Connect with us

Health & Wellness

The Current State of Knowledge Regarding Ivermectin’s Effectiveness Against Covid-19

Published

on

There has been more scientific research done on ivermectin to treat and cure the covid-19 disease than on any other chemical that has been proposed for this purpose (except for hydroxychloroquine, which is by now known to be both less safe and less effective for this purpose, though still better than nothing), and the reason for this is twofold: ivermectin is remarkably safe (which is acknowledged even by sincere scientists who demand a higher degree of effectiveness before any drug should be approved), and the more that it has been studied as a possible treatment for this disease, the higher the likelihood has become established to be that ivermectin assists in reducing or even (in some cases) curing the disease. What is indisputable is that America’s FDA grants approval to drugs against covid-19 disease which have far less evidence of safety and effectiveness against the covid-19 disease, but it refuses approval to ivermectin, which has plenty of evidence that it is safe, and even that it is effective against this disease, though less effective than a drug needs to be against what can be a deadly disease. Only corruption would explain this obvious anomaly, that the FDA still refuses this authorization for ivermectin. Clearly, for the benefit of the public, ivermectin ought to be fully authorized as a treatment for this disease. It is not a cure, but it can safely help to cure this disease. Its use for this purpose would reduce the death-rate. But the FDA’s top priority is definitely NOT to reduce diseases and deaths.

Ivermectin is a medication that, as Wikipedia says, has been approved since 1987 (35 years ago) to:

treat infestations including head lice, scabies, river blindness (onchocerciasis), strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, ascariasis and lymphatic filariasis.[10][11][8][12] It works through many mechanisms to kill the targeted parasites,[10] and can be taken orally, or applied to the skin for external infestations.[10][13] It belongs to the avermectin family of medications.[10]

William Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for its discovery and applications.[14] It is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines,[15] and is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as an antiparasitic agent.[16] In 2018, it was the 420th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 100,000 prescriptions.[17] It is available as a generic medicine.[18][19]

That last statement, “It is available as a generic medicine,” means that the drug’s patent has expired, and so no monopoly-profits are any longer possible for it, and so drug companies no longer promote its use. They would therefore (for example) not donate funds to the political campaigns of politicians who endorse legalizing the availability of ivermectin to treat patients for the covid-19 disease. In this sense, that drug’s inexpensiveness becomes automatically a factor against the drug’s being approved to treat covid-19. A government driven more by profitability (benefits to investors) than by usefulness (benefits to the public) is not likely to approve new uses for such a drug — not even if that drug is actually safer and more effective than some patented new drug might be, which can be priced hundreds of times higher.

Here’s an example of how this works: on 28 June 2021, the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases published a study “Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials”, which reported that, “Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM [ivermectin] did not reduce all-cause mortality [deaths from all causes, including covid-19], LOS [length of hospital stay], or viral clearance in RCTs [randomized controlled trials] in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs [adverse events] or SAEs [severe adverse events] and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19.” It had analyzed 10 studies, which had included a grand total of 1,173 individual patients, almost 100% of whom had had “mild” cases of the covid-19 disease; and the dose-amounts in these treatments varied widely, such as “Single dose 400 micrograms per kilogram of body-weight,” and “Single dose 12 milligrams [12,000 micrograms] per kilogram of body-weight,” and to “300 micrograms per kilogram of body-weight, once daily, for 5 days.”

That article stated, regarding its 6 authors: “Potential conflicts of interest. All authors: No reported conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.” The editors didn’t disclose to the readers what those “conflicts” had been. 

However, an entire website, https://c19ivermectin.com, is devoted to meta-analyzing every peer-reviewed published scientific study that’s published regarding ivermectin’s effectiveness or ineffectiveness against covid-19 disease. That website says about the 28 June 2021 article: “Details: This is a severely flawed meta analysis. An open letter signed by 40 physicians detailing errors and flaws, and requesting retraction, can be found at trialsitenews.com. See also bird-group.org.” That note links also to several other critiques of the 28 June 2021 article, that requested the article’s retraction, such as this critique at pubpeer.com, pointing to obvious factual errors in it, including even wrong number-counts. However, that 28 June 2021 article wasn’t retracted; it remains in the ‘scientific’ literature, which propagandists against using ivermectin to treat the covid-19 disease can still cite.

As-of 17 September 2021, https://c19ivermectin.com had headlined, to summarize its then-complete survey-and-analysis on this topic, “IVERMECTIN FOR COVID-19: 63 TRIALS, 623 SCIENTISTS, 26,398 PATIENTS, 31 RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS”, and it summarized its summary by saying: “60% IMPROVEMENT IN 31 RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS” from the “Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 116 studies, 76 peer reviewed, 63 with results comparing treatment and control groups.” It linked to each one of those 116 studies (plus linked to news-commentaries about them). So, the reader can easily click through to each one of the studies (and to news-articles discussing them).

Based upon those 31 randomized controlled trials, I had headlined on 24 September 2021, “How National Propaganda Radio (NPR) Reports About Covid and Ivermectin”, and reported against that NPR ‘news’-report’s stenographic presentation of the U.S. Government’s condemnation and prohibition against using ivermectin to treat the covid-19 disease. (Subsequently, reader-comments to my article were deleted by Discuss, which has a virtual monopoly over reader-comment sections at small news-sites in America, but ultimately those reader-comments were able to be restored by the site’s editors.)

Right now, https://c19ivermectin.com is headlining “Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 78 studies: Covid Analysis, Feb 18, 2022, Version 176”, and it reports:

Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. All remain significant after exclusions. 50 studies from 46 independent teams in 21 different countries show statistically significant improvements in isolation (38 primary outcome, 35 most serious outcome).

•Meta analysis using the most serious outcome shows 63% [53‑72%] and 83% [74‑89%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion-based sensitivity analysis, for primary outcomes, for peer-reviewed studies, and for RCTs [randomized controlled trials].

•Results are very robust — in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 62 of 78 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.

•While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 24% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm. Multiple treatments are typically used in combination, which may be significantly more effective.

•No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Denying the efficacy of treatments increases mortality, morbidity, collateral damage, and endemic risk.

•Over 20 countries have adopted ivermectin for COVID-19. The evidence base is much larger and has much lower conflict of interest than typically used to approve drugs.

It reports that:

27 of the 32 Early Treatment studies have shown that the ivermectin-receiving patients improved more than the non-ivermectin-receiving patients did.

25 of the 30 Late Treatment studies showed that the ivermectin-receiving patients improved more than the non-ivermectin-receiving patients did. 

16 of the 16 Prophylaxis (prevention of spreading the disease, such as protecting healthcare workers against catching the disease from their patients) studies showed that the disease spread less from the patients who were taking ivermectin than from the patients who weren’t. In 100% of studies, ivermectin-takers had spread the disease less than control-group patients did.

In 68 of the 78 studies, the results were better for (and from) the patients who were taking ivermectin than for (and from) the patients who weren’t.

The total number of patients studied, as-of 18 February 2022, were 85,767 (as opposed to the earlier 26,398), and the added 60,369 patients were producing a 64% success-rate with ivermectin (as compared to the prior 60%). So: as would be expected to be the case for an effective medication, increased experience with the drug were increasing the success-rate of its application.

However, there is a stark contrast between that meta-analysis and another one, which was done by a professional organization whose report is vaguer and less clear in virtually every way:

The Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) has published “IDSA Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19” Updated on 16 February 2022, and its section that’s devoted to “Recommendations 24-25: Ivermectin” states:

Recommendation 24: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the IDSA panel suggests against ivermectin outside of the context of a clinical trial. (Conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence)

Recommendation 25: In ambulatory persons with COVID-19, the IDSA panel suggests against ivermectin outside of the context of a clinical trial. (Conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence)

That meta-analysis — unlike the one at https://c19ivermectin.com, fails to link to the studies that it discusses, and is altogether inferior in its presentation (far more difficult to verify or disconfirm), as well as being less comprehensive and less persuasive in virtually every other respect. Moreover, its claim of “very low certainty of evidence” on the matter, is not documented, at all, against the very specific precise numerical odds that are calculated, and presented, at https://c19ivermectin.com, which show the exact opposite: stunningly high-probabilities, statistically very clear findings. Furthermore, even the IDSA report isn’t arguing that ivermectin’s dangers to covid-19 patients outweigh its benefits to those patients, and so the extreme safety of this drug (ivermectin) is going essentially unchallenged, even by presenters who are trying to persuade their readers that there’s a “very low certainty of evidence” regarding ivermectin’s impact upon covid-19 disease.

Given the extremely low cost of such an amazingly promising and demonstrably successful medication against the covid-19 disease, can there be any reasonable doubt that governments ought to be encouraging, instead of blocking, its use (at least until something better is discovered and proven to treat against the covid-19 disease)?

However, because Merck’s Molnupiravir proposed anti-covid-19 drug, and Pfizer’s Paxlovid proposed anti-covid-19 drug, stand ready to make many billions of dollars for investors, and ivermectin can’t do that, the U.S. Government and other governments that represent their billionaires instead of their public, are blocking approval of ivermectin for treating covid-19, even if ivermectin is far safer, and might be even more effective against covid-19, than either of those new drugs would be. That’s why America’s FDA warns “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19”, and says “There’s a lot of misinformation around” ivermectin, as a treatment-option on covid-19 (yes, and some of this “misinformation” is coming from themselves).

According to GoodRx’s “Paxlovid vs. Molnupiravir for COVID-19”, “Studies suggest that Paxlovid can lower the risk of severe COVID-19 for high-risk people by almost 90%. Studies suggest Molnupiravir can lower this risk by about 30% [see p. 16 there].” If those expectations become borne out, then Paxlovid will probably be lots more effective against covid-19 than even ivermectin is. However, if Paxlovid will be priced so high as to be unaffordable in most countries, then the delays in approving ivermectin will probably ultimately end in many countries; and, at that point, all of the millions of people who could have been saved by ivermectin from dying from covid-19 would then have been viciously simply wasted, killed, by the governments that are (as is so obvious in this case) placing investors’ interests above the public’s interests. And maybe some people will notice this, even if the ‘news’-media likely won’t.

Other promising (but less-studied) non-patentable anti-covid-19 treatments include melatonin, and quercetin.

Whereas a society which is being driven more by profitability than by usefulness is not likely to approve new uses for such a drug as ivermectin (or for non-drug nutrients), the present moment could turn out to be a terrific time to buy Pfizer drug stock. Only people who are looking in their rear-view mirrors will know for sure whether this will turn out to have been the case. But that’s not the major concern of the general public, even if they might happen to vote (in political elections) as-if it were (because those had been the candidates whom the sickness-industries and ‘news’-media had been propagandizing for).

In a ‘democracy’, the candidates of investors win almost all the time — especially investors in sickness, war, ‘news’-media, and extraction-industries such as mining and fossil-fuels. It’s the new type of aristocracy, which rose up and, in America, has (after the 1945 end of WW II) come to replace what had been Britain’s aristocracy in 1776 (America’s aristocrats, instead of Britain’s, ruling here).

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

Continue Reading
Comments

Health & Wellness

The Benefits Of Feeding Your Baby Organic Formula

Published

on

There are many benefits that come from feeding your baby formula milk, not to mention that it is much easier and allows for mothers to be more flexible with their schedule. There is no need for mom to worry about what she is and is not putting in her body and not breastfeeding means that dad can share the feeding duty as well.

However, when it comes to using formula milk, the last thing any parent wants is to be feeding their beloved child with one that contains lots of nasty and / or potentially harmful chemicals that impact on both their growth and their overall general health /wellbeing.

Organic baby formula is the perfect choice then in order to ensure that your baby gets everything that they need to grow up and develop into a happy and healthy child. There are many brands nowadays that produce organic baby formula milk and you can buy it online from MyOrganicCompany; learn more about the company and its products by clicking the link.

There are many different benefits to feeding your baby organic formula milk with some of the most significant ones listed below for you to read in detail.

It does not contain any synthetic ingredients

As opposed to conventional baby formula milk, the organic stuff is free from any ingredients that are synthetic. Synthetic ingredients should not be going anywhere near the insides of a delicate newborn baby. In addition to this, none organic baby formulas typically contain artificial sweeteners that can seriously damage a young child’s health.

When consumed regularly, many babies build up an intolerance to the synthetic and artificial ingredients found in conventional baby formula. Over time, they may experience certain gastrointestinal health issues as a result. This includes things like constipation and / or diarrhea. By feeding your baby a formula milk that is free of synthetic ingredients, you do not have to worry about it happening to them.

It contains lots of nutrients

While a formula milk tasting nice can encourage a baby to feed, the main goal here is to get all of the required nutrients and minerals into them so that they can grow into a strong and healthy child. With organic baby formula, being dense in nutrients is the main priority and so typically it is jam packed full of the correct blend of vitamins, such as Vitamin E, that are necessary for the healthy functioning of the red blood cells, immune system, and organs of your baby. The great thing about Vitamin E is that it is also an antioxidant and so it works to protect your child’s body from being attacked by free radicals.

This is why you should feed your baby organic formula milk rather than the none organic stuff. The most nutrient rich organic baby formulas are in fact those from European countries as they pay extra close attention to what good stuff goes into the formula milk.

It is advantageous to mental development

Organic baby formula milk is also much better for the mental development of your baby. As well as having way more nutrients, this type of formula milk also contains the perfect amount of polyunsaturated fatty acids, including Omega 3 fatty acids. These nutrients are particularly beneficial to your baby’s health as they help significantly in mental development (as well as physical development).

Mental issues, such as depression and anxiety, are often things that affect people for the whole of their life and so it is, of course advisable to dry and avoid these things from happening in the very first place. Getting a good amount of both Omega 3 fatty acids and all other types of polyunsaturated fatty acids is therefore essential for preventing mental development issues from occurring.

Getting these nutrients can also go some way to making your child more communicative and more intelligent. Additionally, they can prevent certain behavioral issues from arising also. Finally, if your baby has lots of these types of nutrients in them, it makes them more protected from conditions, such as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and even cerebral palsy.

It does not contain any GMOs

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are in a large proportion of the foods that we eat nowadays. These organisms are not good for adults to consume and so are even worse for developing babies to feed on. It has been estimated that in the United States, almost as much as 75 percent of all food items available in grocery stores have some amount of GMO ingredients in them. By using organic baby formula milk, you can ensure that your little bundle of joy is not consuming any of these harmful GMOs or any synthetic ingredients at all.

When it comes to what we put into our bodies and that of our offspring, natural is always the best option to go with. Nowaday cows are constantly being pumped full of various different pesticides, antibiotics, and so much more and this will eventually end up coming out in the milk they produce. If you feed this milk to your baby then no doubt they will be consuming some of these harmful chemicals.

Rather than having this worry, it is good to know that the organic baby formula milk that you are bringing your child up on is free from all of these harmful things, whilst at the same time being full of all of the good stuff that they need to thrive.

It comes with lots of choice

It may be the case that your baby has specific dietary requirements that need to be met in order for them to get all of the nutrients and goodness that they need. They may even be suffering from certain health conditions, such as constipation and / or gas and organic baby formula milk can help to alleviate some of the symptoms associated with these things.

There also exist a wide range of organic formulas to treat common infant / childhood allergies.

Continue Reading

Health & Wellness

Health Leaders Stress Need for Coordinated Global Response to Tackle Pandemics

Published

on

Improved global coordination and regional capacity building will help ensure the world is better prepared for the next pandemic, said leading health experts at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2022.

“We must not lose this moment of potential transformative change in building preparedness,” said Helen E. Clark, Board Chair, Partnership for Maternal, Newborn & Child Health, World Health Organization (WHO). “Unfortunately, political resolve to solve COVID is beginning to fade.”

Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda, pointed out that the COVID-19 pandemic is still raging in many countries. “To date, the African continent has fully vaccinated just 18% of its adult population.” This is mostly due to the lack of virus testing and vaccine administration capacity, he said.

“Investing in health systems and regional bodies like Africa CDC and African Medicines Agency must be a key priority. We have to act in the full expectation that there will be another pandemic.”

Bill Gates, Co-Chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, said it was critical to identify and isolate viral outbreaks early. “Infectious disease is an exponential phenomenon and less than 2% of overall deaths occur in the first 100 days.”

“Unfortunately, much of the world’s pandemic risk resides in countries which don’t have the capacity to respond quickly and effectively,” he said. “You have to have global capacity if you are serious about pandemics.”

Peter Sands, Executive Director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, argued for the need for “multi-pathogen infrastructure and capacity”. That is, to ensure that broad public health surveillance and infrastructure are available across the infectious disease spectrum.

“We need to finish the job – and we can do that by investing intelligently in infrastructure like lab networks, community health workers, supply chains and simultaneously help countries defeat HIV, TB and malaria as well as make them safer against future pathogens,” he said.

Francis deSouza, President and CEO of Illumina, predicted that the pandemic will launch the world into what he describes as the “Era of Biology” in which human health, longevity and biology will underpin the 21st century.

“The amount of breakthrough innovations that have occurred during the pandemic period is unprecedented,” he said. On the sequencing front, for example, the price has dropped 99% over the past few years. This has enabled us to deploy sequencing around the world to over 190 countries”.

He added: “However, we are only as strong as the weakest among us, hence we need to build a global infrastructure and have a coordinated global response to the next outbreak.”

Continue Reading

Health & Wellness

New Accord to Improve Health and Vaccine Equity for 1.2 Billion People in Lower-Income Countries

Published

on

A groundbreaking initiative launched today at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos 2022 aims to greatly reduce the health inequities that exist between many lower-income countries and the rest of the world.

An Accord for a Healthier World is led by Pfizer. The pharmaceutical company will offer all its patent-protected medicines and vaccines, including the COVID jab, that are available in the United States and the European Union on a not-for-profit basis to 1.2 billion people in 45 lower-income countries.

“As we learned in the global COVID-19 vaccine rollout, supply is only the first step to helping patients. We will work closely with global health leaders to make improvements in diagnosis, education, infrastructure, storage and more. Only when all the obstacles are overcome can we end healthcare inequities and deliver for all patients,” said Albert Bourla, Chairman and CEO of Pfizer.

Pfizer will work with healthcare officials in Rwanda, Ghana, Malawi, Senegal and Uganda to identify early insights and opportunities to ensure all medicines and vaccines can reach those in need. This will include expertise to support diagnosis, healthcare professional education and training along with supply chain management and other infrastructure enhancements. Learnings from these five countries will be applied to support a rollout to 40 more countries.

“This is how all global problems should be tackled,” said Lazarus Chakwera, President of Malawi. “The great thing about this accord is that it helps low-income countries without violating their dignity and agency as people, for it is a true partnership that involves both Pfizer and countries like Malawi sharing the burden of costs and tasks in the production and delivery of supplies that will save millions of lives.”

The collaboration seeks to identify quick and efficient regulatory pathways and procurement processes to reduce the longer amount of time it can take to make new medicines and vaccines available in these countries. Pfizer has committed to provide 23 medicines and vaccines that treat infectious diseases, certain cancers and rare and inflammatory diseases. It also plans to add future medicines and vaccines on a not-for-profit basis.

The accord, with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is advancing work on the development of vaccine candidates for the prevention of Group B Streptococcus, a leading cause of stillbirth and newborn mortality in low-income countries. They are also discussing opportunities to support respiratory syncytial virus vaccine development, another maternal vaccine.

“Everyone, no matter where they live, should have the same access to innovative, life-saving drugs and vaccines,” said Bill Gates, Co-Chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. “[The accord] could help millions more people in low-income countries get the tools they need to live a healthy life. Pfizer is setting an example for other companies to follow.”

Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda, described the accord as an important step towards sustainable health security for countries at every income level. “Rapid and affordable access to the most advanced medicines and vaccines is the cornerstone of global health equity,” he said.

President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo of Ghana, said true health equity needs strong cooperation between the public and private sectors. “We must continue to strive for quality healthcare for all people to live longer, stronger and healthier lives,” he said.

Macky Sall, President of Senegal, said the accord works towards a better world. “Senegal proudly supports the launch of An Accord for a Healthier World to improve health equity and outcomes for the people of our country and across the world,” he said.

Yoweri Museveni, President of Uganda, said it is important that partners find new ways to address challenges in access to medicines. “It is the time to close the health equity gap,” he said.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending