Covid-19 News

  • PART 1: Dr. Robert Malone, mRNA Vaccine Inventor, on Latest COVID-19 Data, Booster Shots, and the Shattered Scientific ‘Consensus’

    PART 1: Dr. Robert Malone, mRNA Vaccine Inventor, on Latest COVID-19 Data, Booster Shots, and the Shattered Scientific ‘Consensus’
    “We need to confront the data [and] not try to cover stuff up or hide risks,” says mRNA ...
    m.theepochtimes.com


    PART 2: Dr. Robert Malone on Ivermectin, Escape Mutants, and the Faulty Logic of Vaccine Mandates


    PART 2: Dr. Robert Malone on Ivermectin, Escape Mutants, and the Faulty Logic of Vaccine Mandates
    In part one of this American Thought Leaders episode, mRNA vaccine inventor Dr. Robert Malone explained the latest ...
    www.theepochtimes.com

  • The reason for this situation, is a mass psychosis. Most of this people are doing this because of --- a profound disillusionment -- an addiction to materialism.

    * Go with program = riches for some, surely billions and billions are being spent

    * Go with program = keep "my riches" for others, that nice paying Professorship with the ability to drink coffee without stress, and stay in respectability even though the streets could be on fire outside the Ivory Tower

    * Go with program = psychological survival for many, most don't know T-cell from the T-line on a subway, they are spouting data and stats because of a terror, a profound fear that has taken over them --- this is the operating platform for most people in society -- even though they would never say they are terrorized

    * Go with program = for the young, they are giving in to the delusion of being in a culture trying to save itself, when in fact, the elites have unleashed a parasite to consume the culture and draw it into the delusion


    As Towne Criers, why do you engage in this? You've been deceived. Maybe you've been deceived that if you deceive others you'll stay part of the club....why not exit the club? Maybe you've been cult programmed at a young age. Maybe your programmers don't care about you? Do you feel it would break you if you had to go with the Truth?


    I genuinely want to know why people on the periphery are continuing this op which is failing so badly. Maybe to be specific, the entire op is based on forcing a false reality onto others. YOU MUST TAKE THE VACCINE OR REALITY ITSELF WILL BE EXTINGUISHED. It is morally bankrupt to the core, because it PRETENDS TO CARE WHEN IT IS PARASITIC AND EVIL TO THE CORE. This entire thing cannot lead to anything stable.


    A man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point where he does not discern any truth either in himself or anywhere around him, and thus falls into disrespect towards himself and others. Dostoyevsky

  • Change history

    22 June 2021Editor’s Note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the editors and the publisher. A further editorial response will follow the resolution of these issues

    Not surprising - it was an article fishing for a mechanism which is just a list of possibles, so it can't include much.

    I'd just note on this that:

    • The in vivo evidence of anti-viral action is negative at achievable concentrations and therefore this experimental data trumps the speculation and in silico binding stuff for the first 10 or so (anti-viral action) suggestions in the absence of strong positive trial anti-viral results.
    • The action as immunomodulatory is what could be interesting - either good or bad - and we need reliable data to find out. Currently the data does not look great, but this is still open.


    There are many many drugs that have complex immunomodulatory possible actions - so this paper would really be more appropriate once we knew what action ivermectin had (if it has one). You can see from this very long lits of possibles that what precisely almost anything does to the immune system is complex and can't be determined without experimental data.


    THH

  • As Towne Criers, why do you engage in this? You've been deceived. Maybe you've been deceived that if you deceive others you'll stay part of the club....why not exit the club? Maybe you've been cult programmed at a young age. Maybe your programmers don't care about you? Do you feel it would break you if you had to go with the Truth?

    Navid - I think your judgement of people sucks.


    I realise my posting here must seem to you annoying, and i guess you call me a Towne Cryer.


    My motivation (which everyone except you knows because I've said it) is that

    1. I thoroughly enjoy investigating the ins and outs of the science for anything like this that is not fully understood and important.

    2. In addition I think some conspiracy theories (pro-Trump anti-democracy ones, antivax ones) do the world a lot of harm, and specifically at the moment antivax conspiracy theories are doing massive harm both to individual lives blighted by COVID and to economies where vaccine hesitancy increases COVID rates and finally to the world, where high COVID rates + vaccines => faster generation of new troublesome variants.

    3. I get annoyed when people here who I think know better post obvious lies or make grossly misleading statements.


    I am about the most difficult person to deceive - in the sense you mean - around. I see both sides of all issues. I look at details even when they are against my current position. I change position when evidence merits that. I don't accept any one research paper or view as settling things. I think independently. At age 4, on encountering Bible Stories at school from teachers, I came back and asked my parents for more context. They gave it to me being very neutral and not anti-Christian as you might expect. My reply was: I find that very diciffult (sic) to believe" I respect other people's beliefs - about religion. Otherwise the world splits into believers, and non-believers. I'm a non-believer. I, for example, am not an atheist. Militant atheists are too sure of things and have some emotional need to knock down and hurt theists that I do not like.


    I suspect though that you, as a strong advocate of various conspiracy theories, are a believer: needing to have a cause you strongly support - not good at seeing both sides of issues - motivated by strong dislike of the other side whom you believe evil - rather than strong dislike of deceit. You talking about the Truth tells me you are a believer. A lot of this COVID stuff is still uncertain, though admittedly the antivax crowd jumps onto a lot of arguments that are demonstrably false.


    I might be quite wrong (about the character stuff).


    THH :)

  • Anti viral Thomas !!!


    https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/9/9/2100/pdf


  • The very first thing Christian stories should have taught is that the Empire is usually evil. We're decades into evil empire and most can't seem to string together the first connections between all of these things...thus either in the Club or thoroughly deluded. By rampant use of "Conspiracy theory" as a way to disrespect, shame, and divert conversation...there is no respect upon which to build an actual conversation.


    Respect is the basis of trust in a shared humanity...and the perhaps antiquated notion that the conversation even has a point -- the point being to flex by the weight of the conversation. To change. Anyone launching into name calling in the midst of a conversation is not respectful, isn't engaging in real conversation, and is not being genuinely human.


    An AI can weight ideas as "conspiracies" and spit them at you -- I wouldnt talk to an AI either.

  • https://iris.paho.org/bitstream/handle/10665.2/52025/PAHOIMSCovid19200008_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y


    The first (most signiifcant) in vitro evidence you quote is Caly et al. Put in context here


    Caly et al.10 report a 5,000-fold reduction in SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels, compared with those in controls, after infected Vero/hSLAM cells were incubated for 48 hours with 5 μM ivermectin. The ivermectin IC50 for the virus was calculated at approximately 2.5 μM. These concentrations are the equivalent of 4,370 and 2,190 ng/mL, respectively, notably 50- to 100-fold the peak concentration (Cmax) achieved in plasma after the single dose of 200 μg/kg (14 mg in a 70-kg adult) commonly used for the control of onchocerchiasis.12 Pharmacokinetic studies in healthy volunteers have suggested that single doses up to 120 mg of ivermectin can be safe and well tolerated.13 However, even with this dose, which is 10-fold greater than those approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, the Cmax values reported were ∼250 ng/mL,13 one order of magnitude lower than effective in vitro concentrations against SARS-CoV-2.


    FLCC recommend 400ug/kg to 500ug/kg - still 25-50X lower than the EQ50 dose here.


    In vitro evidence is unreliable - this does not rule it out. But it makes it look a poor bet and certainly cannot be positive evidence for it.


    You might note - on the political Latin American side:


    Ivermectin and COVID-19: How a Flawed Database Shaped the Pandemic Response of Several Latin-American Countries - Blog
      [Authors:  Carlos Chaccour , Assistant Research Professor at ISGlobal and BOHEMIA Chief Scientific Officer;  Joe...
    www.isglobal.org


    Over the last few weeks we have seen the inclusion of ivermectin in the national therapeutic guidelines for COVID-19 of Peru, mass drug administration of ivermectin to 350,000 people for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 in Bolivia, Paraguay restricting the ivermectin market and advocacy groups in Colombia aiming for national ivermectin policy. Why is this happening?

    Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug used for river blindness, lymphatic filariasis and other Neglected Tropical Diseases. It also has some antiviral effect against single-strain RNA viruses like Dengue and Yellow fever. Early in April, researchers from Australia reported that Ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. They used concentrations that are not readily achieved in the human body but the biological plausibility opened the doors for clinical trials given the drugs excellent safety profile and lack of effective treatment for COVID-19. In this guest editorial at the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene we call for scientific rigor and provide rationale for conducting trials. Our own trial on this subject SAINT, was launched on May 13.

    However, the policy decisions in Latin-American have been largely based on the analysis presented in a pre-print posted in the SSRN repository in early April by Patel et al. Though only a pre-print, this manuscript has been very impactful: it has been downloaded 15,655 times, its abstract has been viewed 89,895 times (as of May 28, 2020).



    Also - relevant to the above LA political decision - showing how poor the initila pro-ivermectin evidence was:


    The authors claim to have used data from the Surgical Outcomes Collaborative (Surgisphere Corporation, Chicago, IL, USA). According to a recent publication in The Lancet (discussed below), the data included in this collaborative platform is “de-identified data obtained by automated data extraction from inpatient and outpatient electronic health records, supply chain databases, and financial records. In other words, there is some form of collaboration agreement with hundreds of hospitals using electronic records from around the world that allow this private corporation to automatically retrieve patient’s data periodically. At least in the EU, this seems to go directly against several points of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Privacy Shield EU-US collaboration scheme for the transfer of personal data.

    Several concerns about this database have been raised based on the recent Hydroxychloroquine analysis published in The Lancet by the same authors of the ivermectin pre-print. These concerns are largely addressed elsewhere.

    The first version of the ivermectin pre-print was posted on April 6*. This version evaluated data from 1,970 critically ill hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 with lung injury requiring mechanical ventilation from 169 hospitals across Asia, Europe, Africa, North and South America between January 1st 2020 and March 1st 2020. This included 52 patients treated with ivermectin, three of these patients (critically ill, requiring ventilation) came from African hospitals, but by March 1st, only two COVID-19 cases had been confirmed in the whole African continent.

    After finding out this discrepancy, we contacted the authors via email and the answers received left our concerns unchanged. Additionally, the manuscript presented a survival analysis with serious methodological flaws (Figure 1:(

    77344d33-153e-44fa-bd3a-fc9d72c36ae9?t=1590737319340

    Figure 1


    The first version was removed and substituted by a second version of this by April 19*. This new version included data from 1,408 PCR-confirmed, hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 1, 2020 and March 31, 2020. The data came from 169 hospitals in three continents. Half of these patients (704) had received a single dose of ivermectin (150 mcg/kg) and were matched “exactly on age, sex, race, underlying co-morbidity including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), history of smoking, history of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, other cardiac disease, an index of illness severity (qSOFA) as well as medication use including hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and corticosteroids”.

    The outcomes from this analysis are a 65% reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (7.3 vs 21.3%) and an 83% reduction in the overall death rate (1.4% vs 8.5%) in patients treated with ivermectin (figure 2). There are however two problems** with these data:

    • The need for mechanical ventilation in untreated patients seems quite high. As an example, in Spain, as of May 20, 2020, only 9% of all hospitalized patients (11,454 out of 124,521) have required ICU admission, a prerequisite for mechanical ventilation [Source: official statistics from ISCiii).
    • The data described in the manuscript do not match the figure.

    9702f717-6045-4ba9-bfd9-0d23e06000b0?t=1590737287667


    In spite of these flaws this analysis has been cited in a white paper advocating for ivermectin to be included in the national COVID-19 treatment guidelines of Peru. This was followed shortly by a ministerial level communication recommending the use of ivermectin for COVID-19, albeit recognizing the lack of evidence and requesting informed consent. This however led to a black market and alleged distribution of veterinary formulations. All in spite of some strong voices from local scientific leaders including the ex-minister of Health Patricia García.

    In spite of these flaws this analysis has been cited in a white paper advocating for ivermectin to be included in the national COVID-19 treatment guidelines of Peru

    Health authorities from Bolivia has followed closely and even went a step further into distributing 350,000 ivermectin doses in the city of Trinidad. In Paraguay the authorities had to restrict ivermectin sales after a surge in demand.

    This off-label use of ivermectin entails several risks:

    • Diversion of drug supply, causing shortages for its use in proven indications.
    • The use of veterinary formulations or non-supervised doses could lead to unforeseen side effects that can harm ongoing mass treatment schemes at community. level such as the Mectizan Donation Program which managed to eradicate river blindness in Colombia just a few years ago.
    • Rural regions of Latin America have a high prevalence of intestinal helminths. These parasite are known to modulate one type of immune response that favors viral clearance. Mass deworming due to ivermectin could have repercussions on the severity of COVID-19.
    • Moral hazard, due to a false feeling of protection or treatment with the drug.
    • Impossibility to conduct clinical trials should ivermectin become the new standard of care.

    Once again, scientific rigor is needed, even in pandemic times.

    Related resources

    ASTMH editorial

    One-hour conversation with clubes de ciencia Bolivia on this subject

    Our own clinical trial, SAINT

    Updates

    [*06/02/2020: The first version of this text indicated that the preprint on ivermectin appeared on April 16, while it was actually April 6. The release date of the second version of the preprint has also been updated. Initially it was written that it had been published on April 21, while the correct date is April 19.]

    [**06/04/2020: Initially it was stated that the second version of the preprint had three problems with the data. The second of the problems said that the mortality rate in hospitalized COVID-19 patients receiving mechanical ventilation was too low, based on a case series of 5,700 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in New York which showed a mortality among those receiving mechanical ventilation was 88%. These data came from a paper by Richardson et al. which has been corrected. For more details, see https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765367]

  • More evidence for Ivermectin as an anti viral


    Ivermectin is a specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear import able to inhibit replication of HIV-1 and dengue virus


    Ivermectin is a specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear import able to inhibit replication of HIV-1 and dengue virus
    The movement of proteins between the cytoplasm and nucleus mediated by the importin superfamily of proteins is essential to many cellular processes, including…
    portlandpress.com

  • By rampant use of "Conspiracy theory" as a way to disrespect, shame, and divert conversation...there is no respect upon which to build an actual conversation.


    Respect is the basis of trust in a shared humanity...and the perhaps antiquated notion that the conversation even has a point -- the point being to flex by the weight of the conversation. To change. Anyone launching into name calling in the midst of a conversation is not respectful, isn't engaging in real conversation, and is not being genuinely human.

    If you are not rubbishing the collective scientific efforts of the world (the 95% who support vaccines, do not yet see evidence for ivermectin as treatment for COVID) I will withdraw my conspiracy theory statement.


    If you, based on some abstraction, think all these people are distorting their findings then I think that is a fair definition of a strong conspiracy theory.


    Conspiracy theories (as the phrase is used) share the view that most people (and also most experts) considering the matter have got it wrong and are deluded. Note this is different from a scientific debate where scientists take both sides but nobody is deluded and the evidence of both sides as considered and where relevant incorporated by the other. Science is often uncertain and these debates can go on a long time.


    Now, occasionally such theories are correct. Obviously expects can be wrong and groupthink is possible.


    Where I object to this is when the theories are patently absurd (QAnon) or whether they involve judgments made by non-expert scientists which are repeatedly and transparently refuted by experts, where I have read both sides and find the original claims have no evidence - MMR controversy, most of the post-MMR antivax stuff, most of the anti-mRNA anti-COVID-vax stuff, the anti-AGW people, would be examples.


    These scientific conspiracy theories are only conspiracy theories because the science on which they depend has been repeatedly considered and found bad. in most cases the original science (e.g. as with MMR) was appallingly bad.


    THH

  • Public Health Ontario Reports 100+ Youth Hospitalizations Involving Heart Problems Post COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination


    Public Health Ontario Reports 100+ Youth Hospitalizations Involving Heart Problems Post COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination
    Public Health Ontario (PHO) released a thus far largely unnoticed report aggregating COVID-19 immunization adverse events following immunization or (AEFI)
    trialsitenews.com


    Public Health Ontario (PHO) released a thus far largely unnoticed report aggregating COVID-19 immunization adverse events following immunization or (AEFI) in Ontario reported in the Public Health Case and Contract Management Solution. For the period of Dec. 13, 2020, to August 7, 2021, PHO reports a significant cluster of vaccine safety activity associated with the ongoing COVID-19 program. Based on vaccines associated with both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, the report reveals that by August 7 106 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis were reported in Ontario residents under the age of 25, representing over fifty percent of the total incidents. Segmented by age, 31 of the total cases were reported in young people 12 to 17 years old while 75 of the total were in the 18 to 24-year-old group. Put another way 80% of the total AEFIs were young people 24 and below; 80% of the entire group were made.


    Warnings Noted

    While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently, and controversially approved the Pfizer-BioTNech product, or as TrialSite discussed, essentially established two parallel approved and EUA pathways, the agency also reported increased risk for males over 40 for myocarditis and/or pericarditis following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.


    The world’s regulators are on notice. An accelerated vaccine product, seemingly safe and effective, but waning in effectivity over time now becomes associated with the need for three shots (an additional booster) and now Israel’s COVID czar has come out and declared be ready for a fourth booster and perhaps even more.


    What does this mean in terms of risk when so little data is known—these products are still very young. Thus, PHO issued a directive in the summer instructing public health agencies of Canada to direct surveillance efforts toward these particular conditions, with a recognition that similar AEFIs were recorded in both the United States and Israel.


    Some Findings

    PHO shows that rates of cases associated with myocarditis/pericarditis were higher following the second dose of mRNA vaccine than after the first dose, particularly for those receiving the Moderna vaccine as the second dose of the series (regardless of the product received for the first dose).


    The Canadian public health agency furthermore conveyed that the total rate of case reports associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 6.4 million doses administered following the first dose and 8.7 per million doses administered following the second dose when combining age groups and gender.


    Breaking out vaccines PHO reveals that the Moderna vaccine reporting rate was 6.6 million doses administered following the first dose and a noticeable spike of 28.2 per million doses administered following the second dose, for all age groups and genders combined.


    One particular group—those aged 18 to 24—when receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine were more at risk with a 37.4 per million doses associated with Pfizer-BioNTech and a noticeable 263.2 per million following the Moderna vaccine as the second dose.


    While these rates are high, according to the Canadian Immunization Guide a rare AEFI occurs at a frequency of 0.01% to less than 0.1%. The Canadian POH continues a march forward with a full-throttle vaccine-centric strategy discounting these cases as rare given the vaccine’s high effectiveness at preventing symptomatic infection with severe outcomes, which is also associated with the risk of myocarditis.


    The key for any true risk-based effort would be to understand what the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis are associated with COVID-19 and compare that to the risks of these adverse events occurring via vaccination.

  • More evidence for Ivermectin as an anti viral


    Ivermectin is a specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear import able to inhibit replication of HIV-1 and dengue virus


    https://portlandpress.com/bioc…fic-inhibitor-of-importin

    I'm repeating myself. I agree ivermectin has been shown to be an antiviral - as are very many other drugs.


    The issue is that the Caly et al result you cited showed an in vitro result, against COVID specifically, that looked much too high to be useful.


    In pharmocology quantities matter. All drugs have side effects and activities. You want the desired action (as much as possible) with minimum amount of side effect.


    So when you have shown that a drug does not kill COVID except at much higher concentrations than it is able to be safely prescribed it is not good identifying specific not clearly quantitative mechanisms for its antiviral action.

  • One particular group—those aged 18 to 24—when receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine were more at risk with a 37.4 per million doses associated with Pfizer-BioNTech and a noticeable 263.2 per million following the Moderna vaccine as the second dose.


    While these rates are high, according to the Canadian Immunization Guide a rare AEFI occurs at a frequency of 0.01% to less than 0.1%. The Canadian POH continues a march forward with a full-throttle vaccine-centric strategy discounting these cases as rare given the vaccine’s high effectiveness at preventing symptomatic infection with severe outcomes, which is also associated with the risk of myocarditis.

    260 per million looks very high for Moderna.


    I'm wondering what Ron Brown (TSN) is doing singling out data from one Canadian province for a vaccine that has been used throughout the world. The first step in evaluating this data would be to see whether it is consistent with data found in other places? The second step (or maybe first) would be to assess its statistical significance. How many cases was this figure based on?


    Anyway, worth looking carefully at all the data, but not helpful to have this one thing singled out. Since everyone throughout the world is already aware of higher than normal myocarditis/pericarditis AEs from young men in this age group for mRNA vaccines we will get better data by looking at larger numbers.

  • 260 per million looks very high for Moderna.


    I'm wondering what Ron Brown (TSN) is doing singling out data from one Canadian province for a vaccine that has been used throughout the world. The first step in evaluating this data would be to see whether it is consistent with data found in other places? The second step (or maybe first) would be to assess its statistical significance. How many cases was this figure based on?


    Anyway, worth looking carefully at all the data, but not helpful to have this one thing singled out. Since everyone throughout the world is already aware of higher than normal myocarditis/pericarditis AEs from young men in this age group for mRNA vaccines we will get better data by looking at larger numbers.

    As you said, it's a good way to compare data from regions around the world. It could be environmental which would need smaller community data to compare against each. Maybe there is a trigger

  • You couldn't explain India,

    Leading Indian epidemiologists say they can explain the data, and they say it has nothing to do with ivermectin. They say this is the natural course of an epidemic. The curve is what you would expect from local herd immunity. The reported rates of infection and death were too low for herd immunity, but the epidemiologists conducted independent antibody tests. They found the actual infection rate was far higher than reported (I recall it was 10 to 20 times higher), and it was enough to reach herd immunity.


    ow do you explain the southern hemisphere where ivermectin is used. Vaccination rates are about 29% for the southern hemisphere

    Vaccination rates in many South American countries is now higher than the US, and the infection rates have plummeted. Chile is at 76% vaccinated. Infections and deaths are close to zero.



    A test of ivermectin in Chile showed no effects.


    Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19
    This randomized trial compares the effects of ivermectin vs placebo on time to symptom resolution within 21 days among patients with mild COVID-19.
    jamanetwork.com

  • 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.

  • In case some question about young people

    The Vaccine Versus the Virus: An Update

    The virus is more dangerous than the vaccine for adolescents and young adults.

    The Vaccine Versus the Virus: An Update
    Editor's note:I decided to take the holiday off. Fortunately, Dr. Howard was eager and itching to go with a post to fill in for me. In fact, Dr. Howard has…
    sciencebasedmedicine.org


    Picture1-480x536.png



    My personal vision is that it is good, but no reason to make a war at home for young people... there are more important questions, like social life, education, depression, meeting people...

    Anyway vaccines just better than the virus, that we will all catch , probably even the immunized, the formerly infected...


    For me I admit it is not even a question, the virus was more deadly than my former practice of skydiving, urban bike and big wall climbing. I stopped all when dad, so same for the Virus.

    My daughter is immunized, to avoid long covid and anxiety... Her most important need is living parents, good education and social life.


    Best wishes to all.

  • Chile is at 76% vaccinated.

    Brazil and Uruguay are also far ahead of the U.S. in vaccinations. Cases and deaths are have fallen in both. Uruguay is close to zero. Most other countries in S. America are about the same as the U.S., but cases are falling steadily with no new wave of infections.


    COVID-19 vaccine rollout: charts, maps and eligibility by country
    Tracking the coronavirus vaccination rollout and who has access to a vaccine around the world
    graphics.reuters.com


    Venezuela is far behind, as you would expect, alas. They are mired at high rates of infection and death. They began using ivermectin last year. It is not clear how widely it is being used, but you can see it is not reducing cases or deaths.


    Ivermectin: repurposing a multipurpose drug for Venezuela's humanitarian crisis - PubMed
    Ivermectin (IVM) is a robust antiparasitic drug with an excellent tolerance and safety profile. Historically it has been the drug of choice for onchocerciasis…
    pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov