Tag Archives: Ivermectin

NY Times Latest to Mislead Public on New Ivermectin Study

The New York Times on Wednesday sent an email to subscribers titled: “Breaking News: Ivermectin failed as a Covid treatment . . .” The Times was referring to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, covered March 18 by The Wall Street Journal. In both cases, the newspapers failed to provide an accurate critical analysis of the study.

The New York Times on Wednesday sent an email blast to subscribers with the subject line: “Breaking News: Ivermectin failed as a Covid treatment, a large clinical trial found.”

The Times was referring to a study I wrote about, that same day, for The Defender.

My article called out the Wall Street Journal for its March 18 reporting on the same study — before the study was even published — for its failure to provide an accurate, critical assessment of the study.

The study in question — “Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19” — was officially published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

In it the authors concluded:

“Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19”

The Times did not critique the study itself, but quoted the opinion of Dr. David Boulware, an infectious-disease expert at the University of Minnesota:

“There’s really no sign of any benefit. Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin towards other therapies.”

Yes. Let us dive into the details and the data and see where it “steers” us, shall we?

A closer look at the details

The NEJM study took place in Brazil between March 23 and Aug. 6, 2021.

The study examined 1,358 people who expressed symptoms of COVID-19 at an outpatient care facility (within seven days of symptom onset), had a positive rapid test for the disease and had at least one of these risk factors for severe disease:

  • Age over 50
  • Hypertension requiring medical therapy
  • Diabetes mellitus
  • Cardiovascular disease
  • Lung disease
  • Smoking
  • Obesity
  • Organ transplantation
  • Chronic kidney disease (stage IV) or receipt of dialysis
  •  Immunosuppressive therapy (receipt of ≥10 mg of prednisone or equivalent daily)
  • Diagnosis of cancer within the previous 6 months
  • Receipt of chemotherapy for cancer.

Young and healthy individuals were not part of this study.

Both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals were included in the study. The percentage of vaccinated participants in each group was not specified. Note that by choosing not to identify vaccination status as a confounding variable the authors are implying that vaccines are playing no role in preventing hospitalization.

The 1,358 subjects were divided into two equally sized groups that were relatively well-matched and randomized to receive either a three-day dose of placebo or a three-day course of ivermectin at 400 mcg/kg.

The primary outcome was hospitalization due to COVID-19 within 28 days after randomization or an emergency department visit due to clinical worsening of COVID-19 (defined as the participant remaining under observation for >6 hours) within 28 days after randomization.

How researchers were able to conclude ‘no benefit’ despite signs to the contrary

The study’s authors wrote:

“100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event (composite of hospitalization due to the progression of COVID-19 or an emergency department visit of >6 hours that was due to clinical worsening of COVID-19), as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16).”

In other words, a greater percentage of placebo recipients required hospitalization or observation in an emergency department than those who received Ivermectin.

The authors of the study broke it down by subgroups here:

As is demonstrated in nearly every subgroup, the Ivermectin recipients fared better than those who received the placebo.

However, these data were not statistically significant given the size of the study.

This is how the authors were able to conclude there was no benefit to ivermectin use in preventing hospitalization in high-risk patients in their study.

Patients were under-dosed, some didn’t follow instructions

As it stands, the study The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal declared as proof of the uselessness of ivermectin in treating COVID-19 is actually quite promising —  contrary to what their headlines told readers.

The dosing protocol advised by the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) includes a five-day course of ivermectin at 600 micrograms per kilogram of body weight for people with risk factors such as those possessed by participants in the study.

Instead, the investigators behind the NEJM study chose a much lower dose, 400mcg per day for only three days. This represents less than half of the total dose that has been shown to be effective in practice.

Furthermore, despite acknowledging that studies have shown some indication that the bioavailability of ivermectin increases when taken with food, especially a fatty meal, participants in the trial were instructed to take the medicine on an empty stomach.

In other words, the patients were significantly under-dosed — and yet a positive effect of the drug was emerging, though not statistically significant given the size of the study.

Also of note, the investigators chose to include emergency room visits with hospitalizations for COVID. Clearly, six hours of observation in an ER is a significantly different outcome than a hospitalization that may last a night or much longer.

When excluding the ER visits from the primary outcome and examining only hospitalizations, the ivermectin cohort had even less risk of an outcome, i.e. the relative risk was 0.84 vs 0.9 when ER visits and hospitalization were grouped together.

Perhaps the most glaring deficiency of the study is the low number of placebo recipients who actually followed the study’s protocol:

Only 288 of 679 participants randomized to receiving the placebo reported 100% adherence to the study protocol. Nearly 400 didn’t.

Why not? We asked Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee.

Nass told The Defender:

“Presumably they knew the difference between ivermectin and placebo, and the placebo subjects went out and bought ivermectin or something else … but whatever they did, they didn’t bother with the pills they were given.

“So, it was not actually a double-blinded trial. Yet the 391 people who didn’t take the placebo but did something else were included in two of the three calculations of ivermectin efficacy anyway.”

So, was this the definitive answer proclaimed by mainstream sources? Nass thinks otherwise:

“I would say that instead, it was a failed trial due to the 391 placebo recipients who admitted they did not follow protocol versus the 55 in the ivermectin arm.”

More questions than answers

Rather than pounding the final nail in the coffin around ivermectin’s utility in treating COVID, the NEJM study raises more questions.

  • What would the effect have been if a higher dose shown to be effective were administered?
  • What would be the benefit of this medicine in patients with no risk factors?
  • How statistically significant would the results have been if more participants were enrolled?
  • Why weren’t more participants enrolled as the study progressed given the emerging benefit of the drug and the absence of adverse events?
  • Why did the investigators define a primary outcome with such different real-world implications (ER visits vs hospitalizations)?
  • With less than 50% of the placebo arm adhering to the study protocol, why were their outcomes included in the analysis?
  • What effect did vaccination status have on outcome? If this is the primary means endorsed to prevent hospitalization, why wasn’t vaccination status mentioned as a confounder?
  • Did the investigators choose to limit the study as it became clear that an Ivermectin benefit would be too big to ignore?

Given these obvious issues with the study, it is becoming even more clear where the real story is: Neither The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times are willing to pursue startling details around how corporate interests are corrupting scientific opinion as reported here.

Instead, these iconic journals chose to report on a scientific study on or prior to the day of publication using misleading headlines backed up by flimsy investigations conducted by journalists with no capacity to dissect the analysis or data.

Here’s a bigger question: Are they just incompetent, or complicit, too?

This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Kansas Senate Passes Bill to Authorize the Prescriptions of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and Child Vaccine Exempt

Jim Hoft
March 25, 2022

Kansas state senators passed a bill early Thursday that would authorize the prescriptions of off-label drugs for Covid-19 treatment, such as Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. The bill also exempts children from being vaccinated if “such immunizations would violate sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Senate Sub. for HB 2280, as amended, concerns prescribing and dispensing of drugs for off-label use and religious exemptions for childhood vaccines, the bill stated.

The bill was passed with 21 voted yes, and 16 voted no.

Capital-Journal reported:

The Senate worked on a host of bills into the early morning hours in a marathon session. The off-label drug bill, HB 2280, passed 21-16 shortly before 1:30 a.m.

“Thousands of Kansans and hundreds of thousands of Americans have died because of this propaganda that shut down early treatment,” said Sen. Mark Steffen, R-Hutchinson. “I fully believe that this passage of this bill through the Senate will gain national attention and help be a very important part of getting the care to the people who need it.”

The bill would allow doctors to prescribe ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and any other FDA-approved drug that isn’t a controlled substance for an off-label use to prevent or treat COVID-19.

It further requires pharmacists to fill the prescriptions, removing their professional discretion to refuse to fill a prescription, unless they find a reason other than the connection to COVID-19.

“With this provision, a doctor can write a prescription for abortion medication under the guise of COVID, and the pharmacist must fill it,” said Cindy Holscher, D-Overland Park, who opposed the bill.

Another piece protects doctors from board of healing arts investigations connected to the pandemic, prohibiting any “recommendation, prescription, use or opinion” on COVID-19 treatments from being considered unprofessional conduct.

The bill also expands existing religious exemptions for childhood wellness vaccines at schools and day cares. It effectively creates a new exemption where any parent can claim a moral or ethical exemption to any youth vaccinations.

Reuters Blows Up Media with New Report on Ivermectin, But Drug’s ‘Anti-Viral Properties’ are Nothing New

Kyle Becker
February 1, 2022

Reuters caused a stir on Monday with its report that a Japanese company now claims ivermectin has ‘anti-viral properties’ against Covid. The news company retracted its headline that said it was “effective” against Covid.

Japanese trading and pharmaceuticals company Kowa Co Ltd (7807.T) on Monday said that anti-parasite drug ivermectin showed an “antiviral effect” against Omicron and other coronavirus variants in joint non-clinical research.

The company, which has been working with Tokyo’s Kitasato University on testing the drug as a potential treatment for COVID-19, did not provide further details. The original Reuters story misstated that ivermectin was “effective” against Omicron in Phase III clinical trials, which are conducted in humans.

Clinical trials are ongoing, but promotion of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment has generated controversy.

The Japanese study is a double-blind study and thus would be superior to most research on Covid-19 treatments. Pfizer, for example, unblinded its placebo group during its “vaccine” clinical trials and the FDA still granted it Emergency Use Authorization. (More flaws with Pfizer’s clinical trials can be read here.)

Despite Reuters’ claim that ivermectin is merely an “anti-parasite drug,” a search of the National Institute of Health’s website shows scientific research demonstrating the drug’s wide-ranging effects going back at least a decade.

“Discovered in the late-1970s, the pioneering drug ivermectin, a dihydro derivative of avermectin—originating solely from a single microorganism isolated at the Kitasato Intitute, Tokyo, Japan from Japanese soil—has had an immeasurably beneficial impact in improving the lives and welfare of billions of people throughout the world,” the Proceedings of the Japan Academy stated in February 2011, adding, “It has also been used to successfully overcome several other human diseases and new uses for it are continually being found. This paper looks in depth at the events surrounding ivermectin’s passage from being a huge success in Animal Health into its widespread use in humans, a development which has led many to describe it as a ‘wonder’ drug.”

“There are few drugs that can seriously lay claim to the title of ‘Wonder drug’, penicillin and aspirin being two that have perhaps had greatest beneficial impact on the health and wellbeing of Mankind,” the academy continued. “But ivermectin can also be considered alongside those worthy contenders, based on its versatility, safety and the beneficial impact that it has had, and continues to have, worldwide—especially on hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people.

There are published journal articles on ivermectin’s “antiviral” properties on the NIH website.

“Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug,” The Journal of Antibiotics states. “It is highly effective against many microorganisms including some viruses. In this comprehensive systematic review, antiviral effects of ivermectin are summarized including in vitro and in vivo studies over the past 50 years.”Advertisements

“Several studies reported antiviral effects of ivermectin on RNA viruses such as Zika, dengue, yellow fever, West Nile, Hendra, Newcastle, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, chikungunya, Semliki Forest, Sindbis, Avian influenza A, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome, Human immunodeficiency virus type 1, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2,” the journal adds. “Furthermore, there are some studies showing antiviral effects of ivermectin against DNA viruses such as Equine herpes type 1, BK polyomavirus, pseudorabies, porcine circovirus 2, and bovine herpesvirus 1.”

“Ivermectin plays a role in several biological mechanisms, therefore it could serve as a potential candidate in the treatment of a wide range of viruses including COVID-19 as well as other types of positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses,” the September 2020 journal article added. “In vivo studies of animal models revealed a broad range of antiviral effects of ivermectin, however, clinical trials are necessary to appraise the potential efficacy of ivermectin in clinical setting.”

Joe Rogan, who is undergoing a coordinated media campaign to silence his influential voice, had a simple reaction to the news.

New Hampshire Seeks to Make Ivermectin Available As an Alternative Covid Treatment

Mary Villareal
January 24, 2022 

Lawmakers from New Hampshire are set to pass a bill that makes it easier for people to obtain ivermectin, which they believe can fight the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19). The move will allow pharmacists to dispense the drug by means of standing orders.

Similar bills in other states have been ill-received, but the primary sponsor of the New Hampshire bill said that she expects a slightly amended version to get enough votes from the Republican-majority committee to send it for approval to the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, which already showed support for other COVID-related bills, including a state-wide ban against both government and private mandates.

“I have absolutely no doubt lives will be saved if human grade Ivermectin was available to COVID patients,” said state Republican Representative Leah Cushman, who is also a registered nurse. (Related: VACCINE REBELLION: Growing number of US states are refusing to go along with Biden’s covid vaccine fascism.)

To appease some concerns about the bill, Cushman also submitted amendments to her initial proposal, including notices with any dispensary for human use that it is considered an “off-label” use for COVID treatment. She also proposed to create a state tracking system of any adverse reactions experienced by those who take the human-grade version of the pill.

In Pennsylvania, Representative Dawn Keefer also introduced a bill that allows doctors to write prescriptions for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine sulfate as a treatment for COVID-19, but the bill is yet to leave the committee.

FDA, medical professionals against bill

Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration officials said that there is no data showing the effectiveness of the drug against COVID-19, with multiple medical experts testifying against the bill on Tuesday.

Dr. Nick Perencevich, a retired general surgeon, stated that he would like to believe the standard of care in New Hampshire is that a patient could get a prescription for ivermectin, off-label, as long as the patient in question ideally, is put into some kind of clinical trial, whether for a company or an academic institution.

Dr. David Levine from Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center said that prescribing ivermectin is “dangerous and totally out of line with the standard of medical care around the world.”

In his testimony against the bill, Levine further wrote that he would never want ivermectin prescribed to himself or his family, and “would take legal action against anyone who recommended this to my loved ones.” (Related: Why is ivermectin STILL not being prescribed for covid?)

Dr. William Palmer, governor of the New Hampshire Chapter of the American College of Physicians, also submitted his own written testimony on the bill, saying that he was concerned that if it passed, it would have the potential to overwhelm the state’s health care system with cases of “ivermectin-induced side effects.”

However, there are experts that do agree with the use of ivermectin. Dr. Paul Marik, a neurocritical care doctor, testified that ivermectin is one of the safest drugs on the planet, adding that a human-grade version of the drug is approved for treatment in 79 other countries. He also pointed out that since its discovery in 1987, over 3.7 billion doses of ivermectin has been dispensed as an anti-parasitic drug.

“So somehow Japanese people, Indian people, Brazilian people can tolerate it safely but it’s toxic in Americans. You have to be kidding,” he said.

Marik further cited several studies that definitively proved ivermectin has both viricidal and anti-inflammatory properties. He also pointed out that it has already been used to treat deadly diseases such as mosquito-borne Zika virus and other similar viruses similar to the SARS-CoV-2 RNA viruses that cause COVID-19.

The bill is still currently in committee but is expected to go to a House vote in the next couple of weeks.

Dr. Robert Malone Posts Irrefutable Proof on Ivermectin and the Uttar Pradesh India Success Story

Jim Hoft
January 17, 2022

The government announced that the 33 districts in Uttar Pradesh, India have now become COVID free.

The recovery rate has increased up to 98.7% proving the effectiveness of IVERMECTIN as part of the “Uttar Pradesh Covid Control Model.” Of course, the media won’t mention that Ivermectin is being used for the treatment of COVID-19.

This state has an estimated population of 241 million people in 2021 and has the highest population in India.  This is almost two-thirds of the United States population in 2021 and yet it is now a COVID-19 free nation. 

On Sunday Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine posted on the Uttar Pradesh and Ivermectin success story.

Here’s the inconvenient truth.  The Federal Government’s Department of Health and Human Services of the United States of America has developed an atrocious track record during the many waves of COVID-19 disease which have swept across the country.  As if it were not bad enough that the evidence implicates Dr. Anthony Fauci and his minions as having created the pathogen SARS-CoV-2 in a biodefense strategy that would make Rube Goldberg’s Professor Butts proud, the United States is listed by Worldometers as having the most deaths attributed to the disease in the entire world.

If adjusted for mortality as a function of population (total cases per 1M population), the US ranks 19th out of 234 nations (2,614 deaths/1 million).  In  contrast, India comes in at 130 out of 234 with 347 deaths/1 million.  The overall world average for deaths/million population is 712.


What public policies are responsible for this amazing difference in outcomes?

The curious case of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh is often sited. Densely populated, relatively poor, and they have absolutely crushed the COVID-19 death curve.  Widespread availability of a package distributed throughout the region, rumored to contain the repurposed drug Ivermectin, have often been credited for this amazing success.  But until now, these rumors have remained unsubstantiated.

As I mentioned recently on the Fox segment in response to the unprovoked attack by Mr. Berenson, a close colleague of mine recently returned from a vacation in the region.  Prompted by my specific request that she seek out evidence of the contents of these “care packages” which have been made available throughout the region, she returned with the following photograph of the list of ingredients.  As is often observed, a picture is worth a thousand words.

So, without further ado, I am glad to finally be able to provide photographic evidence of what is responsible for the miracle of Uttar Pradesh.  I have nothing more to add, other than that an apology is owed (By Mr. Berenson and many others) to the many brave physicians who have persisted, against enormous coordinated media and governmental pressure, to prescribe this agent as a key component of the staged early treatment protocols responsible for saving countless lives across the USA and the world.

More photos of the COVID home isolation kit:

More photos of the COVID home isolation kit: