From Brazil comes the latest peer-reviewed study1 showing the benefits of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19. This study highlights what the author terms a “dose response” effect, where the more you take the more benefits you get.
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.
Expect corporate media to dismiss or denigrate the study. Heaven forbid people should have access to low-cost therapeutics to fend off COVID-19.
Kerr L, Baldi F, Lobo R, et al. (August 31, 2022) 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 14(8): e28624. doi:10.7759/cureus.28624
Peter, how many studies will it take before they admit that it works. Any doctor that denies a patient a prescription now, should be considered an accessory to murder if the patient dies. Linking tomorrow @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
Given that the CDC is still presenting only negative studies on Ivermectin, do not look for any admission by the official "experts" that there is any benefit to the drug at all.
However, given that there is a broad and growing body of evidence showing that there is some value to Ivermectin in treating COVID-19, it is generally a good idea for people to be aware of all the data, and not to be dependent on the benefices of the CDC to provide it.
The CDC also provides little in the way of discussion or criticism of the studies it cherry-picked for presentation, such as the problems surrounding the TOGETHER trial.
As I noted in my exploration of "Pharmaceutical Authoritarianism", advocacy is not evidence--the mere fact that anyone evangelizes on behalf of a particular treatment is not evidence the treatment itself has any merit.
However, the existence of advocacy does allow us to evaluate the positions of putative "experts" with regards to discrete agendas over and above informing the public and nurturing the public health. The CDC's anti-Ivermectin bias is a matter of record, as is that of the FDA. Thus the one thing that may be fairly said about either agency is that they are not an objective presenter of the data.
Because the media presentation of Ivermectin is almost uniformly perjorative, the times I have addressed the topic I do take the contrarian position merely as a vehicle for achieving a more complete framing of the discussion (since the case against IVM is already amply made by corporate media, I strive to balance that by making an evidence-based case for IVM).
As a purely ethical matter, that IVM can be administered safely means that even if the case for IVM is problematic (the worst reading of the extant data), it should still be made available, particularly for low-income people and communities where the availability of more expensive pharmaceuticals is limited. Per the Declaration of Lisbon, patients always retain the right to manage their own care, and that right must be respected by all healthcare professionals.
There's an old expression: "Healthy as a horse!" <g>
I sense a marketing campaign for Ivermectin in the offing.......
Peter, how many studies will it take before they admit that it works. Any doctor that denies a patient a prescription now, should be considered an accessory to murder if the patient dies. Linking tomorrow @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
Given that the CDC is still presenting only negative studies on Ivermectin, do not look for any admission by the official "experts" that there is any benefit to the drug at all.
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/ivermectin-data/
However, given that there is a broad and growing body of evidence showing that there is some value to Ivermectin in treating COVID-19, it is generally a good idea for people to be aware of all the data, and not to be dependent on the benefices of the CDC to provide it.
The CDC also provides little in the way of discussion or criticism of the studies it cherry-picked for presentation, such as the problems surrounding the TOGETHER trial.
https://ivmmeta.com/#togetherivm
As I noted in my exploration of "Pharmaceutical Authoritarianism", advocacy is not evidence--the mere fact that anyone evangelizes on behalf of a particular treatment is not evidence the treatment itself has any merit.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/pharmaceutical-authoritarianism
However, the existence of advocacy does allow us to evaluate the positions of putative "experts" with regards to discrete agendas over and above informing the public and nurturing the public health. The CDC's anti-Ivermectin bias is a matter of record, as is that of the FDA. Thus the one thing that may be fairly said about either agency is that they are not an objective presenter of the data.
Because the media presentation of Ivermectin is almost uniformly perjorative, the times I have addressed the topic I do take the contrarian position merely as a vehicle for achieving a more complete framing of the discussion (since the case against IVM is already amply made by corporate media, I strive to balance that by making an evidence-based case for IVM).
As a purely ethical matter, that IVM can be administered safely means that even if the case for IVM is problematic (the worst reading of the extant data), it should still be made available, particularly for low-income people and communities where the availability of more expensive pharmaceuticals is limited. Per the Declaration of Lisbon, patients always retain the right to manage their own care, and that right must be respected by all healthcare professionals.
https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-lisbon-on-the-rights-of-the-patient/
Ivermectin will fend off all Covid-19 strains, colds, pneumonia, fungi and help prevent, treat cancers.