Ivermectin (and others) clinical study

Submitted by innatimm on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 8:56am

If you are interested in helping to advance the use of currently approved drugs for the treatment of COVID, keep this site in mind if you test positive for the virus:

https://covidout.umn.edu/

Why is this study being done?
To understand if these medications prevent severe Covid and long-Covid symptoms.

COVID-19 increases inflammation in the body, which causes harm.

The medications Metformin, Ivermectin, and Fluvoxamine are known to decrease inflammatory proteins (cytokines) in the body. They also appear to possibly stop the proteins inside cells that help viruses reproduce and spread.
Reviews of persons who developed COVID-19 while taking metformin suggest they were less likely to be hospitalized or die from the infection. Smaller, prospective studies showed patients given fluvoxamine or ivermectin were similarly less likely to be hospitalized or die from COVID-19.
If we give metformin, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, or a combination of these medications to individuals soon after they develop COVID-19, will it decrease the severity of their symptoms? Will it prevent them from needing hospitalization? This study hopes to answer these questions.

Randomized clinical trial results are what moves the needle for the FDA. At worst you would be able to get access to the drug specifically formulated for humans instead of trying to use the veterinary version. (And a $400 payday as well!)

I was happy to get vaccinated (Moderna) and I do have the scientific background to understand the research and safety studies conducted for the current vaccines. For me, I feel that the best course of action is to get vaccinated. I do understand the fear of the vaccines from people without a background in immunology and additionally, as has been expressed on this site previously, much of the world will not have access to the vaccines and finding a medication that is safe, cheap, and easy to store would be a tremendous asset in bringing an end to this pandemic. Repurposing of drugs has a very successful history and several companies are investing billions of dollars toward this end (and not just for COVID):

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03846-0

So I do think that the research is vital but it has to be done in the correct manner. The vaccines were put under this level of scrutiny and ivermectin will have to do this as well. If you are willing to volunteer, it would help greatly to bring this possible treatment forward. It's sad that vaccines/treatments/masks... have become so divisive and politicized but in our current culture I guess it's to be expected. We are all charting our own path through this and I think that we should respect each others choices whether it is vaccinations or use of medications and do what we can to help each other through it.

Tags: 
COVID-19 Ivermectin Vaccines
Share
up
16 users have voted.

Comments

Submitted by ovals49 on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 9:33am

is that it is most effective in the earliest stages of the disease, beginning at exposure and for as long as the virus is replicating (usually for the next 7-10 days or so). Ivermectin has less potency in its anti-inflammatory properties than it does for its anti viral properties. Any trial that requires a positive covid test for participants (2-4days post exposure) will likely miss most or all of the viral replication period by the time enrollment and delivery of medications. The most important antiviral properties of Ivermectin will not be reflected in any such study and will skew the overall results relative to real world early intervention efficacy for all of these drugs being tested.

Trials can be designed in a way that will guarantee the desired result. This may be one such example.

up
10 users have voted.
—

“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024

Submitted by wokkamile on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 10:17am

@ovals49 This is for people who've already tested Covid positive. It would appear that by the time subjects become aware of and are finally approved for the study, they would be much closer to 7-10 days into their symptoms rather than 2-3, and IVM's effectiveness as a stand-alone treatment rests on it being taken immediately upon first symptoms (per FLCCC recommendations).

And I didn't catch what the dosage amount was for this study. Giving too small a dosage could also impact findings negatively. For post-Covid exposure, FLCCC rec is 0.4mg/kg body weight.

up
5 users have voted.
Submitted by CB on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 11:33am
CB's picture

@wokkamile
of ivermectin is directly proportional to the timing of its administration as well as its dose. Three doses after onset of confirmed illness does not make for an unprejudiced study of its effectiveness.

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 64 studies

Prophylaxis - 86% [75‑92%]
Early treatment - 68% [52‑78%]
Late treatment - 40% [24‑52%]
Patients - 26,509

up
6 users have voted.
Submitted by CB on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 10:25am
CB's picture

@ovals49
That study only supplies ivermectin for a 3 day period AFTER contracting SARS-CoV-2. From reading many reports on the use and efficacy of ivermectin that study seems to be designed to fail.

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19
...
Areas of Uncertainty:

The majority of trialed agents have failed to provide reproducible, definitive proof of efficacy in reducing the mortality of COVID-19 with the exception of corticosteroids in moderate to severe disease. Recently, evidence has emerged that the oral antiparasitic agent ivermectin exhibits numerous antiviral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms with trial results reporting significant outcome benefits. Given some have not passed peer review, several expert groups including Unitaid/World Health Organization have undertaken a systematic global effort to contact all active trial investigators to rapidly gather the data needed to grade and perform meta-analyses.

Data Sources:

Data were sourced from published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts posted to preprint servers, expert meta-analyses, and numerous epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution campaigns.

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.
...

up
8 users have voted.
Submitted by wokkamile on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 12:06pm

@CB to be studied -- 30-85 -- also seems funny. Why start at the higher age of 30 and not 18? Also age 85 seems very high, and makes me wonder if they don't plan on capturing an oversized number in the very elderly, the group which would naturally have less of a robust innate immune system and more co-morbidities beyond the ones excluded in the trial. This study suggests most random clinical trials are given to the 18-64 age group. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4640010/

up
5 users have voted.
Submitted by innatimm on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 12:21pm

@ovals49
Here is a short article about the study:

https://med.umn.edu/news-events/u-m-medical-school-receives-15m-launch-n...

I think that doctors putting together such a study put in a lot of effort on the dosing regimen with the knowledge of the drugs/diseases at the time the study was initiated. Perhaps there is new information that would affect the design if it were starting today. As for the aim of the study to ultimately fail, I must disagree with you. For that to be the case a medical doctor would be designing the drug regimen with the intent to kill patients. I have worked in the medical field for over 35 years and I have never met such a person. I disagree with some people during this time of controversy about how best to get through this pandemic but in my heart I know that even though they hold a different opinion, they are sincerely looking for a solution to save lives and improve outcomes. I think we should keep that in mind as we go forward.

up
6 users have voted.
Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 12:33pm
Lookout's picture

@innatimm

among well meaning physicians. In part by conducting much of the continuing ed and med school influence, as well as funding most accepted research. Why else did well meaning doctors contribute to the opioid epidemic? They were told the oxycotin wasn't additive and believed it.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5738386/canadian-medical-school-funding/

In 2008, AMSA (American Medical Student Association), in collaboration with The Pew Charitable Trusts, uncovered just how extensively pharmaceutical companies influenced medical institutions in the U.S. AMSA created a conflict-of-interests scorecard to show just how ethically academia was interacting with the pharmaceutical business:

40 out 150 schools received an “F”, including Harvard, which had no conflict-of-interests policies in place. (Note: Harvard received an “A” on the next survey.)
Less than 15 percent of medical schools scored an “A” or “B,” insinuating the overwhelming majority of doctors have received a severely skewed education.

The situation was bad and apparent. Our up-and-coming doctors, even at top tier institutions, were set to prescribe and knew what to prescribe before we visited them. Professors were in pharma pocketbooks, and the prescriptions patients were receiving were tainted, tilted, and totally unreliable.

https://www.onegreenplanet.org/natural-health/how-medical-school-funding...

What you want to bet the study you report is heavily influenced (even designed) by big pharma?

up
5 users have voted.
—

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

Submitted by innatimm on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 1:08pm

@Lookout
Rainwater Charitable Foundation:
https://rainwatercharitablefoundation.org/

Fast Grants:
https://fastgrants.org/
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02111-7

up
4 users have voted.
Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 1:41pm
Lookout's picture

@innatimm

not saying that any of these funders have nefarious drug ties, but thats the way the system often works.
This research is funded by:

UMN Clinical Translational Science Institute

The Parsemus Foundation

The Rainwater Foundation

FastGrants

UnitedHealth Group Research and Development

It may be an innocent poor design as others have described with IVM at too low a dose, too late in the infection cycle.

Mexico has the model. Test positive, get IVM (and they are providing a limited and low dose with good efficacy.) so the UMN test may yet show some efficacy.

mexico.png

So I can't help think that if you wanted to really do a study, you would at least try a test and treat program which has proved effective in several countries in the real world. Simple, cheap, easily replicated... However I'm not a doctor. Just a simple soil scientist. And I want to emphasize am not criticizing you, your profession, nor this study you bring to our attention. The more knowledge the better, but I can't help but think that we've lost our way in medicine, farming (my area), food and nutrition, people's health... There IS corporate capture and I think in all our various walks of life we need to be aware of how TPTB are driving our professions, health, and well being.

It is in part by manufacturing consent.

up
8 users have voted.
—

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

Submitted by CB on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 2:44pm
CB's picture

@Lookout

Lima and its environs constitute half the population of Peru but ivermectin was used only in the outlying states. This gave the opportunity to see how ivermectin performed with a control group.

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19
...
Epidemiological data showing impacts of widespread ivermectin use on population case counts and case fatality rates

Similar to the individual cities in Brazil that measured large decreases in case counts soon after distributing ivermectin in comparison to neighboring cities without such campaigns, in Peru, the government approved the use of ivermectin by decree on May 8, 2020, solely based on the in vitro study by Caly et al from Australia.48 Soon after, multiple state health ministries initiated ivermectin distribution campaigns in an effort to decrease what was at that time some of the highest COVID-19 morbidity and mortality rates in the world...
...
With these data, he was then able to compare the timing of major decreases in this age group of both total COVID-19 cases and total excess deaths per 1000,000 people among 8 states in Peru with the initiation dates of their respective ivermectin distribution campaigns as shown in Figure ​Figure44.


...
In an even more telling example, Chamie compared the case counts and fatality rates of the 8 states above with the city of Lima, where ivermectin was not distributed nor widely used in treatment during the same period. Figure ​Figure66 compares the lack of significant or sustained reductions in case counts or fatalities in Lima with the dramatic reductions in both outcomes among the 8 states with widespread ivermectin distribution.

up
4 users have voted.
Submitted by innatimm on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 3:38pm

@Lookout My 35 year career in the medical field started out as a year off to earn some money before I applied to grad school in Agronomy. Got a little side tracked Smile Might still be a colleague of yours if I ever get that application finished! I wish you the best.

up
4 users have voted.
Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 3:54pm
Lookout's picture

@innatimm

Would have valued you as a colleague.

My Auburn education was back in the day when faculty took pride in teaching...not just grant procurement. I appreciate my BS and MS in soil fertility and crop management. However my career was as an earth science teacher after starting my PhD and realizing the issues with research funding and expected results as well as the publish or perish culture of academia. I was able to pivot that PhD project into a MS in sci ed (I was lucky to have a university wide assistantship which could be used in any dept). Spent most (20 years) of my teaching career in 8th grade earth science. Took awhile to learn how to swing it, but worked out well in the long run.

Today I try to manage our homestead using all those skills. Ever in Alabama? Come see us. We think our place is special.

All the best!

up
5 users have voted.
—

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

Submitted by CB on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 1:51pm
CB's picture

@innatimm
is capable of hurting anyone considering the conditions. I'm sure they will also do additional screening before they accept you.

For that to be the case a medical doctor would be designing the drug regimen with the intent to kill patients.

All of these medications are FDA-approved for both adults and children.
Ivermectin treatment is only for 3 days, not 14 days.
No clinic or office visits are necessary! This is a contact-free, at-home trial.
We will send you a symptom survey for you to record your symptoms and a pre-addressed envelope for you to return it to us.
...
Can I be in this study?

You may qualify if:

  • You have a positive COVID test within the past 3 days
  • You are 30 to 85 years old

You do not qualify if:

  • You are currently hospitalized (for any reason)
  • You are taking metformin (within the last 2 weeks)
  • You are taking insulin (in the past 2 weeks)
  • You are taking a sulfonylurea (glipizide)
  • You have advanced heart, liver, or kidney disease

Currently there are 77 studies assessing the use of ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 registered in clinicaltrials.gov, and 139 trials listed in the WHO’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

up
5 users have voted.
Submitted by wokkamile on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 2:23pm

@CB but I am constantly amazed at how much on top of the many ongoing Covid issues you are CB, especially with your ability to produce backing evidence. Well done.

Me, I still struggle with the basic science, have forgotten how to link at this site, and generally am much too lazy to go into too much in-depth research on anything these days, outside of maybe Bigfoot ...

up
4 users have voted.
Submitted by innatimm on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 3:00pm

@CB
It seems that I have picked out a study that the C99 group feels is inadequate. Is there some that you know of that would be good to volunteer for? I thought this was a good one since it was able to be done remotely so you wouldn't be limited by location. It would be good to find one with the preferred dosing regimen and still be able to have access from various locations.

up
3 users have voted.
Submitted by ovals49 on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 2:30pm

@innatimm
What I said was

Trials can be designed in a way that will guarantee the desired result. This may be one such example.

The singling out for Ivermectin for low dose and short duration certainly looks like a bias which will in all probability result in sub optimal efficacy conclusion for Ivermectin in this trial. Unless you can demonstrate how this is not the case, I am not willing to simply assume that this is an innocent or benign bias.

up
4 users have voted.
—

“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024

Submitted by innatimm on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 3:34pm

@ovals49
I have no knowledge of the background of this study. I generally assume people have good intentions until proven otherwise. It's worked out OK for me so far Smile

up
3 users have voted.
Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 9:43am
Lookout's picture

that those who are highly allergic should be vaccine hesitant. I too got the double dose Moderna, but we need to be honest reporting that many people have adverse reactions, some serious, and even deaths. Additionally vaccinated people can get and become ill from COVID...even dying.

As to the obsession about DBCT studies...yes they are the best SINGLE study, but the primo model is the meta-analysis of multiple studies. https://c19ivermectin.com/

IVM studies.png

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Reanalysis-of...
Beyond studies there is the totality of evidence...
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/SUMMARY-OF-TH...

So my summary would be ... people are dying. There is a very safe drug that appears effective. If we use a risk benefit analysis, the only conclusion I can reach is that IVM should be one of many standard treatments (Vit D, IV Vit C, and so on) for this disease. Instead the US standard of treatment is remdesiver...
However...
WHO recommends against the use of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients
European study finds that Gilead's Covid-19 antiviral remdesivir shows no clinical benefit
Large Remdesivir Study Finds No COVID-19 Survival Benefit

So let's see $3000 remdesivir treatments are not just recommended, they are REQUIRED for the COVID patient hospital bonus, but we need more experiments and tests to recommend the proven, safe the $3 IVM treatment....in fact patients are having to bring suit in order to receive IVM while in the hospital (because the hospital will lose their bonus).

My 2 cents, YMMV.

up
13 users have voted.
—

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

Submitted by Raggedy Ann on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 10:20am
Raggedy Ann's picture

@Lookout ~ you hit all the correct and proven points. Chris Martensen is a treasure and continues to educate us on this issue. https://www.peakprosperity.com/
Pleasantry

up
6 users have voted.
—

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

Submitted by wokkamile on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 12:20pm

@Lookout summary of the situation.

And someone help me here: has the MSM ever -- EVER -- reported on the numbers reported by VAERS? I usually arrange to keep either Msnbc or CNN on as background noise as I go about my evening routines, yet in the 18 months of Covid coverage I have yet to see a single segment talking about vaccine-related injuries or deaths. Not one.

And yes, I'm familiar with the VAERS issues pro and con. But imo, it's important info that more reflects a likely baseline, floor number of adverse events. The critics tend to overemphasize any noise in that system and so then throw out the baby of the signal.

Similarly, on Treatment, maybe at most a few segments on the cables talking about post-exposure treatment. Probably mostly about Remdesivir or the approved dubious and expensive treatments, and of course many segments denigrating IVM.

up
5 users have voted.
Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 10:07am

"So I do think that the research is vital but it has to be done in the correct manner. The vaccines were put under this level of scrutiny and ivermectin will have to do this as well."

up
4 users have voted.
—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by CB on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 10:49am
CB's picture

@Fishtroller 02
and I doubt it will make any impact in the science.

I believe TPTB are just playing a holding game until Big Pharma comes up with new COVID pills to be used only as a adjunct with their 'vaccines'.

It is only fitting that this "breakthrough" is announced by a stock market/investment website. Take note that the mechanism by which these prophylactics work is eerily similar to ivermectin.

Maybe we should call them Pfizermectin and Mermectin?

Could Pfizer and Merck Be Big Winners With COVID Pills?

Key Points

  • Pfizer and Merck are beginning phase 3 studies of their respective oral COVID-19 therapy candidates.
  • There could be a big market for COVID-19 pills over the next several years.

Both Pfizer (NYSE:PFE) and Merck (NYSE:MRK) have recently announced they're advancing oral antiviral candidates targeting COVID-19 into late-stage testing. In this Motley Fool Live video recorded on Sept. 8, 2021, Motley Fool contributors Keith Speights and Brian Orelli discuss if the two drugmakers could be big winners with their COVID-19 pills.

up
12 users have voted.
Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 1:30pm

@CB

comes out before judging it?

What is your basis for this opinion...

"I believe TPTB are just playing a holding game until Big Pharma comes up with new COVID pills to be used only as a adjunct with their 'vaccines'."

Why wouldn't Merck pursue further studies on a product they developed in the first place? I assume know that they developed Ivermectin and continue to offer the POV that it is not a good candidate for treatment of Covid 19.

IF either Pfizer or Merck or even Moderna do more trials on Ivermectin and come to a new conclusion that it is a good treatment for Covid after all, will you reject those studies too because they are all Big Pharma?

Since the claim is that there are so many clinical trials of Ivermectin that have occurred already (I've lost track of the count since it keeps changing) which one of those do you think is the one that exhibits ALL the parameters of a true trial that proves Ivermectin is a good treatment for Covid 19 (including the sources of funding for the trial)?

up
2 users have voted.
—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by CB on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 2:03pm
CB's picture

@Fishtroller 02
in a reduced dose for just 3 days after one has already contracted the disease tells me that they are not sincere in studying the drug as a prophylaxis.

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=COVID-19&term=ivermectin...

https://trialsearch.who.int/ [Note: Put ivermectin in search box]

up
3 users have voted.
Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 2:37pm

@CB

So how do you know there is not a scientific reason for the dosing in this clinical trial?

up
1 user has voted.
—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 3:02pm
Lookout's picture

@Fishtroller 02

successful practitioners were utilizing. Why is it that people discount the SUCCESSFUL experience a wide cadre of practitioners are experiencing?
https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/

These guys are the critical care experts.

You will have to copy this link and paste it into your browser to hear this discussion but it explains why these doctors are being ignored. These guys WROTE the ICU textbooks but are sidelined during a pandemic. Doesn't that make you suspicious?
https://odysee.com/@FrontlineCovid19CriticalCareAlliance:c/FLCCC-WEBINAR-091521_Pharmagedon:7

Just catch the start to hear people explain their experience.
This episode discusses the issues that doctors and nurses are facing writing prescriptions for their patients and how pharmacies are blocking needed prescriptions from being filled. Alan Dumhoff discusses the legal implications of all of this for healthcare providers and patients.

Look you're entitled to your opinion, but there are other ways to look at this dilemma.

up
7 users have voted.
—

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

Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 3:49pm

@Lookout

But apparently when I apply that suspicion to those who are advocating for people to just take Ivermectin now on their own, my skepticism garners criticism.

So I'm back to this.... give me a large thousands of people full clinical trial with all the proper bells and whistles and guidelines where Ivermectin is tested as a solid remedy for those suffering with Covid-19, and I'll take another look. In the meantime there really ARE people poisoning themselves with Ivermectin or choosing not to be vaccinated because of all the unsubstantiated promotion of it.

up
2 users have voted.
—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by wokkamile on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 8:42pm

@Lookout point -- the doctors actually treating patients with the IVM are much better experts to know dosage and frequency and timing as compared with gov't science bureaucrats who treat no Covid patients or the ivory tower peer-review research types who also have never had to treat dozens and hundreds of suffering Covid patients.

Seems such a common sense observation that you would want to give very great weight to the views of those experienced in a medical matter, in the trenches doing the work, not those sitting on the sidelines.

up
4 users have voted.
Submitted by CB on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 3:22pm
CB's picture

@Fishtroller 02
is not consistent with the FLCCC recommended dose which was obtained from looking at hundreds of studies.

The dosing is too little and too late to be used as a prophylaxis where its efficacy shines. Like all other drugs, the sooner they are applied the better they work.

This efficacy was noted by Satoshi ŌMURA when he found that in African countries where ivermectin was commonly used, there were few cases of COVID-19.

The study is to only test if ivermectin is a curative and/or palliative for established COVID-19 cases. That's a pretty tall order for any drug especially one used off-label that wasn't designed for the specific job and given in less than ideal dosage to boot.

up
4 users have voted.
Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 3:35pm

@CB

website and articles about this group. They have made some big mistakes and had to have a paper on Ivermectin withdrawn. They also sent letters to several government touting that Ivermectin could end this whole thing within a month (August) and they listed Robert Kennedy's group as an associated group. One of the founders of the group insisted that not using Ivermectin was akin to genocide. So I have not spent any more time on this group and have to be honest with you that I won't be following up on any posts that point to FLCCC.

up
2 users have voted.
—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by CB on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 7:23pm
CB's picture

@Fishtroller 02

Joint Statement of the FLCCC Alliance and British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group on Retraction of Early Research on Ivermectin

A reexamination of the data without the earlier research continues to prove that ivermectin is effective in preventing and treating COVID-19

WASHINGTON, D.C. and BATH, SOMERSET, U.K. – The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), a group of highly published, world-renowned critical care physicians and scholars, and the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group (BIRD), a U.K. based group of medical and scientific experts from over 15 countries, are concerned over the misrepresentation of science in the recent article published in the Guardian regarding the withdrawal of Professor Emeritus Ahmed Elgazzar!s study into ivermectin that was first posted December 16, 2020.

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.
...

The Guardian is the British version of the The New York Times.

FYI, I just gave a list of over 200 studies now being done or completed in this diary. Failure of a meta-study doesn't doom the individual studies. Here's another meta-study on ivermectin consisting of 64 controlled studies.

up
7 users have voted.
Submitted by wokkamile on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 2:42pm

@Fishtroller 02 question hasn't been gone over many times here in the long period I've been away

Why wouldn't Merck pursue further studies on a product they developed in the first place?

Bc IVM is now off-patent and as such can be produced cheaply by any company anywhere in the world. IOW, it won't be a big $$$ maker for Merck. They want the much more expensive IVM knockoff they and a few others are working to produce and get FDA approved. Some of these Big Pharma entities see the potential -- a worldwide 7-8billion group of customers -- and want to maximize their profit potential with a new drug, not squeeze out a few pennies from the much cheaper IVM.

On your last item, the ideal pristine IVM trial, it's just another way to isolate and denigrate IVM. No trial, to my knowledge, is going to be perfect, and so if this approach is stipulated to, there will be no end to the ankle biting and nitpicking about one individual study and its alleged flaws, and so the IVM debate would devolve into trivial micro aggressions which appear to be more devastating than they are.

Otoh, there is strength in numbers, and the overall 60+ studies, including some RCTs, show the benefits of using IVM both to treat and prophylactically, and this large strong group of trials can overcome any flaw shown in just one study. Any reasonably honest and dedicated doctor treating Covid patients would want to see the overall picture, not a micro study of one study which uncovers a micro flaw.

up
6 users have voted.
Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 3:38pm

@wokkamile

large clinical trials on its use exclusively for Covid-19?

up
1 user has voted.
—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by wokkamile on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 7:30pm

@Fishtroller 02 having independently and thoroughly researched this, so take this fwiw. According to either Dr Kory or Marik in a podcast, these large RCTs you insist on take about a year to conduct with thousands of participants, and take $20m out of someone's pocket. The type of money that typically only Big Pharma has, not a small group of independent doctors.

And as many in the FLCCC group are practicing doctors treating Covid patients, they don't have the luxury of telling these patients to wait a year for a proper clinical trial before giving IVM.

up
3 users have voted.
Submitted by CB on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 8:22pm
CB's picture

@Fishtroller 02
https://c19ivermectin.com/

You can explore this site and look at the individual Studies or Meta-studies to find results.

up
4 users have voted.
Submitted by wokkamile on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 8:28pm

@CB I also roused myself to find this summary of the pro-IVM evidence at the FLCCC site. https://cdn.digitalobservermedia.com/yourobserver.com/pdfs/SUMMARY-OF-TH...

34 RCTs so far, involving 3400 participants. And other types of trials called OCTs, observational CTs. But I assumed Fish was referencing the need for one of those massive year-long studies that cost millions.

up
6 users have voted.
Submitted by CB on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 9:28pm
CB's picture

@wokkamile
in spending millions of dollars re-purposing off patent drugs. Their primary goal is maximizing shareholder profits by bringing new drugs to market.

up
6 users have voted.
Submitted by CB on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 3:38pm
CB's picture

@Fishtroller 02

IF either Pfizer or Merck or even Moderna do more trials on Ivermectin and come to a new conclusion that it is a good treatment for Covid after all, will you reject those studies too because they are all Big Pharma?

Both of these companies have already categorically stated that ivermectin is not suitable or recommended for COVID-19. These companies are now in 3rd trials of their new oral pills that functions similar to ivermectin. All they have to do is tweak a few molecules here and there and BINGO! WINNER! WINNER! They'll have a money maker that will sell globally - probably even outsell their leaky vaccines. (Come to think of it, a leaky vaccine would be a boon for sales of their new pill.)

up
5 users have voted.
Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 3:40pm

@CB

do the trick, would you advocate for them?

up
1 user has voted.
—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by wokkamile on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 8:31pm

@Fishtroller 02 should somehow be banned in this country by the feds, or made near-impossible to find, then I'd probably reluctantly have to give Big Pharma some of my money.

up
2 users have voted.
Submitted by CB on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 9:02pm
CB's picture

@Fishtroller 02
for COVID-19 is Remdesdivir. For a five-day treatment of the drug using six vials (based on current patterns), the total charged to hospitals for patients with private insurance in the U.S. will be $3,120. For those under U.S. government health programs, the total will be $2,340 per patient.

I'm thinking the costs of an ivermectin clone will be in the similar price range. That will put it well out of range for 3rd world countries. But what I am concerned about is TPTB may tie its use to those who are vaccinated with their products.

The following study in Israel will be completed at the end of 2021. It is almost identical to the one this C99% diary is based on. The preliminary results look promising.

Note: Bangladesh uses ivermectin with a 13% vaccination rate. Its death rate is 163 per million as compared to the US 2,075 per million with about 70% vaccination rate. It spends about 1/100th of what America spends on health care per person. It makes one wonder what is going on.

Israeli scientist says COVID-19 could be treated for under $1/day
AUGUST 2, 2021
...
Prof. Eli Schwartz, founder of the Center for Travel Medicine and Tropical Disease at Sheba, conducted a randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial from May 15, 2020, through the end of January 2021 to evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin in reducing viral shedding among non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.
...
The drug is also extremely economical. A study published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Therapeutics showed that the cost of ivermectin for other treatments in Bangladesh is around $0.60 to $1.80 for a five-day course. It costs up to $10 a day in Israel, Schwartz said.
...
In Schwartz’s study, some 89 eligible volunteers over the age of 18 who were diagnosed with coronavirus and staying in state-run COVID-19 hotels were divided into two groups: 50% received ivermectin, and 50% received a placebo, according to their weight. They were given the pills for three days in a row, an hour before a meal.

The volunteers were tested using a standard nasopharyngeal swab PCR test with the goal of evaluating whether there was a reduction in viral load by the sixth day – the third day after termination of the treatment. They were swabbed every two days.

Nearly 72% of volunteers treated with ivermectin tested negative for the virus by day six. In contrast, only 50% of those who received the placebo tested negative.

IN ADDITION, the study looked at culture viability, meaning how infectious the patients were, and found that only 13% of ivermectin patients were infectious after six days, compared with 50% of the placebo group – almost four times as many.
...

up
4 users have voted.
Submitted by ggersh on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 10:56am
ggersh's picture

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/09/no_author/the-conspiracy-theorists-w...

A snippet

Did the regulators at the FDA know that all previous coronavirus vaccines had failed in animal trials and that the vaccinated animals became either severely ill or died?

Yes, they did.

Did they know that previous coronavirus vaccines had a tendency to “enhance the infection” and “make the disease worse”?

Yes.

Did Dr Anthony Fauci know that coronavirus vaccines had repeatedly failed and increased the severity of the infection?

Yes, he did. (See here: Fauci on ADE)

Did the drug companies conduct any animal trials prior to the FDA’s approval that would have convinced a reasonable person that the vaccines were safe to use on humans?

No, they didn’t.

Did they complete long-term clinical trials to establish whether the vaccines were safe?

No, there were no long-term clinical trials.

up
10 users have voted.
—

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 11:41am
snoopydawg's picture

@ggersh

Before they authorized emergency use for the vaccines. How could they NOT know that and especially the Fraudci.

Innatimm thanks for saying this:

We are all charting our own path through this and I think that we should respect each others choices whether it is vaccinations or use of medications and do what we can to help each other through it.

There has been valuable information posted on this subject and all JtC asks is that we respect each others opinions. If we want to continue discussing the options we need to keep that in mind.

BTW folks the video that Lookout posted on the India lawsuit against the WHO for ivermectin stresses the point that it has been in use for 40 years and is a very safe drug which blows what the CDC FDA and the Fraud out of the water and shows that they are deliberately lying about it. They don't actually care about saving lives or they would be throwing every trick they have at the Rona to keep people alive. Also they could be talking to people about the risks that they have and what to do to become more healthy. Interesting discussion.

up
10 users have voted.
—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.

Submitted by ovals49 on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 11:24am

are dosed differently than the other drugs in the trial.

Ivermectin treatment is only for 3 days, not 14 days.

Additionally, the weight dependent dose is limited to 0.35mg/kg per day, for 3 days.
FLCCC early treatment protocol (as adjusted for Delta) is 0.4-0.6mg/kg per day, for 5 days, or til recovered.

Not only is the trial dosage for Ivermectin underpowered, the duration is only 3 days, significantly less than current FLCCC I-MASK+ Early Treatment Protocol, which is 5 days, or until recovered.

On the plus side, their enrollment process takes less than an hour and the the pills arrive same or next day.

You are randomly assigned to 1 of 6 possible treatment groups:

Metformin (*immediate release)
Ivermectin
Fluvoxamine
Fluvoxamine + Metformin*
Ivermectin + Metformin*
Placebo
*There is an FDA recall of metformin extended release, but not immediate release (the kind used in this study). The recall has to do with a substance in the water purification process, not the metformin itself. Ivermectin treatment is only for 3 days, not 14 days. [my bold]

The design seems to revolve around Metformin, with Ivermectin carrying the burden of a significant handicap weight by virtue of both low dose and seriously shortened duration of the dose. I wonder who’s paying for this study. I’ll take 10 to 1 that Ivermectin does not make it to the top three, and celebrate if I lose.

up
9 users have voted.
—

“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024

Submitted by The Liberal Moonbat on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 11:27am
The Liberal Moonbat's picture

Turns out some of us have been taking effective COVID medicine nearly every day of our lives since we were 8 years old...!

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=prozac+covid&atb=v192-1&ia=web

ProzacMagnet.jpg

up
8 users have voted.
—

In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.

Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!

Submitted by Azazello on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 3:23pm
Azazello's picture

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U_LlkWbn-c&t=932s width:500 height:300]

up
5 users have voted.
—

We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.

Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 7:28pm
Lookout's picture

@Azazello

Thanks for posting.

Edit to add:
And there's a follow up
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcAHvj6B1Nk]

up
4 users have voted.
—

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

Submitted by ovals49 on Sun, 09/19/2021 - 3:31pm

So how do you know there is not a scientific reason for the dosing in this clinical trial?

and

So how do you know there is a scientific reason for the dosing in this clinical trial?

Both need answers in order to be certain. In the absence of answers all we have is probabilities, prejudice or opinions. Certainty is quite rare, while unresolved questions divide us. Of this I am certain.

up
3 users have voted.
—

“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024