If you hear your pharmacist, physician, or academic dean parrot the malignant regurgitated trope of “Ivermectin doesn’t work for Covid” or that there is “no evidence” or “no data” to support ivermectin’s use in Covid-19, send them this meta-analysis summary and annotated bibliography of over 100 studies.

Part 3: Who is Andrew Owen?

by WorldTribune Staff, December 9, 2021 In a stunning admission, virologist Dr. Andrew Hill acknowledged in a zoom call that publication of his study could lead to the deaths of at least a half mil…

The incentives of Ivermectin's 'ghostwriters'. Was an effective medicine moved out the way?

The vaccine gold rush and the damning ivermectin tape

It's right there in front of us

Despite the proven efficacy of ivermectin in treating COVID-19, some studies in top-tier journals have concluded otherwise. Which data should we trust?

The FDA, which denied any wrongdoing, said it will remove content warning people not to use ivermectin to treat COVID-19 within 21 days. Plaintiffs called the settlement a big win for patients and the patient-physician relationship.

Dr Pierre Kory on the disgraceful suppression of ivermectin to treat Covid

PANDEMIC STRATEGIES, LESSONS AND CONSEQUENCES Stockholm, 21st- 22nd January 2023 More event information: https://lakaruppropet.se/international-conference-pandemic-strategies/

Fact: The total number of COVID fatalities in the United States in the last 4 months is 500 times higher than the fatalities in Uttar Pradesh in the same period.

By late last year with mounting numbers of ivermectin clinical trials, mostly from low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), the potential for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 gained significant movement. Key studies from McMaster’s TOGETHER study to a meta-analysis authored by Dr. Andrew Hill, affiliated with the University of Liverpool, and Unitaid—affiliated organization of the World Health Organization (WHO)—were to pave the way for use of the low cost, repurposed drug. But due to a purported under-dosing in the TOGETHER study and some questionable last-minute changes in the Unitaid-sponsored Hill meta-analysis, the pro-ivermectin consensus went south. With pharmaceutical companies developing vaccines in support of a universal vaccination program, any low-cost alternatives for early care weren’t well supported by any influencers in the medical establishments of North America and Europe. Additional companies such as Gilead, Merck, AstraZeneca, Regeneron, and Pfizer were busy securing in the aggregate billions of taxpayer dollars to develop antivirals and monoclonal antibodies. The market for early-stage antiviral care for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 involves big stakes, and key industry players know it. The potential market could be worth $10 billion per year—clearly, blockbuster-plus territory. The vaccines could produce $100 billion in the first two years of the pandemic for Pfizer—just unprecedented amounts of money. Did a combination of well-intended vaccination and advanced therapy programs coupled with industry interests and regulatory capture lead to the sabotage of ivermectin initiatives? If true, does this implicate an entire drug development system that became painfully obvious during the first modern pandemic? If this is the case, then Andrew Hill becomes a poster child for bias, questionable ethics, and possibly even corruption at the highest levels. On the other hand, was it just a system working the way it has evolved to work?

Open Forum Infectious Diseases, ofab358, https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofab358

CNN says study shows Ivermectin does not work -- but it shows that it DOES

800,000 people died in the USA for nothing.

At the worst moment, Internet censorship has driven scientific debate itself underground

On February 9th a prominent member of the medical establishment here came out in a very public manner in favor of ivermectin as a treatment for not only patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19, but also their caregivers. Reported in The Nikkei, a prominent Japanese economics and business focused publication, Haruo Ozaki, chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, came out and recommended the emergency use of drugs such as Ivermectin administered to those COVID-19 patients, declaring they exhibit efficacy toward preventing disease progression in other nations. Clearly, Dr. Ozaki falls on the side of a rapidly growing group of physicians and researchers that align with significant meta-analyses involving dozens of randomized controlled trials, observational studies and case series around the world. Ozaki also calls out for Japan health authorities to use dexamethasone shown to help lower the death rate in certain more severe situations in hospitalized patients.

After COVID-19 emerged on U.S shores, providers began reviewing the emerging basic science, translational, and clinical data to identify potentially effective treatment options. In addition, a multitude of both novel and repurposed therapeutic agents ...

A TrialSite community member recently submitted an entry associated with a purported "fact checker" seeking to squash any possible linkage of the dramatic turnaround in cases in Indian states such as Uttar Pradesh with the population-wide use of ivermectin. TrialSite includes the entry authored by a group affiliated with British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD). On the 17th of May, Jim Hoft published on his blog page a short article titled “Elites Worried: Covid Cases in India Plummet after Government Promotes Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine use”.  He reportsm “The India health ministry updated its guidelines on April 28 for quarantines, treating the asymptomatic and those with mild symptoms of COVID-19. The agency now says that asymptomatic patients should “consider Ivermectin (200 mcg/kg once a day, to be taken on an empty stomach) for 3 to 5 days.” Caregivers of patients in quarantine are instructed to “take Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis as per protocol and as prescribed by the treating medical officer.” An article authored by Pablo Rougerie at the “Fact Checking” Health Feedback declared in response there is no data to justify such a link. But are the fact-checkers in fact correct? Or do they represent a particular bias or point of view and hence are more measured in what they purport as truth?

Thomas Borody MB,BS, BSc (Med), MD PhD, DSc, FRACP, FACP, FACG, AGAF, touts FDA and TGA approved Ivermectin, which he reports to use regularly in his hospital as it evidences positive results for COVID-19 and should be used immediately to fight the pandemic. The developer of the world’s first cure for peptic ulcers, which saved millions of lives worldwide, employed the same methodology to come up with the Ivermectin triple therapy. With over 30 formal clinical trials, many dozens of observational real-world initiatives and hundreds to possibly thousands of doctors already using the medicine, a particular momentum gains speed for additional randomized controlled trials and, just as importantly, a more serious dialogue about the potential of this approach for pragmatic and economical treatment options for COVID-19.

'A combination of FDA and TGA approved Ivermectin, Zinc and Doxycycline has shown positive results for COVID-19 and should consider immediately to fight the pandemic' says CDD Medical Director Professor Thomas Borody

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.

'This is a major breakthrough for the people of SA as we believe that Ivermectin can assist in this pandemic', says Bongani Luthuli.

Ivermectin is seen as a repeat of hydroxychloroquine and not to be taken seriously. Belief in it, worthy only of derision.

In this Buffalo hospital room, a grandmother led the global fight for the drug that would ave her life and end the pandemic.

Sources in the government said that the decision to replace Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with Ivermectin was taken after encouraging results in Agra, where it was used on an experimental basis.