You know this argument on here is all so sad. Strawmen like miracle cures are bandied around. Unfortunately David ignores or simply is unaware that the evidence I link to are published in peer reviewed publications. The lack of intellectual curiosity displayed on here is astounding.
Nuance.! No we cant have that. Probably right since it is a footy fan forum. I provide links to a range of trials which of course are not read. My links are to positive trials, equivocal trials and negative trials. People cherry pick evidence and ignore the counter evidence.
So for the avoidance of doubt let me state my position clearly here. My take so to speak so that I am not misrepresented or mis-categorised. Forgive the length.
Covid scared the crap out of everyone, rightly so, and everyone scrambled around to come to grips with it. Inevitably mistakes are made and that is understandable when you are dealing with something novel. The public health response in most western countries was, as we have no treatment we need to take the preventative measures of hygiene, distancing and masking ( although again here there was early misdirection and deception by some authorities on the efficacy of masks). The imperative was to stop the transmissibility so the public health policy as enunciated by WHO was Test , trace and isolate. It was a given that there was no treatment. People who got covid were told to go home and isolate and if they got really sick to go into hospital. On the assumption that there is no effective treatment this makes sense. However many people died very sad and lonely deaths separated from their loved ones.
Some physicians had a different philosophy. They believed that they owed it to their patients to do everything they could to help the patient.
So they looked at all options including repurposing old drugs. And they made some progress. One of the FLCCC physicians is Umberto Meduri an expert in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) which was the main killer in Covid patients. Meduri was the first to describe the concepts of dysregulated systemic and pulmonary inflammation in ARDS and the cellular mechanisms responsible for regulation. He is the leading expert worldwide on the use of glucocorticoid steroids in ARDS and pneumonia . (One of Poshy’s crackpots)
Anyway he and some others quickly discovered that the pneumonia that presents with Covid was not viral as the virus passes its load quickly but an organising pneumonia they could treat more conventionally and started using steroids early in the pandemic and urged regulators to adopt it in their protocols. This was resisted (with the usual calls that it was untested) until a RCT proved Meduri was right and it became part of the protocol in September 2020.
Doctors tried all sorts of therapies, some helped some didn’t. The Monash research in April 2020 was a game changer when it showed Ivermectin could reduce the viral load of Covid by close to 90% in 24 hours and basically kill it with 48. The issue of course with in vitro studies is whether you can get effective doses in humans that are not toxic. From that time here was a buzz around it and there was no censorship. A lot of research happened. There were trials that suggested the concentration in tissues was higher than in serum which might indicate you could get an effective dose for humans. Frontline doctors all over the world without a vaccine started trialling Ivermectin on its own or in conjunction with other treatments. There was no co-ordinated plan (or conspiracy). It was simply emergency doctors trying to save their patients lives or improve outcomes.
There were many expert and eminent physicians and scientists amongst this group but they weren’t government authorities or large pharmaceutical companies so the trials were smaller. Some had flaws and many as most trials have weaknesses. Nevertheless they were remarkably consistent from the Icon study in Florida to Brazil, Argentina, Bangladesh and India. Bill Gates had put funding via Unitaid into exploring a long lasting injectable version of Ivermectin (which would be patentable of course) So for the most part of 2020 Ivermectin was not persona non grata.
My opinion is that when some of the prophylactic studies started coming out showing really weird results like the Carvallo study were 0 out of 788 health care workers were infected when they took Ivermectin as opposed to 58% in the control group the pendulum started to change. Previously it was seen by regulators and pharmaceutical companies as a therapeutic which they might be able to improve and monetise but it now possibly challenged the vaccines which were in development. Remember the messaging was hold on, isolate, lockdowns until we get a vaccine and when we get enough jabs in arms Covid goes away. There were a lot of sunk costs in this strategy ( and it was a very acceptable and understandable strategy)
The Ivermectin lobby was able to change the NIH from a negative position on Ivermectin to a more neutral position ie not enough evidence to argue for or against Ivermectin in February of 2021. They were also hoping to get the WHO to change its position. They presented their evidence to WHO who came out with a negative assessment in March 2021. In their assessment WHO did not even acknowledge the prophylactic studies. They did not seek to argue against them or examine them, they simply did not exist.
At this point I just want to give some background on the WHO’s funding which you can verify by simply going to their home page. First the WHO is funded by assessable contributions which are basically the assessed fees each member state pays. These are less than 20% of their budget. The balance comes from Voluntary contributions. These contributions can be made by member states or private bodies. Now voluntary contributions are further classified into ‘core’ voluntary contributions which the WHO has full discretion in how it uses. The balance of voluntary contributions are tied to the wishes and imperatives of the donor. Core contributions account for 3.9% of all voluntary contributions which means that WHO is directed on how and where and when it spends its money on about 80% of its budget. The biggest voluntary contributor is Bill Gates who through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI provide around $800 US million over the two year budget cycle. Now lets assume that both WHO and Bill Gates are absolutely well intentioned and believe passionately in their cause, if the WHO has sunk costs of about $770 million from Gates directed towards vaccines there is no incentive to look at other prophylactics, It just doesn’t make sense. You would direct the money you do control (lets say 30 million from Gates) to other health priorities around the globe. So when I talk about an organisation being conflicted through funding this is what I mean. Lets say for example all of WHO’s money was untied then if an alternative cheaper prevention strategy is available the WHO might pivot that way and have access to greater sums for other projects. It's hands would not be tied in its decision making.
Anyway my thesis is that for whatever reason WHO and western public health authorities doubled down on the Test , trace and isolate strategy while waiting for a vaccine rather than a test trace isolate and ‘treat’ strategy waiting for a vaccine employed by Uttar Pradesh who are probably the gold standard in this regard. I believe that was a mistake. It just forgot about treatment. Covid is a horrible disease. Evidence keeps emerging of long haul symptoms for people who were unsymptomatic. In the US strokes are increasing 7 fold in people under 50. They are finding brain damage in recovered covid patients with mild covid . The virus is damaging. It’s best not to get it but if you do get it its best to treat it with the best means available as soon as possible.
The vaccines got emergency use approval because on a risk/benefit analysis to fast track and not have extensive safety data of long term effects simply because it was an emergency. My position is that considering Ivermectin is one of the safest drugs available and the level of consistent research coming out about its efficacy in treating covid, on a risk benefit analysis it should have also been granted emergency use authorisation. The longer a virus is out there the greater chance it mutates. the more mitigation measures you have the better.
While we are in lockdown with 35% vaccinated and delta cases surging and Israel with near 70% vaccinated also has a delta surge (as many other countries with high vax rates) Uttar Pradesh has destroyed the Delta curve and is open with covid cases in low double figures per day and who knows how much misery avoided. It’s not about silver bullets or miracle cures. It’s about a comprehensive public health response that just doesn’t solely concentrate on transmission but also tries everything available to help the covid patient fight this horrible disease.
Now the terminal cases on here will make their knee jerk responses to this and spout their hyperbole without ever reading or understanding any of the data. To be fair I start all my dialogues in good faith but I am sometimes disappointed by the lack of good faith (or perhaps grey matter) coming back the other way.
Anyway take care out there in lockdown.
journals.sagepub.com
www.theguardian.com
