Please quote an example of Dr Hisham saying Ivermectin doesn't work.
Please quote examples of test and trial done by people around the world with conclusive evidence showing Ivermectin doesn't work.

Guys, please also check out LinkedIn post by Brian Remy, a former Director of Intellectual Property at Gilead Sciences. He has shared and liked many interesting posts. Go read.

Many will say not from WHO, not from KKM = fake news

There are other posts he shared and liked about the vax. Don't bother about those who disagree with what you post. It's for us to know, for them to ignore.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsletter...l-3207759%3famp

I read information on that earlier, seems not viable at this point compared to Ivermectin which is cheap, safe and readily available.



Look at the above post, doctors are giving up on those with less chances of survival citing the lacking of ventilators / ICU beds.

Instead of giving up on them, why not try Ivermectin as a potential treatment? Shall we continue to passively wait for the conclusion of KKM clinical trial with no target end date while citizens continue to die everyday?

Is our sole focus on lock down and vaccination, forgetting about TREATMENT of the sickness?

was wondering, even if they wanted to, do drs here have ready supply of ivermectin for human therapeutic use?

We do have but no idea how widely available throughout all the hospitals. The problem being without green light from our DG, doctors will not prescribe the drug to patients, no matter how sick they are. Career at stake here.



https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/moh-...-and-prevention

Karnataka government buys 10 lakh tablets of drug most docs say is useless
~ early May

https://www.deccanherald.com/state/top-karn...ess-984901.html

Now





This post has been edited by cranx: Jun 3 2021, 02:01 PM

https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/383813/pragm...riant-outbreak/

Pragmatism needed to avert potential Indian variant outbreak
By: Rafael Castillo - MD Inquirer Lifestyle / 01:49 AM June 03, 2021

During a recent Congressional committee hearing on how we could more effectively address the pandemic, we shared some insights on how pragmatism, on the part of physicians, our health officials and our regulatory bodies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), could help address the multifaceted problem of the pandemic and also enhance policy making and good governance.

This is quite urgent in view of the looming threat of the more infectious Indian variant, which has ravaged India. At its peak, it infected around 400,000 new cases daily, killing more than 4,000 each day.

While we still have some time to prepare for it, we have to assemble the best preventive, therapeutic and supportive regimen we can under the current circumstances—not under ideal circumstances.

Potential next outbreak

It’s comforting to note though that the available vaccines—mainly AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna—have been shown in a recent British study to be still effective, though slightly less, for the Indian variant. If we can ramp up vaccination of the vulnerable sectors of the population—the elderly and those with significant comorbidities like high blood pressure, diabetes, chronic lung or kidney disease, obesity—then we should have less hospitalizations and deaths despite this potential next outbreak.

The problem is that, as of last week, less than 10 percent of this vulnerable sector have been vaccinated. The Department of Health (DOH) and Inter-Agency Task Force for Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF) should impose a strict deadline on themselves for completing the vaccination of the elderly and high-risk in the next three months, prioritizing those in known hotbed areas like Metro Manila and other key cities.

On a positive note, we’re glad that the DOH and the IATF are reckoning with the reality that mass vaccination at the rate it should be done is simply not feasible in our country, with the various constraints we’re confronted with. We should just opt for targeted vaccination of the vulnerable sector, preparing likewise to give them another round of booster doses after six months, as most likely, will be required.

The next question, though, is—since we could not mass vaccinate the population, how do we protect the majority of the population who cannot be vaccinated? This is where pragmatism is needed.

High-stakes wager

The difference in orientation between the pragmatist and idealist was highlighted during the recent surge in cases, which overwhelmed our health-care system, such that many highly symptomatic COVID cases spent hours looking for a hospital to take them in. Meanwhile, they were receiving no treatment.

Allowing or prohibiting ivermectin, shown in numerous studies to be effective in preventing and treating COVID-19, became a high-stakes wager for our regulators and health officials, as well as pro- and anti-ivermectin physicians, with human lives at stake.

So, the pragmatic physician focuses on the practical aspect: “How do we save lives despite the limitations?” He’s like an ambulance driver who risks breaking traffic rules to get his very sick patient quickly to the hospital. The idealist physician still stops at all red lights, and sticks to the allowed speed limit.

The pragmatic physician is not really a lawbreaker, but dares to break standard practices—like going against the guidelines recommended by expert societies and prescribing drugs off-label—because he believes it can help save his patient. He weighs carefully the risk vis-à-vis the benefit of treatment. In our real-life setting, it can fill a big gap in preventing and treating COVID-19.

Recently, with the COVID surge in France, 1,500 doctors wrote a strong letter to their health minister requesting for an immediate emergency use authorization for ivermectin. They explained in detail the efficacy and safety data, showing it’s even safer than commonly used drugs like paracetamol.

The French doctors have previously requested their FDA for a temporary authorization for ivermectin to be given to some local companies, but this was turned down. They wrote that the “refusal represents a serious threat to public health.”

Such a strong statement virtually indicts the French health agency of a grave dereliction of duty or sin of omission or inaction, which, in times of emergency, is considered a grave offense for government officials. We don’t want a similar indictment of our DOH and FDA to happen here.

New therapeutic measures

The Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association emphasizes that “doctors have the right to use new therapeutic measures if it offers hope of saving lives or alleviating suffering.” It does not say when the evidence is already very strong. Our DOH and FDA may be unwittingly violating the rights of both the patient and the doctor with their undue suppression of ivermectin.

In times of pandemic, good governance mandates combining best available evidence, including real-world evidence, with sound clinical judgment and a big dose of pragmatism. Real-world data is now playing an increasing role in drug regulation, policy making and health-care decisions.

Speaking of real-world data, there are now numerous success stories of ivermectin distribution campaigns in various countries. Let’s talk about the success story in Uttar Pradesh, because we believe it is a good model for the Philippines.

Uttar Pradesh is the most densely populated state in India, with a population of more than 230 million—that’s more than twice the population of the Philippines. With such density, one would expect that the recent surge would have severely affected it. On the contrary, it had one of the lowest positivity and death rates at the peak of the surge, and its government confidently shared that the timely use of ivermectin was their secret.

We tried to compute based on published figures how Uttar Pradesh fared at the peak of the Indian surge in the first three weeks of April. Though they were still affected by the outbreak, they had 72 percent less new cases of COVID-19 compared to the rest of India. They also had 62 percent less deaths. This reduction in transmission and deaths is similar to the data given in randomized controlled trials.

This just highlights the fact that real-world evidence can reinforce the findings of well-designed clinical trials, and public health officials, guideline drafters and regulators like our FDA should also consider real-world evidence. Such evidence is more pragmatic because it’s where the rubber meets the road.

The Indian health ministry must have recognized the success of a few states like Uttar Pradesh, such that on April 28, it revised its national guidelines and recommended the antiparasitic drug for COVID-19 treatment. It made this bold move, which defied the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the country’s experts.

More liberal use

Is it just coincidental that three weeks after initiating a more liberal use of ivermectin, new cases in India have dropped by nearly 50 percent?

It may be worthwhile for Health Secretary Francisco Duque III to give the young and strong-willed health minister of India a call and compare notes. It might change Duque’s outlook.

Some people have been telling us, too, that at the height of the recent outbreak in Metro Manila and other key cities, around 3 million tablets or capsules of ivermectin were illegally sold here by well-meaning traders. And this somehow helped play a part in reducing the number of cases, aside from other measures the DOH/IATF implemented. Well, all’s well that ends well, but we hope it remains well despite the increasing numbers of the Indian variant here.

It’s good that we already have a registered ivermectin product available in the market, but as House Deputy Speaker Bernadette Herrera-Dy appealed to the expert societies and drafters of our anti-COVID living guidelines, they should not maintain their hard line of strongly recommending against ivermectin, which many doctors still follow. The doctors and their patients should be given the freedom to consider it as an option, despite the perceived low quality of its efficacy evidence by the experts. It’s a contract or agreement between the patient and his/her doctor, and we should give them the freedom to decide on it, appealed Herrera-Dy.

We hope that the next time we’re told about the “still insufficient evidence on ivermectin,” we’d consider the robust body of real-world evidence that indicates it could save thousands of lives in the population, prevent infection, likely avert health-care exhaustion, help salvage the economy, and probably help restore normalcy in a country.

COVID, IVERMECTIN AND THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY PODCAST WITH DR. PIERRE KORY

Dr. Pierre Kory, Chief Medical Officer of the FLCCC Alliance, joins Bret Weinstein, host of The DarkHorse Podcast to discuss “Covid, Ivermectin and the Crime of the Century.” This program, which many quickly called “the best podcast I have ever listened to” lays out the truth about ivermectin and how the suppression of its efficacy against COVID-19 has cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives.

Please go to the webpage to listen to the podcast. It's not on youtube.

Source

I listened to the live stream and thought it will be taken down by Youtube shortly after.
Surprisingly it is still there.

Have to shout out DG then for letting us know of this

Didn't know it was there. Thank you.

Last year i've been reading alot of these covid cure. Hydroxychloroquine, chloecalciferol aka vit d3, zinc, azithromycin, ivermectin, quercetin

https://ivmmeta.com/

WHO Analysis
WHO updated their treatment recommendations on 3/30/2021 [WHO]. For ivermectin they reported a mortality odds ratio of 0.19 [0.09-0.36] based on 7 studies with 1,419 patients. They do not specify which trials they included. The report is inconsistent, with a forest plot that only shows 4 studies with mortality results.

Despite this extremely positive result, they recommended only using ivermectin in clinical trials. The analysis contains many flaws [Kory ©]:

•Of the 57 studies (29 RCTs), they only included 16.

•They excluded all 14 prophylaxis studies (4 RCTs).

•There was no protocol for data exclusion.

•Trials included in the original UNITAID search protocol [Hill] were excluded.

•They excluded all epidemiological evidence, although WHO has considered such evidence in the past.

•They combine early treatment and late treatment studies and do not provide heterogeneity information. As above, early treatment is more successful, so pooling late treatment studies will obscure the effectiveness of early treatment. They chose not to do subgroup analysis by disease severity across trials, although treatment delay is clearly a critical factor in COVID-19 treatment, the analysis is easily done (as above), and it is well known that the studies for ivermectin and many other treatments clearly show greater effectiveness for early treatment.

•WHO downgraded the quality of trials compared to the UNITAID systematic review team [Hill] and a separate international expert guideline group that has long worked with the WHO [Bryant].

•They disregarded their own guidelines that stipulate quality assessments should be upgraded when there is evidence of a large magnitude effect (which there is), and when there is evidence of a dose-response relationship (which there is). They claim there is no dose-response relationship, while the UNITAID systematic review team found a clear relationship [Hill].

•Their risk of bias assessments do not match the actual risk of bias in studies. For example they classify [López-Medina] as low risk of bias, however this study has many issues making the results unreliable [Covid Analysis], even prompting an open letter from over 170 physicians concluding that the study is fatally flawed [Open Letter]. [Gonzalez] is also classified as low risk of bias, but is a study with very late stage severe condition high-comorbidity patients. There is a clear treatment delay-response relationship and very late stage treatment is not expected to be as effective as early treatment. Conversely, much higher quality studies were classified as high risk of bias.

•Although WHO's analysis is called a "living guideline", it is rarely updated and very out of date. As of May 14, 2021, four of the missing RCTs are known to WHO and labeled "RCTs pending data extraction" [COVID-NMA]. We added these 4, 4, 2, and one month earlier.

•A single person served as Methods Chair, member of the Guidance Support Collaboraton Committee, and member of the Living Systematic Review/NMA team.

•Public statements from people involved in the analysis suggest substantial bias. For example, a co-chair reportedly said that "the data available was sparse and likely based on chance" [Reuters]. As above, the data is comprehensive, and we estimate the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as observed to be 1 in 5 trillion (p = 0.00000000000021). The clinical team lead refers to their analysis of ivermectin as "fighting this overuse of unproven therapies ... without evidence of efficacy" [Reuters], despite the extensive evidence of efficacy from the 57 studies by 509 scientists with 18,611 patients. People involved may be more favorable to late stage treatment of COVID-19, for example the co-chair recommended treating severe COVID-19 with remdesivir [Rochwerg].
In summary, although WHO's analysis predicts that over 2 million fewer people would be dead if ivermectin was used from early in the pandemic, they recommend against use outside trials. This appears to be based primarily on excluding the majority of the evidence, and by assigning bias estimates that do not match the actual risk of bias in studies.
Use early in the pandemic was proposed by Kitasato University including the co-discoverer of ivermectin, Dr. Satoshi Ōmura. They requested Merck conduct clinical trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 in Japan, because Merck has priority to submit an application for an expansion of ivermectin�s indications. Merck declined [Yagisawa].

Merck Analysis
Merck has stated that there is "no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies". This is contradicted by many papers and studies, including [Arévalo, Bello, Choudhury, de Melo, DiNicolantonio, DiNicolantonio (B), Errecalde, Eweas, Francés-Monerris, Heidary, Jans, Jeffreys, Kalfas, Kory, Lehrer, Li, Mody, Mountain Valley MD, Qureshi, Saha, Surnar, Udofia, Wehbe, Yesilbag, Zatloukal].

They state that there is "no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease". This is contradicted by numerous studies including [Afsar, Alam, Babalola, Behera, Behera (B), Bernigaud, Budhiraja, Bukhari, Cadegiani, Carvallo (B), Carvallo ©, Chaccour, Chahla, Chahla (B), Chowdhury, Elalfy, Elgazzar, Elgazzar (B), Espitia-Hernandez, Faisal, Hashim, Huvemek, Khan, Kirti, Lima-Morales, Loue, Mahmud, Merino, Mohan, Morgenstern, Mourya, Niaee, Okumuş, Samaha, Seet].
They also claim that there is "a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies". Safety analysis is found in [Descotes, Errecalde, Guzzo, Kory, Madrid], and safety data can be found in most studies, including [Afsar, Ahmed, Babalola, Behera (B), Bhattacharya, Biber, Bukhari, Camprubí, Carvallo, Chaccour, Chahla (B), Chowdhury, Elalfy, Elgazzar, Espitia-Hernandez, Gorial, Huvemek, Khan, Kishoria, Lima-Morales, Loue, López-Medina, Mahmud, Mohan, Morgenstern, Mourya, Niaee, Okumuş, Pott-Junior, Seet, Shahbaznejad, Shouman, Spoorthi, Szente Fonseca].

Merck has a number of conflicts of interest:

•Merck has committed to give ivermectin away for free "as much as needed, for as long as needed" in the Mectizan® Donation Program [Merck], to help eliminate river blindness.

•Merck has their own new COVID-19 treatments MK-7110 (formerly CD24Fc) [Adams] and Molnupiravir (MK-4482) [Wikipedia].

•Ivermectin is off-patent, there are many manufactureres, and Merck is unlikely to be able to compete with low cost manufacturers.

•Promoting the use of low cost off-patent medications compared to new products may be undesirable to some shareholders.

•Japan requested Merck conduct clinical trials early in the pandemic and they declined. Merck may be reluctant to admit this mistake [Yagisawa].

Conclusion

Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 57 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 5 trillion (p = 0.00000000000021). As expected for an effective treatment, early treatment is more successful, with an estimated reduction of 78% in the effect measured using random effects meta-analysis (RR 0.22 [0.12-0.39]). 81% and 96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.19 [0.07-0.54] and 0.04 [0.00-0.58]). Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of heterogeneous studies is remarkable, with 95% of the 57 studies reporting positive effects (26 statistically significant in isolation).

This is organized by Selangor state government.

INteresting...so Selangor might be going the india Uttar pradesh/Goa route and allow ivermectin usage?

Not sure yet, lack of publicity and not sure if the state government can adopt a difference stance on treatment method.

Pharmacy don't even carry this drug lol , it a broad spectrum pesticide widely use in animal