Covid-19 News

    CFRs usually decrease through a pandemic as a higher fraction of infections are recognised as cases, but in any case are varied by many factors not to do with treatment. This is poor evidence.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Staff at a Florida hospital say they are hearing panic, fear and regret from unvaccinated Covid-19 patients

    So these unlucky people finally ended up in mafia hospital not giving Ivermectin!!


    Florida was the first state within US with an IVR clinic!

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    So - do you have evidence for a < 0.1% IFR from delta in an unvaccinated population?

    In fact it is far below given that now about 7 out of 8 cases are undetected. In UK the IFR was 0.05 for last week. Assumption 3/4 undetected. Some recent UK papers say only 60% (instead of 75%) undetected but this is due to the vaccine. As said more or less all (survivors) age > 65 did have a passive case or good enough immunity and are sorted out due to vaccination.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Here is why there is no reason, for COVID, to expect fitter viruses to be milder as they evolve

    I will not look at this paper as it is obvious nonsense. Cases always grow exponentially in the begin if a new space (new class of vulnerable) opens (Diffusion equation). We here are already at the peak of Delta without taking any measures!!

    Same in UK: There cases now go down faster than they did raise! And best death rate is totally flat.


    Thus such papers are brain farts based on just a short moment of the CoV-19 history and already the abstract tells why it is wrong at all.


    CoV-19 zero was a very slow virus in perspective of in body replication that took quite a long time. Delta is much faster and thus triggers a much stronger immune response.

    But if you are group member of the vulnerable then your time to react is much shorter. This effect is what the "higher CFR people" believe makes Delta more dangerous.

    Nothing about Covid here,,,perhaps youtube will spare it..

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    I just checked a few other countries in Worldometer.


    Of course Slovakia with Ivermectin is best:: No delta effect seen at all. Same for Bulgaria


    But also Netherlands,France,Belgium now have iFR's far below 0.05.


    Big exception USA. Seems to be a development country with no proper medicine for the majority of people. Official CFR still 1% (not adjusted..) but this is more than 20x ahead of the better others...

    It looks like in the USA some people like to kill others for whatever weird reason...


    And France likes vaccine terror methods and thus everything takes longer - can be seen in stretched more flat curve. Netherlands sees the same decrease in cases as UK.

    Slovakia Becomes the First EU Nation to Formally Approve Ivermectin for Both Prophylaxis and Treatment for COVID-19 Patients


    Slovakia Becomes the First EU Nation to Formally Approve Ivermectin for Both Prophylaxis and Treatment for COVID-19 Patients
    The Slovakia Republic’s Minister of Health has formerly registered Ivermectin as an approved prophylaxis and treatment for SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind
    trialsitenews.com



    The Slovakia Republic’s Minister of Health has formerly registered Ivermectin as an approved prophylaxis and treatment for SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. In breaking news, the authorization occurred yesterday as doctors received the news that they could proceed with formally authorized prescriptions both in hospitals and outpatient. On January 26, Health Minister Marek Krajci granted a permit for the unregistered drug as the drug has already been in use on a compassionate basis over the past half year. TrialSite interviewed Ondrej Halgas, a researcher from University of Toronto and originally from Slovakia. Halgas has been actively involved with a network organizing and lobbying for the drug’s approval during the pandemic. This landlocked Eastern European nation of 5.4 million people, a member of the European Union since 2004, just made history.


    A biochemist with the University of Toronto, Mr. Halgas, was just also showcased in a recent press release on this subject. TrialSite was able to get in touch with him to learn more.


    The actual authorization was the result of networks of health care professionals, journalists and other health care activists who have been working diligently to raise awareness as to the mounting efficacy data in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.


    In fact, Ondrej Halgas and the TrialSite Network dovetails nicely with the COVID-19 Front Line Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and other academics, journalists and physicians working to raise awareness about this important therapeutic option during the pandemic.


    Slovakia the First EU Nation to Authorize Ivermectin


    The antiparasitic drug was authorized by the Health Minister after a formal request from professor Ivan Schréter, CSc, the Chief Expert for Infectious Disease with the Ministry of Health of the Slovak Republic. A conditional authorization, TrialSite interprets that the registration is valid for a six (6) month period for hospitals and ambulatory care for the indication of prophylaxis and treatment of patients with COVID-19. The medicine will also be available at licensed prescription pharmacies.


    The Path to Approval


    A scientist from University of Toronto, Ondrej Halgas, expressed pride that his home country was able to become the very first nation in Europe to formally approve this drug as a complement to vaccines and other treatments. In an interview with TrialSite’s Daniel O’Connor, Halgas shared he has been collaborating with physicians such as Dr. Pierre Kory and Paul E. Marik as well as others. In Germany, apparently Ivermectin use has grown, reports Halgas. He was in touch with a physician group there that treated the elderly at a nursing home.


    The mortality rate in nursing homes in that European country (Germany) is about 25% to 30%. After treating about 100 residents with Ivermectin, that rate in one case series apparently went down to about 5%—a huge difference. Of course, this isn’t the result of a formal study but nonetheless represents more real world data points.


    Supply Challenges


    Ondrej Halgas reports that supply is another matter. Unlike in many other EU countries, such as Austria, in Slovakia, Ivermectin was available only for animals and as a cream for humans. To date, at least one hospital in the nation’s second largest city has been influential in the importance of the drug under some waiver. They have seen markedly improved results, according to Halgas.


    This latest edict by the Health Minister now allows for the importation. Doctors and hospitals have been importing the drug from Austria and even as far away as India, and it’s not clear how the country’s predominantly national health system will work to efficiently and effectively import the drug. Presently, the country has three payers, including one national payer and two private sector groups.


    The importation is an area that TrialSite will continue to monitor.

    Get it straight?


    With such apparent conviction - the IVM obsessives here are posting:


    (1) Claimed evidence that as soon as a country adopts IVM as prophylatic, COVID rates drop

    (2) When IVM is used as a treatment - death rates drop


    If we were Golden Hamsters (2) would probably be true (less severe disease probably => less deaths). But (1) would be false - no antiviral activity.


    Reducing severity of disease without changing viral load does not alter infectivity or R rate and therefore cannot provide the claimed "change course of pandemic" evidence.


    I am not myself fanatically for or against IVM. I like The GH evidence - though there is many a slip between golden hamster and human physiology. I note the bad RCT evidence - but that does not absolutely exclude some effect with the right doses at the right stage of treatment. The in vitro evidence as an anti-viral actually counts against this - but does not speak to its use making disease less severe. It shows anti-viral activity at high concentrations 10X would would be safe, and 10X what anyone is using. In vitro is poor evidence - positive or negative - so this does not exclude anti-viral activity but it counts against rather than for this.


    What gets me annoyed is people posting things that don't make sense. It does not make sense that IVM is both a magically good prophylatic and a magically good treatment. If I had to choose one or the other I'd choose treatment:

    • Better evidence
    • More plausible


    But you can see overall the evidence for both is negative rather than positive.


    Although not a fanatic I become mildly distressed when people go on repetitively posting things that on available evidence are just wrong. It is sort of insulting the critical ability of everyone here. Hence this post where I say why those things are wrong. Humans like patterns, and see them everywhere - especially in the field of medical cures where everyone so much wants them to work. It is very easy to look at up and down COVID rates throughout the world and latch onto ones that you think are vaguely coincidental with a country using IVM (it would in any case need to be good compliance whole country prophylatic use to actually make a difference). But mainly prophylatic use just does not cohere with all the fragmentary available evidence at all.


    I can't say IVM does not work for sure - a lack of positive evidence and mild negative evidence is no way the same as strong negative evidence. It is not easy to get evidence for drugs and even less for prophylaxis (the best would be fairly easily obtained quality RCT evidence of viral clearance). So anyone who wants can go on hoping. I can understand the frustration of those who note the PR campaign and the extraordinary lack of scientific evidence to back it up. We should be doing better than this - and mostly we are. There are many possible repurposed drugs we should be testing.

    Just a note on this article about Joe Mercola who as you know is one of the 12 vaccine misinformation super-spreaders.


    I don't myself think he is dishonest. He possibly believes what he says - undoubtedly has a big chip on his shoulder about experts, who he instinctively distrusts - while being very good at marketing.


    In terms of overall harmful effect it really makes no difference whether he is an honest or a dishonest quack. What this shows is how vaccine and other health misinformation feeds a large market and is a profitable business.


    Joe Mercola: An antivaccine quack tycoon pivots effortlessly to profit from spreading COVID-19 misinformation
    I've written about Joseph Mercola, DO on a number of occasions over the years, dating back to before I ever joined this blog, first as a contributor and then…
    sciencebasedmedicine.org


    Joe Mercola: An antivaccine quack tycoon pivots effortlessly to profit from spreading COVID-19 misinformation


    Joe Mercola is a physician whose nearly quarter-century of promoting quackery and antivaccine misinformation has garnered him a net worth north of $100 million. It is therefore not surprising that in the age of the pandemic, he has pivoted to fatten his bottom line promoting misinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID-19 and the COVID vaccines.



    I also noted how Mercola apparently deludes himself that the purpose of selling products was to support the website. That might have been true initially, but it’s very clear from his history that selling products soon became the main purpose of the website. After all, he wouldn’t have gotten to a net worth north of $100 million if had been selling only enough products to support the cost of bandwidth, maintaining a website and an online store, and paying writers for content that he didn’t write himself. He had to have been selling a lot of product at a generous markup, and even then most successful businesses aren’t nearly that profitable. Indeed, Satija and Sun reported in the Washington Post, by the time Mercola stopped seeing patients for good in 2009 his various online businesses were generating $3 million a month. By then, Mercola was already well on his way to being the quack tycoon he is today.

    As Frenkel reports in The NYT:


    As his popularity grew, Dr. Mercola began a cycle. It starts with making unproven and sometimes far-fetched health claims, such as that spring mattresses amplify harmful radiation, and then selling products online — from vitamin supplements to organic yogurt — that he promotes as alternative treatments.
    To buttress the operation, he set up companies like Mercola.com Health Resources and Mercola Consulting Services. These entities have offices in Florida and the Philippines with teams of employees. Using this infrastructure, Dr. Mercola has seized on news moments to rapidly publish blog posts, newsletters and videos in nearly a dozen languages to a network of websites and social media.

    It is all very deliberate and, unfortunately, savvy marketing:


    Dr. Mercola has a keen understanding of what makes something go viral online, said two former employees, who declined to be identified because they had signed nondisclosure agreements. He routinely does A/B testing, they said, in which many versions of the same content are published to see what spreads fastest online.

    Meanwhile, the main article on Mercola’s website yesterday was titled “How the Plague of Corruption Is Killing Mankind“. In it, he claims that the “blood supply and vaccines have been tainted with disease-causing retroviruses for more than three decades, and the U.S. government has been hiding it the entire time” and that “‘long-haul COVID’ is the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein activating endogenous HERVW and recombining with XMRVs, — introduced via vaccinations,” among other conspiracy theories, including Andrew Kaufmann’s claim (previously discussed) that SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, “has never been identified” and that SARS-CoV-2 is actually a cloned monkey virus spread by “injection” of vaccines. (That’s a new one on me. I guess he must be abandoning the “lab leak” idea of how SARS-CoV-2 got started. Again, quack claims and pseudoscience don’t have to be consistent, I guess.)

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    CoV-19 zero was a very slow virus in perspective of in body replication that took quite a long time. Delta is much faster and thus triggers a much stronger immune response.

    But if you are group member of the vulnerable then your time to react is much shorter. This effect is what the "higher CFR people" believe makes Delta more dangerous.

    The other paragraphs in the post this came from I've replied to elsewhere (let me know if you do not understand the reply).


    We agree that delta replicates faster, we agree that it triggers a stronger immune response (at least that is expected, because there is more of it). We also agree that for everyone it is more difficult therefore to get early viral clearance, and therefore avoid more serious disease.


    You are merely restating what (I think) we agree, which is that delta is more serious with a correspondingly higher IFR.


    What you are maybe implying is that there is (uniquely in medicine) a binary distinction between vulnerable people - who get seriously ill - and not-vulnerable - who don't. And that therefore this agreed mechanism for more serious disease will not increase death - it will make those who were going to die anyway die sooner.


    You have elsewhere showed terminal confusion on the matter of IFR by not correctly including the effect of vaccination in a country (where those unvaccinated are invariable much more likely to be those much less at risk).


    The binary distinction idea flies in the face of all medical experience.


    In any case this is a theoretical argument - what matters in medicine is the evidence which is thus far (not very strong - but as we agree expected) evidence for delta to be significantly more lethal than alpha, which itself was significantly more lethal than original. These are not things anyone wants to be true. That however, alas, has no weight on whether they are true.


    As a PR argument what you are saying is believed by many people in the US: "I am not vulnerable so I do not need the vaccine". There is no simple way to work out who is vulnerable. People do not accurately classify themselves when given such a distinction - those who want to ignore risks, or fear vaccines, decide they are not vulnerable. In reality some people are more likely vulnerable than others but it is a matter of probabilities which we now have a fair idea of. Lack of comorbidities does not mean you are safe because comorbidities do not make you a lot more vulnerable. A X2 risk increase corresponds to change from female to male, or being 6 years older.


    Equally, if we say that IFR at age 60 is around 1% - being 20 years younger reduces that by approximately 10X, to 0.1%. It does not eliminate the risk.


    I am concerned that the binary way you are discussing this - separating people into at risk or not at risk - is unscientific - flies in the face of all facts - and very dangerous for those who are a bit at risk who view themselves as not at risk as the result of your reductionism.


    Bad advice over vaccines is killing people. Thank God no-one on this site is actually giving medical advice - people can check with their local doctor. Even so arguing abstractly things that if advised by a doctor would put people at significant risk is a bad idea.


    THH

    Good morning Thomas, let's get the day started!


    Omaha Doctor Sees Tremendous Success with Ivermectin as Early Treatment Against COVID-19


    Omaha Doctor Sees Tremendous Success with Ivermectin as Early Treatment Against COVID-19
    Physicians from around the United States continue to emerge, going public with their declaration of the benefits of ivermectin as an early onset,
    trialsitenews.com


    Physicians from around the United States continue to emerge, going public with their declaration of the benefits of ivermectin as an early onset, mild-to-moderate stage COVID-19 treatment. Most recently on KETV 7 Omaha, Dr. Louis Safranek came forth, declaring, “I typically use it in combination with other agents. But I do prescribe it for virtually all the patients who come to be, as part of a treatment regimen, which I think is effective for folks.” The Harvard Medical School graduate has been specializing in infectious diseases for four decades. Having treated nearly 2000 COVID-19 patients at home and in the local hospitals here in Omaha, Nebraska, ivermectin is a key medicine tool in the medicine box targeting COVID-19.


    TrialSite can assure that the National Institute of Health (NIH) formal policy in fighting the pandemic is to have a comprehensive mix of 1) safe and effective vaccines, 2) branded therapeutics, 3) generic repurposed therapeutics, and 4) sound and locationally relevant public health policy. Of course, industry bias has reared its ugly head in this pandemic as the NIH and the federal government have spent many billions on vaccines and novel investigational therapies while investing probably less than 5% of the portfolio investment in generic repurposed drugs—the NIH happens to be testing ivermectin now as part of the ACTIV-6 program.


    No Bad Stories

    In fact, Dr. Safranek shared that not one COVID-19 patient that he has treated with ivermectin and other regimens have ended up on a ventilator or dead. He reports out of about 200 patients, only one ended up hospitalized, making this a very high success.


    The Survival of Carol Burrell

    Here in the Midwest plains, Doctor Safranek had an 80-year old Omaha woman who survived two bouts of COVID-19, the second via a breakthrough infection. That is, she got infected even after being fully vaccinated. When she came to the doctor and he treated her with the anti-parasite, FDA-approved drug, she informed, “I was better the next day, not well but better.” She continued that while on the ivermectin regimen, “Each day, I got better, and now I am over it.”


    Local Academic Medical Center Tows The Line

    Of course, the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, isn’t about to administer its COVID-19 patients with ivermectin. Their position: “Further studies needed to be done to show Ivermectin has utility in the treatment of COVID-19,” reports UNMC Medical Director of Infectious Disease Dr. Mark Rupp.


    Of course, Dr. Rupp will administer remdesivir to hospitalized patients, even though the drug has some concerning safety signals and the World Health Organization (WHO), on no uncertain terms, declared the drug wasn’t effective based on the results of the Solitary study.


    UNMC also makes monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) available for the care of COVID-19 patients, and these have shown some promise but they are highly investigational.


    Early Treatment

    A stark reality for those that are part of the early treatment movement with drugs like ivermectin. End up in a hospital with COVID-19, and expect trouble as there is no acknowledgment of studies around the world evidencing the efficacy of drugs like ivermectin.


    Rather, the health system waits until the patient is in worsening shape and then experiments with remdesivir, mAbs, etc. Meanwhile, ivermectin doesn’t have side effects such as hydroxychloroquine and is very cheap. Dr. Safranek aligns his message with groups such as the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) who emphasize the early-onset treatment of the viral disease can make a difference between life and death.


    And a great majority of the COVID-19 cases (90% plus) are mild-to-moderate in nature, so supplying this market space with oral treatments (e.g. oral tablet) represents a huge market, and why pharmaceutical companies such as Merck, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, and others are in a race to develop branded therapeutics for this space. The market’s worth, according to TrialSite, several billion per year.


    But back to the Omaha practice of Dr. Safranek who brings some good hometown advice” “If people are intent on getting back to normal, if they want to socialize normally, and they become symptomatic they need to get tested. And if possible, reach out for treatment that might be of benefit,” Safranek said.

    MOMI-VAX’ Study Investigates Immune Response Elicited by COVID-19 Vaccines in Pregnant & Postpartum Women


    ‘MOMI-VAX’ Study Investigates Immune Response Elicited by COVID-19 Vaccines in Pregnant & Postpartum Women
    The MOMI-VAX study, a new observational research endeavor launched last month to investigate the immune responses elicited by COVID-19 vaccines
    trialsitenews.com


    The MOMI-VAX study, a new observational research endeavor launched last month to investigate the immune responses elicited by COVID-19 vaccines administered to a target population, including 750 pregnant women or 250 postpartum women, was announced by the National Institutes of Health in June. In this study, researchers evaluate the development and durability of antibodies in response to SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report, 107 pregnant women died with COVID-19 from the period January 22, 2020, through June 21, 2021. In this study, the investigators are also evaluating overall vaccine safety while probing as to the effective transfer of vaccine-induced antibodies to infants across the placenta and via breast milk. Consequently, the study team scrutinizes the breast milk antibodies with the aim of better understanding the possible protections against COVID-19 in breastfed infants.


    What follows is a brief TrialSite breakdown of this study.


    What is the rationale for studying this cohort population?

    According to a recent NIH press release, pregnant people with COVID-19 are more likely to be hospitalized, be admitted to the intensive care unit, require mechanical ventilation, and die from the illness than their non-pregnant peers. Severe COVID-19 during pregnancy also may put the infant at risk for complications such as preterm birth. Individuals who are pregnant or breastfeeding can choose to receive authorized COVID-19 vaccines, and studies to gather safety data in these populations are ongoing. So far, COVID-19 vaccines appear to be safe in these populations. The NIAID study will build on these studies by improving the understanding of antibody responses to COVID-19 vaccines among pregnant and postpartum people and the transfer of antibodies to their infants during pregnancy or through breast milk. Experience with other diseases suggests that the transfer of vaccine-induced antibodies from mother to baby could help protect newborns and infants from COVID-19 during early life.


    Who is the sponsor?

    National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH),


    What is the research network conducting the study?

    The NIAID-funded Infectious Diseases Clinical Research Consortium (IDCRC).


    What is the purpose of this study?

    To evaluate the immune responses generated by COVID-19 vaccines administered to pregnant or postpartum people. Researchers will measure the development and durability of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in people vaccinated during pregnancy or the first two postpartum months. Researchers also will assess vaccine safety and evaluate the transfer of vaccine-induced antibodies to infants across the placenta and through breast milk.


    What are the study details?

    Investigators will enroll up to 750 pregnant individuals and 250 postpartum individuals within two months of delivery who have received or will receive any COVID-19 vaccine authorized or licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Their infants also will be enrolled in the study. Vaccines are not provided to participants as part of the study protocol. Currently, three COVID-19 vaccines are available in the United States under emergency use authorization: the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccines and the Johnson & Johnson adenoviral vector vaccine. The study is designed to assess up to five types of FDA-licensed or authorized COVID-19 vaccines, should additional options become available.


    Investigators also will assess the potential effects on maternal immune responses and transfer of antibodies across the placenta according to the mother’s age, the trimester of pregnancy during which the vaccine was received, the mother’s health, and the mother’s COVID-19 risk status. Additionally, mothers will have the option of providing breast milk samples at approximately two weeks, two months, six months, and 12 months after delivery. The investigators will evaluate breast milk antibodies to assess the potential for protection against COVID-19 in breastfed infants. Study staff also will gather information on COVID-19 illnesses in pregnant and postpartum participants, birth and neonatal outcomes, and COVID-19 illnesses in infant participants.


    A Year of Monitoring

    Participants and their infants will be followed through the first year after delivery. To assess the development and durability of vaccine-induced antibodies overall and by vaccine type and vaccine platform, researchers will analyze blood samples collected from pregnant and postpartum participants. These samples will be collected at study enrollment; at delivery for participants who enrolled during pregnancy; and two, six, and 12 months after delivery. Pregnant participants enrolled in the study prior to receiving the vaccine will have blood drawn at enrollment as well as approximately one month after vaccination. To assess transfer of antibodies through the placenta and the levels and durability of antibodies in infants, researchers will perform antibody testing on samples from umbilical cord blood collected at delivery and blood samples collected from infants two and six months after delivery.


    Why is this study important?

    According to Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of NIAID, “tens of thousands of pregnant and breastfeeding people in the United States have chosen to receive the COVID-19 vaccines available under emergency use authorization. However, we lack robust, prospective clinical data on vaccination in these populations.”


    Fauci continued “The results of this study will fill gaps in our knowledge and help inform policy recommendations and personal decision-making on COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.”


    How many trial sites are involved in this study?

    Up to 20 clinical research sites nationwide. Sites include:


    Baylor College of Medicine VTEU

    University of Rochester VTEU

    New York University VTEU

    Emory University VTEU

    Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center VTEU

    UPMC Magee Women’s Hospital, subsite of University of Maryland VTEU

    Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, subsite of Vanderbilt VTEU

    University of Washington VTEU and subsite Seattle Children’s Hospital

    University of Illinois at Chicago, subsite of Saint Louis University VTEU

    Who are the Principal Investigators?

    Flor M. Munoz, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston


    Richard H. Beigi, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Of course Slovakia with Ivermectin is best:: No delta effect seen at all. Same for Bulgaria

    Delta reached some countries - with porous and active borders - sooner than others.


    The UK has very good testing so we know delta took over the UK starting in April.


    What about Slovakia delta spread?


    28th June


    Lengvarsky: Another Two Cases of Delta Variant Confirmed in Slovakia | NEWS NOW
    newsnow.tasr.sk


    Another two cases of the Delta variant of coronavirus have been confirmed in Slovakia, Health Minister Vladimir Lengvarsky (OLANO) announced at a press conference following a meeting of the Central Crisis Management Team on Monday.

    Both persons infected with the Delta variant had positive travel records and they weren’t vaccinated. The same held for the four earlier infections with the Delta variant detected in Slovakia.

    There’s no recorded spread of the Delta variant in Slovakia at the moment, according to the health minister.



    It is therefore expected that Slovakia is at least 2.5 months behind the UK in its delta infection.


    Trying to extract data from speed of COVID increase in different countries without knowing what fraction of cases are delta is not possible.

    Quote from Fm1

    Physicians from around the United States continue to emerge, going public with their declaration of the benefits of ivermectin as an early onset, mild-to-moderate stage COVID-19 treatment. Most recently on KETV 7 Omaha, Dr. Louis Safranek came forth, declaring, “I typically use it in combination with other agents. But I do prescribe it for virtually all the patients who come to be, as part of a treatment regimen, which I think is effective for folks.”

    FM1 - not sure why you go on posting this stuff. As we know, physicians always will hope treatments work - and will not (without RCTs) have evidence.


    If there were such "easy to see" evidence it would be seen in RCTs. In reality whether treatments work or no when disease severity is variable and the death rate is low is not posisble to determine anecdotally - which is what these doctors report.


    Such evidence is enough to motivate RCTs to see if it really works. We have had many of those. They have come overall down as negative. That coupled with the lack of other evidence (the GH female disease progression evidence is the best I've see - but you are not AFAIK a golden Hamster) makes IVM look not very likely to be effective.


    I guess not everyone on this thread understands why RCT evidnece is the only thing that works. Have you looked historically at all the times when physicians throughout the world have been convinced a treatment was effective - until RCTs proved otherwise? It is a bit unexpected naively - but when you understand how things work, and how poor anecdotal evidence tends to be, it is pretty obvious why this happens all the time.


    IVM might be useful - but the odds are against it. Which makes the distortion of effort and testing money provoked by the intense pro-IVM lobby a real (and arguably deadly) shame.


    THH

    Quote from Fm1

    The Survival of Carol Burrell

    Here in the Midwest plains, Doctor Safranek had an 80-year old Omaha woman who survived two bouts of COVID-19, the second via a breakthrough infection. That is, she got infected even after being fully vaccinated. When she came to the doctor and he treated her with the anti-parasite, FDA-approved drug, she informed, “I was better the next day, not well but better.” She continued that while on the ivermectin regimen, “Each day, I got better, and now I am over it.”

    This is a great example of really bad evidence. It is expected that breakthrough infections will be mild. This one was mild.


    Yet it is taken as evidence of IVM efficacy? Weird, and sad. (Though I'm glad this patient had the good sense to get vaccinated early).

    There you go again Thomas assuming I'm not a hamster, thanks for that by the way. And again Thomas I'll take a doctor's opinion that's out on the front lines treating rather than a desk jockey such as yourself. But I do appreciate your input, no matter how much is your personal opinion me.

    Quote from Fm1

    And again Thomas I'll take a doctor's opinion that's out on the front lines treating rather than a desk jockey such as yourself.

    I'm glad that you take a doctor's opinion. Preferably your own, rather than some self-publicising quack you do not know. You can find a doctor to give you anything you like off label in the US - that is then you deciding what you want on the basis of internet or social media spin - rather than you taking advice from a doctor. Most doctors give good advice.

    A fair comment on IVM. That was in Feb, before the recent overall negative RCT evidence.


    DEFINE_ME


    Is ivermectin ready to be part of a public health policy for COVID-19 prophylaxis?


    Ivermectin has been extensively used as antiparasitic, approved by the FDA and other agencies to be administered in a single dose of 200 mcg/kg to treat onchocerciasis, strongyloidiasis, and lymphatic filaria, among other parasitoses. A study by Caly et al. reported that ivermectin inhibited the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and suggested to develop further investigation in vivo. [4] Some argue that the existing clinical series support safety and effectiveness, but doses and posology vary between studies and controversies remain, making it necessary to develop more research with improved methodology, controlling for confounding variables.

    The most recent study on ivermectin is a pilot clinical trial by Chaccour et al., [5] who found no significant differences in detection of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA from nasopharyngeal swabs at days four and seven after treating with a single oral dose of 400 mcg/Kg of ivermectin (n = 12) or placebo (n = 12). All patients were young adults with non-severe COVID-19, no risk factors and no more than 72 h from symptom onsets. Despite this negative result, there seemed to be a tendency to reduce viral load and an early recovery from hyposmia/anosmia in the treated group. Adverse events were not statistically significant, and authors suggest evaluating ivermectin for early COVID-19 treatment and as pre-exposure prophylaxis in high-risk groups.

    Ivermectin has proven to be a safe drug in periodical mass doses, [6] even at higher doses than recommended. [7] However, there are rare reports of severe adverse effects. Veit et al. reported in 2006 the case of a 20-year-old patient with microfilaria symptoms, treated with a single dose of ivermectin of 300 ug/kg, who developed severe hepatitis, probably induced by that single dose. [8] The most serious adverse reactions have been reported in persons infected with microfilariae of Loa loa, who developed several grades of encephalopathy after ivermectin. [9] The chronic use of ivermectin has not been studied enough. There is concern that the recommendation of a weekly dose as a means of prevention combines with the excess of confidence among the population, and that would lead to neglect in biosecurity measures. Ivermectin has been used empirically for the treatment of outpatients and hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Honduras, as in other regions of the world. Now, the country is facing an indiscriminate use for prophylactic purposes in healthy population. Most of the time, it is administered without medical prescription and with no pharmacovigilance.

    For Honduras, a low middle-income country, the proposal of a low-cost prophylactic agent for COVID-19 is appealing. In the face of a virus with a high mutation rate that could lead to loss of effectiveness of vaccines, worldwide research of therapies for COVID-19 such as ivermectin should not be idled. Although ivermectin seems promising, it should not be used massively and for long periods without medical prescription until results of well-designed clinical trials are completed, and in the case of positive results, it must be administered in the recommended posology.

    Meanwhile, the knowledge available about the pathophysiology of the disease and its main risk factors, support the strengthening of public health policies regarding prevention, biosafety measures, large-scale testing, and adequate epidemiological surveillance. [10] There is still no drug to replace that.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I'm glad that you take a doctor's opinion. Preferably your own, rather than some self-publicising quack you do not know. You can find a doctor to give you anything you like off label in the US - that is then you deciding what you want on the basis of internet or social media spin - rather than you taking advice from a doctor. Most doctors give good advice.

    I'm lucky Thomas, my doctor is also a friend we talk a couple of times a week about everything. He also reads as much as time allows and keeps up with the latest. Nothing is ever off the table. I trust him and he trusts me. He did get a little pissed off at my vitamin D levels a few months ago when it was in the NIH overdose range. After talking he is taking a different view of vitamin levels. So do you plan on attacking vitamin D now. Oh wait you tried and failed!

    Another ivm testimony from a doctor... Harvard grad. Nebraska

    https://www.ketv.com/article/omaha-doctor-touts-use-of-ivermectin-for-covid-19-treatment/37148651

    "DR SAFRANEK IS A HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL GRADUATE,

    WHO HAS SPECIALIZED IN INFECTIOUS DISEASES FOR 40 YEARS.

    HE’S TREATED NEARLY 200 PATIENTS AT HOME AND IN HOSPITALS USING IVERMECTIN AND A NUMBER OF OTHER TREATMENTS.>>

    NONE HAVE DIED, AND NONE HAVE ENDED UP ON A VENTILATOR.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.