Not One but TWO Effective, Safe and Inexpensive Cures for Covid Exist [VIDEO]

Pam Barker | Director of TLB Europe Reloaded Project

Ivermectin has not received the publicity of Hydroxychloroquine. And we’re left to wonder why. Is it a case of there being in fact too many real-world options available to treat covid than just the vaccine? Is the narrative easier to frame if it’s just presented as X vs. Y – vaccine vs. HCQ? We’re not sure, but overlooking ivermectin, an obviously very effective drug treatment used around the world, is curious. We’re using Paul Craig Roberts’ recent piece in which he republishes Dr. Marc Wathelet’s letter to the Belgian health authorities. That includes a link to a recent Egyptian study showing the superior efficacy of ivermectin over HCQ.

Second, a report from French site Le Libre Penseur making essentially the same point about rendering ivermectin invisible. It includes review of research, especially coming out of Brazil where ivermectin was already being used, as well as the effective research of Dr. Pierre Kory, an American critical care physician.

We bumped into this short piece from Indian Express from August 2020 regarding the replacement of HCQ with ivermectin in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh for the treatment of covid. See UP: New Protocol Ivermectin to Replace HCQ in Treatment of Covid Patients.

A major researcher in this area turns out to be Dr. Pierre Kory, who discusses this strange phenomenon of silence about ivermectin, as well as the refinement of protocols using this drug successfully. See Dr. Pierre Kory Talks Covid-19, Ivermectin and the FLCCC | Podcast E43. Here’s his youtube commentary for as long as it stays up:

Interestingly, he discusses HCQ and why, for him at least, it hasn’t shown itself to be as effective  as ivermectin. If this is so, we wonder if allowing HCQ to be the vaccine-alternative has DELIBERATELY quoshed publicity for a drug that is known to be considerably better.

********

Effective treatment and prevention is available for COVID-19

Two Effective, Safe, and Inexpensive Cures for Covid Exist

I have published previous letters from the virologist Marc Wathelet to the Belgian health authorities about Covid.  In this one he points out that effective threatment and prevention are available, that awaiting a vaccine simply results in more deaths, and that the vaccine itself is problematic.

Effective treatment and prevention is available for COVID-19.

Dear Minister of Health,

In these difficult times, I would like to draw your attention to a treatment that could make a huge difference to the health of people who find themselves infected with the new coronavirus in Belgium.

It is ivermectin, a well-known and well-understood drug discovered in 1975 that is on the WHO essential drugs list. It is used in humans to treat infections with many types of parasites and it also has antiviral activity. This is one of the drugs that warranted clinical trials to test its effectiveness against COVID-19, as I suggested last April https://tinyurl.com/yyzyoe7n, but we did nothing.

An unpublished study (preprint) from Egypt compares the effects of ivermectin to those of hydroxychloroquine. The results are spectacular! https://www.trialsitenews.com/benha-university-breakthrough-randomized-controlled-trial-shows-ivermectin-effective-for-treating-covid-19-as-prophylaxis/ 

The standard treatment for COVID in several African countries, including Egypt, is the combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and Zinc. This study compares this treatment with the combination of ivermectin, azithromycin and Zinc. It has four arms of 100 individuals each, where moderate and severe forms of the disease are treated with either of these two drug combinations.

They measure the percentage improvement in symptoms and decrease in viral load, and the number of deaths (which comes down to a percentage since there are 100 patients per arm).

Here is the summary of the results obtained:

Hydroxychloroquine, moderate forms:                       74% improvement, 4 deaths

Ivermectin, moderate forms:                                       99% improvement, 0 deaths

Hydroxychloroquine, severe forms:                           50% improvement, 20 deaths

Ivermectin, severe forms:                                            94% improvement, 2 deaths

With such clear results, now is the time to show vision!

Please also see this article that reviews clinical trials with this molecule around the world https://tinyurl.com/yyqbq8gw.

I am counting on the experts who advise you to confirm that the benefit / risk ratio of this therapeutic approach is largely in favor of its use for severe forms of the disease. It is essential that this treatment becomes immediately available in hospitals to treat severe forms.

It is not a question of verifying this study with new studies before making this decision, while we have an average of almost 200 daily deaths due to COVID in Belgium over the last week, and therefore an excess mortality ~ 65% at this moment. We don’t have time!

Its use in moderate forms of the disease requires a confirmatory study, but this drug should be available for prescription by front-line doctors when medical supervision can be ensured to monitor for potential side effects.

This medicine is only available in our country in its topical formulation, as a cream (Soolantra®). It is possible to obtain the necessary formulation, 3 or 6 mg tablets for oral administration from neighboring countries, but our pharmacies are not supplied.

I therefore recommend that you

1) authorize the oral form of ivermectin in our country;

2) ensure the supply of our pharmacies with this essential drug;

3) ensure the transmission of this information to hospitals; and

4) organize the necessary trials to confirm or deny its usefulness on the front line for moderate disease.

We must have the lucidity to recognize that this is a “game-changer” and that a very rapid response from the government would limit the harmful consequences of the mismanagement of the health crisis from which our country has suffered until now.

I remind you that none of the vaccines in development are designed to induce mucosal immunity, the only kind of vaccine that is potentially sterilizing, and therefore likely to have an effect on the transmission of the virus.

The criteria for evaluating these candidate vaccines are limited to a reduction in symptoms but not a reduction in deaths or an effect on virus transmission: the bar is set very low to ensure their approval. The reduction of symptoms, if achieved without serious side effects, is certainly desirable, but it is very likely to promote the transmission of the virus because it is the appearance of symptoms that prompts the change in individual behavior that can limit transmission.

In addition, studies are accumulating which indicate that a vitamin D deficiency favors the development of the severe form of the disease: it is a question of setting up a large information campaign to recommend that everyone supplement their diet with vitamin D.

It is a very simple and inexpensive measure, which can have a very substantial effect on the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19. Remember that the consequences of sequelae associated with COVID-19 are significant not only for the individuals concerned and their families, but also for our health care budget. What are we waiting for to take this simple step? Have we forgotten that it’s easier to prevent disease than to treat it?

Please act, Minister of Health, act today: do not feed the narrative that the government does not have the interests of its people at heart, only the wishes of the lobbies!

I remain at your disposal,

Marc Wathelet, Doctor of Sciences

Source

********

The scandalous indifference to the proven efficacy of ivermectin

LE LIBRE PENSEUR

Already hydroxychloroquine has been completely demonized as part of the fight against the coronavirus epidemic, so what about ivermectin, which seems to have good results and yet nobody talks about it!

****

Analysis and graphics (RStudio software) by the Collectif citoyen for FranceSoir.

In treatments for Covid-19, much has been heard about azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and remdesivir, a treatment that the WHO had added before it was finally discarded. The vaccine has also had its share of attention. However, for a vaccine to be approved by health authorities, there must be no alternative treatment available. Although there are still detractors to this option, many studies and clinicians favour AZT+HCQ triple therapy with zinc: for example, in Brazil, Dr. Wolkoff, who in his group of 4,000 doctors, gives them a free choice among various treatments. So there has been little room for other molecules and yet there is.

In recent weeks, several randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) have concluded that ivermectin is effective as a treatment for Covid-19. This molecule, a broad-spectrum antiparasitic, used in particular to fight scabies, saves lives at any stage of the disease and appears to be more effective in prophylaxis or early treatment.

To date, here is a presentation in the form of a “meta-analysis” of all* known studies on hospitalized patients. Treatment with ivermectin in hospital reduces the risk of mortality by a factor of 3, or even a factor of 6 if we limit ourselves to randomized, less biased studies.

Source: Dr. Pierre Kory et al: https://osf.io/wx3zn/

*The only study not included in this “meta-analysis” is the French observational study by Bernigaud (HPAE patients treated for scabies), because the absence of death does not allow the calculation of an Odds Ratio. However, we have included it in the meta-analysis on prophylaxis.

There is an indication bias that could explain why the treatment appears less effective in observational studies compared to randomized studies (risk reduction by “only” 2 instead of 6). Indeed, ivermectin is often prescribed to the most at-risk or severe patients. Another possible explanation is that some RCTs (Randomized Controlled Trials) may be of poor quality

But despite the limitations of some of these studies, the results are extremely robust. Indeed, by performing a sensitivity analysis by removing any pair of studies, the result obtained remains significant in all cases. Concretely, even removing the 2 most favorable studies for ivermectin, the results still remain very significant:

Source: Inspired by Kory et al: https://osf.io/wx3zn/

In the worst case, even without taking into account the 2 most favorable studies, ivermectin would reduce mortality by 25%. Therefore, it is immoral and unethical not to allow access to this treatment to COVID patients. The French Ministry of Health and the ANSM have been approached several times for authorization of this treatment but have not responded. Their silence is incomprehensible in the face of this mountain of evidence.

Moreover, scientific data show that ivermectin is more effective in early treatment and especially in prophylaxis.

The following meta-analysis includes all the studies in prophylaxis (post and pre-exposure) and shows a reduction in the risk of infection of about 90%; this efficacy is comparable to vaccines. (ER: We need to note that this efficacy is comparable to WHAT IS BEING CLAIMED ABOUT VACCINES. To our knowledge, there is little real data forthcoming on this topic of what it is the vaccine(s) actually do.)

Source: Kory et al (updated): https://osf.io/wx3zn/

Animal studies confirm the efficacy and describe the mechanisms of action of ivermectin

For example, the preprint study by Dias de Melo (from the Pasteur Institute) shows that the positive effect of ivermectin on the symptoms of COVID is not due to the antiviral effect (not significant) but mainly to its immunomodulatory effect by lowering the IL6/IL10 ratio in the lungs. Another example is the study in murids from Arévalo (Institut Pasteur of Montevideo) showing a significant effect on viral load and liver protection in early treatment.

These studies would lead to the conclusion that there is an urgent need to generalize this treatment, and to initiate it on an outpatient basis, especially for those most at risk

The risk/benefit balance is clearly in favor of ivermectin. Ivermectin has been known since 1975. It has been used more than 3.5 billion times worldwide (against scabies, river blindness and malaria) with rare, controlled and well-known side effects. According to the WHO, for onchocerciasis, ivermectin is safe and can be used on a large scale.

Many Brazilian doctors have used ivermectin since the beginning of the pandemic, such as Prof. Suassuna, a renowned infectious disease specialist, and Dr. Fornaro, who have successfully treated hundreds of patients with this drug. Dr. Fornaro tells us:

“I have treated more than 50 patients without complications, and none of them had to go to hospital. Patients, especially those with co-morbidities, who miss the early treatment window, are more likely to develop severe forms of covid.”

In a recently published study entitled “Review of New Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19”, Dr. Pierre Kory (pictured) writes:

“In March 2020, an expert group called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) was created and led by Professor Paul E. Marik, to continuously review rapidly emerging basic, translational and clinical scientific evidence to better understand and develop a treatment protocol for COVID-19. At the same time, many centers and groups have used a multitude of new therapeutic agents empirically and in clinical trials, often at inappropriate times during this now well-described multi-phase disease. Either because of these frequent trial design failures, or because of their inadequate antiviral or anti-inflammatory properties, almost all of the agents tested have been shown to be ineffective in the treatment of COVID-19. Based on a recent series of negative published therapeutic study results, in particular the SOLIDARITY trial, they now virtually eliminate any role in the treatment of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, interferon, convalescent plasma, tocilizumab and monoclonal antibodies.”

Despite the growing list of failed therapies in COVID-19, the CCFL has recently discovered that ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug, has very potent real-world antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties against SARS-CoV-2 and COVID- 19. This conclusion is based on the increasing number of study results reporting efficacy, not only in in vitro and animal models, but also in numerous randomized controlled clinical trials and observational studies. Repeatedly, large improvements in clinical outcomes have now been recorded when ivermectin is used not only as a prophylactic agent, but also in mild, moderate and even severe disease states. The following review of the existing evidence for ivermectin is based on “emerging” data in that, although compelling, only a minority of studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals, with the majority of results compiled from manuscripts uploaded to pre-print drug servers or published on Clinicaltrials.gov.

Dr. Pierre Kory reports that he has treated 5 outpatients to date, all recovered within 36-48 hours. The one who had lost his taste/odor, recovered his odor/taste within 72 hours. He has given ivermectin prophylaxis to a family of 5 of one of these patients. None of them tested positive, none of them had any symptoms with ivermectin, although they were exposed. Two others consulted him after using our scientific article to convince their doctors to prescribe. One reported feeling better within 24 hours and the other within 48 hours. A cousin who grew up in Paris and his wife, who live in Colombia, obtained ivermectin, which was already part of a local treatment protocol where he lives – both reported feeling better within 48 hours. Dr. Kory used it on 10 very sick patients in intensive care – one young man on moderate to high oxygen was treated on admission to hospital or intensive care and was home within 4 days of being discharged from oxygen which he found remarkable. The other 9 were already in intensive care and/or had very sick lungs at the time of treatment. None of them have made any progress, but their recoveries have been, albeit in the right direction, very slow and small steps so far – none have died. The key, as with everything, is early treatment, according to Dr. Kory.

Sources :

Cet article s’est inspiré de la revue systématique de Kory, Marik et coll disponible en preprint : https://osf.io/wx3zn/

Études randomisées contrôlées

Elgazzar : https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v1

Hashim : https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.26.20219345v1

Mahmud :  https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04523831

Niaee : https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-109670/v1

Shouman : https://clinicaltrials.gov/ProvidedDocs/61/NCT04422561/Prot_SAP_000.pdf

Etudes observationnelles

Gorial : https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.07.20145979v1

Khan : https://www.archbronconeumol.org/en-ivermectin-treatment-may-improve-pro…

Rajter : https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)34898-4/fulltext

Behera : https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.29.20222661v1

Carvallo : https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pdf

Bernigaud : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S015196382030627X?via%…

Études sur les animaux 

Dias de Melo (Institut Pasteur) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.21.392639v1

Arévalo https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.02.363242v1

************

Source

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*