▲
8
0
▼

Ivermectin


 invite response                
2021 May 9, 10:24pm   81,428 views  629 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (61)   💰tip   ignore  

https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/05/09/update-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19/

Back in January I wrote an article about four randomized controlled trials of ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19 that had at that time released their results to the public. Each of those four trials had promising results, but each was also too small individually to show any meaningful impact on the hard outcomes we really care about, like death. When I meta-analyzed them together however, the results suddenly appeared very impressive. Here’s what that meta-analysis looked like:



It showed a massive 78% reduction in mortality in patients treated with covid-19. Mortality is the hardest of hard end points, which means it’s the hardest for researchers to manipulate and therefore the least open to bias. Either someone’s dead, or they’re alive. End of story.

You would have thought that this strong overall signal of benefit in the midst of a pandemic would have mobilized the powers that be to arrange multiple large randomized trials to confirm these results as quickly as possible, and that the major medical journals would be falling over each other to be the first to publish these studies.

That hasn’t happened.

Rather the opposite, in fact. South Africa has even gone so far as to ban doctors from using ivermectin on covid-19 patients. And as far as I can tell, most of the discussion about ivermectin in mainstream media (and in the medical press) has centred not around its relative merits, but more around how its proponents are clearly deluded tin foil hat wearing crazies who are using social media to manipulate the masses.

In spite of this, trial results have continued to appear. That means we should now be able to conclude with even greater certainty whether or not ivermectin is effective against covid-19. Since there are so many of these trials popping up now, I’ve decided to limit the discussion here only to the ones I’ve been able to find that had at least 150 participants, and that compared ivermectin to placebo (although I’ll add even the smaller trials I’ve found in to the updated meta-analysis at the end).

As before, it appears that rich western countries have very little interest in studying ivermectin as a treatment for covid. The three new trials that had at least 150 participants and compared ivermectin with placebo were conducted in Colombia, Iran, and Argentina. We’ll go through each in turn. ...

What we see is a 62% reduction in the relative risk of dying among covid patients treated with ivermectin. That would mean that ivermectin prevents roughly three out of five covid deaths. The reduction is statistically significant (p-value 0,004). In other words, the weight of evidence supporting ivermectin continues to pile up. It is now far stronger than the evidence that led to widespred use of remdesivir earlier in the pandemic, and the effect is much larger and more important (remdesivir was only ever shown to marginally decrease length of hospital stay, it was never shown to have any effect on risk of dying).

I understand why pharmaceutical companies don’t like ivermectin. It’s a cheap generic drug. Even Merck, the company that invented ivermectin, is doing it’s best to destroy the drug’s reputation at the moment. This can only be explained by the fact that Merck is currently developing two expensive new covid drugs, and doesn’t want an off-patent drug, which it can no longer make any profit from, competing with them.

The only reason I can think to understand why the broader medical establishment, however, is still so anti-ivermectin is that these studies have all been done outside the rich west. Apparently doctors and scientists outside North America and Western Europe can’t be trusted, unless they’re saying things that are in line with our pre-conceived notions.


And HCQ falls into that same bucket. Even worse - to admit HCQ works would be to admit Trump was right about something.

Liberals would rather that millions die than that Trump be allowed to be right about anything. They hate Trump more than they love their fellow humans.

« First        Comments 433 - 472 of 629       Last »     Search these comments

433   Patrick   2022 Jan 13, 7:38pm  

https://www.hennessysview.com/p/nih-study-finds-ivermectin-reduces?source=patrick.net

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/?source=patrick.net


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.
434   Patrick   2022 Jan 13, 8:35pm  

https://brownstone.org/articles/saturday-night-fights-at-the-pharmacy/?source=patrick.net


Saturday Night Fights at the Pharmacy
BY PIERRE KORY JANUARY 13, 2022 LAW, POLICY, VACCINES 9 MINUTE READ

I am exhausted: physically, emotionally, and morally. Although I am not sure moral exhaustion is “a thing,” the daily witnessing of masses of physicians and pharmacists abandoning their core responsibility of placing the welfare of the patient as their primary consideration.. is beyond wearying.

In the United States of Pharma, individual docs and pharmacists have been led so far astray, forgivably or unforgivably, due to the relentless barrage of dis-information targeted at them by the federal pharmaceutical regulators (further supported by relentless, daily propaganda appearing in both major media and medical journals).

Let us be clear about the rule and tradition. In the US, doctors are permitted to prescribe any medicine that has been approved by the FDA, even for indications the medicine was not originally approved for. Such “off-label” prescribing is both legal and historically encouraged by the FDA.

Pharmacies are there to fill prescriptions, and in only rare circumstances and in only a handful of states do they have the right to refuse to fill a valid prescription. Otherwise, what medicines are deployed, for whom, and for what purpose, is a matter between patient and doctor. This is the long-standing rule.

This principle has been violated now for almost two years. It has created a labyrinth of confusion over basic and well-tested therapies for dealing with a virus that can be very serious for many.

It is no longer the case that any doctor can depend on any pharmacist to distribute safe and effective medicines. They are very likely now to say no and they do so as a result of having been been unfairly intimidated by the threatening memos issued by federal agencies and the state medical and pharmacy boards, These reprehensible cations are just the latest salvo in the pharmaceutical industry’s decades-long war on off-patent, repurposed medicines..

What prompts me to write this was my most recent failure (and the resulting distress that led to terrible sleep last night) over not being able to get a pharmacist to fill my orders in the hours prior to closing of pharmacies for an acutely ill COVID patient that had contacted me reporting high fevers, sore throat, and body aches.

I immediately wanted to start him on a short course combination regimen of three, old, safe, cheap generic medications, all with large clinical trials evidence bases showing high efficacy against COVID (ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, fluvoxamine). What is important to note is that, months ago I stopped trying to contact ANY pharmacy unless I KNEW they would fill my scripts for these off-patients medications because unless I knew a pharmacy was “safe”, I ran a high probability of entering an un-affordably time-wasting and ultimately losing argument with some smug, obstinate pharmacist.

As a result, we early treatment docs have long since been forced to build lists of “safe haven” pharmacies where we know we can easily get access to these medicines for our patients.

However, last night, I was inspired to make an attempt on a new, unknown pharmacy on behalf of my new patient as I had just read ’s substack about my colleague and early COVID-treatment pioneer/expert Dr. Brian Tyson, in which was included the letter written by Dr. Brian Tyson’s attorney (also with the last name Tyson) that was used to “sway” a local pharmacy that had suddenly refused to fill.

The letter is thorough , deeply well-argued, and informs the pharmacists that they are; 1) violating the civil rights of patients, 2) interfering with a physician’s ability to practice medicine and 3) exhibiting behavior that constitutes the unlicensed and negligent practice of medicine.

Now, I had argued all these points before in previous “conflicts” with pharmacists, but never all at the same time, and rarely threatening a lawsuit. Duly and newly emboldened.. I made the call.

4:20 Pacific time (pharmacies close there at 6pm).

Transcript (from memory):

“Hi, I’d like to call in a prescription for a couple of patients.”

“OK, what’s the first patients name and date of birth?”

“Timothy Thomas (not his real name), born Nov. 6th, 1977.”

(pause, clacking of keyboard)

“OK, what does he need?”

(Wait for it)

“He needs ivermectin, 3 milligram tablets, I want him to take 15 each day as he is a big guy, and for 5 days with a refill. Then he needs, hydroxychloro…

“Doctor, I am sorry but I cannot fill the ivermectin. The owner has said we are not to fill for COVID, there is no evidence it works.”

“Listen, I don’t know who the owner is but you are the pharmacist on duty, and I am calling in a prescription to you, not the owner.”

“I,I, I am sorry but I can’t..”

I look at the letter, and then start spewing rapid fire arguments at him, “well unfortunately for you, my patient is an executive of a company and their lawyer is prepared to and will send a letter of intent to sue if it has not been filled because you are violating his civil rights, blocking my licensed ability to practice medicine and care for my sick patient, and you are clearly practicing medicine illegally and highly ignorantly. You should at least know what you are doing if you are going to do it without a license man.”

“But I am allowed to refuse, doctor.”

“That is what you think and what you have been told… But, I can promise you, that when you bring your arguments up in court as to why you refused, they will not hold up if any harm comes to my patient by your refusal. They will NOT HOLD UP, but you can try. The lawyer will serve the letter on Monday, I promise you, we are fed up out here and are fighting back, all of my fellow physicians being blocked by pharmacists are now using legal action (OK, so I overstated things a bit), I am sorry you are in the position you are in, but you have no rational or scientific evidence to support a refusal, but if you want to go to court to find out, we can make that happen for you”

“I..I.. feel intimidated.”

“Well, I am sorry for that, but you are hurting my patient and my ability to care for them. It is THEY who YOU are intimidating Sir. All you have to do is take my script, fill it, and we don’t have to go on like this. These medications are FDA approved, I am using them off-label based on a large body of evidence and experience in COVID, and off label prescribing is both legal and historically encouraged by the FDA. You are clearly practicing medicine and I promise that will be proven to you in a court of law. Please just fill it and you wont have to hear from me or my patient again.”

(Pause, silence)

“I cannot do it, I am not supposed to.”

“OK then, I will also remind you that you are legally required to provide me your name and license number as we will be pursuing legal action against you.”

“I am not giving you my name, I am not comfortable with that.”

“OK, so you think I can’t find it out? Fine, I am also documenting this refusal. Again, I am not interested in a contentious argument, I am asking you simply to fill the prescriptions for two sick patients who need my help, and if you do, you won’t have to hear from me or the patient’s lawyer.”

He whispers.. “OK, tell me the rest of the prescriptions.”

I tell him the rest, then say, “my patient will be there by closing time, thank you and I apologize for my tone but I am just trying to do the best for my sick patients.”

Victory? Yes! Haven’t won one of these in months.

I finish telling him the rest of the scripts for my patient and his wife (I also needed to call in medicines for her so she could have some on hand and also begin ivermectin as a prophylactic agent given it ensures an easier course even if she is already or eventually becomes infected).

I then happily call the patient, tell him to get his wife to pick up the medicines along with the other over-the-counter compounds that have clinical trials supporting their use. And then I go to the couch to literally lay down (insane day of dozens of patient care requests, other zooms and phone calls, maybe 12+ hours on the phone).

30 minutes later.. patients texts me.. my wife went there and the pharmacist won’t fill.

Now, despite the fact that I co-wrote a document with Executive Director Kelly Bumann of the FLCCC and Unity Project Founder Jeff Hanson, called “Overcoming the Barriers to Access,” which is a document full of sound, pragmatic tactics and dialogue examples offered to patients (and docs) in order to help them navigate such pharmacist obstructions, they typically will not work when it is an hour before closing on a weekend.

So, here I am the next morning. Fortunately I was able to get two of the medicines filled through another pharmacy, with enough for his wife as she unsurprisingly fell ill overnight (omicron moves fast). Unfortunately, they will have to wait until tomorrow to get the third medicine from a “friendly” or “underground” pharmacy (not really underground but you get the analogy).

This is what it is like out here trying to fight for patients sick with COVID – widespread delays in care as blocking access to generic or “repurposed” medicines by ignorant/arrogant pharmacists is ubiquitous. The majority of pharmacists (not all!) have simply stopped thinking critically or devoting effort to review the evidence base, instead simply believing what they are told by their Boards (a.k.a. their “Ministries of Truth”). As if the insane numbers of ill omicron patients to care for is not challenging enough.

In the words of Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, who went after his state’s Pharmacy Board when they tried to scare the states pharmacists away from prescribing ivermectin by sending them threatening letters, “it is shocking that pharmacists are suddenly developing a conscience after spending the last decade handing out opiates like they were M & M’s”.

Well said and tragically absurd.

This newfound conscience influencing such actions is likely further fueled by a sometime resident psychology of pharmacists who may feel “less than” a physician given their limited scope of patient care tasks.

Emboldened by a seemingly legal opportunity to assert superiority and control over physicians, many find these irresistible. Consequently,they seem to be “getting off” from telling the “stupid” doctors that the Ministry of Truth has done the research for them and the Ministry has found, that in the name of science, doctors should stop using “ineffective horse de-wormer” to treat COVID.

Just another day in the life of an early COVID treatment expert.
435   HeadSet   2022 Jan 14, 9:01pm  

Patrick says
In the words of Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, who went after his state’s Pharmacy Board when they tried to scare the states pharmacists away from prescribing ivermectin by sending them threatening letters, “it is shocking that pharmacists are suddenly developing a conscience after spending the last decade handing out opiates like they were M & M’s”.

Actually, it is very easy to understand:
Proscribing opiates like they were M&Ms makes money for Pharma.
Prohibiting ivermectin makes money for Pharma.
436   Booger   2022 Jan 23, 1:02pm  

Ceffer says
You can buy apple flavored horse ivermectin in syringes on Amazon. Just adjust the dose for your weight compared to horse weight, squeeze a little out of the syringe to get the proper dosage.


How many times per day for how many days?
440   Eman   2022 Jan 31, 6:12pm  

Japan's Kowa says ivermectin showed 'antiviral effect' against Omicron in research

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-japan-kowa-idUSL1N2UB0AV
442   zzyzzx   2022 Feb 18, 11:45am  

Spotted at WalMart:

443   stereotomy   2022 Feb 18, 12:54pm  

Shit - that's 60% higher than what I paid at TSC.

Not to mention that Allimed 450mg 100ct Allicin has gone from 36 to almost 44 GBP at allicin.co.uk.
446   EBGuy   2022 Aug 31, 5:19pm  

Here is the dosing info from the paper our fearless leader posted.
Regular use of ivermectin as prophylaxis for COVID-19 led up to 92% reduction in COVID-19 mortality rate in a dose-response manner: results of a prospective observational study of a strictly controlled population of 88,012 subjects among 223,128 participants.
This exploratory analysis of a prospective observational study involved a program that used ivermectin at a dose of 0.2mg/kg/day for two consecutive days, every 15 days.
I would be inclined to take it once a week instead of the two consecutive days every 15 days.
448   EBGuy   2022 Aug 31, 6:37pm  

Patrick says

Ivermectin is an extremely safe drug. The normal dose is 150 micrograms (mcg) per kilogram (kg), so 12mg would be the dose for a 176 lb person if I did this right:

Just want to point out that dose, per Mayo Clinic, is for a treatment may be repeated every 3 to 12 months.. So taking ivermectin as a propphylaxis would be at a much greater magnitude (which is what the Kerr, et. al. pre-print participants did).
449   Patrick   2022 Sep 1, 12:19pm  




To be fair, I think there has been a big disconnect for a while already between the public announcements like HORSE DEWORMER! and actual scientific papers on the NIH site showing that it does work.
450   AmericanKulak   2022 Sep 1, 8:07pm  

Hypothesis:

Most of the stuff for mammals is the same shit they give humans.

And unlike Big Pharma lobbying and immunity, generics manufacturers for livestock don't wanna be sued for killing Foal of Legendary Horse or Ms Habersham's precious Foo Foo prize poodle, so the quality level is extremely high.

Just sayin' Neeeeeeigh. Better than GoodRx if you catch my drift.
451   Robert Sproul   2022 Sep 1, 8:49pm  

Nice 15 minute video run-down on 'mectin.
https://rumble.com/v1huyrn-ivermectin-the-truth.html
(P. why won't my videos embed?)
452   Patrick   2022 Sep 1, 9:02pm  

Robert Sproul says

(P. why won't my videos embed?)


@"Robert Sproul" For Rumble videos, you need to paste in the "embed" link, the one labelled "Embed IFRAME URL":





It might be possible for me to automatically pull that out of the html of the web page, but I haven't tried yet. I'll put that on my list.
454   Patrick   2022 Sep 3, 1:15pm  

https://nitter.pussthecat.org/jakeshieldsajj/status/1565395166931914753#m


Jake Shields
@jakeshieldsajj

The study shows 95% decrees In mortality yet they still recommend against its use

These people would rather you die than admit they were wrong and lose money

The study used 88,012 people with 92% reduction in death

This isn’t minor this is massive Decline in deaths



456   Patrick   2022 Sep 16, 2:17pm  

https://www.aflegal.org/news/afl-demands-records-relating-to-the-governments-suppression-of-ivermectin-treatment-for-covid-19


WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, America First Legal (AFL) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to obtain records relating to the suppression of Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 by federal government bureaucrats.

A new study from August 31, 2022 reveals that regular use of Ivermectin as “prophylaxis for COVID-19 led up to a 92% reduction in COVID-19 mortality rate,” and the “hospitalization rate was reduced by 100% in regular users compared to both irregular users and non-users.” Yet, Dr. Fauci, the FDA, and the allied media continuously warned against Ivermectin use to fight COVID-19. In fact, the media smeared Ivermectin use by painting it as an anti-parasite “horse drug,” when Ivermectin for livestock differs from Ivermectin for humans. We now know that Ivermectin is highly successful for early outpatient treatment of COVID-19, and yet, since the origins of the pandemic, the government suppressed and deterred its use.

Last month, AFL filed a FOIA request to uncover the government’s suppression of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for COVID-19 treatment. The American people have a right to know why government officials and so-called “trusted” experts like Dr. Fauci suppressed HCQ and Ivermectin, and whether these coordinated discouragement campaigns were politically or financially motivated.
457   Al_Sharpton_for_President   2022 Sep 16, 2:44pm  

This dude bragged about torpedoing HCQ and is now at the Rockefeller Foundation.

https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/profile/dr-rick-bright/
458   GNL   2022 Sep 16, 4:14pm  

Patrick says

Today, America First Legal (AFL) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the U.S.

Really? Why did they wait over 2 years to do this?
459   richwicks   2022 Sep 16, 5:12pm  

Patrick says





To be fair, I think there has been a big disconnect for a while already between the public announcements like HORSE DEWORMER! and actual scientific papers on the NIH site showing that it does work.




If there isn't a link to it, and it's not in archive.org - it's 99% probability FALSE, to make people believe it, only to have some twat that understands that our intelligence agencies, news media, and government CONSTANTLY feed us false information, point out it's false information.

The reason hyperlinks were created was to allow references. If some ASSHOLE is making a claim and not providing a link although they PRESUMABLY just copied a screenshot from that very link, it's FALSE.

I can't find that, so where the fuck is it?

Quit falling for bullshit please. We've had the Internet for 30 years.

It drives me crazy. People have to spend more time DEBUNKING bullshit than learning today, because people are LAZY. Everybody that reads this, if they want to know, will have to look it up, and when they don't find it, it's a question of how much energy they expended to find it. It's DESIGNED to make people who THINK waste time.
460   Karloff   2022 Sep 16, 5:46pm  

The Canadian government knew it worked as well, yet publicly tried to discredit it.

https://scoopsmcgoo.substack.com/p/phac-emails-re-ivermectin-2
461   Karloff   2022 Sep 16, 5:49pm  

richwicks says

If there isn't a link to it, and it's not in archive.org - it's 99% probability FALSE, to make people believe it, only to have some twat that understands that our intelligence agencies, news media, and government CONSTANTLY feed us false information, point out it's false information.

The reason hyperlinks were created was to allow references. If some ASSHOLE is making a clai...


Here's the link:

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/
462   GNL   2022 Sep 16, 6:35pm  

richwicks says


If there isn't a link to it, and it's not in archive.org - it's 99% probability FALSE, to make people believe it, only to have some twat that understands that our intelligence agencies, news media, and government CONSTANTLY feed us false information, point out it's false information.

What is false, NIH saying Ivermectin is useful for treating Covid or that there was an FOIA request?
Out of curiosity, @richwicks, does that link satisfy you? No sarc intended.
463   richwicks   2022 Sep 16, 8:04pm  

Karloff says


Here's the link:

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/


Good. And here's the archive.org link to it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220415000000*/https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/

They missed hydroxychloroquine - listed as far back as June 12, 2021.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210612061731/https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/

Claims are fine, but when you claim "the government wrote this on the Intenet", NOT PROVIDING A LINK IS very frustrating. It wastes time and you have no idea how easily it is to fake anything.

Let me demonstrate:



If I had a black enough soul to be a propagandist and disinformation agent, it's trivial. It's just text, it's trivial to falsify.
464   richwicks   2022 Sep 16, 8:41pm  

GNL says


Out of curiosity, @richwicks, does that link satisfy you? No sarc intended.


Yes, it does. I upvoted it, and also demonstrated how trivial it is to falsify a website. My position MUST BE, whatever I see is FALSE until I can prove otherwise. It serves me well, but it's so much work to find a fucking link, going through ADULTERATED search engines that hide this shit.

I used wget. I just changed some text. The hardest part was getting a decent screenshot.

It is SO EASY to peddle false information. You have a source, please link to it. Ivermectin was also mentioned in earlier versions on archive.org.
465   richwicks   2022 Sep 17, 6:58pm  

AmericanKulak says

And unlike Big Pharma lobbying and immunity, generics manufacturers for livestock don't wanna be sued for killing Foal of Legendary Horse or Ms Habersham's precious Foo Foo prize poodle, so the quality level is extremely high.


Quality level between drugs for animals and people are identical, since they are identical drugs.

Stuff can be ADDED for animals though.
466   Patrick   2022 Sep 28, 3:27pm  

https://search.nih.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=nih&query=ivermectin+cancer&commit=Search


Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug derived from an antiparasitic ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7505114/
On the other hand, ivermectin promotes programmed cancer cell death, including apoptosis, autophagy and pyroptosis. Ivermectin induces apoptosis and ...
Ivermectin as an inhibitor of cancer stem‑like cells - PubMed
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29257278/
Abstract. The aim of the present study was to demonstrate that ivermectin preferentially inhibited cancer stem‑like cells (CSC) in breast cancer cells ...
Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug derived from an ... - PubMed
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32971268/
Ivermectin is a macrolide antiparasitic drug with a 16-membered ring that is widely used for the treatment of many parasitic diseases such as river ...
Ivermectin has New Application in Inhibiting Colorectal Cancer Cell ...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34483925/
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and still lacks effective therapy. Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug, has been shown ...
Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 ...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32533071/
Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder ...
Antibiotic ivermectin preferentially targets renal cancer through ...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28847725/
We show that ivermectin significantly inhibits proliferation and indu … Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most aggressive type of genitourinary cancer ...
Antitumor effects of ivermectin at clinically feasible ... - PubMed
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32474842/
Purpose: Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that exhibits antitumor effects in preclinical studies, and as such is currently being repositioned for c ...
467   Patrick   2022 Oct 16, 11:50am  

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fda-misled-public-ivermectin-accountable-144900899.html


The FDA Misled the Public About Ivermectin and Should Be Accountable in Court, Argues the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
469   Patrick   2022 Nov 1, 7:19pm  

https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/p/activ-6-dosing-and-timing-a-fox-in


Antivirals are like a parachute. If you open them too late, you’re going to get hurt, badly. This doesn’t mean the parachute didn’t work. It means that you didn’t open it in time. Very similarly, if an antiviral is taken too late to effectively check the replication of the virus, any effect will be suboptimal, to say the least.

This is, of course, is very well understood by the people who test antivirals. For instance, the EPIC-HR trial—that led to Paxlovid's approval—as well as the MOVE-OUT trial—that led to Molnupiravir's approval—excluded patients that were over five days from symptom onset. MOVE-OUT had 50% of patients with less than three days from symptom onset. For EPIC-HR that was 68%. ACTIV-6 on the other hand, only had 25% of ivermectin patients with less than five days from symptom onset. As absurd as it may sound, 75% of the patients in ACTIV-6 for ivermectin would have been rejected from the Molnupiravir and Paxlovid trials for having the disease in too advanced a stage.

And let’s not forget that based on what we learned from the ACTIV-6 patient I spoke to, the drug was shipped on the first day of participation in the trial, which means most likely we should add an extra day to all the ACTIV-6 numbers above. Based on the literature review I did in this previous article, the ACTIV-6 trial for ivermectin treated its patient later than all the trials describing themselves as “early treatment” in the New England Journal of Medicine.

« First        Comments 433 - 472 of 629       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste