American Journal Of Therapeutics Recognizes Ivermectin

After months of hearing about Ivermectin we finally get a respected US publication to recognize the benefits of Ivermectin for treatment of Covid 19.

This is from the May/June 2021 - Volume 28 - Issue 3 - p e299-e318


journals.lww.com...

Therapeutic Advances:

A large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes. Numerous prophylaxis trials demonstrate that regular ivermectin use leads to large reductions in transmission. Multiple, large “natural experiments” occurred in regions that initiated “ivermectin distribution” campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns.

Conclusions:

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

Encouraging.

Perhaps they should not have cited Elgazzar though. Hopefully their other sources are more reliable.

R etraction

a reply to: infolurker

Haven't had time to read your entire link yet, but wanted to add this link to some Ivermectin studies I found earlier that might help support your findings: Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 61 studies

thanks for the information!

originally posted by: Phage
Encouraging.

Perhaps they should not have cited Elgazzar though. Hopefully their other sources are more reliable.

R etraction

Ha, I expect lots of negative coming out of this. There is more evidence that Ivermectin is effective than Remdesivir but of course the cost of treatment for the latter cost over 3 K per patient vs a few bucks for Ivermectin.

Profit over patients once again.

www.webmd.com...

A large study sponsored by the World Health Organization found that remdesivir doesn’t help hospitalized patients with COVID-19 survive and doesn’t even shorten the recovery time of those who do survive.

www.sciencemag.org...

The ‘very, very bad look’ of remdesivir, the first FDA-approved COVID-19 drug

But both decisions baffled scientists who have closely watched the clinical trials of remdesivir unfold over the past 6 months—and who have many questions about remdesivir’s worth.

Science has learned that both FDA’s decision and the EU deal came about under unusual circumstances that gave the company important advantages. Many researchers point out that another crucial piece of data is missing entirely from FDA’s statement on remdesivir’s approval: evidence the drug reduces the amount of SARS-CoV-2 in the body, the viral load. “I’ve been working in antivirals for 30 years. Every time you study an antiviral, you show an effect on the virus and you publish it,” says Andrew Hill, a clinical pharmacologist at the University of Liverpool. “Surely Gilead has done that. Where are the data? It is very, very strange.”


The bottom line from the trials so far is there simply isn’t enough evidence that remdesivir works, says Jason Pogue, a University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, researcher who is president of the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Pogue believes FDA made a mistake and, unless more data emerge, EMA should not give the drug full approval. “There are more questions than answers about the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized patients,” he says.

a reply to: infolurker

Actually formal recognition of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine (or any quinine) as a viable therapy destroys the EUA and could put everyone who manipulated the media and governments away from those treatments, into harm's way. As in death penalty ;-) Since these drugs have been in circulation for decades with a very low level of catastrophic side effects.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: Phage

Oh, a new one as well.

American Journal of Therapeutics: July/August 2021 - Volume 28 - Issue 4 - p e434-e460

journals.lww.com...

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines

Therapeutic Advances:

Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian–Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff–Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%–91%).

Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Israeli scientist says COVID-19 could be treated for under $1/day

www.jpost.com...

Schwartz said he was very disappointed that the WHO did not support any trial to determine whether the drug could be viable.

“There is a lot of opposition,” he said. “We tried to publish it, and it was kicked away by three journals. No one even wanted to hear about it. You have to ask how come when the world is suffering.”

“This drug will not bring any big economic profits,” and so Big Pharma doesn’t want to deal with it, he said.

Something an ATS member pointed out earlier this evening, regarding Ivermectin.

In Peru, Ivermectin cut covid deaths by 75% in 6 weeks: cheap, safe and quite ignored

Source: joannenova.com.au...

Well, as some would say around here ...

American Journal of Therepeutics? OK...

I mean, it's not on CNN or MSNBC, so ... can we really trust it?

Plus, Ivermectin is like some kind of equestrian paste or something, right? Ewwwww....

Come on, folks, you are all falling down on your job here! Let's belittle the source and make fun of the medicine in a way that displays our ignorance.

a reply to: incoserv

Just so you understand, the Journal did not "recognize" anything.
They published a paper.


How's that?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: incoserv

Just so you understand, the Journal did not "recognize" anything.
They published a paper.


How's that?

Just so you understand, they "recognized" it by publishing it. Common vernacular.

Now we can all "recognize" it's importance.

And also, we can recognize the attempted cover-up of it's effectiveness.

Recognize.

a reply to: MykeNukem

They determined that the article was worth publishing. They make no call on the drug. They do not advocate for it, or against it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MykeNukem

They determined that the article was worth publishing. They make no call on the drug. They do not advocate for it.

Of course not.

People can read and do that themselves.

Since when does good science need someone to advocate for it?

a reply to: MykeNukem

Fair enough.
In "recognizing" ivermectin they acknowledge it exists. No more, no less.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MykeNukem
In "recognizing" ivermectin they acknowledge it exists. No more, no less.

Yes, it exists, and this paper they published shows that it has beneficial effects when used as treatment for the Vid.

More than less IMO

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MykeNukem
In "recognizing" ivermectin they acknowledge it exists. No more, no less.

Yes, it exists, and this paper they published shows that it has beneficial effects when used as treatment for the Vid.

More than less IMO

Come on, man! Get with the program! Until Don Lemon and the rest of the crowd over at CNN publicly acknowledges it, it ain't nuthin'. You gotta have that seal of "professional journalism" on it, don't ya know?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: incoserv

Just so you understand, the Journal did not "recognize" anything.
They published a paper.


How's that?

No, they didn't just "recognize" it; they actually acknowledged it.

I have known people who believe that tying a red thread around a baby's wrist will protect them from sickness. Some people have even written about it. Have any medical journals published such papers? No! Why? Because they neither recognize nor acknowledge such ideas.

The fact that they published the paper means that they considered it to have some merit, some validity. Anything they publish reflects on their reputation, so it follows that they would not publish junk under their banner.

Does this mean that everyone should stock up on Ivermectin based solely on the fact that this study had been published here? No, it doesn't. It does, however, mean that a respected medical journal has recognized the study as worthy of consideration, adding to a growing body of supporting studies and anecdotal evidence in support of the use of the drug in the treatment and prevention of the Wu Flu.

But, you know, it's an equestrian paste and CNN and big pharma don't like it, so there's that.

How's that?

:

a reply to: infolurker

Good, so this means that there is an effective treatment, and therefore continuing the use of an EUA-vaccine is illegal.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: incoserv

Just so you understand, the Journal did not "recognize" anything.
They published a paper.


How's that?

Hello, Darkness, my old friend. Thy formerly windy sails seem increasingly deflated.

Usually only happens to those intelligent enough to realize--at least in the mirror--how see-through they've become so at least there's that in your favor. Meager progress,.but some hope. Keep swimming toward the Light.

Seems fairly obvious there's therapeutic value with Ivermectin and indeed "Science" to suggest important avenues to explore.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: infolurker

Good, so this means that there is an effective treatment, and therefore continuing the use of an EUA-vaccine is illegal.

Big RED FLAG.

This was a meta study, a study of other people's studies.

One of the studies that this paper is based on was RETRACTED for having serious flaws.

www.nature.com...

Because it's based on data that is full of holes this study may soon be retracted itself.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MykeNukem

They determined that the article was worth publishing. They make no call on the drug. They do not advocate for it, or against it.

It turns out that one of the sources of information that they used was later retracted for having deep flaws.

www.nature.com...