It’s time we discuss early treatment for covid, especially high risk (co-morbid and elderly). Other countries have adopted Ivermectin early treatment with stunning results. Currently Taiwan has adopted the same old “wait and see if you become serious” before administering treatments, by which time it’s very difficult to treat or too late.
Despite the media blackout on studies, there are actually plenty RCT and clinical real world success stories.
I don’t know - for the last year, there have been so many different medications which have been praised as an effective COVID treatment (Remdesivir, Tamiflu, Hydroxychloroquine, …). In the end, most of them turned out to have either no effect or only a very small one.
I truly hope that this Ivermectin thing might finally be actually be something effective, but I can’t help noticing that your post reads a bit like an advertisement…
An another thing about “early treatment”: Less than 20% of the COVID cases require hospitalization, but it’s really difficult to predict who this will be. Giving everyone medication in an early stage might neither be cost effective (most of the COVID-medication is really expensive!) and has a high risk if the medication has side-effects (which most medication unfortunately have).
Cases in Delhi, where Ivermectin was begun on April 20, dropped from 28,395 to just 2,260 on May 22. This represents an astounding 92% drop. Likewise, cases in Uttar Pradesh have dropped from 37,944 on April 24 to 5,964 on May 22 - a decline of 84%.
The most “at risk” are relatively predictable - it’s the elderly and those with co-morbidities. We know this after a year of clinical data and experience. You can see this with the example in Taiwan where so far almost all, are elderly and co-morbid. They publish the daily death cases on the foot of the daily announcements on CDC website. For example: 5月30日新增死亡COVID-19確診個案表.pdf and 5月29日新增死亡COVID-19確診個案表.pdf
I agree it doesn’t necessarily have to be standard treatment for everyone, but maybe default for the at-risk, as well as the go to start treatment at the onset of more worrying symptoms before it turns serious.
This has go to be better than the “wait and see” approach and tacit refusal to even try things like Invermectin over hope and prayer ventilation or medication that doesn’t really help.
Q: Is there any danger to humans taking ivermectin?
A: There are approved uses for ivermectin in people and animals but it is not approved for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. You should not take any medicine to treat or prevent COVID-19 unless it has been prescribed to you by your health care provider and acquired from a legitimate source.
Some of the side-effects that may be associated with ivermectin include skin rash, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, facial or limb swelling, neurologic adverse events (dizziness, seizures, confusion), sudden drop in blood pressure, severe skin rash potentially requiring hospitalization and liver injury (hepatitis). Laboratory test abnormalities include decrease in white cell count and elevated liver tests. Any use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 should be avoided as its benefits and safety for these purposes have not been established. Data from clinical trials are necessary for us to determine whether ivermectin is safe and effective in treating or preventing COVID-19.
The FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses.
Of course, some random desert news reporter or Youtuber might disagree…
There are all sorts of possible interventions that could make a difference to the death rate, but it’s fashionable to dismiss them out-of-hand because “vaccines will save us”. Therefore no need to make any other attempt to save lives. I find it darkly amusing that the people who holler “we can’t just let the old people die!” have been prepared to do precisely that in order to pursue an ideological agenda.
Even if Ivermectin is only marginally useful, if 1% of a country’s population is at risk of being hospitalised - a couple of hundred thousand people, in Taiwan’s case - it’s still worth deploying if it keeps even 1% of those people out of hospital with minimal additional risk.
As someone implied above, all that needs to be done is to make it available. No need to mandate its use. Just give people the information, and let doctors write the script if they want to. I’m truly sick of the idea that politicians need to lay down exactly who is allowed to do what and when, just because it’s an “emergency”.
The research I’ve come across to date suggests that Ivermectin is most useful as a prophylactic rather than a treatment; the later it’s prescribed, the more useless it becomes.
Following recent media reports and publications on the use of ivermectin, EMA reviewed the latest published evidence from laboratory studies, observational studies, clinical trials and meta-analyses. Laboratory studies found that ivermectin could block replication of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19), but at much higher ivermectin concentrations than those achieved with the currently authorised doses. Results from clinical studies were varied, with some studies showing no benefit and others reporting a potential benefit. Most studies EMA reviewed were small and had additional limitations, including different dosing regimens and use of concomitant medications. EMA therefore concluded that the currently available evidence is not sufficient to support the use of ivermectin in COVID-19 outside clinical trials.
Although ivermectin is generally well tolerated at doses authorised for other indications, side effects could increase with the much higher doses that would be needed to obtain concentrations of ivermectin in the lungs that are effective against the virus. Toxicity when ivermectin is used at higher than approved doses therefore cannot be excluded.
EMA therefore concluded that use of ivermectin for prevention or treatment of COVID-19 cannot currently be recommended outside controlled clinical trials. Further well-designed, randomised studies are needed to draw conclusions as to whether the product is effective and safe in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.
An regarding studies - well I found that article:
Results showed a median time to resolution of symptoms of 10 days (interquartile range, 9-13 days) in the ivermectin group and 12 days (IQR, 9-13 days) in the placebo group (HR = 1.07; P =.53). Results at day 21 showed that 82% of patients treated with ivermectin and 79% those who received placebo showed resolution of symptoms.
“Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms,” the researchers concluded. “The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes.”
So unfortunately, no “wonder drug”. Otherwise the results would have to be much clearer.
It’s still a medication and not candy! Even if it keeps 1% out of the hospital but leaves 2% with permanent liver damage - that’s not a good idea (not saying that this will happen - but it could happen because there have not been enough studies to prove that stuff is really safe and effective against COVID).
That’s why clinical studies are important - it’s really unethical to randomly prescribe medication with unknown side-effects and unclear benefit just because someone “feels like” it might be a good idea!
Yeah, so then the risk of side-effects is multiplied even more when you “recommend” giving it to all healthy people - even those not infected with COVID…
A legal notice is served by Indian Bar Association (IBA) upon Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, the Chief Scientist at the World Health Organisation (WHO) on May 25, 2021 for her act of spreading disinformation and misguiding the people of India, in order to fulfil her agenda.
In order to stop Dr. Soumya Swaminathan from causing further damage to the life of citizens of this country, IBA has decided to initiate legal action against her and as part of the process, a legal notice has been served upon her.
IBA has observed that the content of several web links to news articles/reports included in the notice served upon Dr. Soumya Swaminathan on May 25, 2021, which was visible before issuing the notice, has either been removed or deleted now.
I was looking up veterinarian grade ivermectin in Canada, seems all the pet supply stores are sold out, at least the ones that I checked. I guess people stocked up on it.
You have to cut through the gaslighting: disinformation, badly constructed studies and meta analysis which exclude valid studies to skew results.
Review https://ivmmeta.com/ to see 56 of studies showing the benefits. Cited 78% improvement for early treatment, 46% for late treatment, 85% for prophylaxis, 74% effect on mortality.
It would be terrible if a Pharma company’s patent ran out and, now that the formula is open to public manufacture, they then used their considerable funds to denigrate it’s effectiveness.
They give a combination of Ivermectine, Dexmethasone, Aspirin and Ventilation (if necessary):
Overall mortality rate of patients treated according to IDEA protocol was 0.59 % (1 death in 167 treated cases). […] Moreover, a group of 12 patients were hospitalized in Eurnekian hospital in the same period but did not receive IDEA treatment. Three of them died, thus presenting a mortality rate of 25 %, i.e. significantly higher than that of those receiving IDEA treatment
A control group of 12 people from which they conclude a 25% mortality rate? And no word on how people were split between the treatment group and control group. Studies like those can not be used to prove the effect of Ivermectine unfortunately. Maybe do a study where they give Dexmethasone and Aspirin vs. Ivermectine, Dexmethasone and Aspirin and randomly assign people between the groups (which should both include some 100 people). Then there would actually be some meaningful data about Ivermectine effectiveness…
.
