I brought it because so many people here have been interested in Invermectin.

Submitted by ovals49 on Fri, 07/16/2021 - 10:22pm

The meta analysis of Ivermectin studies remains positive

@Granma
even without the one withdrawn study.

Contrary to the voices quoted in the article, there is no scientific basis to state that the removal of one study from meta-analyses would "reverse results”. Worryingly, this article!s insinuation is reported as if it is fact.
According to the most recent analyses by BIRD, excluding the Elgazzar data from the cited meta- analyses by Bryant and Hill does not change the conclusions of these reviews, with the findings still clearly favouring ivermectin for both prevention and treatment.

Link

—

Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes

Submitted by ovals49 on Fri, 07/16/2021 - 9:26pm

I have read the hit piece linked above

and find it lacking in every respect. Any article that begins with glaring accusations of political bias is obviously playing to political bias itself.

Better to read the response to the cited paper’s withdrawal by medical professionals at FLCCC who have both experience and expertise in successfully treating thousands of COVID-19 patients with Ivermectin. Their work is focused on saving lives, not advancing political ideologies. Their rebuttal regarding the misinformation and innuendo of recent press coverage of the retracted Elgazzar study may be read here. Additional information on the many individual studies in the meta analysis studies may be found here.

Clickbait “news” stories are not science or evidence based analysis and are designed to spark controversy and divisions, not to provide clarifications and better understanding of the subject.

—

Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes

Submitted by on the cusp on Fri, 07/16/2021 - 9:33pm

Agreed.

@ovals49 n/t
And I also agree that gramma would NEVER be insulting to anyone, much less those on the site. Just read everything you can find on the medicine.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by peachcreek on Sat, 07/17/2021 - 12:23am

I haven't read the piece above (yet)...

@ovals49 @ovals49 but I did read the medium article. It's pretty clear that the paper was fraudulent and the author has a different take on what this means for ivermectin and Covid. Removing the paper's results from the metaanalysis leads to a very weak to no positive use for ivermectin in their reporting.

However, if you remove the Elgazzar paper from their model, and rerun it, the benefit goes from 62% to 52%, and largely loses its statistical significance. There’s no benefit seen whatsoever for people who have severe COVID-19, and the confidence intervals for people with mild and moderate disease become extremely wide.

I don't know the truth, hell I don't think anyone does. I include this here just for the sake of completeness.
Edit to add, this was meant to be a comment to your earlier one if not clear...

Submitted by ovals49 on Sat, 07/17/2021 - 6:01am

@peachcreek

@peachcreek
Medical experts who actually conducted the original meta analysis:

According to the most recent analyses by BIRD, excluding the Elgazzar data from the cited meta- analyses by Bryant and Hill does not change the conclusions of these reviews, with the findings still clearly favouring ivermectin for both prevention and treatment. Link

The Medium author:

excluding just this single piece of research from various meta-analytic models almost entirely reverses their results. It’s not an exaggeration to say that this one piece of research is driving almost all of the benefit that people currently attribute to ivermectin.

The basis of this latter claim is a link to the authors previous Medium piece of June 22, 2021, which also questions Ivermectin’s efficacy. Both are sensational opinion pieces. The authors disclosure that he is “funded entirely by the Australian state and federal governments” is hardly reassuring.

I’m inclined to favor groups of dedicated medical professionals following well established protocols for compiling meta analytical studies over sensational opinion pieces written by a serial critic of the drug in question.

—

Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes

Submitted by Dawn's Meta on Sun, 07/18/2021 - 9:54am

Ditto on the analysis. I'd put my money on specialists

@ovals49 treating many patients over a grad student. Reading ovals' links now.

—

A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.

Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.

Submitted by studentofearth on Fri, 07/16/2021 - 9:59pm

It appears multiple articles questioning the study from

various angles were coordinated to publish July 15th. Concern is mentioned about impacting the analysis of ivermectin in meta-analyse papers. No mention of reviewing integrity the other studies included in the meta-analysis. (wikipedia - A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies.)

This post appears at the same time as this piece at grftr.news by Jack Lawrence. Jack contacted me to ask if I could help him look at a number of issues with a prominent study of Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19. My speciality is forensic numerical data analysis finding errors in numbers, so I concentrated on that and suggested some other names to Jack to help him look at things like the study design, methods, and reporting.

Hence, this post is almost entirely about the problems with the data from this study; Jack's piece covers other topics, such as the plagiarised text, the clinical trial "pre-registration" that was made after the first version of the results of the study was published, and many other problems. Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz has a piece over at Medium that discusses the implications of this study for the whole Ivermectin-for-Covid literature, and Melissa Davey is covering the story in the Guardian today.

Interestingly the question of plagiarism in creating the introduction of the study is brought up as a major reason to invalidate the study. The Guardian complete article can be found multiple places on the web. Money Magnet at least provides a link "Source Link" at the bottom of the page, TOP10MIN.COM just has it presented by admin.

Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective a 2011 article on the National Institutes of Health was one of the articles suggested as being plagiarized for the introduction. I have included some additional information from the article, bolded the text of a few selections. For reference TDR - UN-based Special Programme for Research & Training in Tropical Diseases and OCP - Onchocerciasis Control Programme in West Africa program closed in December 2002 due to success with ivermectin

Ivermectin proved to be even more of a ‘Wonder drug’ in human health, improving the nutrition, general health and wellbeing of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat Onchocerciasis in humans in 1988. It proved ideal in many ways, being highly effective and broad-spectrum, safe, well tolerated and could be easily administered (a single, annual oral dose). It is used to treat a variety of internal nematode infections, including Onchocerciasis, Strongyloidiasis, Ascariasis, cutaneous larva migrans, filariases, Gnathostomiasis and Trichuriasis, as well as for oral treatment of ectoparasitic infections, such as Pediculosis (lice infestation) and scabies (mite infestation).14) Ivermectin is the essential mainstay of two global disease elimination campaigns that should soon rid the world of two of its most disfiguring and devastating diseases, Onchocerciasis and Lymphatic filariasis, which blight the lives of billions of the poor and disadvantaged throughout the tropics. It is likely that, throughout the next decade, well over 200 million people will be taking the drug annually or semi-annually, via innovative globally-coordinated Mass Drug Administration (MDA) programmes. Indeed, the discovery, development and deployment of ivermectin, produced by an unprecedented partnership between the Private Sector pharmaceutical multinational Merck & Co. Inc., and the Public Sector Kitasato Institute in Tokyo, aided by an extraordinary coalition of multidisciplinary international partners and disease-affected communities, has been recognized by many experts and observers as one of the greatest medical accomplishments of the 20th century.15) In referring to the international efforts to tackle Onchocerciasis in which ivermectin is now the sole control tool, the UNESCO World Science Report concluded, “the progress that has been made in combating the disease represents one of the most triumphant public health campaigns ever waged in the developing world”.16)
...
Evidence suggests that collaboration between these major partners commenced in a complex environment of mutual wariness, suspicion and shared hope that ivermectin would indeed prove to be an effective treatment for Onchocerciasis. The situation was compounded by the fact that Merck saw ivermectin as a potentially commercial product to be used for individual patient treatment, and moved forward constantly seeking an income return on its investment. In contrast, TDR, together with OCP, saw the drug as a new community-level tool that could possibly interrupt parasite transmission and thereby help reduce the prevalence of the disease in endemic communities. TDR and OCP consequently regarded community-based trials under field conditions as an essential step towards mass-treatment programmes, as opposed to the individual treatment in hospitals favoured by the commercial partner. The continual negotiation with respect to the cost of the drug eventually resulted in a commitment from Merck in July 1985 to supply it in sufficient quantities and at the lowest possible price consistent with the interests of the company, later confirming that it would be made available to “… governments and patients at no cost to them for the treatment of Onchocerciasis”.31)
...
Ivermectin has continually proved to be astonishingly safe for human use. Indeed, it is such a safe drug, with minimal side effects, that it can be administered by non-medical staff and even illiterate individuals in remote rural communities, provided that they have had some very basic, appropriate training. This fact has helped contribute to the unsurpassed beneficial impact that the drug has had on human health and welfare around the globe, especially with regard to the campaign to fight Onchocerciasis.57)
...
In reality, the renewed interest in fighting tropical diseases, including the involvement of the pharmaceutical industry, which has become increasingly evident over the past three decades, and which has saved lives and improved the welfare of billions of people, notably the poor and disadvantaged in the topics, can be traced back to the 1987 introduction of ivermectin for use in humans. According to a recent report, International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) data show that the global pharmaceutical industry provided over $9.2 billion in health interventions (medicines and equipment) between 2000–2007 alone, benefitting 1.75 billion people worldwide.67)

The hitherto unprecedented donation of ivermectin in 1987 can rightly be seen to be the origin of this philanthropic outpouring.

...
Not surprisingly, public health specialists worldwide are now calling for greater and more extensive use of ivermectin,68) labelling MDA of the ‘wonder drug’ quite simply as “an underutilized public health strategy”. In response, the Kitasato Institute has initiated a global collaboration to investigate all properties and potential of a range of ivermectin analogues, both individually and in combination, particularly with a view to having a ready-made alternative should resistance to current ivermectin monotherapy ever threaten ongoing disease elimination campaigns.

—

Still yourself, deep water can absorb many disturbances with minimal reaction.
--When the opening appears release yourself.

Submitted by vtcc73 on Sat, 07/17/2021 - 12:32am

Ivermectin is a safe highly effective drug

@studentofearth when used as directed for the purposes for which it was created and approved by the various regulatory agencies. Correct so far? Not mentioned in the article, it can be a very dangerous drug used improperly and has a long list of contraindications. Leading that list are asthma and hepatic diseases. Use on a disease like COVID that causes major trauma in the cardiovascular system, lungs, and brain should on the surface give pause to educated laypeople much less physicians for use on COVID patients. Surely, well designed and managed studies might at the least be a great start.

How exactly does the information you offer speak to its safety and effectiveness for illnesses for which it was not tested and approved? Illnesses like COVID which the study described in the withdrawn paper addressed.

Ivermectin has been shown to be safe and effective in studies and clinical use when used as directed for the approved purposes. The withdrawn paper intended to expanded use to COVID in preventive and clinical settings. Aren't the two papers addressing two entirely different matters that have exactly nothing to do with one another? Isn't each one irrelevant to the other?

Contrary to statements in comments, the specific charges are far more serious and concerning than the attempt to minimize their seriousness with the nondescript description of "ethical concerns". The specific data irregularities aren't a few minor errors but numerous with evidence of identical data points being used many multiples of times. The statistical analysis is the bread, butter, and jam of clinical trial but serious methodology and mathematical errors are reported in the article. Shouldn't those if sustained kill the paper outright?

I don't understand how one study can invalidate the conclusions of several studies. The best I can think of is the size of the study, with data abnormalities that might invalidate major portions of the data would sufficiently reduce the size of the study to the point it no longer contributes sufficiently to make a case for approval.

Similarly, accusations that simultaneous stories in the media is somehow proof of a hit job is cheap innuendo unworthy of consideration without corroborating evidence, none of which is offered. It is certainly a possibility there is a conspiracy to discredit the COVID paper though absent more than an accusation is necessary. A plausible motive might be a good start. The paper's authors should be able to easily answer the charges of data irregularities and sloppy statistical analysis to clear their names. Whether they attempt to or are unable to do so might be a better indicator than an exchange of competing of press releases. For now it looks like the authors have "some 'splainin' to do." Until more is known this looks more like damage control with a "hit job" claim leading off.

Absent more, this story's validity is a matter of opinion with too little to make an educated guess. My opinion is that I don't really know but I'm leaning towards the story is more likely to be accurate and the study should be invalidated. Even sacred cows might have worms.

What I'd find strange if it weren't so common is that the same people who have huge problems with the studies and approval process of the COVID vaccines but don't seem to have a similar response when a drug they believe should be available for COVID when a major study intended to provide a road to approval for Ivermectin runs into some minor, nothing to see here, ethical problems. Similarly, those charging that the pharmaceutical companies are conducting "experiments on the human race" with the COVID vaccines are some of the ones who prefer charging hit jobs as their reaction when there's a pothole in the road to the makers of Ivermectin getting their product a seat at the COVID treatment cash bonanza trough. The inconsistency is as shocking as the evident inability of some to see it.

My closest comparison is that everyone is an atheist towards all gods except the one(s) they choose to believe and are loathe to question their own. Science couldn't be science if it operated like that.

various angles were coordinated to publish July 15th. Concern is mentioned about impacting the analysis of ivermectin in meta-analyse papers. No mention of reviewing integrity the other studies included in the meta-analysis. (wikipedia - A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies.) This post appears at the same time as this piece at grftr.news by Jack Lawrence. Jack contacted me to ask if I could help him look at a number of issues with a prominent study of Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19. My speciality is forensic numerical data analysis finding errors in numbers, so I concentrated on that and suggested some other names to Jack to help him look at things like the study design, methods, and reporting. Hence, this post is almost entirely about the problems with the data from this study; Jack's piece covers other topics, such as the plagiarised text, the clinical trial "pre-registration" that was made after the first version of the results of the study was published, and many other problems. Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz has a piece over at Medium that discusses the implications of this study for the whole Ivermectin-for-Covid literature, and Melissa Davey is covering the story in the Guardian today. Interestingly the question of plagiarism in creating the introduction of the study is brought up as a major reason to invalidate the study. The Guardian complete article can be found multiple places on the web. Money Magnet at least provides a link "Source Link" at the bottom of the page, TOP10MIN.COM just has it presented by admin. Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective a 2011 article on the National Institutes of Health was one of the articles suggested as being plagiarized for the introduction. I have included some additional information from the article, bolded the text of a few selections. For reference TDR - UN-based Special Programme for Research & Training in Tropical Diseases and OCP - Onchocerciasis Control Programme in West Africa program closed in December 2002 due to success with ivermectin Ivermectin proved to be even more of a ‘Wonder drug’ in human health, improving the nutrition, general health and wellbeing of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat Onchocerciasis in humans in 1988. It proved ideal in many ways, being highly effective and broad-spectrum, safe, well tolerated and could be easily administered (a single, annual oral dose). It is used to treat a variety of internal nematode infections, including Onchocerciasis, Strongyloidiasis, Ascariasis, cutaneous larva migrans, filariases, Gnathostomiasis and Trichuriasis, as well as for oral treatment of ectoparasitic infections, such as Pediculosis (lice infestation) and scabies (mite infestation).14) Ivermectin is the essential mainstay of two global disease elimination campaigns that should soon rid the world of two of its most disfiguring and devastating diseases, Onchocerciasis and Lymphatic filariasis, which blight the lives of billions of the poor and disadvantaged throughout the tropics. It is likely that, throughout the next decade, well over 200 million people will be taking the drug annually or semi-annually, via innovative globally-coordinated Mass Drug Administration (MDA) programmes. Indeed, the discovery, development and deployment of ivermectin, produced by an unprecedented partnership between the Private Sector pharmaceutical multinational Merck & Co. Inc., and the Public Sector Kitasato Institute in Tokyo, aided by an extraordinary coalition of multidisciplinary international partners and disease-affected communities, has been recognized by many experts and observers as one of the greatest medical accomplishments of the 20th century.15) In referring to the international efforts to tackle Onchocerciasis in which ivermectin is now the sole control tool, the UNESCO World Science Report concluded, “the progress that has been made in combating the disease represents one of the most triumphant public health campaigns ever waged in the developing world”.16) ... Evidence suggests that collaboration between these major partners commenced in a complex environment of mutual wariness, suspicion and shared hope that ivermectin would indeed prove to be an effective treatment for Onchocerciasis. The situation was compounded by the fact that Merck saw ivermectin as a potentially commercial product to be used for individual patient treatment, and moved forward constantly seeking an income return on its investment. In contrast, TDR, together with OCP, saw the drug as a new community-level tool that could possibly interrupt parasite transmission and thereby help reduce the prevalence of the disease in endemic communities. TDR and OCP consequently regarded community-based trials under field conditions as an essential step towards mass-treatment programmes, as opposed to the individual treatment in hospitals favoured by the commercial partner. The continual negotiation with respect to the cost of the drug eventually resulted in a commitment from Merck in July 1985 to supply it in sufficient quantities and at the lowest possible price consistent with the interests of the company, later confirming that it would be made available to “… governments and patients at no cost to them for the treatment of Onchocerciasis”.31) ... Ivermectin has continually proved to be astonishingly safe for human use. Indeed, it is such a safe drug, with minimal side effects, that it can be administered by non-medical staff and even illiterate individuals in remote rural communities, provided that they have had some very basic, appropriate training. This fact has helped contribute to the unsurpassed beneficial impact that the drug has had on human health and welfare around the globe, especially with regard to the campaign to fight Onchocerciasis.57) ... In reality, the renewed interest in fighting tropical diseases, including the involvement of the pharmaceutical industry, which has become increasingly evident over the past three decades, and which has saved lives and improved the welfare of billions of people, notably the poor and disadvantaged in the topics, can be traced back to the 1987 introduction of ivermectin for use in humans. According to a recent report, International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) data show that the global pharmaceutical industry provided over $9.2 billion in health interventions (medicines and equipment) between 2000–2007 alone, benefitting 1.75 billion people worldwide.67) The hitherto unprecedented donation of ivermectin in 1987 can rightly be seen to be the origin of this philanthropic outpouring. ... Not surprisingly, public health specialists worldwide are now calling for greater and more extensive use of ivermectin,68) labelling MDA of the ‘wonder drug’ quite simply as “an underutilized public health strategy”. In response, the Kitasato Institute has initiated a global collaboration to investigate all properties and potential of a range of ivermectin analogues, both individually and in combination, particularly with a view to having a ready-made alternative should resistance to current ivermectin monotherapy ever threaten ongoing disease elimination campaigns.

—

"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."

Submitted by ovals49 on Sat, 07/17/2021 - 7:53am

There is no cash bonanza trough for Ivermectin.

@vtcc73

…..the road to the makers of Ivermectin getting their product a seat at the COVID treatment cash bonanza trough.

Ivermectin (stromectol) is long past patent protection, with widespread generic production capabilities around the world. While the retail prices for Ivermectin have risen recently in the US, the cost to produce this drug is still in the neighborhood of $0.02 per tablet. Several generic drug makers are already well experienced in its manufacture, so production can easily be scaled up and competition will help insure that reasonable pricing will continue.

There is very little incentive to get rich selling Ivermectin, but abundant reason to suppress its availability in order to protect the substantial profit margins currently enjoyed by those selling the much higher priced EUA approved vaccines. Any low cost treatment that might gain official approval threatens their exclusive windfall. This is a most unfortunate situation, since the poor around the world will continue to be dependent on lower priced solutions for the foreseeable future.

#3 when used as directed for the purposes for which it was created and approved by the various regulatory agencies. Correct so far? Not mentioned in the article, it can be a very dangerous drug used improperly and has a long list of contraindications. Leading that list are asthma and hepatic diseases. Use on a disease like COVID that causes major trauma in the cardiovascular system, lungs, and brain should on the surface give pause to educated laypeople much less physicians for use on COVID patients. Surely, well designed and managed studies might at the least be a great start. How exactly does the information you offer speak to its safety and effectiveness for illnesses for which it was not tested and approved? Illnesses like COVID which the study described in the withdrawn paper addressed. Ivermectin has been shown to be safe and effective in studies and clinical use when used as directed for the approved purposes. The withdrawn paper intended to expanded use to COVID in preventive and clinical settings. Aren't the two papers addressing two entirely different matters that have exactly nothing to do with one another? Isn't each one irrelevant to the other? Contrary to statements in comments, the specific charges are far more serious and concerning than the attempt to minimize their seriousness with the nondescript description of "ethical concerns". The specific data irregularities aren't a few minor errors but numerous with evidence of identical data points being used many multiples of times. The statistical analysis is the bread, butter, and jam of clinical trial but serious methodology and mathematical errors are reported in the article. Shouldn't those if sustained kill the paper outright? I don't understand how one study can invalidate the conclusions of several studies. The best I can think of is the size of the study, with data abnormalities that might invalidate major portions of the data would sufficiently reduce the size of the study to the point it no longer contributes sufficiently to make a case for approval. Similarly, accusations that simultaneous stories in the media is somehow proof of a hit job is cheap innuendo unworthy of consideration without corroborating evidence, none of which is offered. It is certainly a possibility there is a conspiracy to discredit the COVID paper though absent more than an accusation is necessary. A plausible motive might be a good start. The paper's authors should be able to easily answer the charges of data irregularities and sloppy statistical analysis to clear their names. Whether they attempt to or are unable to do so might be a better indicator than an exchange of competing of press releases. For now it looks like the authors have "some 'splainin' to do." Until more is known this looks more like damage control with a "hit job" claim leading off. Absent more, this story's validity is a matter of opinion with too little to make an educated guess. My opinion is that I don't really know but I'm leaning towards the story is more likely to be accurate and the study should be invalidated. Even sacred cows might have worms. What I'd find strange if it weren't so common is that the same people who have huge problems with the studies and approval process of the COVID vaccines but don't seem to have a similar response when a drug they believe should be available for COVID when a major study intended to provide a road to approval for Ivermectin runs into some minor, nothing to see here, ethical problems. Similarly, those charging that the pharmaceutical companies are conducting "experiments on the human race" with the COVID vaccines are some of the ones who prefer charging hit jobs as their reaction when there's a pothole in the road to the makers of Ivermectin getting their product a seat at the COVID treatment cash bonanza trough. The inconsistency is as shocking as the evident inability of some to see it. My closest comparison is that everyone is an atheist towards all gods except the one(s) they choose to believe and are loathe to question their own. Science couldn't be science if it operated like that.

—

Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes

Submitted by vtcc73 on Sat, 07/17/2021 - 12:31pm

Inuendo.

@ovals49 It could be suppression, sure. Prove it's suppression you're making the claim.

—

"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."

Submitted by ovals49 on Sat, 07/17/2021 - 2:02pm

I have a prescription, the pharmacy won’t fill it.

@vtcc73
I called another nearby pharmacy and asked if they would fill my prescription for Ivermectin. They said yes, and they would have the prescription transferred. Thirty nine minutes later the second pharmacy called and they said they too would not fill the prescription, if it was to be used to treat COVID.

When I later went to discuss the matter with Pharmacist #1, she told me she “didn’t want to risk her license” because it was an off label use that the FDA had not explicitly approved. When I told her I planned to go elsewhere, she offered that she had already spoken with pharmacist #2, and that they were in agreement.

Physicians routinely prescribe medications for off label use, which accounts for approximately twenty percent of all prescriptions. Only rarely do pharmacists intercede and refuse to fill a valid prescription, since in my state they are prohibited from practicing medicine. An example of a valid reason for a pharmacist to refuse would be incompatibility with another medication being taken. I take no other medications, so that can be ruled out. This experience of mine is my proof. You may need to experience it yourself to believe what I have just written, but I am speaking the truth here.

This is my experience and the reason I used the word suppression. The fact that the pharmacist feared losing her license suggests the issue is being monitored and may be the result of a larger, coordinated effort to refuse Ivermectin prescriptions. There are many others who have met similar resistance when trying to have their Ivermectin prescriptions filled.
[italics for speculative qualifiers. Reader discretion is advised]

—

Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes

Submitted by vtcc73 on Sat, 07/17/2021 - 4:17pm

That's unfortunate.

@ovals49 @ovals49 I think we agree that the decision is your doctor's and yours. Consider that there are plenty of possible reasons that your pharmacy think this decision is in their best interest. Is an insurance company involved? I imagine that's a big obstacle but the FDA could be a bigger one. The charge of suppression requires a conspiracy against the drug that cannot now be proved. All I've seen is suspicion. I can either live an evidence based existence or not. There is no having it both ways.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I find that the preponderance of evidence is that the vaccines are adequately safe and effective. I also feel a duty to everyone I encounter to do what is necessary to not be a spreader of the virus. My biggest reason to prefer the vaccines over other medications is the potential for some degree of immunity not offered by Ivermectin or anything else. I'm more comfortable with the mRNA vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna, as they are showing fewer side effects and higher efficacy as well as greater promise to provide protection from Delta and other variants. There is no reason for me to need Ivermectin coming from that position.

I still haven't seen what I consider adequate reason to revoke the EUA but I'm not the one making the decision. I don't have the qualifications to have an opinion much less a vote. I wouldn't think of denying it's use by anyone provided there is a qualified medical doctor who thinks it is a valid alternative. Living in a country where I can call or visit my pharmacist for damn near anything that is available (shockingly there are things like baby aspirin that are prescription drugs - is that a conspiracy to suppress aspirin?) in the country simply by asking is a good thing for us. A prescription for many things isn't an obstacle either. Any pharmacist worth their salt has a doctor on their cellphone who will write it for me sight unseen. I can get proper advice with or without visiting my doctor here. That is the way of most of the world except the US. I prefer this system though I'm well aware of the risks and potential abuses. You shouldn't have a third party between you and your doctor. That's also by design, nothing more sinister, just the most free country on the planet, doncha know.

[Edit] Don't assume I've not had your experiences. I experienced denial by our insurance company multiple times a year. The company that DAL used to manage their employee health insurance plans changed their formularies 2-3 times a year. They always dropped one or more meds that my wife requires. It was never the cheap ones but the brand named and always critical ones that she and her doctor had worked together, sometimes for moths, to find just the right effect. More than once I coughed up the significant price of the name brand while I fought some poor schmuck with the shit luck to have to answer the phones for a vampire in order to make a miserable living. Now when I can't get something it's because it's not available in Ecuador. I pay full retail with a smile every time and don't bother getting reimbursed by insurance. It's not worth the trouble. The cost is usually only slightly more than the copays I used to pay.

That's not a conspiracy or suppression, it's someone legally protecting their interests at our expense. Nobody's out to get us. They don't care about us or even think about us. They're out to get or keep theirs. Or just another day that ends in Y.

—

"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."

Submitted by Blue Republic on Sat, 07/17/2021 - 8:33am

Science can't be science

@vtcc73 @vtcc73

if open exchange of views cannot occur, either - no? I can't see how those claiming to respect and value 'science' can condone the suppression of scientific debate that has and continues to occur re: Covid-19 and the pandemic response.

Is there really any indication of those questioning some aspect or other of Covid response attempting or exhibiting any desire to censor or silence those with opposing views? Yet there has been large-scale and demonstrable censorship as well as more direct retribution against those daring to go off-narrative. How is that not *anti-science*?

Dr.'s Pierre Kory and Paul Marek - who have been actively collaborating, researching and applying therapeutics for Covid have been censored and and Kory forced out of a position he had held for nearly twenty years with the University of Wisconsin hospital system.

There are thousands of other examples. Here in Japan, a doctor's book questioning the safety and necessity of vaccination (with current vaccines) for Covid and contending that its risks are overblown has been for weeks the number one best selling nonfiction book on Amazon (which stopped selling it at one point, then resumed after getting heavily criticized). He had over 40,000 followers on Twitter before the book's publication (he has written quite a few others) and that had recently to 50 or 60,000. Surprise, surprise...

Dr. Utsuumi Twitter suspended.png

Not content to just suppress and censor the likes of Dr. Robert Malone - inventor of mRNA vaccines, the forces of darkness now are attempting to re-write history:

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwE2ZeuUyXo&t=15s]

(Evolutionary biologist) Brett Weinstein's popular Darkhorse Podcast channel on Youtube has been a target (fairly huge channel demonetized and some videos blocked) for having dared to host discussions with the likes of Kory and Malone.

This is not headed anywhere good.

#3 when used as directed for the purposes for which it was created and approved by the various regulatory agencies. Correct so far? Not mentioned in the article, it can be a very dangerous drug used improperly and has a long list of contraindications. Leading that list are asthma and hepatic diseases. Use on a disease like COVID that causes major trauma in the cardiovascular system, lungs, and brain should on the surface give pause to educated laypeople much less physicians for use on COVID patients. Surely, well designed and managed studies might at the least be a great start. How exactly does the information you offer speak to its safety and effectiveness for illnesses for which it was not tested and approved? Illnesses like COVID which the study described in the withdrawn paper addressed. Ivermectin has been shown to be safe and effective in studies and clinical use when used as directed for the approved purposes. The withdrawn paper intended to expanded use to COVID in preventive and clinical settings. Aren't the two papers addressing two entirely different matters that have exactly nothing to do with one another? Isn't each one irrelevant to the other? Contrary to statements in comments, the specific charges are far more serious and concerning than the attempt to minimize their seriousness with the nondescript description of "ethical concerns". The specific data irregularities aren't a few minor errors but numerous with evidence of identical data points being used many multiples of times. The statistical analysis is the bread, butter, and jam of clinical trial but serious methodology and mathematical errors are reported in the article. Shouldn't those if sustained kill the paper outright? I don't understand how one study can invalidate the conclusions of several studies. The best I can think of is the size of the study, with data abnormalities that might invalidate major portions of the data would sufficiently reduce the size of the study to the point it no longer contributes sufficiently to make a case for approval. Similarly, accusations that simultaneous stories in the media is somehow proof of a hit job is cheap innuendo unworthy of consideration without corroborating evidence, none of which is offered. It is certainly a possibility there is a conspiracy to discredit the COVID paper though absent more than an accusation is necessary. A plausible motive might be a good start. The paper's authors should be able to easily answer the charges of data irregularities and sloppy statistical analysis to clear their names. Whether they attempt to or are unable to do so might be a better indicator than an exchange of competing of press releases. For now it looks like the authors have "some 'splainin' to do." Until more is known this looks more like damage control with a "hit job" claim leading off. Absent more, this story's validity is a matter of opinion with too little to make an educated guess. My opinion is that I don't really know but I'm leaning towards the story is more likely to be accurate and the study should be invalidated. Even sacred cows might have worms. What I'd find strange if it weren't so common is that the same people who have huge problems with the studies and approval process of the COVID vaccines but don't seem to have a similar response when a drug they believe should be available for COVID when a major study intended to provide a road to approval for Ivermectin runs into some minor, nothing to see here, ethical problems. Similarly, those charging that the pharmaceutical companies are conducting "experiments on the human race" with the COVID vaccines are some of the ones who prefer charging hit jobs as their reaction when there's a pothole in the road to the makers of Ivermectin getting their product a seat at the COVID treatment cash bonanza trough. The inconsistency is as shocking as the evident inability of some to see it. My closest comparison is that everyone is an atheist towards all gods except the one(s) they choose to believe and are loathe to question their own. Science couldn't be science if it operated like that.

Submitted by vtcc73 on Sat, 07/17/2021 - 1:10pm

Calling Dr. Malone the inventor of mRNA is weak.

@Blue Republic @Blue Republic I wish I hadn't lost the article by another evolutionary biologist about that claim. The gist of what I remember is he wrote a paper suggesting the uses of mRNA 30 years before a separate person or organization began working with the idea that became what we have today. There was no statement that I remember if their work was based on or aware of Malone's work or were their ideas independent. Either way Malone did nothing with it until he suddenly popped up claiming to be the author. Accurate or not, I don't know. I can also find no evidence Malone had jack squat to do in the efforts that produced the vaccines. My search could have missed something but I only saw his claim. The possibility that this story is an attempt to deny Malone credit isn't out in outer space.

[Edit] Claiming the risks of COVID are overblown was censored? You don't say? I'd respectfully suggest that the people of India and the 31 million cases with over 400k deaths should put to bed the idea that there's nothing to see here. Even the US who never did much that was effective except locally to prevent a free for all COVID spread might disagree. Of course, we didn't know then what we know now. I don't think it would float today. And there are those who might argue that a few million dead compared to personal inconvenience isn't all that much of a BFD.

—

"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."

Submitted by Blue Republic on Mon, 07/19/2021 - 9:33am

"The" inventor of mRNA vaccination

@vtcc73 @vtcc73

was probably an overstatement on my part.

That said, Dr. Malone was certainly present and a contributor to the development, he certainly rates at least 'co-inventor' status.

Although it is visible and the narrator reads the relevant passage in the "Censored" video I linked to (from about 3:42) I've taken the trouble to transcribe the relevant bit. This is from the 'History' section of the Wikipedia article "mRNA vaccine" as it had remained unchanged for years - until being edited to remove Malone's name entirely from the main article text within a couple days of his appearance on the Darkhorse Podcast program on Youtube.

As preserved on the Wayback Machine:

History

In 1989 Robert W. Malone, P. Feigner, et. al. developed a high-efficiency in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection system using cationic liposomes, which were used "to directly introduce RNA into whole tissues and embryos", as well as various cell types.

The term and idea of "RNA as a drug" is first described in this paper. Then, in 1990, Jon A. Wolff, Robert Malone, et. al. demonstrated the idea of nucleic acid-encoded drugs by direct injecting in-vitro transcribed (IVT) mRNA or plasmid DNA (pDNA) into the skeletal muscle of mice, which expressed the encoded protein in the injected muscle.

These studies were the first evidence that in-vitro transcribed (IVT) mRNA could deliver the genetic information produce proteins within living cell tissue.

The first mRNA vaccine experiments were carried out by P. Feigner, J. Wolff, G. Rhodes, R.W. Malone and D. Carson. They conducted a number of mRNA vaccine studies that resulted in nine patents on mRNA vaccination with a shared priority date of March 21, 1989...

So. Malone has some bona fides WRT mRNA vaccine - and did not deserve, for example, to have his LinkedIn account shut down (it has since been restored) for daring to express his expert opinion nor did those hosting him to be punished by having their Youtube channel de-monetized.

And regarding:

[Edit] Claiming the risks of COVID are overblown was censored? You don't say? I'd respectfully suggest that the people of India and the 31 million cases with over 400k deaths should put to bed the idea that there's nothing to see here. Even the US who never did much that was effective except locally to prevent a free for all COVID spread might disagree. Of course, we didn't know then what we know now. I don't think it would float today. And there are those who might argue that a few million dead compared to personal inconvenience isn't all that much of a BFD.

The risk of Covid to young people (negligible) is still being over-hyped and there in still next to no acknowledgement by the CDC/WHO and etc. that *any* effective therapeutics exist at all. Dr. Peter McCullough has said that if early treatment with what are now widely acknowledged to be cheap and effective therapeutics had been applied early on - that likely 85% of deaths could have been avoided.

That may be, as an old girlfriend used to put it, water under the dam, but blocking/censoring information about and/or access to effective treatments, overstating the danger of infection, understating vaccine risk are all continuing and continuing to cost lives.

(slight edit for grammar/clarity)

Submitted by studentofearth on Sat, 07/17/2021 - 9:14am

Lets go through the questions

@vtcc73 Correct so far?
Compared to most other drugs ivermectin has a good safety profile. No surprise adverse reaction has show up after years of use by millions of individuals around the world. It has few contraindications and warnings listed in prescription package inserts for NuCare Pharmaceuticals,Inc and Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals, LLC tables, or Actavis Pharma, Inc. topical cream. No dosage adjustments are recommended for diminished hepatic (liver) function. Could you provide me a link to the source of your list? I will review it.

Surely, well designed and managed studies might at the least be a great start.
It is a fairly recent expectation limiting a physician from prescribing a drug for a non FDA approved use. The gold standard for research projects is double blind studies. Neither the attending physician or patient knows if an active drug is being used or the placebo. Adjustments to therapy can not be made quickly based on patient's changing condition. Study managers need to be contacted and make a decision on treatment. Rights to share information is often limited, good and bad news is delayed based on study publication date, if published. In a fast changing situation like Covid not everyone want to work within those limitations. Within those 6 to 24 months until publication numerous peoples lives area effected.

How exactly does the information you offer speak to its safety and effectiveness for illnesses for which it was not tested and approved?
Safety of a chemical compound is generality first evaluated in animal studies, then healthy adults, patients enrolled in clinical studies and finally surprise safety issues show often within the first two years after approval and use in the larger patient population. Ivermectin has been through each of those stages and no large scale problem has been identified. The completed and ongoing studies are at evaluating effectiveness stage for Covid.

Aren't the two papers addressing two entirely different matters that have exactly nothing to do with one another? Isn't each one irrelevant to the other?
The Guardian article referenced in this diary included a link to Jack Lawrence article at Grifter Analysis and Review, which linked to
Elgazzar et al 2020 Plagiarism Proof referencing 2011 article in my comment.

The statistical analysis is the bread, butter, and jam of clinical trial but serious methodology and mathematical errors are reported in the article. Shouldn't those if sustained kill the paper outright?
The data issues identified by Nick Brown should be addressed. Did not find a time reference for when the study author was contacted.

I don't understand how one study can invalidate the conclusions of several studies.
The authors of the two meta-analysis reviews included the study. If they were unable to detect the data issues I can not rely on their judgement of the data integrity of the other studies included in the review. Which is why I suggested those additional studies need to be looked at further and not simply drip the study in question.

accusations that simultaneous stories in the media is somehow proof of a hit job
Nick Brown who performed and published the data analysis describes the different story angles of the various articles. I found irony in an article discussing plagiarism was copied verbatim at different sites without credit of authorship.

How people process information is fascinating. When I was a novice in my profession and walking towards the Pharmacy at the back of the store the Pharmacy Tech, wearing a white jacket, stopped me to help a customer select a product. Customer answered my questions, listened politely and said he would talk to the Pharmacist. I continued my walk, pulled my white jacket off the hook, put it on and walked back out to the customer. Customer answered my questions, listened politely, said thank you for the advice and took the product to purchase. The logic of the words were not as important as the trappings of authority.

#3 when used as directed for the purposes for which it was created and approved by the various regulatory agencies. Correct so far? Not mentioned in the article, it can be a very dangerous drug used improperly and has a long list of contraindications. Leading that list are asthma and hepatic diseases. Use on a disease like COVID that causes major trauma in the cardiovascular system, lungs, and brain should on the surface give pause to educated laypeople much less physicians for use on COVID patients. Surely, well designed and managed studies might at the least be a great start. How exactly does the information you offer speak to its safety and effectiveness for illnesses for which it was not tested and approved? Illnesses like COVID which the study described in the withdrawn paper addressed. Ivermectin has been shown to be safe and effective in studies and clinical use when used as directed for the approved purposes. The withdrawn paper intended to expanded use to COVID in preventive and clinical settings. Aren't the two papers addressing two entirely different matters that have exactly nothing to do with one another? Isn't each one irrelevant to the other? Contrary to statements in comments, the specific charges are far more serious and concerning than the attempt to minimize their seriousness with the nondescript description of "ethical concerns". The specific data irregularities aren't a few minor errors but numerous with evidence of identical data points being used many multiples of times. The statistical analysis is the bread, butter, and jam of clinical trial but serious methodology and mathematical errors are reported in the article. Shouldn't those if sustained kill the paper outright? I don't understand how one study can invalidate the conclusions of several studies. The best I can think of is the size of the study, with data abnormalities that might invalidate major portions of the data would sufficiently reduce the size of the study to the point it no longer contributes sufficiently to make a case for approval. Similarly, accusations that simultaneous stories in the media is somehow proof of a hit job is cheap innuendo unworthy of consideration without corroborating evidence, none of which is offered. It is certainly a possibility there is a conspiracy to discredit the COVID paper though absent more than an accusation is necessary. A plausible motive might be a good start. The paper's authors should be able to easily answer the charges of data irregularities and sloppy statistical analysis to clear their names. Whether they attempt to or are unable to do so might be a better indicator than an exchange of competing of press releases. For now it looks like the authors have "some 'splainin' to do." Until more is known this looks more like damage control with a "hit job" claim leading off. Absent more, this story's validity is a matter of opinion with too little to make an educated guess. My opinion is that I don't really know but I'm leaning towards the story is more likely to be accurate and the study should be invalidated. Even sacred cows might have worms. What I'd find strange if it weren't so common is that the same people who have huge problems with the studies and approval process of the COVID vaccines but don't seem to have a similar response when a drug they believe should be available for COVID when a major study intended to provide a road to approval for Ivermectin runs into some minor, nothing to see here, ethical problems. Similarly, those charging that the pharmaceutical companies are conducting "experiments on the human race" with the COVID vaccines are some of the ones who prefer charging hit jobs as their reaction when there's a pothole in the road to the makers of Ivermectin getting their product a seat at the COVID treatment cash bonanza trough. The inconsistency is as shocking as the evident inability of some to see it. My closest comparison is that everyone is an atheist towards all gods except the one(s) they choose to believe and are loathe to question their own. Science couldn't be science if it operated like that.

—

Still yourself, deep water can absorb many disturbances with minimal reaction.
--When the opening appears release yourself.

Submitted by vtcc73 on Sat, 07/17/2021 - 12:16pm

Well said. Thanks.

@studentofearth PDR

I'll add that two friends both internists, one worked a long time in ID and ran a travel medicine clinic before recently retiring to drive his wife nuts, think Ivermectin has a place in treating COVID in specific situations and people but not the population as a whole. They may not read all of the studies or dig through data but had clinical experience to support their positions which seem reasonable absent solidly designed and managed studies. That is a long ass process. This pandemic demanded emergency uses of Ivermectin (that had good results in many cases and looked promising) just like it demanded expedited approval to use the vaccines. I don't see how the emergency authority should be withdrawn, especially with mounting clinical evidence of benefit, but "nothing to see here" because some believe Ivermectin is a sacred cow or the holy grail doesn't make sense.

Here we have some people who demand absolute proof of safety and effectiveness, even well short of that standard, of the current vaccines. In the same breath they're happy to ignore irregularities, until adequately explained and/or corrected, of something a small but vocal group promotes. How is that not being inconsistent, illogical, and dishonest from a scientific or public safety point of view? It's nothing more than opinion held as unquestionable presented as truth.

Despite the lower cost of Ivermectin, hundred of millions (billions?) of additional doses is a cash bonanza however you look at it. I have the same objection that the obvious is minimized or ignored solely because a small group of people with Dr or MD positioned near their name said something some agree with. Being in a scientific field you clearly understand that what kind of Dr or MD makes a huge difference in education, experience, and expertise. Too often those yelling the loudest for their favorite champion and claiming some special knowledge have little.

Me? I have little education or knowledge in these fields but I can think critically and know how to avoid confirmation bias most of the time. I can also look at the tremendous, undeniable success of the vaccines, especially the mRNA ones, and see a use for something like Ivermectin. Then the questions like "Is there a lasting immunity?" or "Is Ivermectin only a one time treatment that will have to be repeated with repeated infections? How does that better than a vaccine? Why is ti superior to the vaccines?" or "What side effects or additional contraindications will become known with mass sue in the general population?" I'm not stupid. Those are also questions to which we don't have answers for the vaccines. We won't know for years if not decades. So, how is Ivermectin a better or even a peer to the vaccines?

I guess I'm the bad guy because I call bullshit on different standards based on opinion and beliefs that can't be questioned. You supported your position that I more agree with than disagree. Not that what I agree with or not makes any difference. I'm not going to be defensive because someone can make a good explanation for their disagreement instead of "I believe....".

#3.1 Correct so far? Compared to most other drugs ivermectin has a good safety profile. No surprise adverse reaction has show up after years of use by millions of individuals around the world. It has few contraindications and warnings listed in prescription package inserts for NuCare Pharmaceuticals,Inc and Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals, LLC tables, or Actavis Pharma, Inc. topical cream. No dosage adjustments are recommended for diminished hepatic (liver) function. Could you provide me a link to the source of your list? I will review it. Surely, well designed and managed studies might at the least be a great start. It is a fairly recent expectation limiting a physician from prescribing a drug for a non FDA approved use. The gold standard for research projects is double blind studies. Neither the attending physician or patient knows if an active drug is being used or the placebo. Adjustments to therapy can not be made quickly based on patient's changing condition. Study managers need to be contacted and make a decision on treatment. Rights to share information is often limited, good and bad news is delayed based on study publication date, if published. In a fast changing situation like Covid not everyone want to work within those limitations. Within those 6 to 24 months until publication numerous peoples lives area effected. How exactly does the information you offer speak to its safety and effectiveness for illnesses for which it was not tested and approved? Safety of a chemical compound is generality first evaluated in animal studies, then healthy adults, patients enrolled in clinical studies and finally surprise safety issues show often within the first two years after approval and use in the larger patient population. Ivermectin has been through each of those stages and no large scale problem has been identified. The completed and ongoing studies are at evaluating effectiveness stage for Covid. Aren't the two papers addressing two entirely different matters that have exactly nothing to do with one another? Isn't each one irrelevant to the other? The Guardian article referenced in this diary included a link to Jack Lawrence article at Grifter Analysis and Review, which linked to Elgazzar et al 2020 Plagiarism Proof referencing 2011 article in my comment. The statistical analysis is the bread, butter, and jam of clinical trial but serious methodology and mathematical errors are reported in the article. Shouldn't those if sustained kill the paper outright? The data issues identified by Nick Brown should be addressed. Did not find a time reference for when the study author was contacted. I don't understand how one study can invalidate the conclusions of several studies. The authors of the two meta-analysis reviews included the study. If they were unable to detect the data issues I can not rely on their judgement of the data integrity of the other studies included in the review. Which is why I suggested those additional studies need to be looked at further and not simply drip the study in question. accusations that simultaneous stories in the media is somehow proof of a hit job Nick Brown who performed and published the data analysis describes the different story angles of the various articles. I found irony in an article discussing plagiarism was copied verbatim at different sites without credit of authorship. How people process information is fascinating. When I was a novice in my profession and walking towards the Pharmacy at the back of the store the Pharmacy Tech, wearing a white jacket, stopped me to help a customer select a product. Customer answered my questions, listened politely and said he would talk to the Pharmacist. I continued my walk, pulled my white jacket off the hook, put it on and walked back out to the customer. Customer answered my questions, listened politely, said thank you for the advice and took the product to purchase. The logic of the words were not as important as the trappings of authority.

—

"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."

Submitted by Granma on Sat, 07/17/2021 - 3:38pm

I appreciate your post.

@studentofearth I followed the links and read each of the articles carefully. Interesting. I will be watching for further information from the paper and study authors.

various angles were coordinated to publish July 15th. Concern is mentioned about impacting the analysis of ivermectin in meta-analyse papers. No mention of reviewing integrity the other studies included in the meta-analysis. (wikipedia - A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies.) This post appears at the same time as this piece at grftr.news by Jack Lawrence. Jack contacted me to ask if I could help him look at a number of issues with a prominent study of Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19. My speciality is forensic numerical data analysis finding errors in numbers, so I concentrated on that and suggested some other names to Jack to help him look at things like the study design, methods, and reporting. Hence, this post is almost entirely about the problems with the data from this study; Jack's piece covers other topics, such as the plagiarised text, the clinical trial "pre-registration" that was made after the first version of the results of the study was published, and many other problems. Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz has a piece over at Medium that discusses the implications of this study for the whole Ivermectin-for-Covid literature, and Melissa Davey is covering the story in the Guardian today. Interestingly the question of plagiarism in creating the introduction of the study is brought up as a major reason to invalidate the study. The Guardian complete article can be found multiple places on the web. Money Magnet at least provides a link "Source Link" at the bottom of the page, TOP10MIN.COM just has it presented by admin. Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective a 2011 article on the National Institutes of Health was one of the articles suggested as being plagiarized for the introduction. I have included some additional information from the article, bolded the text of a few selections. For reference TDR - UN-based Special Programme for Research & Training in Tropical Diseases and OCP - Onchocerciasis Control Programme in West Africa program closed in December 2002 due to success with ivermectin Ivermectin proved to be even more of a ‘Wonder drug’ in human health, improving the nutrition, general health and wellbeing of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat Onchocerciasis in humans in 1988. It proved ideal in many ways, being highly effective and broad-spectrum, safe, well tolerated and could be easily administered (a single, annual oral dose). It is used to treat a variety of internal nematode infections, including Onchocerciasis, Strongyloidiasis, Ascariasis, cutaneous larva migrans, filariases, Gnathostomiasis and Trichuriasis, as well as for oral treatment of ectoparasitic infections, such as Pediculosis (lice infestation) and scabies (mite infestation).14) Ivermectin is the essential mainstay of two global disease elimination campaigns that should soon rid the world of two of its most disfiguring and devastating diseases, Onchocerciasis and Lymphatic filariasis, which blight the lives of billions of the poor and disadvantaged throughout the tropics. It is likely that, throughout the next decade, well over 200 million people will be taking the drug annually or semi-annually, via innovative globally-coordinated Mass Drug Administration (MDA) programmes. Indeed, the discovery, development and deployment of ivermectin, produced by an unprecedented partnership between the Private Sector pharmaceutical multinational Merck & Co. Inc., and the Public Sector Kitasato Institute in Tokyo, aided by an extraordinary coalition of multidisciplinary international partners and disease-affected communities, has been recognized by many experts and observers as one of the greatest medical accomplishments of the 20th century.15) In referring to the international efforts to tackle Onchocerciasis in which ivermectin is now the sole control tool, the UNESCO World Science Report concluded, “the progress that has been made in combating the disease represents one of the most triumphant public health campaigns ever waged in the developing world”.16) ... Evidence suggests that collaboration between these major partners commenced in a complex environment of mutual wariness, suspicion and shared hope that ivermectin would indeed prove to be an effective treatment for Onchocerciasis. The situation was compounded by the fact that Merck saw ivermectin as a potentially commercial product to be used for individual patient treatment, and moved forward constantly seeking an income return on its investment. In contrast, TDR, together with OCP, saw the drug as a new community-level tool that could possibly interrupt parasite transmission and thereby help reduce the prevalence of the disease in endemic communities. TDR and OCP consequently regarded community-based trials under field conditions as an essential step towards mass-treatment programmes, as opposed to the individual treatment in hospitals favoured by the commercial partner. The continual negotiation with respect to the cost of the drug eventually resulted in a commitment from Merck in July 1985 to supply it in sufficient quantities and at the lowest possible price consistent with the interests of the company, later confirming that it would be made available to “… governments and patients at no cost to them for the treatment of Onchocerciasis”.31) ... Ivermectin has continually proved to be astonishingly safe for human use. Indeed, it is such a safe drug, with minimal side effects, that it can be administered by non-medical staff and even illiterate individuals in remote rural communities, provided that they have had some very basic, appropriate training. This fact has helped contribute to the unsurpassed beneficial impact that the drug has had on human health and welfare around the globe, especially with regard to the campaign to fight Onchocerciasis.57) ... In reality, the renewed interest in fighting tropical diseases, including the involvement of the pharmaceutical industry, which has become increasingly evident over the past three decades, and which has saved lives and improved the welfare of billions of people, notably the poor and disadvantaged in the topics, can be traced back to the 1987 introduction of ivermectin for use in humans. According to a recent report, International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) data show that the global pharmaceutical industry provided over $9.2 billion in health interventions (medicines and equipment) between 2000–2007 alone, benefitting 1.75 billion people worldwide.67) The hitherto unprecedented donation of ivermectin in 1987 can rightly be seen to be the origin of this philanthropic outpouring. ... Not surprisingly, public health specialists worldwide are now calling for greater and more extensive use of ivermectin,68) labelling MDA of the ‘wonder drug’ quite simply as “an underutilized public health strategy”. In response, the Kitasato Institute has initiated a global collaboration to investigate all properties and potential of a range of ivermectin analogues, both individually and in combination, particularly with a view to having a ready-made alternative should resistance to current ivermectin monotherapy ever threaten ongoing disease elimination campaigns.

Submitted by Blue Republic on Sat, 07/17/2021 - 7:28am

OK, so there are some red flags

about one particular study - the Egyptian one.

*However* it is only one of a large number of papers examined in the report the Guardian article is really trying to discredit - which has *not* been withdrawn and has been published in the American Journal of Therapeutics:

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19
Kory, Pierre MD1,*; Meduri, Gianfranco Umberto MD2; Varon, Joseph MD3; Iglesias, Jose DO4; Marik, Paul E. MD5

Therapeutic Advances:

A large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes. Numerous prophylaxis trials demonstrate that regular ivermectin use leads to large reductions in transmission. Multiple, large “natural experiments” occurred in regions that initiated “ivermectin distribution” campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns.

Conclusions:

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

Of course this is not really good news for vax totalitarians and Big Pharma execs as the entire rationale for allowing (not to mention coercing) vaccine use under Emergency Use Authorization goes away when it is admitted that viable therapeutics already exist.

Submitted by ovals49 on Sat, 07/17/2021 - 8:05am

EUA’s are dependent on there being NO other treatments,

@Blue Republic
as the law currently reads. While that suggests that:

….Emergency Use Authorization goes away when it is admitted that viable therapeutics already exist.

…… my guess is that if another, non “experimental” were to finally gain official approval, our so called ‘representatives’ would quickly amend the necessary statues to protect the profitability of Pfizer, Moderna and J&J.

—

Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes

Submitted by vtcc73 on Sat, 07/17/2021 - 12:54pm

I agree that EUA has sufficient evidence

@Blue Republic to be continued not withdrawn. I'm not against that at all, never was. I'd prefer to have something more specific than generalities describing the studies' results and I'd like to know if the charges against this study have merit. The latter is going to take time. The former describes glowing reports of great success for a few hundred here and there and 3000 in one area. Without double blind studies there is no guarantee that this is nothing but happenstance or a population that is prone to higher effectiveness. Or it could be on to something like other reports suggest.

Like everything else, give the questioned study's authors time to respond and explain the charges. Whether withdrawing the paper was premature or justified is a matter of opinion. Charges of suppression and censorship are without evidence only suspicion.

—

"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."

Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 07/18/2021 - 8:39am

Other real world evidence

Mexico started ivermectin with any positive test in late December. Notice what happened to COVID deaths.

The recent upticks in death is probably due to the delta variant.

Why aren't we hearing about India? Well they started recommending ivermectin April 20th.

Things are turning around in India — starting within days of increasing the use of Ivermectin again.

But where is the media? Who is reporting that the turnaround in some states of India has started within a couple of weeks of the expanded use of Ivermectin — the 50 cent old drug that has been used for 3.7 billion prescriptions worldwide, given to children to treat headlice, scabies and worms and is used by the ton on cattle and sheep farms.

On April 20th, New Dehli, AIIMs reccommended Ivermectin be added to the take home care package. So people getting tested would be able to start early treatment.

Cases started slowing down almost immediately.

On May 10th the Health Minister for Goa recommended the use of Ivermectin in Goa. Indeed, he offered it to the entire adult population.

The next day, the WHO, ever so helpfully, warned against the use of Ivermectin in India.

https://opentheword.org/2021/05/21/is-ivermectin-turning-the-covid-tide-...
https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/ivermectin-sav...

Experiments can be designed to fail, so I'm not holding my breath about the upcoming study results.

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by Dawn's Meta on Sun, 07/18/2021 - 9:42am

Two large prospective trials of Ivermectin currently being

@Lookout set up. Trial parameters, status of patients (pre COVID, COVID onsets plus how many days, hopitalization, deaths) have not yet been stated as far as we know.

A Principal Investigator from McMaster University in Ontario leads a large international clinical trial testing drugs targeting COVID-19 including ivermectin, metformin and fluvoxamine. With a growing number of studies indicating the potential efficacy of ivermectin, as well as some evidence that fluvoxamine shows promise, this large study could potentially take the evidence to the next level of credibility. The results of this study could be available within just a few months. The study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well as FastGrants
Led by Edward Mills, the Together COVID-19 Trial involves the McMaster research team as well as partners including Cardresearch and the Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais in Brazil and the University of Stellenbosch of South Africa.

How are people included or excluded? Gates has a huge investment in vaccines. Are the researchers independent of the funding source?

PRINCIPLE is one of UK Government’s national priority platform trials of COVID-19 treatments, and the world’s largest currently taking place in community settings looking for treatments at home.
Ivermectin, a widely used antiparasitic drug, has been added to the trial and is being evaluated in participants from today.
For COVID-19, ivermectin has shown promising results as a potential treatment in small studies in humans.
Anyone eligible and with COVID-19 symptoms can join the trial from anywhere in the UK, either online, over the phone or via their health care professional. SNIP Ivermectin is a safe, broad spectrum antiparasitic drug which is in wide use globally to treat parasitic infections.
With known antiviral properties, ivermectin has been shown to reduce SARS-CoV-2 replication in laboratory studies. Small pilot studies show that early administration with ivermectin can reduce viral load and the duration of symptoms in some patients with mild COVID-19. Even though ivermectin is used routinely in some countries to treat COVID-19, there is little evidence from large-scale randomised controlled trials to demonstrate that it can speed up recovery from the illness or reduce hospital admission.

There should be no statement of conclusion such as the last statement. Shows bias. Oxford? Makers of AstraZeneca?

Transparency in the prequalification questionnaires used to be part of the papers in publication. Do we get to see them on these trials? In addition trial design?

Mexico has been a success story until lately. Would like to know how they are doing on various treatment dispersal to the population. Any changes to the policies regarding what is approved for use?

Thanks LO.

—

A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.

Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.

Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 07/18/2021 - 10:15am

Gates funding ...

@Dawn's Meta

makes me suspicious. The UK study, Dr Kory suggest is being designed to fail...much like the HCQ study was flawed...Administered late with too high a dose and without zinc.

The FLCCC has a synergistic protocol. No studies include this approach...with Vit D, Zn, IV Vit C, ivermectin, and so on. Tests must be single components. Clinical experience of doctors isn't appreciated either.

No, we must have double blind randomized studies (typically funded by big pharma).

#5 set up. Trial parameters, status of patients (pre COVID, COVID onsets plus how many days, hopitalization, deaths) have not yet been stated as far as we know. 1) A Principal Investigator from McMaster University in Ontario leads a large international clinical trial testing drugs targeting COVID-19 including ivermectin, metformin and fluvoxamine. With a growing number of studies indicating the potential efficacy of ivermectin, as well as some evidence that fluvoxamine shows promise, this large study could potentially take the evidence to the next level of credibility. The results of this study could be available within just a few months. The study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well as FastGrants Led by Edward Mills, the Together COVID-19 Trial involves the McMaster research team as well as partners including Cardresearch and the Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais in Brazil and the University of Stellenbosch of South Africa. How are people included or excluded? Gates has a huge investment in vaccines. Are the researchers independent of the funding source? 2) PRINCIPLE is one of UK Government’s national priority platform trials of COVID-19 treatments, and the world’s largest currently taking place in community settings looking for treatments at home. Ivermectin, a widely used antiparasitic drug, has been added to the trial and is being evaluated in participants from today. For COVID-19, ivermectin has shown promising results as a potential treatment in small studies in humans. Anyone eligible and with COVID-19 symptoms can join the trial from anywhere in the UK, either online, over the phone or via their health care professional. SNIP Ivermectin is a safe, broad spectrum antiparasitic drug which is in wide use globally to treat parasitic infections. With known antiviral properties, ivermectin has been shown to reduce SARS-CoV-2 replication in laboratory studies. Small pilot studies show that early administration with ivermectin can reduce viral load and the duration of symptoms in some patients with mild COVID-19. Even though ivermectin is used routinely in some countries to treat COVID-19, there is little evidence from large-scale randomised controlled trials to demonstrate that it can speed up recovery from the illness or reduce hospital admission. There should be no statement of conclusion such as the last statement. Shows bias. Oxford? Makers of AstraZeneca? Transparency in the prequalification questionnaires used to be part of the papers in publication. Do we get to see them on these trials? In addition trial design? Mexico has been a success story until lately. Would like to know how they are doing on various treatment dispersal to the population. Any changes to the policies regarding what is approved for use? Thanks LO.

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by ovals49 on Mon, 07/19/2021 - 9:35am

Good questions.

@Dawn's Meta
The design of the trial can also have a major effect on its outcome. In the case of Ivermectin there is some solid evidence that it has antiviral properties against SARS Cov 2 virus. The PRINCIPAL trial

…. intends to observe the antiviral properties of ivermectin in patients that have been showing COVID-19 symptoms for up to 15 days. It is well known that the virus naturally clears the body in 5 to 7 days. Measuring antiviral properties of a treatment when the virus may have cleared the body naturally is unlikely to be useful for providing reliable evidence or clinical guidance.

FLCCC’s full PRINCIPAL Trial statement may be found here.

As it stands, COVID positive people who go to the hospital for help, but who do not yet need hospital level care, are simply sent home sick, where they are very likely to share their illness with additional family members. This is insanity. Hopefully the ongoing large institutional studies are well designed and that conflicts of interest and the huge amount of money and government pressure to vaccinate everyone don’t stack the deck and leave us with a vaccine only treatment for the next, and succeeding waves, of variants.

#5 set up. Trial parameters, status of patients (pre COVID, COVID onsets plus how many days, hopitalization, deaths) have not yet been stated as far as we know. 1) A Principal Investigator from McMaster University in Ontario leads a large international clinical trial testing drugs targeting COVID-19 including ivermectin, metformin and fluvoxamine. With a growing number of studies indicating the potential efficacy of ivermectin, as well as some evidence that fluvoxamine shows promise, this large study could potentially take the evidence to the next level of credibility. The results of this study could be available within just a few months. The study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well as FastGrants Led by Edward Mills, the Together COVID-19 Trial involves the McMaster research team as well as partners including Cardresearch and the Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais in Brazil and the University of Stellenbosch of South Africa. How are people included or excluded? Gates has a huge investment in vaccines. Are the researchers independent of the funding source? 2) PRINCIPLE is one of UK Government’s national priority platform trials of COVID-19 treatments, and the world’s largest currently taking place in community settings looking for treatments at home. Ivermectin, a widely used antiparasitic drug, has been added to the trial and is being evaluated in participants from today. For COVID-19, ivermectin has shown promising results as a potential treatment in small studies in humans. Anyone eligible and with COVID-19 symptoms can join the trial from anywhere in the UK, either online, over the phone or via their health care professional. SNIP Ivermectin is a safe, broad spectrum antiparasitic drug which is in wide use globally to treat parasitic infections. With known antiviral properties, ivermectin has been shown to reduce SARS-CoV-2 replication in laboratory studies. Small pilot studies show that early administration with ivermectin can reduce viral load and the duration of symptoms in some patients with mild COVID-19. Even though ivermectin is used routinely in some countries to treat COVID-19, there is little evidence from large-scale randomised controlled trials to demonstrate that it can speed up recovery from the illness or reduce hospital admission. There should be no statement of conclusion such as the last statement. Shows bias. Oxford? Makers of AstraZeneca? Transparency in the prequalification questionnaires used to be part of the papers in publication. Do we get to see them on these trials? In addition trial design? Mexico has been a success story until lately. Would like to know how they are doing on various treatment dispersal to the population. Any changes to the policies regarding what is approved for use? Thanks LO.

—

Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes

Submitted by zed2 on Tue, 07/20/2021 - 12:06pm

@ovals49 We're not a virus, in

@ovals49 We're not a virus, in fact, viruses ae about the simplest things that people call a living thing. They are basically just some DNA or RNA configured in an unusual way that replicates itself.

Not so different than a computer virus which behaves somewhat similarly. (but which, being electronic, is totally unrelated, and not even biological.)

Submitted by zed2 on Tue, 07/20/2021 - 12:15pm

@Dawn's Meta There are benefits to

@Dawn's Meta There are benefits to delaying the onset of infection. Also the initial dose may have a substantial impact on the eventual course of the infection.

#5 set up. Trial parameters, status of patients (pre COVID, COVID onsets plus how many days, hopitalization, deaths) have not yet been stated as far as we know. 1) A Principal Investigator from McMaster University in Ontario leads a large international clinical trial testing drugs targeting COVID-19 including ivermectin, metformin and fluvoxamine. With a growing number of studies indicating the potential efficacy of ivermectin, as well as some evidence that fluvoxamine shows promise, this large study could potentially take the evidence to the next level of credibility. The results of this study could be available within just a few months. The study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well as FastGrants Led by Edward Mills, the Together COVID-19 Trial involves the McMaster research team as well as partners including Cardresearch and the Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais in Brazil and the University of Stellenbosch of South Africa. How are people included or excluded? Gates has a huge investment in vaccines. Are the researchers independent of the funding source? 2) PRINCIPLE is one of UK Government’s national priority platform trials of COVID-19 treatments, and the world’s largest currently taking place in community settings looking for treatments at home. Ivermectin, a widely used antiparasitic drug, has been added to the trial and is being evaluated in participants from today. For COVID-19, ivermectin has shown promising results as a potential treatment in small studies in humans. Anyone eligible and with COVID-19 symptoms can join the trial from anywhere in the UK, either online, over the phone or via their health care professional. SNIP Ivermectin is a safe, broad spectrum antiparasitic drug which is in wide use globally to treat parasitic infections. With known antiviral properties, ivermectin has been shown to reduce SARS-CoV-2 replication in laboratory studies. Small pilot studies show that early administration with ivermectin can reduce viral load and the duration of symptoms in some patients with mild COVID-19. Even though ivermectin is used routinely in some countries to treat COVID-19, there is little evidence from large-scale randomised controlled trials to demonstrate that it can speed up recovery from the illness or reduce hospital admission. There should be no statement of conclusion such as the last statement. Shows bias. Oxford? Makers of AstraZeneca? Transparency in the prequalification questionnaires used to be part of the papers in publication. Do we get to see them on these trials? In addition trial design? Mexico has been a success story until lately. Would like to know how they are doing on various treatment dispersal to the population. Any changes to the policies regarding what is approved for use? Thanks LO.

Submitted by zed2 on Tue, 07/20/2021 - 12:10pm

Thanks

I am going to read this closely, thank you.

Its important to stress that despite the rapid mutations in the virus, breakthrough symptoms etc. that health workers who had been vaccinated twice, and got Covid said that, in retrospect, that they were extremely glad to have been vaccinated, all things considered.

What probably happened is that at their jobs, from a patient, they got a massive exposure that probably would have killed them, were they unvaccinated.

This is why its still important to take precautions against breating other peoples recently exhaled air.(thts the biggest risk) Second is fomites, picking it up from things you touch and then transfer to your mouth or nose.
The nasal route is particularly scary.

Covid must be destroying so many families in the poorer parts of the world right now. Pray for them if you pray. Help them any way you can.

Submitted by Lookout on Wed, 07/21/2021 - 7:17am

Fomites are rarely the agent of infection

@zed2

This is primarily an aerosol transmitted disease, so your first premise is the most correct.

EDIT: adding a source:

There is currently limited evidence on transmission through fomites (objects or materials that may be contaminated with viable virus, such as utensils and furniture or in health care settings a stethoscope or thermometer) in the immediate environment around the infected person.(11-14) The majority of studies report identification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA on inanimate surfaces; a recent study in a healthcare setting where immunocompromised patients were cared for found extensive contamination with replication- and infection-competent SARS-CoV-2 in discarded nasal tissues, a cell phone, the patient’s hands, and cough specimens(15). However, the evidence demonstrating the recovery of viable virus in clinical and community settings is currently limited

file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/WHO-2019-nCoV-IPC-2021.1-eng-1.pdf

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”