The FDA Says Ivermectin Is Ineffective Against COVID...But Links To Studies Which Show That It Is.
Rule number one of citing primary research to prove a thesis: always read the source material first and be sure that it actually supports your argument.
According to a meta review conducted by the Epoch Times of sources cited and linked by the FDA to bolster their Faucist claim that Ivermectin is ineffective against COVID-19, the “experts” at the FDA failed to observe this essential rule (also known as “doing your homework”).
The FDA’s website states, “Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19.”
Yes, once again we are confronted with the canard that there is “no evidence” to support the use of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19.
The FDA makes their position extremely clear, for their website as of this writing states that “Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19.”
To ensure this statement does not get “memory-holed” in the future, the FDA web page has been archived here.
The problem with this statement is that it is one hundred percent pure unadulterated undiluted horse hockey. There is evidence; there is an abundance of evidence.
Regular readers will recall that I have documented much of this evidence in prior articles.
However, as the Faucists are relentless in their determination to discourage the use of Ivermectin to treat COVID-19, we must be equally relentless in reciting the volumes of evidence documenting Ivermectin’s efficacy in treating COVID-19.
The number of studies supporting the use of Ivermectin has only grown since last I visited this topic—which is itself a powerful argument in favor of Ivermectin’s efficacy.
To summarize the current state of Ivermectin research:
There are 93 studies in total.
43 of those studies are randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
There are 48 studies focusing on Ivermectin’s impact on COVID mortality.
There are 29 studies focusing on Ivermectin’s impact on hospitalization.
There are 15 meta studies of COVID-19 cases involving Ivermectin therapy.
Just the summary results show clearly substantial evidence that Ivermectin is an effective COVID-19 therapeutic. This alone is sufficient to disprove the FDA’s categorical (and categorically false) statement about “available data.”
However, when we look into the studies themselves, we find statements that are unarguably supportive of Ivermectin therapy.
All patients in the ivermectin group were successfully discharged. In comparison the same for the placebo group was observed to be 93%. This difference was found to be statistically significant (RR: 1.1; 95% CI; 1.0-1.2; p=0.045).
Ivermectin means you’re more likely to make it out of the hospital, according to this study. That strikes me as a clear benefit to using Ivermectin.
A separate Randomized Controlled Trial2 published in the Journal of International Medical Research in May of 2021 reached this conclusion:
Patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection treated with ivermectin plus doxycycline recovered earlier, were less likely to progress to more serious disease, and were more likely to be COVID-19 negative by RT-PCR on day 14.
Ivermectin plus doxycycline makes you less likely to get really sick from Covid. That strikes me as a clear benefit to using Ivermectin.
Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin. This dose-response efficacy reinforces the prophylactic effects of ivermectin against COVID-19.
Ivermectin cuts down your chances of dying from COVID-19 by several orders of magnitude. That strikes me as a very clear benefit to using Ivermectin.
There are, of course numerous additional studies which reach the same or similar conclusion. These studies have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication, in the same publications where studies are published that undermine the case for Ivermectin’s efficacy.
A more complete range of research and articles assessing Ivermectin therapy for COVID-19 is available online, courtesy of the CovidAnalysis team. Their research is comprehensive, although even it is not likely to encompass every research study conducted on Ivermectin.
However, the inarguable conclusion of the meta reviews conducted by the CovidAnalysis team, by evaluating multiple studies, many of which are peer reviewed and include Randomized Controlled Trials—long considered the “gold standard” of biomedical research—is that there is demonstrated efficacy in using Ivermectin as a COVID-19 therapeutic. This is unquestionably “available data” and it flies in the face of the FDA’s assertion that the “available data” does not support Ivermectin as a COVID-19 therapeutic.
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.
The studies Dr. Kory analyzed are also undeniably “available data”, and Dr. Kory’s considered opinion is that “available data” also files in the face of the FDA’s rejection of Ivermectin as a COVID-19 therapeutic.
What is most important about these studies supporting Ivermectin as a COVID-19 therapeutic is that none of them exist in isolation. We have not just one or even two studies pointing to Ivermectin’s efficacy, but literally dozens, covering all aspects and phases of treatment. Arguably, more research has been done on Ivermectin than has been done on the toxic mRNA inoculations which the FDA touts as an effective mitigation to COVID-19—another FDA assertion which is flatly rejected by volumes of “available data”.
Unlike the one-shot clinical trials for the mRNA inoculations, the Ivermectin research is not at all impacted by the ongoing scandal within the sciences known as the “replication crisis.”
Over the past several decades, concern has been growing on the low success rate of replication studies within the fields of social, biological, and medical sciences. In social psychology, for example, rigorous replication studies have failed to replicate many previously published scientific findings. In fact, a 2015 large-scale replication study included 100 experiments from three high-ranking psychology journals just to find that only between 30% to 50% of the original findings were observed in the repeated studies.
Ivermectin research has been reproduced multiple times, and the conclusions confirmed multiple times. As a criterion for evaluating the worth of those conclusions, this ample reproducibility is an unambiguous signal that this research is substantive and dispositive, and we should take it seriously.
Note that I am not claiming that Ivermectin is a “magic bullet” against COVID-19. There are several writers who do make that claim, and there is unquestionably data which helps support that claim. However, that is not the question, and whether or not Ivermectin is a “magic bullet” against COVID-19 is ultimately irrelevant. The question, and the only issue, is whether or not Ivermectin has at least some beneficial effect in treating COVID-19.
According to the CovidAnalysis data, the answer to that question is an unambiguous “yes.”
COVID-19 is a real disease, and the SARS-CoV-2 virus which produces it is a real virus. That virus is endemic the world over at this point, and there will be infections arising from now on, just as we have ongoing infections of influenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus, and other infectious respiratory pathogens associated with influenza-like illness. With infections a constant reality in the world, it is extremely beneficial to nations around the world if there is a low-cost COVID-19 therapeutic, even if that therapeutic is only somewhat effective. Most countries are ill-equipped to pay the freight on doses of the mRNA inoculations, and having low-cost therapeutics is as much an economic issue as it is a medical issue.
For the FDA to deny the empirical reality of reams of “available data” documenting Ivermectin’s utility as a low-cost COVID-19 therapeutic is not merely Faucist. It is false, it is fraudulent, and it is as categorically “anti-science” a position as can be taken on a medical treatment. That their own litany of “evidence” to support that position in fact argues the exact opposite makes their position foolish as well.
All Facts Matter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Alternatively, please consider leaving a tip through Ko-Fi. Thank you always for your support!
Ravikirti, R. Roy, C. Pattadar, R. Raj, N. Agarwal, B. Biswas, P. K. Manjhi, D. K. Rai, Shyama, A. Kumar, and A. Sarfaraz. “Evaluation of Ivermectin As a Potential Treatment for Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Double-Blind Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial in Eastern India”. Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 24, no. 3, July 2021, pp. 343-50, doi:10.18433/jpps32105.
Mahmud, R. “Ivermectin in Combination with Doxycycline for Treating COVID-19 Symptoms: A Randomized Trial.” Journal of International Medical Research, vol. 49, no. 5, 2021, doi:10.1177/03000605211013550.
Kerr, Lucy et al. “Regular Use of Ivermectin as Prophylaxis for COVID-19 Led Up to a 92% Reduction in COVID-19 Mortality Rate in a Dose-Response Manner: Results of a Prospective Observational Study of a Strictly Controlled Population of 88,012 Subjects.” Cureus vol. 14,8 e28624. 31 Aug. 2022, doi:10.7759/cureus.28624