Ivermectin: Meta-Analysis shows Efficacy

[Tim R]

I just came across this Meta-Analysis on the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

I suggest you read all the points I selected from this study. If you don't want to read all of it, at least read the sections conclusions, discussions and the end; summary. 

Let me know what you think. 

 

Background:

After COVID-19 emerged on U.S shores, providers began reviewing the emerging basic science, translational, and clinical data to identify potentially effective treatment options. In addition, a multitude of both novel and repurposed therapeutic agents were used empirically and studied within clinical trials.

Areas of Uncertainty:

The majority of trialed agents have failed to provide reproducible, definitive proof of efficacy in reducing the mortality of COVID-19 with the exception of corticosteroids in moderate to severe disease. Recently, evidence has emerged that the oral antiparasitic agent ivermectin exhibits numerous antiviral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms with trial results reporting significant outcome benefits. Given some have not passed peer review, several expert groups including Unitaid/World Health Organization have undertaken a systematic global effort to contact all active trial investigators to rapidly gather the data needed to grade and perform meta-analyses.

Data Sources:

Data were sourced from published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts posted to preprint servers, expert meta-analyses, and numerous epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution campaigns.

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.

DISCUSSION

Currently, as of December 14, 2020, there is accumulating evidence that demonstrates both the safety and efficacy of ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Large-scale epidemiologic analyses validate the findings of in vitro, animal, prophylaxis, and clinical studies. Epidemiologic data from regions of the world with widespread ivermectin use have demonstrated a temporally associated reduction in case counts, hospitalizations, and fatality rates.

In the context of ivermectin's long-standing safety record, low cost, and wide availability along with the consistent, reproducible, large magnitude of findings on transmission rates, need for hospitalization, and mortality, widespread deployment in both prevention and treatment has been proposed. Although a subset of trials are of an observational design, it must be recognized that in the case of ivermectin (1) half of the trials used a randomized controlled trial design (12 of the 24 reviewed above) and (2) observational and randomized trial designs reach equivalent conclusions on average as reported in a large Cochrane review of the topic from 2014.81 In particular, OCTs that use propensity-matching techniques (as in the Rajter study from Florida) find near identical conclusions to later-conducted RCTs in many different disease states, including coronary syndromes, critical illness, and surgery.82–84 Similarly, as evidenced in the prophylaxis (Figure (Figure1)1) and treatment trial (Figures (Figures22 and and3)3) meta-analyses as well as the summary trials table (Table (Table3),3), the entirety of the benefits found in both OCT and RCT trial designs aligns in both direction and magnitude of benefit. Such a consistency of benefit among numerous trials of varying sizes designs from multiple different countries and centers around the world is unique and provides strong, additional support.

The continued challenges faced by health care providers in deciding on appropriate therapeutic interventions in patients with COVID-19 would be greatly eased if more updated and commensurate evidence-based guidance came from the leading governmental health care agencies. Currently, in the United States, the treatment guidelines for COVID-19 are issued by the National Institutes of Health. Their most recent recommendation on the use of ivermectin in patients with COVID-19 was last updated on February 11, 2021, where they found that “there was insufficient evidence to recommend for or against ivermectin in COVID-19.” For a more definitive recommendation to be issued by major leading public health agencies (PHA), it is apparent that even more data on both the quality and quantity of trials are needed, even during a global health care emergency, and in consideration of a safe, oral, low-cost, widely available and deployable intervention such as ivermectin.

Fortunately, large teams sponsored by 2 different organizations have embarked on this effort. One team, sponsored by the Unitaid/WHO's ACT Accelerator Program and led by the University of Liverpool Senior Research Fellow Dr. Andrew Hill, is performing a systematic review and meta-analysis focused solely on ivermectin treatment RCTs in COVID-19. Although a preliminary meta-analysis of 17 RCTs was posted to a preprint server in February, it is expected that by March 19, 2021, results from approximately 27–29 RCTs including almost 4500 patients will be presented to the WHO Guidelines Committee and that the epidemiologic studies reviewed above by Chamie et al were already presented to the committee in early March (personal communication with Dr. Andrew Hill). It is important to note that on February 5, the WHO Guidelines Committee announced that they had begun a review of the accumulating ivermectin data and expected to arrive at their own formal treatment recommendation within 4–6 weeks. If the above benefits in clinical outcomes continue to be reported in the remaining trials, it is hoped that this almost doubling of the current supportive evidence base would merit a recommendation for use by the WHO, NIH, and other PHA's would be forthcoming.

Because of the urgency of the pandemic, and in response to the surprising persistent inaction by the leading PHA's, the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Panel was recently coordinated by the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd to more rapidly formulate an ivermectin treatment guideline using the standard guideline development process followed by the WHO. Made up of long-time research consultants to numerous national and international public health organizations including the WHO, they convened both a steering committee and a technical working group that then performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. On February 12, 2021, a meeting was held that included an international consortium of 75 practitioners, researchers, specialists, and patient representatives representing 16 countries and most regions of the world. This Recommendation Development Panel was presented the results of the meta-analysis of 18 treatment RCTs and 3 prophylaxis RCTs including more than 2500 patients along with a summary of the observational trials and the epidemiologic analyses related to regional ivermectin use. After a discussion period, a vote was held on multiple aspects of the data on ivermectin, according to standard WHO guideline development processes. The Panel found the certainty of evidence for ivermectin's effects on survival to be strong and they recommended unconditional adoption for use in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19.

SUMMARY

In summary, based on the totality of the trials and epidemiologic evidence presented in this review along with the preliminary findings of the Unitaid/WHO meta-analysis of treatment RCTs and the guideline recommendation from the international BIRD conference, ivermectin should be globally and systematically deployed in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

[Blackhawk]

Even if Ivermectin works, vaccine is better.

[Johnny Galt]

@Blackhawk Should we only use one form of medicine or should we not use all available means at our disposal?

 

 

https://rumble.com/vleq43-informed-consent-its-your-right.html

[Blackhawk]

@Johnny Galt We should use all available means at our disposal.

[Stovo]

[Tanz]

On 9/6/2021 at 9:11 PM, Blackhawk said:

Even if Ivermectin works, vaccine is better.

It doesnt have to be one or the other, Ivermectin has shown some evidence for people tested positive in early stages of a covid infection.  After you have had covid already the vaccine doesn't do anything... its used to take before you have covid 19.  
The side effects for human pharma quality invermectin are extremely low as long as you don't overdose.  

A person that has taken the vaccine and has tested positive for covid should take ivermectin because even if taking it only helps you incrementally

You idiots in this forum are as absolutes as the right-leaning antivax people.    

Simple, take the vaccine, and test every few days with a home test kit for covid 19.  If you are tested positive, go to the doctor, monitor your temp, vitals and take ivermectin, along with a bunch of vitamins, and get some sunlight.  Or if you are in good health don't take anything and continue to eat right, exercise, rest well, meditate, and you'll be fine.  If you look at most of the videos with covid patients most of them are in shitty health.  
Obesity isn't political.  

You tools are falling for the media and making this a political thing.  

Edited September 12, 2021 by Tanz

[Roy]

Looks like the phrase, "Healthy as a horse" is taking on a whole new meaning.

[Blackhawk]

43 minutes ago, Tanz said:

It doesnt have to be one or the other, Ivermectin has shown some evidence for people tested positive in early stages of a covid infection.  After you have had covid already the vaccine doesn't do anything... its used to take before you have covid 19.  
The side effects for human pharma quality invermectin are extremely low as long as you don't overdose.  

A person that has taken the vaccine and has tested positive for covid should take ivermectin because even if taking it only helps you incrementally

You idiots in this forum are as absolutes as the right-leaning antivax people.    

Simple, take the vaccine, and test every few days with a home test kit for covid 19.  If you are tested positive, go to the doctor, monitor your temp, vitals and take ivermectin, along with a bunch of vitamins, and get some sunlight.  Or if you are in good health don't take anything and continue to eat right, exercise, rest well, meditate, and you'll be fine.  If you look at most of the videos with covid patients most of them are in shitty health.  
Obesity isn't political.  

You tools are falling for the media and making this a political thing.  

Where did I say that you shouldn't take Ivermectin in addition to getting vaccinated?

The thing is that the insane anti-vaxxers are using Ivermectin as a substitute for vaccine. And it's that which I'm against.

But I'm skeptical about Ivermectin working. But I don't care whether it works or not, take it or don't take it. What I do care about is that people should get vaccinated, that's most important.

[Tanz]

@Blackhawk Excuse me, I was making a sweeping generalization because of push back either way.  
It should be someone right now to take something they do not want to.  
Personally, I would like to ban cigarettes, sports cars that drive wayyy beyond the speed limit, assault riffles, shitty food products that kill people slowly but if all of a sudden I had the power to ban them, that would make me a tyrant.  

This vaccine is very different than a vaccine like the one for polio, tuberculosis because you just need to take it once and it protects you for life, this covid one is not like that at all, they are talking about a 3rd booster shot, and even another version of it for the mutated ones.  You can also still be a carrier and spread it to another person who is vaccinated or non-vaccinated.  The only evidence they can claim is that, having it will lower your odds of dying.  
Unvax = carrier that can spread it to the community
Vax= carrier that can spread it to the community
unvax= higher odds of dying from an infection
vax= higher odds of living from an infection

If they are paranoid and want to risk dying its their own business just like someone that smokes

[PurpleTree]

1 hour ago, Blackhawk said:

 And it's that which I'm against.

maybe that's your problem. have you ever thought about that?

[Blackhawk]

6 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

maybe that's your problem. have you ever thought about that?

I don't get it.

[PurpleTree]

2 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

I don't get it.

well there are also things which i'm against and annoyed by.

but many of those things are probably not objectively bad, they're just my issues that i need to work through.

why even really have an opinion on ivermectin? people want to take it and not take the vaccine? cool who cares, you and your loved ones are vaccinated anyways.

[Blackhawk]

11 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

well there are also things which i'm against and annoyed by.

but many of those things are probably not objectively bad, they're just my issues that i need to work through.

why even really have an opinion on ivermectin? people want to take it and not take the vaccine? cool who cares, you and your loved ones are vaccinated anyways.

More vaccinated people= less suffering in the world. I'm for that.

My parents aren't vaccinated. My mom is a huge anti-vaxxer and anti-everything, a conspiracy theorist.

My dad still isn't vaccinated because of alcohol issues.. But he will probably get vaccinated, secretly without my mom knowing it. I haven't told my mom either that I'm vaccinated, all hell would break loose if I would tell her. This fucking anti-vaxx thing and conspiracy theories is a severe mental illness.

Edited September 12, 2021 by Blackhawk

[PurpleTree]

3 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

More vaccinated people= less suffering in the world. I'm for that.

My parents aren't vaccinated. My mom is a huge anti-vaxxer and anti-everything, a conspiracy theorist.

My dad still isn't vaccinated because of alcohol issues.. But he will probably get vaccinated, secretly without my mom knowing it. I haven't told my mom either that I'm vaccinated, all hell would break loose if I would tell her. This fucking anti-vaxx thing and conspiracy theories is a severe mental illness.

so you can't even tell your mom the truth but you're venting your anger on the internet against strangers, ok got it.

well it makes sense and i don't mean it in a very derogatory way.

[PurpleTree]

so i've skimmed through your "venting" topic in the mental health section.

 

 and i'm not trying to be hard on you or anything, i just wish people were less divisive ob both (or all) sides

[Blackhawk]

@PurpleTree I see.

[Leo Gura]

There are no good studies on Ivercetin that I have seen. They are all problematic. Stop spreading bullshit.

The data on Ivermectin is simply not in yet.