For some reason, it’s ivermectin now.
We are in the disastrous second wave of COVID-19 pandemic now, but the malaria drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), once touted as the miracle cure, became somewhat discredited, what with the many huge clinical trials proving that those drug don’t work on COVID-19. The faithful COVIDIOTS need a backup miracle drug, and ivermectin is as good one as any.
In this regard, congratulation to the humanity for having wasted such tremendous resources during the worst pandemic in a century while trying to verify some bullshit #HCQw0rks cure made-up by a couple of incompetent crooks. The French infectious disease professor Didier Raoult must be very proud of the global damage he caused from the comfort of his own chair, in fact I should apologise to him and his IHU Marseille institute on this occasion for having wrongfully assumed French authorities together with the scientific and medical community will not tolerate his despicable trolling and fraudulent quackery during a pandemic. They did, and continue to do so. This is how f***ed-up things are, dear reader.
Against all expectations of sanity, Raoult did not resign as IHU director, he was not even demoted or found guilty of anything. No, he is still all over French TV, and he has another French professor, Christian Perronne, in tow (whom Raoult once used to ridicule as a Lyme disease quack), together they sing the HCQ gospel. Another new professorial friend of Raoult: the herd immunity fanatic Jean-François Toussaint, who claims in Frontiers (excellent choice of venue!) that COVID-19 restrictions don’t work and just cause damage. The French swamp of academic quackery and misconduct managed to survive even COVID-19. More recently, Raoult even joined forces with that ridiculous HCQ healer from New York, Vovka “Zev” Zelenko.
These and other HCQ quacks are worshipped by a closed community of #HCQw0rks loonies, all of them anti-maskers and anti-COVID-restrictions, some are antivaxxers, not unexpected. To this toxic cult, HCQ offers an elegant covidiot-proof solution to a very complex problem, why would you need to restrict your life in any way if the pandemic can be prevented by a cheap drug. The truth of deliverance is however suppressed by the heinous conspiracy of the pharma company Gilead (maker of remdesivir, a repurposed antiviral drug which proved to have no effect on the SARS-CoV2 virus despite earlier claims of success and was therefore warned against by WHO). In any case, everyone criticising HCQ must be a shill for Gilead (myself and Elisabeth Bik included, as Raoult’s human sockpuppet at IHU, Eric Chabriere, repeatedly claims). It seems, the only people still talking about remdesivir as COVID-19 drug are those of HCQw0rks community. Oh, and here is Chabriere denouncing facemasks as useless, unsurprisingly:
Despite the continuation of the HCQ religion and because even Raoult himself started to hint HCQ might not be working (anymore, since the virus mutated!), those same people are now endorsing the de-worming drug ivermectin, probably as a backup, or even better, in combination. Even the Cold Fusion loonies of Martin-Fleischmann Memorial Project advice you to take HCQ with Ivermectin, plus Vitamin D.
There is no immediate reason why it had to be ivermectin now, a drug used against worm infections and occasionally also against arthropod parasites like skin mites. But then again, there was no particular reason for the choice of chloroquine back then, except Raoult being an Africa-born tropical disease doctor and a big fan of that malaria drug.
Thing is, with ivermectin there is no single big name pushing this drug, unless Raoult want to take over. How it happened that the de-worming agent became national COVID-19 medicine in several countries in Latin America is a mystery. Sure, desperate politicians and doctors want to prescribe something, anything, preferably something affordable (there go the prohibitively expensive antibody cocktails Donald Trump and all his mates take), and HCQ’s star is sinking. Remdesivir was too expensive and doesn’t work anyway, despite all that money Gilead invested in myself, Bik and other shills. But still, why ivermectin, and not Vitamin D or lactoferrin (which are also being administered to COVID-19 patients, in various nation states)? Or another kind of malaria medicine, the artemisia plant extracts (which taste disgusting and border on being toxic), promoted by Madagascar president and sold by a German Max-Planck Institute director?
Maybe because it has to be a prescription drug to appear serious, and so far only chloroquine/HCQ and ivermectin were proposed? The corticosteroid dexamethasone (which was actually proven to work in clinical trials) has too many side effects and was hence approved by WHO only for use only in severely ill COVID-19 patients, so there is no fun in that.
Basically, ivermectin is the stand-in for, or rather the second coming of HCQ, and it seems the same kind of travesty is unfolding. Hopefully on a smaller scale though, because vaccines are being rolled out already, and if those indeed work at least half-way as announced, we might have the real herd immunity.
But here is Raoult’s IHU preparing to switch to ivermectin. His human sockpuppet Chabriere announced the Season 2 of the IHU shitshow for 2021 on Twitter:
Lice? They might have an infestation there at IHU. Maybe it is the pubic lice epidemic in Raoult’s sycophant circles which made Chabriere hint at some preliminary results with ivermectin on Twitter:
And look, here they are, the promised results. Not only did ivermectin help Chabriere and his IHU friends conquer the pubic lice problem, look, it works against viruses also:
Better brace yourself for Raoult and IHU touting ivermectin in 2021. But who started that ivermectine against COVID-19 joke originally? Well, it might have been that mega-fraudster Sapan Desai, who teamed up with the Harvard Medical School Harvard professor Mandeep Mehra and Amit Patel of University of Utah, to claim in a (now retracted) paper in The Lancet that HCQ was killing COVID-19 patients. The dataset of thousands of hospitals used there belonged to Desai’s (now dissolved) company Surgisphere, and it was completely made-up or rather assembled Frankenstein-style from unrelated and stolen datasets.
Now, Desai and Patel did this to provide a magic COVID-19 drug of their own, in a (now deleted) preprint from April 2020. That drug was ivermectin.
That preprint was written by Desai and Patel on 6 April, literally just a couple of days after a paper in an Elsevier journal, from the lab of the Monash University scientist Kylie Wagstaff was published. Caly et al Antiviral Research 2020 was an in vitro study (everything can inhibit the virus proliferation in a dish, including microwaving it, why is this never proposed…), but together with the fraudulent Surgisphere claims, the ivermectin bomb detonated in April 2020.
In this regard, you will recognise the main argument:
“Professor David Jans, Dr Wagstaff’s co-author, says the existing data for ivermectin is much better than that for approved COVID-19 drug Remdesivir. He believes his ivermectin work is attracting criticism because “Big Pharma hates the idea of a cheap drug that might work”. […] “Maybe it is time for the world to start trying to save lives rather than continuing to exploit the situation as an ‘opportunity’.””
Thing is, the world was so busy with HCQ in the following months that nobody of Raoult’s calibre took charge in promoting ivermectin. And yet, it became a popular COVID-19 drug anyway, a therapeutic staple in Latin America and elsewhere. I searched for some sufficiently influential studies in this regard, and there is really not much. Thanks to the tweets by Julien Potet, I collected some preprints:
First, a preprint from USA by Mr and Mrs Rajter of Broward Health Medical Center in Florida. It later appeared in the CHEST Journal, issued by the American College of Chest Physicians.
Cepelowicz Rajter et al Use of Ivermectin Is Associated With Lower Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019- The ICON Study, CHEST Journal (2020) DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.10.009 Preprint on medRxiv: doi: 10.1101/2020.06.06.20124461
It was a retrospective study, likely prompted by Wagstaff and Desai claims. The authors went through files of already treated patients from March and May 2020:
“Two hundred eighty patients, 173 treated with ivermectin and 107 without ivermectin, were reviewed. Most patients in both groups also received hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, or both. Univariate analysis showed lower mortality in the ivermectin group…“
The authors however found no difference in the durations of hospital stay, which is strange and rather indicating that ivermectin simply has no effect at all. I personally find this section bizarre:
“We also did not confirm a higher risk of mortality in Black patients in comparison with White patients after controlling for age. Prior reports showed lower survival rates among Black and Hispanic patients10; however, Price et al11 also found no racial differences in mortality. In our hospital population, White patients were significantly older, which is reflective of our catchment area and may be responsible for the discrepancy.”
You see, there is a theory that Black (and LatinX) people are susceptible to COVID-19 due to their alleged genetic inferiority. Luckily this study did not confirm this prejudice, but maybe the authors should have wondered if the Black mortality in USA happens due to the capitalism and racism-driven lack of access to health care. Once you go by hospital records, you analysis is kind of biased toward those who did get access to health care.
But as we know with HCQ, retrospective studies may be popular, but they are not really reliable, too often driven by bias and the desire to prove yourself right. An important clinical trial (registered as NCT04381884) was done in Argentina and published as preprint in November:
Krolewiecki et al Antiviral Effect of High-Dose Ivermectin in Adults with COVID-19: A Pilot Randomised, Controlled, Open Label, Multicentre Trial. SSRN, Elsevier (2020) doi: or 10.2139/ssrn.3714649
The difference between the outcomes of control and ivermectin arms seems to be not really there, at least not for objective clinical outcomes like recovery times or survival:
“The trial run between May 18 and September 29, 2020 with 45 randomized patients (30 in the IVM group and 15 controls). There was no difference in viral load reduction between groups but a significant difference in reduction was found in patients with higher median plasma IVM levels (72% IQR 59 – 77) versus untreated controls (42% IQR 31 – 73) (p=0·004). […] Adverse events were reported in 5 (33%) patients in the controls and 13 (43%) in the IVM treated group...”
The authors had to check ivermectin absorption in blood plasma to try to find some correlation to something positive-sounding, if not viral clearance than at least some viral load reduction. But then again, original medical indication for ivermectin is not about it entering the bloodstream, the drug’s targets are intestinal worms and skin parasites like Chabriere’s private lice. If there is too much of ivermectin in your blood, you will get side effects, and once you overdose so much that it crosses blood-brain barrier, you will die. Maybe this is why the lead author Alejandro Krolewiecki was quoted in a Nature article from October:
“It is a bit reckless for someone to say, from the studies we have completed, that we should prescribe this drug..”
That same article quotes another ivermectin researcher, Carlos Chaccour from Venezuela, now in Barcelona, Spain, and described as “critical of ivermectin’s use in Latin America“:
“Chaccour declined to tell Nature whether the results look promising, but he’s encouraged that trials are yielding data, even if slowly. “That’s what we asked for from the beginning,” he says. “There should be some guidance before making public-policy decisions.”
A week ago, on 7 December, Chaccour published his study as preprint. He and his colleagues also found no difference in coronavirus-positive patients (viral clearance).
Chaccour et al, The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with mild COVID-19: a pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, Research Square (2020) doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-116547/v1
Like Krolewiecki’s team, they searched for clues nevertheless:
“Although there was a consistent overlap in interquartile ranges and full ranges at all points, the median viral load for both genes was lower at days 4 and 7 post treatment in the ivermectin group…”
It is not really that much to go on. Actually, the outcome of a clinical study from Bangladesh which motivated the Chaccour team was also not that convincing:
Ahmed et al A five day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness IJID (2020) DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.191
That is officially even a peer reviewed paper! Although careful with peer reviewed, that same International Journal of Infectious Diseases (with very few editorial board members but an massive stream of publications, $1750 a pop) previously published an very, shall we say, flawed HCQ study from the Henry Ford clinic, Arshad et al 2020. So the Bangladeshi ivermectin clinical trial claimed:
“Clinical symptoms of fever, cough and sore throat were comparable among the three treatment arms. Virological clearance was earlier in the 5-day ivermectin treatment arm versus the placebo group (9.7 days vs. 12.7 days; P = 0.02); but not with the ivermectin + doxycycline arm (11.5 days; P = 0.27).“
The paper does not say what standard care included (which is not a minor issue, as you will see below). And it also contradicts these outstanding doxycycline claims from Iraq. The success of 200µg/kg ivermectin was determined by a somewhat obscure and undefined attribution of patients to “severe” and “critical” COVID-19 groups:
Hashim et al, Controlled randomized clinical trial on using Ivermectin with Doxycycline for treating COVID-19 patients in Baghdad, Iraq, medRxiv (2020) doi: 10.1101/2020.10.26.20219345
“Ivermectin with doxycycline reduced the time to recovery and the percentage of patients who progress to more advanced stage of disease; in addition, Ivermectin with doxycycline reduced mortality rate in severe patients from 22.72% to 0%; however, 18.2% of critically ill patients died with Ivermectin and doxycycline therapy.“
Ah, doxycycline, I know someone who proposed this antibiotic as a senolytics cure for COVID-19: Michael Lisanti, anti-aging researcher and Photoshop enthusiast. Unsurprisingly, also Raoult’s Marseille crew suggested doxycycline as a COVID-19 medicine (Gendrot et al 2020), of course in combination with chloroquine (it was in April, before Raoult completely switched to HCQ).
Now, the standard care at that Iraqi study consisted of Vitamin C (1000mg twice/ day), Zinc (75-125 mg/day), Vitamin (D3 5000IU/day), Azithromycin (250mg/day for 5 days), plus – Acetaminophen 500mg and Dexamethazone 6 mg/day if needed. That does not at all sound like standard care, but at least there is no HCQ involved. Different with this clinical trial from their neighbours in Iran, published as preprint:
Niaee et al Ivermectin as an adjunct treatment for hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients: A randomized multi-center clinical trial Research Square (2020) DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-109670/v1
“The results of preclinical consequences in Table 3 indicate a reduction in mortality rate in patients receiving ivermectin treatment to 0, 10, 0 and 3.3% for arms 1- 4 respectively, compared to the standard and placebo plus standard arms which was 16.7% and 20% respectively. Moreover, the decrease in hospitalization and low O2 saturating terms was significant in ivermectin treated 1-4 arms compared to the two untreated controls (P=0.006 and P=0.025 respectively). The lowest mortality rate (0%), hospitalization duration (5days), and duration of low O2 saturatin [sic!] (2days) was observed arm 3 with single dose of 400mcg/kg ivermectin.“
Finally we have that elusive reduction in mortality again! And a decrease in hospitalisation! Yet it is worth noting what the common regimen was though, which was administered only to the two control groups but not to the four ivermectin groups:
“common regimen based on Iran health ministry (Hydroxychloroquine 200mg/kg twice per day)“
Unless it’s a typo, the hapless patients received at least 14 GRAMM HCQ a day. The actual Iranian guidelines however speak of 2x 200mg HCQ per day or so, which is presumably what the authors meant to apply and hopefully also did. 14 grams would be definitely deadly. But still, the lucky ones in the treatment arms got a pill or two of ivermectin instead of HCQ.
That is very reminiscent of that preprint from Bangladeshi and Chinese researchers, posted already in June:
Chowdhury et al A comparative study on Ivermectin- Doxycycline and Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin therapy on COVID19 patients Research Gate (2020) DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22193.81767/3
“Patients were divided randomly into two groups: Ivermectin 200µgm/kg single dose + Doxycycline 100mg BID for 10days in group A, and Hydroxychloroquine 400mg 1st day, then200mg BID for 9days + Azithromycin 500mg daily for 5 days in group B. […] All subjects in the Ivermectin-Doxycycline group (group A) reached a negative PCR for SARS-CoV-2, at a mean of 8.93days, and all reached symptomatic recovery, at a mean of 5.93days, with 55.10% symptom-free by the 5th day. In the Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromcyin [sic!] group (group B), 96.36% reached a negative PCR at a mean of 6.99days and were symptoms-free at 9.33days. Group A patients had symptoms that could have been caused by the medication in 31.67% of patients, including lethargy in 14(23.3%), nausea in 11(18.3%), and occasional vertigo in 7(11.66%) of patients. In Group B, 46.43% had symptoms that could have been caused by the medication, including 13(23.21%) mild blurring of vision and headache; 22(39.2%) increased lethargy and dizziness, 10(17.85%) occasional palpitation, and 9(16.07%) nausea and vomiting“
At best, this is not a study on what helps against COVID-19, but which drug combo is more toxic: ivermectin + doxycycline vs HCQ + azithromycin. What the scientific value of all that is, is beyond my understanding, but it was sure fun for all involved, except probably the patients, but as always, there are many more where those came from.
Similar case in Egypt, where HCQ is also quasi standard of care, thank you Professor Raoult. Here the preprint from November:
Elgazzar et al Efficacy and Safety of Ivermectin for Treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 Pandemic Research Square (2020) doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-100956/v1
“Addition of Ivermectin to standard care is very effective drug for treatment of COVID-19 patients with significant reduction in mortality compared to Hydroxychloroquine plus standard treatment only“
Basically, like the others, these Egyptian doctors compared ivermectin to HCQ:
“600 subjects; 400 symptomatic confirmed COVID-19 patients and 200 health care and household contacts distributed over 6 groups; Group I: 100 patients with Mild/Moderate COVID-19 infection received a 4-days course of Ivermectin plus standard of care; Group II: 100 patients with mild/moderate COVID-19 infection received hydroxyxholorquine [sic!] plus standard of care; Group III: 100 patients with severe COVID-19 infection received Ivermectin plus standard of care; Group IV: 100 patients with Severe COVID-19 infection received hydroxyxholorquine [sic!] plus standard of care.“
The standard of care was the best ever though:
“Egyptian protocol of COVID-19 treatment (Azithromycin 500mg OD/5days, Paracetamol 500mg PRN, vitamin C 1gm OD, Zinc 50 mg OD, Lactoferrin 100mg sachets BID & Acetylcystein 200mg t.d.s & prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation if D-dimer > 1000), (MOH version 30 May 2020)“
Yes, it also includes Lactoferrin (probably shipped in from Italy)!
And of course, just like HCQ, ivermectin not only cures COVID-19, it also prevents it! Look at this preprint from India from November:
Behera et al Role of ivermectin in the prevention of COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers in India: A matched case-control study medRxiv (2020) doi: 10.1101/2020.10.29.20222661
A stunning “73% reduction of COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers” in India! There was no control arm, the study’s authors just pulled it out from somewhere (“existing line list“) and called it “matched case-control pair“. Whoever those elusive controls were, the treatment arm had both HCQ and ivermectin, and sometimes also Vitamin C!
“Exposure was defined as the prophylaxis viz., ivermectin and or/ (HCQ) and or/ vitamin C and or/ other interventions taken for the prevention of COVID-19. [Healthcare workers] of AIIMS Bhubaneswar were advised for HCQ prophylaxis as per ICMR guidelines from 11th April 2020 in addition to the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) depending on the place they were posted.9 However, the uptake was not encouraging on account of known side-effect. Further, on 17th September 2020, a decision to provide all [Healthcare workers] with ivermectin for prophylactic use was announced, based on a consensus statement that was released.”
In Modi’s India, people are first forced en masse to take an alleged COVID-19 drug, then a study proving the drug’s efficiency is retrospectively supplied by some loyal scientists. That was how HCQ worked in India since the beginning of the pandemic, and this is how ivermectin works now. Death cult is what fascism is all about.
In USA, a Zelenko-clone doctor named Pierre Kory became a celebrity and even testified to the US Senate last week, urging to save lives with the “miracle drug” ivermectin. Kory is “President of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC),” which is, at least to me, reminiscent of the “America’s Frontline Doctors” freak circus which had been pushing HCQ not so long ago. Kory, according to his Senate testimony, expects to be awarded a Nobel Prize for saving the world from COVID-19 and has everything sorted: the prophylaxis and the treatment protocol, which includes next to ivermectin also Vitamin C, Vitamin D, Quercetin, Melatonin and, Zelenko will be pleased, Zinc. Expect Kory any moment to publish his own life-saving clinical studies with ivermectin, just like Zelenko did with HCQ. Probably also in one of Raoult’s own Elsevier journals.
Back to Raoult’s France. As Alexander Samuel informed me, the French company MedinCell announced already in April, as reaction to Wagstaff’s in vitro study, to develop an intravenous formulation of ivermectin as COVID-19 therapy. Let’s hope MedinCell and Raoult’s IHU won’t team up for the next string of human experiments.
For completeness of records, I should mention this hilariously short-lived Frontiers one-paragraph paper by Kory et al, which saw the light of the day on 13.01.2021, and went extinct on 1.03.2021:
Pierre Kory, G U. Meduri, Jose Iglesias, Joseph Varon, Keith Berkowitz, Howard Kornfeld, Eivind Vinjevoll, Scott Mitchell, Fred Wagshul and Paul E. Marik Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 Front. Pharmacol. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.643369
The paper was ERASED by Frontiers, not just retracted. It is gone completely. The only trace of its past existence is a silly Frontiers editorial, posted only after journalists started asking. The whole idea of permanency attached to a DOI does not apply to troll publishers, so here is a WayBack Machine archived record. And here is a screenshot:
If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like (2x=€10; 5x=€25). I am now stocking up on ivermectin.
I am not against testing drugs against viral infections. But this debate has become so political and controversial that the technical aspects have become secondary. The advances in treating the covid patient with drugs like dexamethasone come from the knowledge on inflammation management and not from the attempts to repurpose well-established drugs to tackle the etiological agent.
It is a mess. But in this mess, I think we can safely point the finger to state-level leadership that did a terrible job of managing the crisis. Also, a terrible job of coordinating the barrage of information coming from journals. The findings of the Australian article may be absolutely correct in its own merit. It’s how it goes from a report of an in vitro finding to a frenzy to obtain the drug that this whole thing is catastrophic.
Following this from the Spanish and Portuguese speaking worlds, it really seems that it “caught on” in places where use of Ivermectin was already common, including veterinary use in areas around cattle raising farms.
and as I was typing this, I discover that my father’s urologist who was my professor in medical school…..told him to take Ivermectin prophylactically. That he is taking it himself….if the doctors won’t help, what can be done?
The depth and variety of studies looks pretty convincing. The author seems to dismiss IVM out if hand with some personal bias. The track record with Covid in the US and the UK is among the worst in the world, but we automatically dismiss medical practice in “those” countries.
FLCCC.net explains the several protocols for prevention , early treatment. You can judge for yourself if this has any merit.
Your father’s Dr. is giving good advice. The author of this article is not.
What do you see as the best way to encourage high quality research into Ivermectin? It has clearly become very politicised by association with previous drugs that have been shown to be ineffective. Nevertheless the promising in vitreo studies suggest that rigorous randomised trials should be a priority – the costs would be low and the potential benefits high.
How do you suggest high quality research best be encouraged to a standard that would satisfy you, and free from politics either for or against?
Kory is “President of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC),” which is, at least to me, reminiscent of the “America’s Frontline Doctors” freak circus which had been pushing HCQ not so long ago.
Kory and the FLCCC had an earlier brush with fame as early adopters of the Steroid treatment, and he was calling for steroids as indicated for all cases of COVID-19, of whatever severity. The consensus now is to use steroids in severe cases only, due to their side-effects and the possibility of secondary infections, so Kory was half-right but may have done more harm than good.
That was enough vindication for him to feel outraged that the world does not drop everything and immediately put his latest brainfart into practice.
Liar. Shill. they were pushing for its use when Covid was leading to sepsis. Shut up or cite sources.
Read the published trial results for f- sake.
Dr. Carlos Chaccour has been the world’s main detractor of the use of Ivermectin for Covid19 in last months. It was not pleasant for him to have to support Ivermectin in his conclusion.
Mixing HCQ with Ivermectin is politicizing the discussion. Many analysts who have supported Ivermectin for months have NEVER supported the HCQ. For you to consider.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: Modello Trump - Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it
Here’s a list of other Ivermectin studies, with some data visualization, if anyone is interested.
Many Nobel prize hunters and messiahs in sight….
The evidence is highly biased and of low quality., incl. the RCTs. The majority of trials are deposited on preprint servers and some of them have been roaming there for months (reminiscent of the infamous Patel et al. SSRN Surgisphere bogus trial).
The aforementioned in the comments work by Dr Chaccour et al. only shows that ivermectin treatment does not reduce positivity of viral cultures, inflammation biomarkers or disease duration. All viral load data discussed show “trend”, i.e. there are no significant differences in viral load data if the reader is enough curious to check the supplement data.
The systematic review of the PanAmerican Health Organization is worth reading:
The Australian guidelines are not enthusiastic either, no miracles in sight.
This article is upsetting to me on many levels. Why is this scientist (even former) so closed minded? Does he not see there may be a lot of benefit with IVM while the bad is virtually not existent? What did the author ever invented himself? My bet is NOTHING. Because with this attitude you simply can’t ever discover or invent anything of value. Is IVM a miracle? Most likely not. Should it be dismissed because it is not coming from famed FDA? Hell no! If IVM is eventually found effective, I suggest the author reflects on that fact and, in retrospect, thinks of how many lives his article may have ruined.
I think this article was paid for by some Pharma. Maybe the Pharma that is pushing for the entire world population to be vaccinated. Imagine what a cash cow we will be if they mange to win with their narrative that nothing can be done save for vaccines.
Click to access utilizing-repurposed-drugs-to-treat-covid.r2-1.pdf
Utilizing Repurposed Drugs to Treat CoV19
By EJ Ledet and Dean Gano
See Fact-Checked org
The world needs reliable, objective assessment of antivirals
You failed to memtion the Prophylactic part of the study in Egypt. It worked, didn’t it?
Preprint version 2, 16 Nov, 2020. EGYPT, Benha and Kafrelsheikh University Hospitals.
Group V: 100 health care and or household patients’ contacts received a PROPHYLACTIC dose of ivermectin 0.4mg/kg(28mg for 70kg person) single oral dose before breakfast, to be repeated after 1 WEEK in addition to PPE (personal protective equipment).
Group VI: 100 health care and or household patients’ contacts received only PPE.
Results: Ivermectin had significantly reduced the incidence of infection in health care and household contacts up to 2% compared to 10% in non-ivermectin group when used as a PROPHYLAXIS.
Also look at this clinical trial. 100% prophylaxis, although the protocol is too complicated.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04425850
Last Update Posted: October 19, 2020
Argentina. Ivermectin + Carrageenan.
Combination Product: Iota carrageenan NASAL spray and Ivermectin oral drops (used as BUCCAL drops).
– Ivermectin oral drops (6 mg/ml).
– Iota-carrageenan (0.17 mg / shot) nasal spray.
* Each application consists of:
1 shot of iota carrageenan nasal spray in each NOSTRIL and 4 shots in the ORAL cavity.
After 5 minutes, apply 1 oral drop of ivermectin (200 μg of ivermectin) on the TONGUE.
Food and drink consumption avoided 1 hour before and after treatment.
I’m not a scientist, but to me it seems like the author is so tired of all the quackery going on around HCQ that he now dismisses IVM out of hand.
I don’t have the knowledge or patience to go and compare studies but here’s a PDF filled with evidence IVM might work, by Pierre Kory, the guy who you dismissed without any real arguments.
Here’s some more:
Is it proof? Every person reading this comment will be better suited to judge than me. Is it an indication that it might be interesting? Heck yes.
I’m trained as a product designer and I agree with the commenter above about the danger of closed-mindedness. Horrible fraud happened around covid treatment but that does not mean everything is fraud and anything not proven yet won’t work. Let’s keep an open mind, and be self-critical so we can identify our own biasses. Desperately wanting to believe anything is just as bad as cynically shutting down everything. Both are symptoms of the fatigue that has set in around this pandemic. Let’s be compassionate to ourselves and others. Truly listen, and find truth together. And let’s take the rest we need, in order to see clearly.
Take care everyone. May we beat this virus. And by ‘we’ I mean everyone smarter than me – I mean YOU reading this 🙂
I want to add to my own comment that I’ve read more from and about the author now and this
A) Makes me think there’s a large chance I’m wrong with my above comment and
B) Makes me extra curious what he will find in the FLCCC PDF, if he decides to invest his time into it.
Thanks for the good work you do, mr Schneider.
He will find that lots of cited evidence comes from suspicious non-peer reviewed sources. Among the most equivocal data are the analyses of the epidemiological data from Peru, and certain regions of Paraguay, Mexico and Brazil, showing impacts of widespread ivermectin use on population case counts and case fatality rates. These studies analyze the impact of the highly controversial mass treatment campaigns with ivermectin in some Latin American countries, based on the in vitro data from the Caly et al. study, and two flawed/fraudulent early papers describing miraculous efficacy of ivermectin in COVID-19, which appeared on the SSRN preprint server in April and were later identified as being full of controversies, and then disappeared for good. These preprints were co-authored by Amit Patel and others, including Sapan Dessai, the co-author of the infamous papers retracted from The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, and CEO of the mystical medical data company Surgisphere. Nevertheless these flawed observational studies were considered as convincing evidence to justify distribution of hundreds of thousands doses of ivermectin as COVID-19 treatment. The analyses of the impact of these controversial policies have been performed by a business intelligence data analyst and an engineer, and of course not submitted to a peer review journals, but posted on internet sites.
Dr. Kory et al. even cite as credible evidence the statements of Latin American politicians for successful results from these highly controversial ivermectin treatment programs, carried out despite the vigorous resistance of health authorities and experts. A notorious example is the ivermectin distribution campaign, launched by the Governor of Alto-Parana district in Paraguay. This controversial operation was shockingly camouflaged as a “de-worming” program, by the ingenious local governor to avoid conflict with the National Ministry of Health that recommended against use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 in Paraguay. Pending the lack of a peer-reviewed official publication of these data I may remain skeptic of such sources as a reliable, non-biased evidence for the efficacy of ivermectin, not to mention the hideous ethical issues.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for your reply G. Momekov. I agree with everything you say. I’m curious if the fact that that PDF contains references to those studies is:
A) an indication that everything in there is BS and/or
B) an indication that it’s authors are so desperate for their wondercure to be a wondercure that they lack critical discernment and/or
C) that they might still be onto something with the studies that aren’t corrupted
I guess I’m out of my depth here. I’m a positive minded person and case-studies like the elder home in france that got ivermectin’d because of scabies that then have zero covid deaths just make me curious as hell. But I can also think of some ways how there might be other reasons there are zero deaths than ivermectin. And who knows, maybe the whole thing is bogus. I just think it might be an indication of something good. I guess for those of you who’ve been around and know their way in the scientific landscape this is probably naive. I’ll take some time to reflect on this.
I am trained as a scientist, but to me it seems bartjannn as product designer should know that just because a product is well advertised, it doesn’t mean it’s any good and does what the advertisement says.
You probably would advise me to invest time into studying the cornflakes packages, instead of actual research papers on sugar in diet?
Thanks for your reply. I agree with the fact that good advertisement doesn’t mean good product. I also think that just because there are crappy products, that doesn’t mean everything that looks like them is crappy too.
I realize now that coming in here with my views is arrogant because I haven’t done my due dilligence around this topic and you have. I just got triggered by the tone of your article, which I now realize is just the tone of your writing 🙂 Which I appreciate, now that I know that it’s probably not covid-fatique-induced-cynicism.
I’m still a person that would recommend everyone reading the cornflakes package if it sais it contains the cure to covid-19. I’m positively wired, innovative minded and a bit of naivety can be a blessing in coming up with new things. However, when it comes to scientific truthfinding I’ll defer to your wisdom. The reason I’d still recommend the cornflakes package is because it sais it contains a whole lot of science around sugar in diet / covid cure. And because there seems to be info on there that you haven’t treated in the above piece. But asking an expert to dedicate precious time based on my amateur cornflakes-marketeer-induced-hunch is an arrogant and probably stupid move.
I guess I just wanted to make the point: ‘might there be some truth in SOME of those studies?’. I could have saved us all some time by writing that.
Thanks for your patience with me and good luck with everything. May the truth prevail, and may we see it when we find it.
As you might have noticed, I went through available papers and preprint studies on Ivermectin in my article (just as I did with HCQ, Vitamin D and others). I am sure there are tweets with diagrams, Facebook posts with witness testimonies, DropBox files and maybe even toilet wall scribblings, but your expectation that I read them all is not a productive or a scientific approach.
Articles like this hinder the research on treatment options for this disease. Instead of promoting more research on this drug (that the current research shows it has potential), you’re clumping it up with HCQ and Trump…
IF we do more research and Ivermectin turns out as the “wonder drug”, Leonid Schneider, you’re indirectly responsibile for these deaths.
What rubbish! We are each able to make our own decisions…only those sheep who mindlessly follow a sensation, would regard him as responsible for the deaths. We are emotionally obsessed by pandemics…who, what, where, how etc. Are you going to be there bleating ” oh there now you see I died because I didnot take Ivermectin? or might you just say “OOPs I took too much and died.” You are inevitablly doomed if you do or if you don’t. Death is inevitable; however perhaps vaccines might offer more hope. Follow the guidelines for avoiding Covid, consider others instead of self and acknowledge the proficiency of those trained to research instead of jumping the gun.Then acknowledge the benefit of vaccines. DO NOT complain if you did not have a pneumococcyl or ‘flu vaccine…or did you take ivermectin to prevent ‘flu or pneumonia?
Has someone objectively looked into the data Dr. Pierre Kory says he has? Do they make sense, mathematically and/or statistically speaking? Has he really sent solid data to the NIH/FDA/CDC? Can someone please point out where his flaws are, if any? I am as skeptical as one can be, but I just saw his video on YT and he seemed to have a point. I believe the mainstream press would have let the world know about that, but I would like to see as objective an analysis as possible. Thanks!
The data presented by Dr. Kory and colleagues have several flaws significantly limit the possibility to use it as a guide for evidence-based conclusions and practice recommendations.
First of all, as the authors confess in the preamble of the paper, most of the clinical studies of ivermectin analyzed are not published in peer-review journals, but are rather available as pre-prints submitted to the quite fashionable this year pre-print repository servers (MedRxiv, bioRxiv, Research square etc.) or the highly biased TrialSite web site. Studies that have not been subject to independent peer-review by third-party experts, which is the golden standard quality control procedure in scientific journals, could be only regarded as their authors’ opinion. So one should carefully acknowledge the disclaimer, accompanying all bioRxiv-posted papers: “bioRxiv is receiving many new papers on coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. A reminder: these are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information”. I have little to add.
Some expert opinion:
WHO/PAHO-Extensive systematic reviewhttps://iris.paho.org/bitstream/handle/10665.2/52719/PAHOIMSEIHCOVID-19200029_eng.pdf?sequence=14&isAllowed=y
The Australian Taskforce for Covid. – it analizes some of the studies in the aforementioned WHO reviewhttps://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/4698
And a nice non-emotional analysishttps://rebelem.com/covid-19-update-ivermectin/
And s noteworthy observational trial (albeit also a preprint) that urged the Peruvian authorities unwillingly to stop the controversial mass treatment with bogus drugs including ivermectin….
No miracles in sight
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks G. Momekov!
I especially like the Dr Z youtube because he does both:
– Acknowledge there’s no good science yet and pitting it against HCQ is not useful
– Acknowledge that there might be something there so he encourages better, gold standard studies
I guess that second part is what me and some of the other commenters are missing in LS analysis, and especially the tone, as it comes across to us. I however fully understand the frustration that might be behind it. Time will tell whether or not IVM is useful against Covid, and I hope some proper studies will be done soon. I guess for us non-medical people it’s also hard to understand why cheap over the counter medicine with little side effects and a large amount of doses already distributed isn’t prescribed preventively when there’s an indication that it might work. But I guess medical standards are there for a reason ^^ (I’m not arguing here that we should prescribe IVM willy nilly, I’m saying it’s just hard to comprehend for those without medical or scientific experience).
Thanks everyone for contributing to this discussion. I’m grateful for the work done, especially by LS for creating this platform and for sharing his views.
For anyone interested, here’s the Dr Z youtube on this subject:
Dr Z, you say?
You believe the mainstream press would have let the world know? So far they have been culpable in hiding this kind of information. They are bought and paid for by the same agents that would have nothing but the experimental delivery systems being “rolled out” at the moment world-wide, to the likely detriment of recipients everywhere. HCQ and Ivermectin both have a long history of safe use and are effective anti-virals. The evidence is mounting. Just needs an open mind to see it. And there are plenty of personal accounts of lives being saved by having access to both of these medications.
You should look at India’s covid huge drop off in cases… they are far better off than the US
This pandemic was never, and now even more so, a playground for individuals to show off their so called scientific
and intellectual skills as displayed by the author and some commentators.People are dying. Unless it can be proven that those seeking to find a solution to our current global health challenge do so for ulterior or sinister motives, we should refrain from such disparaging and cynical comments albeit in the guise of scientific correctness.
Presently Ivermectin is touted as the ”miracle drug” as espoused by Dr Kory , who co-incidentally is but one of a number of eminent health professionals forming the FLCCC, and who have called on governments and health bodies to study the data and research they have gathered on Ivermectin, and then possibly consider it as a therapeutic agent for Covid. What is so suspicious or unscientific about that? If there are flaws in the research, engage and assist. This is not a competition as to who can outdo who.
Ivermectin has been around for 40 years and used by 3.7 billion people with a safe track record. If it shows promise as a possible therapy for Covid, then common sense dictates one to consider it. How many drugs have not been recalled by the FDA due to safety concerns? Can the same be said of Ivermectin.
If the call is for RCT, one need look no further for volunteers than everwhere around us. I’m sure there would be no lack of willing participants.
Are you familiar with the Zinc15 now Zinc20 formerly Zinc12, Zinc database? If not you may want to do further research into this database funded by a subsidiary of NIH.
HCQ, CQ, Ivermectin, Budesonide, and many other pre-cursor drugs ( 230 million + and still counting) as well as a natural vitamins, amino acids, flavonoids, are all listed as ligands, metal carriers/transporters/ionophores of zinc.
I’m a retired biochemist/chemist and have been investigating this pandemic in my spare time created by these lockdowns.
I and a colleague have posted a new website which contains articles we have written based upon the principles of causation ( cause/effect problem solving) which you may find interesting .
thank you for sharing the information (maybe you could also provide a link?), but where does it become evident that Zinc is the drug to cure COVID-19?
Read our Article on “COVID-19 and Real Science” on fact-checked.org.
There are 60+ references but initial reference from 2010 using Pyrithione plus zinc to interfere with viral RNA reverse transcriptase enzyme and stop virion reproduction. Zinc is not a drug but a natural supplement.
Blood serum zinc and its transport across infected cell membranes is critical/key to our immune defense against this virus but also against some cancers and inflammatory and immunosuppressive diseases.
25% of worlds population of 7 billion people are deficient in zinc. Seniors are deficient in Zinc, Vitamin D, and melatonin which are crucial for immune defense. Please review my one page summary of CoV19 Problem, Significance, Causes, Hypothesis, and Solutions. I believe that this virus creates zinc deficiencies by preventing the transport of zinc . Zinc is a poison to this and other Corona viruses and some cancers. See CDC pre-existing conditions – zinc deficiencies.
I would never question anyone’s beliefs. But neither do I think someone’s beliefs should be a base for any public health measure.
Now, I found this article you mentioned and understand you mean the reference 43.
Click to access covid19-and-real-science.rn3_.2.pdf
Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase ActivityIn Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture; Aartjan J. W. te Velthuis, et. al., 2010. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2973827
Now, you may notice it says “in vitro”. Many things, including urinating into a cell culture dish, will reduce the viral activity. If this in vitro data is all you base your belief on, I am afraid it is not good enough. But my opinion doesn’t matter, have you tried publishing your above mentioned article in a serious peer reviewed journal, in order to convince the experts advising the policies? Not one of Didier Raoult’s journals please.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This in vitro study and another in 2005 using CQ were both funded by NIH. I understand the difference between in vitro and in Vivo.
I guess if you believe that most of cancer research performed on lab rats lab animals, bacteria/yeast, etc. has no bearing on humans is analogous to urinating in a Petri dish
Well that’s your right/opinion.
My hypothesis is that this virus produces a protease enzyme which prevents/inhibits the body’s ZNT ( zinc transporters , zip proteins) from delivering zinc to the various zip code cells, tissues , organs, blood vessels, nervous systems creating zinc deficiencies which are critical to immune defense. The ACE-2 enzyme receptor structure is also dependent upon zinc. Perhaps the presence or absence of zinc in ACE-2 receptors in epithelial cells is a primary cause/mechanism for viral S protein connectivity and resulting infection.
Now that you mention it, much of cancer research is simply badly done or just fake, this is why it never translates into clinic successfully. Not because it is done in mice or rats.
Not that I wish to suggest that even Didier Raoult or Vovka Zelenko would ever engage in research fraud, gosh, perish the thought, how preposterous.
But now I learn that you don’t see animal studies as in vivo. Well, that is a bit unorthodox, but I don’t question beliefs.
My suggestion to try a peer reviewed journal remains.
Most peer reviewed journals like Lancet, NEJM, JAMA are controlled by Big Pharma . I’m sure you read the Lancet and NEJM articles on HCQ and Azithromycin . Did you note that nether of these studies nor the UW study funded by Gates foundation used zinc. Wonder why? Zinc is not a drug. Big Pharma makes huge profits off selling new drugs, not old ones whose patents have run out . Thus your critique of HCQ, Ivermectin , both zinc ionophores .
Also note that these synthetic drugs never mention that one of their primary functions is to transport blood serum zinc. They sell drugs not zinc.
But surely Raoult’s journals like IJAA are not controlled by Big Pharma? Try that at least!
Here’s an letter I addressed to prominent MDs and Gilead but I never git a reply. Wonder Why?
many of my emails to even less important people also go unanswered. What can we do, life is like this.
Suggest you go to Big Pharma and ask them why Zinc15 precursor drugs in this database are called ligands, metal binders? If these drugs bind metals do they transport blood serum zinc or supplemental zinc and thus increase the overall effectiveness of the drug. In all the medications I have taken which appear in this drug database I have never read or observed. Any mention of zinc ligand ionophores in any medication literature.
Might be that Drug Companies make money off selling drugs and promote don’t promote the primary action of these zinc ligands. .
A few resources indicating that zinc is important in inhibiting/ binding to enzymes via Zinc20 and IUPHARMA databases
zinc as a bound metal which helps maintain the normal protein configuration/structure. If zinc is somehow inhibited/blocked/masked than this could explain how the S protein is able to enter the ACE-2 receptor enzyme.
See Bold Faced underlined statement – researchers know this but public does not! Why not disclose and supplement ACE-2 inhibitor drugs with supplemental zinc to increase drug effectiveness? Can’t sell zinc!
Is zinc therefore the curative agent/bullet as Dr Zelenko states and these synthetic drug ionophores the zinc transporter/gun?
Excerpt: Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is a membrane-bound zinc metallopeptidase that generates the vasodilatory peptide angiotensin 1–7 and thus performs a protective role in heart disease. It is considered an important therapeutic target in controlling the COVID-19 outbreak, since SARS-CoV-2 enters permissive cells via an ACE2-mediated mechanism.
It is well established that metal ions, and in particular bivalent metal ions (e.g. Fe2+, Zn2+, and Mg2+), are used by a striking number of enzymes (often referred to as metalloenzymes) for catalytic purposes
as of 18 September 2019) show that 22.2% of all metal-bound hydrolases (EC 3.-.-.-) are zinc-dependent  (available at http://metalweb.cerm.unifi.it/). Many FDA-approved drugs that target zinc-dependent metalloenzymes are known to be coordinated to the catalytic active-site Zn2+ ion through a zinc-binding group (ZBG). Common ZBGs include carboxylate-, sulfonamide-, hydroxamate- and phosphonate/phosphate-based functionalities, among others . ( I copied and pasted this last sentence into the Zinc ionphore spreadsheet I sent you. It’s from the IUPHARMA database)
Also may want to mention another attached resource on the Neanderthal gene DPP4 as a possible back door for virus “S” protein entry into ACE-2 receptor enzyme.
The very obvious objection to your pet theory on zinc is that most people have plenty of zinc. If they didn’t, then they would be suffering numerous problems because as you yourself outline, zinc is essential in many processes. Likewise with Marik’s nonsense about vitamin C for sepsis. Most people are not deficient in vitamin C, and contrary to what he would have you believe, most sepsis patients are also not deficient. When questioned about this, he made the bold claim that sepsis patients have scurvy, citing a handful of small and poorly designed studies. Oddly, the patients with low vitamin C in said studies did not present any of the typical signs used to diagnose scurvy. Either Marik is off his rocker, or more likely, he is taking advantage of the well known fact that vitamin C is notoriously difficult to measure properly because it is unstable after extraction. Hence, the likely obvious explanation for the measurements in these studies is not that sepsis patients have scurvy, but that they made poor vitamin C measurements. Over the next few years resources were wasted on no less than six properly conducted studies that all found Marik’s vitamin C for sepsis to have no significant effect over placebo. While zinc deficiency is more common (maybe up to 25%), it is also obnoxious to measure because serum zinc is not considered a sufficient proxy for tissue zinc. Regardless, there is no reason to gamble on zinc as maybe helpful when we have vaccines that have proven excellent effectiveness. Zinc, Ivermectin, HCQ, are all rather a moot point and anyone pushing them over getting the vaccine surely has an ulterior motive.
a cartoonist is criticising the work of a dr covid AT the frontline of the war against covid ! 😂🤣😂🙌🙌🙌
Yes, a cartoonist with a doctorate and two post-doc appointments in this very subject.
But it’s okay, OMG—it’s clear all those words are foreign to you because pICtuRes!
Muchas personas solo critican sin aportar algo útil a la solución de los problemas, este es un patetico ejemplo de esos “seudo intelectuales” que solo sirven para criticar el trabajo de los demás, y sin vergüenza pide dinero para “apoyar su trabajo”, escudado en la pantalla de un computador disemina información amañada fundamentada en valoraciones personales llenas de sesgos emocionales bajo el titulo “forbetterscience”, já, que irónico..
Pingback: Colchicine or Liquorice? – For Better Science
As of January 15th, one week after Dr. Paul Marik and Dr. Pierre Kory—founding members of the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC)— along with Dr. Andrew Hill, researcher and consultant to the World Health Organization (WHO), presented their data before the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel, the NIH has upgraded their recommendation on Ivermectin, making it an option for use in COVID-19.
This new designation upgraded the status of ivermectin from “against” to “neither for nor against”, which is the same recommendation given to monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma, both widely used across the nation.
The Brazilian federal government has helpfully supplied people with a phone app that belts out “preventive treatment” recipes based on age, body weight, and if you check that you had a headache or cough.
One just hopes the happy recipients have strong livers.
(The last line can either be doxycycline or dexamethasone, apparently at random, which makes sense considering they’re basically the same drug. CQ, HCQ, ivermectine, and azithromicin are de rigueur.)
Incidentally, I’m sure we’ll be thankful for all the lovely super-parasites and superbacteria that this Amazon river like flow of aantiparasitics and antibiotics will create.