India's Ivermectin Blackout

News of India's defeat of the Delta variant should be common knowledge. It is just about as obvious as the nose on one's face. It is so clear when one looks at the graphs that no one can deny it.

Yet, for some reason, we are not allowed to talk about it. Thus, for example, Wikipedia cannot mention the peer-reviewed meta-analyses by Dr. Tess Lawrie or Dr. Pierre Kory published in the American Journal of Therapeutics.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opi...cle_22ffa0d8-dde9-11eb-be75-d7b0b1f2ff67.html

Wikipedia is not allowed to publish the recent meta-analysis on Ivermectin authored by Dr. Andrew Hill. Furthermore, it is not allowed to say anything concerning www.ivmmeta.com showing the 61 studies comprising 23,000 patients which reveal up to a 96% reduction in death [prophylaxis] with Ivermectin....

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opi...cle_e3db8f46-f942-11eb-9eea-77d5e2519364.html

The article goes on to give some COVID data from a couple of Indian states that are using ivermectin vs one that isn't. Also included is some data in a graph comparing the US to India. The data is startling.

I have noted in other posts on the board that ivermectin is not being rejected out of hand by groups such as the WHO, but is not recommended for use due to lack of clinical trials.

Just by looking at world-o-meter we can see that India has had a dramatic drop both in cases and deaths from COVID, so something obviously is going on there. Here's the world-o-meter link:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/india/

So what's going on with this?

 

What is the basis of his statement that Wiki is not being allowed to publish this information? Has some health authority actually stopped that and, if so, how? Typically, anybody can write an entry for any subject. It may get reviewed before being published but not always.

 

He gives a wiki link about wiki talk. If you explore that, your question might be answered. Did you not read the article or only my post?

In any case, I didn't post this to get hung up on wiki. It's the data from India in the states there using ivermectin that I'd like folks to focus on. You can use the info in the article, along with graph there, plus the world-o-meter data to see that India, where the Delta variant originated, is having very good results of late. With the extremely low vaccination rates there, it has to be attributed to something else.

 

From the 2nd link in the OP (actually the one that my OP is based on).

Uttar Pradesh on Ivermectin: Population 240 Million [4.9% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 26

COVID Daily Deaths: 3


The United States off Ivermectin: Population 331 Million [50.5% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 127,108

COVID Daily Deaths: 574

Let us look at other Ivermectin using areas of India with numbers from August 5, 2021, compiled by the JHU CSSE:

Delhi on Ivermectin: Population 31 Million [15% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 61


COVID Daily Deaths: 2

Uttarakhand on Ivermectin: Population 11.4 Million [15% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 24

COVID Daily Deaths: 0

I note that the first set of numbers don't give a date as to when they were grabbed. The other numbers do.

 

No, I didn't read the linked article. I find it easier to remain unbiased if I have a clear understanding of someone's post before I interject other information to form an opinion.

I think it sounds promising and it's my understanding that we are doing some studies with ivermectin as well. I don't know how far along we are in the process though. If there their downturn can be definitively connected to its use, I would be surprised that our AMA and scientists don't add it to treatment regimens for people with serious COVID.

Quite frankly, I'm more concerned about the long COVID problems being reported. Unless a person is young and healthy, most of us in middle-age or seniors have some kind of health issue. I guess we'll know more when the doctors know more.

 

I live in an area that is being overwhelmed by the Delta variant right now. Schools are being closed; hospitals are swamped.

The "young and healthy" are exactly who are being hit with this right now. And yes, some are dying. We just had a 13 year old girl that came home from school last Wednesday sick. Stayed home Thursday and Friday. Went to hospital Friday night with high fever. Treated and sent back home. Saturday she was dead. There are others, too, so the concern is not just older folks or those with health issues. My niece got it. Luckily she is recovering, but she's the first person I personally know that caught COVID. My son just started a new job a month ago. Good thing as his old job had to close the shop due to everyone being infected. This is worse than last winter's peak.

I had posted to you before that I don't think we'll vaccinate our way out of this. We need something else in the toolbox. In the case of ivermectin, it's beginning to look like foot-dragging in getting it approved in the West.

 

I understand your concerns. I have two school age children who don't live with me. I'm terrified for them because their other parent doesn't communicate well so I never get updates or included in decision making. It's hard to feel so helpless.

Where are you in the US?

That's heartbreaking. Since the kids aren't with me I don't really know what's going on in my area relative to younger people. There is an elementary school about a half mile away and the kids WERE in school last year. I haven't seen them this year yet. It could be they haven't officially started. I'm keeping an eye out.

I'm glad your niece recovered and your son has remained safe.

I wouldn't characterize it as foot dragging necessarily. Our regulation process is more tedious and there are more hands in the pie. We also have the benefit of 1st and 2nd rounds of the vaccine whereas India, Brazil and some other areas were not able to procure them or enough for their population. In that sense, it makes sense for them to move forward with other options to get their death and hospitalization rates under some control.

Sometimes when I get frustrated about things like this I remind myself that our system isn't really designed for PREVENTION. We learn more toward being reactionary. A person can't get the police to help WHILE a crime is in progress. Most people don't see their doctor until they don't feel well instead of having regular check-ins to make sure things are still heading in the right direction.

So, we're shouting "Hey, You! All you smart doctors, why isn't this resolved yet!?!?!?!?!?!" while overlooking they are in the thick of it with not only tending to very, very sick patients but keeping updated on everything the researchers and studies are showing. It is hitting them from all directions.

However, as you know, I fault Dr. Fauci for much of what we're seeing relative to personal responsibility and vaccine hesitancy. You can't go on television and lie to people (unless you're Trump, of course - somehow his supporters have selective hearing). Fauci killed his own credibility and it doesn't help that he's constantly changing his recommendations which he attributes to "following the science." Well, he didn't use that science when he directly lied "nobody should be walking around with a mask on" so each time I hear his voice or see his name in print...my brain just tunes it out. I don't trust him because he lied to me. I have no way of knowing if what he says today is another lie and that's a disservice to our communities. I think Trump contributed to the COVID-denial approach although I haven't been able to figure out why anybody takes medical advice from a politician. All of it plays a part and we're the ones stuck in limbo waiting for anything to break this monstrous cycle of mitigation, variant break-out, mitigation, etc..

 

I'm in Mississippi..... on the coast.

It might be a benefit, then again maybe not. We're already looking at boosters and are being told these boosters might be a continual thing. I wonder if these vaccines, which are showing limited durability, might not be leading us towards even more vaccine-resistant variants, much like we see antibiotic resistant bacteria, herbicide resistant weeds and pesticide resistant bugs.

On the subject of boosters, they are being likened to getting a flu shot every year. So, COVID is like the flu when convenient, otherwise it's a novel virus.

Back to ivermectin. This is a well known drug that is already approved for human use, just not for COVID. It seems to me that it's best use is as a preventative rather than a treatment. Most of what I read coming from the West is that It's not effective as a treatment, ignoring its potential value as a preventative. To me, it's a weasel-y logic designed to obfuscate. At some point, the real world evidence should carry weight over lack of double-blind peer-reviewed studies that have not happened and likely never will.

As it is, much of the rest of the world is doing what they perceive works while we put all our eggs in the vaccine basket. If you haven't done so, use the links I provided earlier to see what is going on in India as far as cases and deaths go. Then compare to what is happening here in the US. It really is striking.

 

The medical term is prophylactic.

Here is a study done on Prophylactic Ivermectin in COVID-19 Contacts.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04422561

 

That study is from Egypt. It will not gain mainstream traction. Also, the link seems to be a proposed trial, not one that was completed.

 

No, it probably won't but there are others being conducted and all of them will make a dent. It's just a matter of time until that happens.

 

Here's a more current one (from India)

https://www.cureus.com/articles/648...onavirus-2-infection-among-healthcare-workers

Prophylactic Role of Ivermectin in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection Among Healthcare Workers
Priyamadhaba Behera, Binod K. Patro, Biswa M. Padhy, Prasanta R. Mohapatra, Shakti K. Bal, Pradnya D. Chandanshive, Rashmi R. Mohanty, SR Ravikumar, Arvind Singh, Sudipta R. Singh, Siva Santosh Kumar Pentapati, Jyolsna Nair, Gitanjali Batmanbane

Published: August 05, 2021

Abstract
Introduction
Healthcare workers (HCWs) are vulnerable to getting infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Preventing HCWs from getting infected is a priority to maintain healthcare services. The therapeutic and preventive role of ivermectin in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is being investigated. Based on promising results of in vitro studies of oral ivermectin, this study was conducted with the aim to demonstrate the prophylactic role of oral ivermectin in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Bhubaneswar.

Methods
A prospective cohort study was conducted at AIIMS Bhubaneswar, which has been providing both COVID and non-COVID care since March 2020. All employees and students of the institute who provided written informed consent participated in the study. The uptake of two doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg/dose at a gap of 72 hours) was considered as exposure. The primary outcome of the study was COVID-19 infection in the following month of ivermectin consumption, diagnosed as per Government of India testing criteria (real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR]) guidelines. The log-binomial model was used to estimate adjusted relative risk (ARR), and the Kaplan-Meier failure plot was used to estimate the probability of COVID-19 infection with follow-up time.

Results
Of 3892 employees, 3532 (90.8%) participated in the study. The ivermectin uptake was 62.5% and 5.3% for two doses and single dose, respectively. Participants who took ivermectin prophylaxis had a lower risk of getting symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection (6% vs 15%). HCWs who had taken two doses of oral ivermectin had a significantly lower risk of contracting COVID-19 infection during the following month (ARR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23). Females had a lower risk of contracting COVID-19 than males (ARR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93). The absolute risk reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 9.7%. Only 1.8% of the participants reported adverse events, which were mild and self-limiting.

Conclusion
Two doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg/dose given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduced the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month. Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis has relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine.

 

Heads up... edit your post so you don't get points for copyright infringement. I think you can quote 2-3 sentences and then add a link. You'll have to ask a mod about that.

 

The Official Plandemic Narrative must be controlled, and the only way to do that is by way of strong authoritarian censorship.

Still, the wheels came off the Official Narrative quite some time ago.

 

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93658
Large Ivermectin Study Retracted
— Preprint publisher finds evidence of plagiarism, problems with raw data

 

"The absolute risk reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 9.7%."

9.7% reduction sounds pointless

 

India itself does not seem to be suppressing the news

 

Here is an explanation of why the surge in cases retreated

https://theconversation.com/after-i...pulation-has-been-exposed-to-sars-cov2-165050

 

Did you stop reading at that point? This was right below what you chose to comment on.
•••••••••••••••••

Conclusion
Two doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg/dose given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduced the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month. Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis has relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine.

 

Beyond that I would say 9.7% is better than 0%. At least it's heading in the right direction!

 

Yes and I have analysed that research paper and it is worthless

Let us start with the fact it is NOT an RCT

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

 

Details? I understand it but maybe somebody bumping into this thread might heed it.

 

Sorry don’t have time this morning but red flags are

site it is published on is suspect - poor peer review poor methodology in the paper and poor definition of other impacting factors

 

I'm sure they are all worthless to you. Your own link basically mirrors what the WHO has to say, which is:

The current evidence on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients is inconclusive. Until more data is available, WHO recommends that the drug only be used within clinical trials.

This recommendation, which applies to patients with COVID-19 of any disease severity, is now part of WHO’s guidelines on COVID-19 treatments.

Ivermectin is a broad spectrum anti-parasitic agent, included in WHO essential medicines list for several parasitic diseases. It is used in the treatment of onchocerciasis (river blindness), strongyloidiasis and other diseases caused by soil transmitted helminthiasis. It is also used to treat scabies.

A guideline development group was convened in response to the increased international attention on ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. This group is an independent, international panel of experts, which includes clinical care experts in multiple specialties and also include an ethicist and patient-partners.

The group reviewed pooled data from 16 randomized controlled trials (total enrolled 2407), including both inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19. They determined that the evidence on whether ivermectin reduces mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, need for hospital admission and time to clinical improvement in COVID-19 patients is of “very low certainty,” due to the small sizes and methodological limitations of available trial data, including small number of events.

The panel did not look at the use of ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, which is outside of scope of the current guidelines.

I read the link you posted upthread from the Conversation. It's not at all conclusive IMO. I had posted upthread about particular Indian states and their incidence of cases and vaccination rates. Again ......

Uttar Pradesh on Ivermectin: Population 240 Million [4.9% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 26

COVID Daily Deaths: 3


The United States off Ivermectin: Population 331 Million [50.5% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 127,108

COVID Daily Deaths: 574

Let us look at other Ivermectin using areas of India with numbers from August 5, 2021, compiled by the JHU CSSE:

Delhi on Ivermectin: Population 31 Million [15% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 61


COVID Daily Deaths: 2

Uttarakhand on Ivermectin: Population 11.4 Million [15% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 24

COVID Daily Deaths: 0

I note that the first set of numbers don't give a date as to when they were grabbed. The other numbers do.

The above is not conclusive, either, but is an interesting correlation. Does it make more sense than natural immunity gained from an earlier spike? I don't think either is the end-all, be-all answer, but ivermectin shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. The preventative doses are much smaller than the in vitro therapeutic doses, so safety isn't an issue and the data from several Indian states is interesting.

 

Ivermectin does not stop spread and India is not using it that way, this is fake news