In ‘Real Life’ this 10-day Ivermectin Triple Therapy reported here, appears to be a very safe, effective and inexpensive early antiviral treatment for Covid-19. Further detail from the more than 30 doctors involved in treating this patient group, will be used for a formal peer-reviewed publication.
We should group all the PrEP, PEP, and early treatment studies of HCQ together at the point at which we see temporal and dose dependent effects time and again. Such research should certainly be separated out, but at the point at which signs of antiviral action emerge so consistently, that observation ties the body of evidence together.
Researchers at the MUSC are now conducting clinical trials to help fight against COVID-19, but to settle questions surrounding the drug Ivermectin.
ICU admission was significantly lower in the ivermectin group compared to controls among participants ≥40 year-old (1.2% vs 2.0, odds ratio 0.608; p=0.024).
Similarly, mortality was lower in the ivermectin group in the full group analysis (1.5% vs 2.1%, odds ratio 0.720; p=0.029), as well as in subjects ≥ 40 year- old (2.7% vs 4.1%, odds ratio 0,655; p=0.005).
Two doses (300 μg/kg/dose in a gap of 72 hours) of ivermectin chemoprophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by 83% among HCWs for one month. Ivermectin is a safe and effective strategy to prevent COVID-19, in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine. Further research is required to guide the frequency of chemoprevention, acceptability, and cost-effectiveness in the community setting.
The French scientists concluded, “This study supports the use of immunomodulatory drugs such as ivermectin, to improve the clinical condition of SARS-CoV-infected patients.”
Altogether, this study brings the proof of concept that an IVM-based immunomodulatory therapy improves the clinical condition of SARS-CoV-2-infected hamsters, and in clinical trials, it alleviates symptoms of COVID-19 in humans and possibly limits post-COVID-19 syndrome (also known as long COVID) via an anti-inflammatory action.
The Roman/Hernandez meta-analysis comes at a politically contentious moment. Their language and behavior appear political. Their work is error-laden, takes research out of its true context, uses numbers that don’t seem to come from the actual studies, chooses papers testing ivermectin under the least favorable circumstances, gives unexplained and inappropriate weights to the small amount of data that stands as outliers to the bigger picture, and still drives a conclusion of “don’t use this” from a massive average mortality reduction that did not quite reach statistical significance. At the same time the authors consistently complain about the “low quality of evidence” represented by the studies they do and do not include, nearly all of which I would describe as produced by higher quality scientists who can at least tally numbers correctly.
The SOLIDARITY and RECOVERY protocols look prima facie like staged sabotage.I drew a picture to make the point: The WHO could not have plausibly chosen a less optimal treatment protocol.
Source: Rounding The Earth Author: Mathew Crawford Fifty years ago today, the New York Times began publication of the Pentagon Papers, informing the public about how a government-engineered
Dr Richard Urso uncovers a hugely significant detail in a chloroquine study. Chloroquine will protect a normal cell & let the virus attack a cancer cell.
Medical experts from around the world joined together to present the very latest real world research on repurposing ivermectin that has the ability to transform global efforts to fight the pandemic. Mr. Andrew Bryant provides an overview of ongoing trials and what they may add to the evidence base.
HCQ is effective for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 235 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 6 quadrillion (p = 0.00000000000000018).
Early treatment is most successful, with 100% of 29 studies reporting a positive effect (13 statistically significant in isolation) and an estimated reduction of 65% in the effect measured (death, hospitalization, etc.) using a random effects meta-analysis, RR 0.35 [0.25-0.50].
92% of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early, PrEP, or PEP treatment report positive effects, the probability of this happening for an ineffective treatment is 0.0017.
We discussed the Surgisphere debacle and other stories of “engineered research” during the pandemic, most of which I am currently preparing articles about.
Suppose that we want to rig a medical study despite the participation of mostly or entirely caring doctors and researchers with unimpeachable character and credentials.
The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of oral Ivermectin treatment, which has been associated with iota-carrageenan in repeated doses through the nasal and oral topical route, on the appearance and eventual progression of COVID-19 disease in a healthy population that are exposed to it and have a higher risk of contagion of SARS-COV-2 for being health personnel from
Ivermectin had a significant effect (p=0.003) in achieving medical release. The treatment with ivermectin could significantly prevent the evolution to serious stages since the experimental group did not present any patient with referral to critical hospitalization.
The Hydroxychloroquine Hypothesis: That there is some appropriate dosage of hydroxychloroquine, alone or in some combination with other medication, that successfully prevents some COVID-19 cases (PrEP/PEP) or treats some COVID-19 sufferers (Early/Late/Critical).
Remaining entirely unblemished after a year of trials and observations, the current evidence in favor of the Primary HCQ Hypothesis fully validates the HCQ Hypothesis. The logic is so simple that it almost feels like your livelihood would have to be on the line to deny it.
In this study, by use of DIC microscopy and NMR spectroscopy, for the first time we have decoded that HCQ specifically binds to both N-terminal domain (NTD) and C-terminal domain (CTD) of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) protein to inhibit their interactions with nucleic acids (NAs), as well as to disrupt its NA-induced liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) essential for the viral life cycle including the package of gRNA and N protein into new virions.
This is now one of the most well-studied treatments in the history of medicine, and the evidence is overwhelming. The chance that these results could occur at random is approximately 1 in 208 quadrillion. That is, p = 0.000000000000048. Having read a few thousand research papers, I have never before seen a p-value this low in the testing of medicine.
Why then does the pharmaceutical industry and its promoters insist on conducting RCTs before something is accepted as true? RCTs take substantial amounts of time and significant resources to conduct. This creates a barrier to entry, especially for inexpensive solutions to medical problems. In other words, the myth that RCTs are some necessary “gold standard” is a deception that, along with regulatory agency, prevent any possibility for simpler and less expensive (less profitable) medical solutions to gain traction.
More than 30 trials across the world found that ivermectin causes ‘repeated, consistent, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes’ at all stages of the disease. The peer-reviewed study, to be published in the US journal Frontiers of Pharmacology, says the evidence is so strong that the drug – used to treat head lice and scabies – should become a standard therapy everywhere, so hastening the global recovery.
In this study of COVID-19, for infected non-hospitalized patients hydroxychloroquine exposure was associated with a decreased rate of subsequent hospitalization
HCQ is effective for COVID-19. The chance that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 187 studies to date is 1 in 5 quadrillion (p = 0.00000000000000019).
No cases of sudden death were observed. From publication, we have treated 3,119 patients with HCQ-AZ for at least three days.
Results obtained in the prophylaxis of Q fever indicate that chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine can be successfully used in the clinical management of infections other than malaria.
Of the whole study group (RA and SLE), 54% used hydroxychloroquine and 44% had QTc lengths of more than 440 milliseconds. They found that the adjusted QTc length among hydroxychloroquine users was comparable to those who did not use the drug.
Figure 3 reported random forest for 10 studies comparing HCQ+AZM. Use of the combination HCQ+AZM was associated with 25% lower mortality risk
WMA DECLARATION OF HELSINKI – ETHICAL PRINCIPLES FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS
This means that zinc, low dose HCQ, and azithromycin and may prevent a large number of hospitalizations and probably deaths during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
We found a higher survival rate in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and with macrolides in our study.
This study of critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to ICUs in Mexico demonstrated that age and CRP levels upon ICU admission were associated with in-hospital mortality
Our results can assure that hydroxychloroquine used for COVID-19 patients is safe, highly tolerable, and with minimum side effects.
The aim of this study is to describe the characteristics and impact of different therapies on clinical outcomes in a cohort of severe COVID-19 patients.
Ivermectin treatment was associated with lower mortality during treatment of COVID-19, especially in patients with severe pulmonary involvement.
HCQ has greater efficacy if given earlier in the course of the disease. Several negative studies have been withdrawn due to methodological improprieties.
Hydroxychloroquine had a modest effect on hospital length stay and days in ICU compared with Standard Care.
Our findings indicate that Hydroxychloroquine can be an effective agent in postexposure prophylaxis.
Source: C19Study A live and ongoing index of studies from around the world documenting the use of hydroxychloroquine in treatment at various stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection
Hydroxychloroquine seems to be safe, regardless of the clinical setting in which it is started, so long as an adequate ECG monitoring strategy is in place.
