yes, that's Google algorithm for the masses with ADD who won't see past headlines.

let's try WHO since everyone loves and acknowledged their guidance.

WHO advises that ivermectin only be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stori...clinical-trials

This is about potential treatment, which many countries and researches already shown promising result.
Vaccine is for prevention, it is NOT a treatment. Hence we won't see doctors inject vaccines into the arms of critical covid-19 patients.



https://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/health-d-g-...-103024259.html

This post has been edited by cranx: Jun 1 2021, 08:51 AM

For those who are interested, below is a 15 page article written about Ivermectin by best selling author/journalist Michael Capuzzo.



https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/...ael-Capuzzo.pdf



https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/i-dont-k...-selling-author

This post has been edited by cranx: Jun 1 2021, 01:37 PM

Most part of India is lacking far behind if you compare with our medical infrastructure.
Also we are testing vigorously on asymptomatic patients, while I believe testing are done on mild to severe symptomatic patients in India.

only 2 Indian state dares to be the bad boy

https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/nation...22d2325a08.html

A 97% decline in Delhi cases with Ivermectin is decisive - period. It represents the last word in an epic struggle to save lives and preserve human rights. This graph symbolizes the victory of reason over corruption, good over evil, and right over wrong. It is as significant as David’s victory over Goliath. It is an absolute vindication of Ivermectin and early outpatient treatment. It is a clear refutation of the WHO, FDA, NIH, and CDC's policies of "wait at home until you turn blue" before you get treatment.

Dr. Pierre Kory told the world on December 8, 2020, that Ivermectin "obliterates" this virus. Obliterate means to decimate, demolish, or annihilate. It means to eliminate or destroy all trace, indication, or significance.

This graph shows that Ivermectin, used in Delhi beginning April 20, obliterated their COVID crisis. No one should be able to talk you out of this - not a salesman, a drug company, a television celebrity doc, and certainly not the top doctor for the WHO or the NIH who is paid to do that.



Will you believe this 97% eradication graph, or will you believe the propaganda pitched by the Big Media, Big Pharma, the WHO, and the FDA, who share massive financial conflicts of interest – those who say there is insufficient evidence?

What evidence could be any clearer than a 97% reduction in five weeks? That number is better than the current vaccines and beyond the reach of most medicines.

The WHO cautioned India they were making a mistake by using Ivermectin. They told them it could be dangerous, that there was no evidence it worked. How many lies will you buy before you stand up for the truth?

The fatal mistake would have been to NOT use Ivermectin.

Mercifully they used it, and they saved Delhi. But tragically, Tamil Nadu did not, and their state was devastated. Their new cases rose from 10,986 to 36,184 – a tripling.



No one can hide that. Their refusal to use Ivermectin harmed them. Not only did Tamil Nadu's cases rise to the highest in India, but their deaths skyrocketed from 48 on April 20 to 474 on May 27 – a rise of ten-fold.



Meanwhile, Delhi's deaths IN THE SAME PERIOD fell from 277 to 117. So which advice would you have wanted your state to follow?

In America, Baylor’s Dr. Peter McCullough, Yale’s Dr. Harvey Risch, and Harvard’s Dr. George Fareed first advised early outpatient treatment in testimony to the US Senate on November 19, 2021. Dr. McCullough and his colleagues were the first in the world to publish an early outpatient treatment protocol for COVID-19.

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(2...0673-2/fulltext

That protocol has since been revised by Dr. George Fareed and his dynamic associate, Dr. Brian Tyson. They have now saved 6,000 COVID patients in California’s Imperial Valley.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/health/loca...e1151e98c3.html

Less than one month later, Dr. Pierre Kory sounded the alarm for a second time on December 8, 2020, to the US Senate. He advised the use of Ivermectin, yet no one listened. No Ivermectin guidelines were instituted. On December 8, the US suffered 2,821 COVID deaths. With Ivermectin, cases could have been quickly crushed. Fatalities would have dropped in short order, as the example of Delhi shows us.

But instead, the United States followed the WHO and FDA’s official advice and waited for the vaccines. They sat on their hands while people gasped. They watched and did nothing as millions turned blue and flooded the hospitals - no Ivermectin approval. So like Tamil Nadu, our US cases and deaths also skyrocketed.

By January 8, just four weeks later, US daily cases had risen from 219,000 to 300,000, and deaths were up from 2,821 to 3,895. Even more Americans were to die due to this failed health policy of ignoring Ivermectin and early outpatient treatment.

Delhi did it right. The United States and Tamil Nadu did it wrong. It cost half a million precious lives and horrific pain and suffering for the world. The pandemic was prolonged for no good reason.

Now we are in a different position. We as a people have absolute evidence of Ivermectin’s efficacy. In Delhi, we heard not one single story of Ivermectin being toxic or causing any difficulty. On the contrary, it is safe, and it saved tens of thousands from COVID.

But more immediately, what can we do now? What will you do as a concerned citizen to get the word out? What can you do to save your fellow human beings from repeating these costly errors? Start with sharing the book, Ivermectin for the World, with your church, your minister, and all your social contacts. Then, spread the word far and wide:

People can safely take Ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19.

The rest of the world must hear about Ivermectin as new areas experience similar surges. A new hybrid variant is brewing in Vietnam. Notify them! They need to know there is more than masks and social distancing. There is more than waiting for vaccines. Ivermectin is effective against ALL the variants. The vaccines ARE NOT.

But, unfortunately, the authorities will continue to censor this information; thus, the responsibility of getting the word out rests squarely upon the citizens of the planet, you and me.

https://www.amazon.com/Ivermectin-World-Jus...k/dp/B0943T564G

Lead a peaceful protest. Share this article with everyone you know, your social media, your email contacts, relatives, friends, and co-workers. You may think that none of this applies to you because you have already been vaccinated. That is unfortunately not true.

Listen to Dr. Peter McCullough on this subject. He is the Vice-Chair of Medicine at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. He is among the most published cardiologists in the world. He is arguably the most courageous physician to speak out.

https://vimeo.com/553518199

No one deserves COVID. No one deserves to die when we have effective treatment.

Do you continue to believe the pronouncements of those agencies that have failed you so many times before? Those agencies who have told the media to give you only filtered information, those agencies who have ignored the world's leading scientists.

Take a look at this graph. Delhi was in dire straits on April 20 with 28,395 new daily COVID-19 cases and rising.

We sounded the alarm. The All India Institute for Medical Science (AIIMS) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) had the guts to listen. They listened to the 56 studies involving 18,447 patients showing up to a 91% reduction in death with Ivermectin. They listened to scientists like Dr. Pierre Kory and the FLCCC. They listened to world-class experts like Dr. Tess Lawrie of the BIRD group and Dr. Peter McCullough of the C19 group. They were smart.

The book Ivermectin for the World was released May 1, 2021, and called for the urgent adoption of Ivermectin by India on a humanitarian basis to save lives. "What we could not do for America, we can do for India!" was our mantra.

And we did! This is what happened to cases in the areas that chose Ivermectin:

Delhi : ¯ 97% [28,395 to 956]

Uttar Pradesh: ¯ 95% [37,944 to 2,014]

Goa: ¯ 85% [4195 to 645]

Karnataka: ¯ 60% [50,112 to 20,378]

Uttarakhand: ¯ 87% [9,642 to 1,226]

Observe what happened to those areas that DID NOT choose Ivermectin:

Tamil Nadu ­ 173% [10,986 to 30,016]

Odisha ­ 50% [4,761 to 7,148]

Assam ­ 240% [1,651 to 5,613]

Arunachal Pradesh ­ 656% [ 61 to 461]

Tripura ­ 828% [92 to 854]

On May 3, the FLCCC and the BIRD groups issued a press release and called for the immediate global use of Ivermectin for COVID-19. On May 7, Dr. Paul Marik, the second most published Intensive Care Specialist in the world and founding member of the FLCCC, did the same. He added that we could no longer trust “larger health authorities to make an honest examination of the medical and scientific evidence.”

https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-05...c-lpr050621.php

In India, the acid test was to compare the fates of those Indian areas that adopted the drug versus those that did not. This would be the ultimate natural experiment. Finally, the plain truth would be revealed to all the world. It was no longer the special interests, Big Pharma, Big Regulators, and Big Media, who had been censoring, swindling, and conniving. Now the fight would be fair because all the money in the world could not conceal the cases in Delhi. The world had a front-row seat to witness these results. And it bears repeating; the results are in.

Delhi’s cases are down 97% from 28,395 on April 20 to just 956 on May 29.

So the question now is this: Are you going to believe the obvious contained in these graphs? Or are you going to believe those corrupt agencies that do not have your best interests at heart, those who have lied to you many times before?

I suggest you believe the scientists from non-profit groups like FLCCC and BIRD who have nothing to gain except saving your life. They are the most trustworthy. You can support Dr. Tess Lawrie’s charitable work at:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-us-get-life...ved-for-covid19

You can support Dr. Pierre Kory’s charitable work on:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/

You can support Dr. George Fareed’s charitable work and his COVID-19 project by contributing to www.holtvillebaptist.com in the name of the COVID-19 Fareed Project. Dr. George Fareed is a voice of wisdom.

https://youtu.be/czJuCCBIoX4

Dr. Fareed is a former NIH scientist and Harvard Professor. He holds patents on three cancer drugs. He was named the 2015 California Rural Physician of the Year, and he won the Plessner Memorial Award given by the California Medical Association for his ethics and clinical excellence. So, you can trust and believe Dr. Fareed.

https://youtu.be/7pKBfRHFJAg

The choice is clear. Ivermectin is the safe, repurposed Nobel Prize-Winning drug that effectively reduces death up to 91% from COVID-19. It does not produce blood clots, heart attacks, or strokes. It does not cause violent immune reactions. And it reduced the COVID-19 cases in Delhi, India, by an astonishing 97% in five weeks. It costs pennies.

Tell the poor citizens of Tamil Nadu who are still in the dark and remain forbidden from using it. Tell the rest of the world. Show your doctor the studies. They are updated daily on www.ivmmeta.com. If your doctor refuses, find another doctor.

Listen to scientists and physicians who are driven by their Hippocratic Oaths to do what is right, not the doctors who are paid vast sums of money by lucrative interests to tow the party line.

So the next time you hear a highly paid doctor advising you that Ivermectin does not work, or you read another article disputing this, please believe your eyes and this graph.

Use your common sense. Some truths are self-evident, and Ivermectin's pronounced effect against this virus is one of them. Another self-evident truth, straight from the Declaration of Independence, is the human right to life - which includes the right to select medical treatment - free from governmental interference.

We do not require scientists to interpret these fundamental truths. We do not need a philosopher to know that censorship of life-saving information is wrong. We do not require any more "studies" to understand that all the world needs Ivermectin - immediately.

“What we did for India, we must now do for the rest of the world!”

https://youtu.be/UAx6oRcZK6Q

ABOVE perfectly demonstrated the problem of headline reader.
READ again the first post of this thread. It is a RESPONSE to DG Dr Hisham.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

Ministry of Health Malaysia starts Ivermectin trial for high risk COVID-19 patients (I-TECH Study)
By DG of Health on June 5, 2021

Effective pharmacologic treatments for COVID-19 remains a challenge. The Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial showed dexamethasone, a steroid, improved mortality outcomes for COVID-19 patients in severe stage of disease when oxygen supplementation or mechanical ventilation is required. But for the management of mild and moderate cases, there is lack of treatment, either to prevent disease progression or cut viral transmission.

The COVID-19 clinical characterisation study by MOH specialists and researchers found that for cases admitted to hospitals, 95% had mild illness but about 3.5% subsequently progressed to severe disease. They were mostly of older age (≥51 years) or had underlying co-morbidities such as chronic kidney disease and chronic pulmonary disease that increased their risk for severe disease. However, for high-risk COVID-19 patients, many repurposed antiviral therapies were found ineffective. The World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Solidarity Trial for COVID-19 Treatments (SOLIDARITY) which included Malaysia, found insufficient evidence for the use of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, interferon, lopinavir in terms of mortality outcomes. Currently, the Malaysian Consensus Management Guidelines for COVID-19 maintains Favipiravir, as the only antiviral therapy for the management of COVID-19 cases. Even this recommendation may change as more evidence becomes available.

Ivermectin is an FDA-approved anti-parasitic drug widely used for treating several neglected tropical diseases, including onchocerciasis, strongyloidiasis and helminthiases. The “off-label” use of Ivermectin gained global attention due to some promising results by case studies and clinical trials. Yet, the evidence is inconclusive to recommend routine use of Ivermectin for COVID-19. The FDA has not approved Ivermectin for use in treating or preventing Covid-19 in humans, and the WHO only recommends the use of Ivermectin in the setting of clinical trials, in which patients are monitored closely by experienced clinicians and researchers for safety and efficacy. There is an on-going need for adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials for evidence-based guidance on the role of Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.

Under the circumstances, the Ministry of Health Malaysia and the Institute for Clinical Research (ICR) have initiated a multicentre open-label randomized controlled trial. The Ivermectin Treatment Efficacy in Covid-19 High Risk Patients (I-TECH Study) headed by Infectious Disease (ID) Physician at Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun, Ipoh and a team of specialists and Clinical Research Centres (CRC) at 12 MOH hospitals. The trial was approved by Medical Research and Ethics Committee (MREC), MOH on 25 May 2021. The study compares Ivermectin treatment (specific dose with specific duration) with the standard of care alone. The study will enrol 500 subjects from high risk groups aged 50 years and above admitted to MOH hospitals with mild/moderate COVID-19 symptoms (Stage 2-3). The study aims to determine the efficacy of Ivermectin in preventing the progression of COVID-19 to severe disease (Stage 4-5) and in terms of mortality outcomes. ICR has setup a Data Monitoring Board (DMB) consisting of independent ID physicians, clinical trial pharmacists and methodological experts to safeguard the trial patients on the safety and efficacy of the investigation product set by the National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (NPRA).

The First-Patient-In (FPI) was on 31 May 2021, and to date 8 patients have been enrolled. The study is expected to be completed by September 2021.

Thank you.

Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Dr. Noor Hisham bin Abdullah

Director General Ministry of Health Malaysia

5 June 2021

https://kpkesihatan.com/2021/06/05/ministry...s-i-tech-study/

This post has been edited by cranx: Jun 5 2021, 10:55 PM

Pressured to do it, I guess.

This is in comparison with Pfizer MRNA vaccine.
Pfizer vaccine received EUA on 11th December and less than a month later registered by NPAR for use in Malaysia.

What should have been done is to authorize EUA for Ivermectin immediately. Desperate times call for desperate measure. Given the safety record of Ivermectin over the past 40 years, we have got nothing to lose.

3 months = 90 days
Assuming each day +/-100 death, we are looking at potentially 9000 deaths.

This post has been edited by cranx: Jun 5 2021, 11:20 PM

Problem - Malaysia invested heavily in vaccines already, signed contracts with many BigPharma companies. With procurement done in such secretive manner, we won't know what are the terms and conditions being imposed on Malaysia as a country.

Do note Ivermectin if proven to be useful, will be vaccines direct competitor.

I sincerely hope there is still humanity in our medical establishment. Human lives above all. Conduct the trial in a fair and transparent manner, Ivermectin is not an experimental drug, it is proven safe and widely used for 4 decades. we should adopt the treatment immediately across Malaysia upon positive result.