Why Major Ivermectin Clinical Trials Need to be Questioned--Investigated

There were four large randomized, ivermectin trials I have exhaustively analyzed, likely more than any human--TOGETHER from McMaster University in Canada, COVID-OUT in University of Minnesota, ACTIV-6 sponsored by NIH and run by Duke and PRINCIPLE run by Oxford.

Note that my findings are in the context of a clear information war that unfolded during the COVID-19 pandemic against ivermectin. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently lost a lawsuit, as front-line doctors challenged the agency’s unethical, illicit behavior during the pandemic.

In the aggregate, tens of billions of dollars of potential profits were within reach of pharmaceutical companies during the pandemic. A system with biases and importantly, pecuniary interests heavily influence paradigms and strategies for combating pandemics. During the unprecedented federal takeover of medicine during the pandemic, government actors clearly favored branded and expensive drugs over economically accessible generic combinations, as the latter would not drive exorbitant profits. This is the context for which a handful of key ivermectin studies were designed and executed.

After an exhaustive review of these studies, what follows are key points of concern, discrepancies and other issues that I have found, and thus raise substantial doubt about the outcomes announced. While my findings are not published nor peer-reviewed, I invite anyone interested to review and verify for themselves. My findings reveal a disturbing set of patterns that suggest that these clinical trials were designed with failure in mind. But importantly, review and come to your own conclusions.

1. All these clinical trials as if synchronized gave patients within 23% of the same dose. The dose was 42% of the average recommended cumulative dose of the front-line physicians who were arguably the top front-line physicians prescribing the drug off-label during the pandemic. Known as the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, these physicians aligned with providers from Australia and Eastern Europe to Bangladesh and India; from Nigeria and Latin America to Zimbabwe and Peru, forming a community-centric, bottom-up, patient-centric approach to rapid, early treatment often in combination with doxycycline and zinc during the worst pandemic in a century.

The world’s top ivermectin experts, at least during the pandemic, ironically first learned about ivermectin’s use around the world via TrialSite News The FLCCC is of course, not an acknowledged evidentiary reference body, nonetheless the group kept the spirit of the local community physician, seeking what’s right for the patient alive and well during the unprecedented pandemic, with its federally-driven, top-down, truly unorthodox approach to medicine.

The FLCCC physicians were so influential that the ACTIV-6 investigators consulted with them via online communication, but the latter failed to heed their advice. An investigator from one of these studies claimed on Twitter (now X) that the FLCCC said that their dosing was perfectly reasonable. This is not a factual statement, as proven by the FLCCC website and Dr. Pierre Kory’s Twitter page.

The point here is to emphasize the influence of the FLCCC and its ivermectin-based protocols, irrespective of whether its’ recommendations were included by federal authorities or medical bodies during the pandemic—which they were not.

2. All the trials gave ivermectin on an empty stomach when the blood level is 157% higher when the typical dose that they used, 30 mg, is given with a fatty meal. This regimen markedly differed from what the physician experts in the field recommended at the time.

3. TOGETHER, ACTIV-6 and PRINCIPLE all limited the dose by weight for no medical reason. Overweight patients who were at higher risk, had their dose limited the most, which made no sense.

4.All the trials gave ivermectin late, at an average of 4.9 days of symptoms. Paxlovid is usually given in one to two days. What we found is that there was a regular and systematic pattern of not only underdosing the drug but having the drug taken when it was frankly, too late.

5. The NIH-sponsored ACTIV-6 ivermectin trial gave 37% of the FLCCC recommended cumulative dose on an empty stomach and got it to patients at an extremely late six days on average. 75% of the patients would not have been candidates for Paxlovid, meaning the trial looked at from this lens was all but designed to fail. 75% of the patients would not have been candidates for Paxlovid, meaning the study wasn’t enrolled with the right participants.

6. Ivermectin would be declared effective if it showed at least a 95% chance of benefit in the entire 1591 patients or in any of the analyses every 300 patients. Yet as will be shown, when the data demonstrated a positive impact, nothing was done.

7. Despite the undertreatment and late treatment, ivermectin evidenced a 98% chance of benefit, so the investigators changed the primary endpoint from 14 days to 28 days, which is unethical. It showed a 91% chance of benefit, which was not statistically significant. The investigators said that ivermectin could not be recommended. Any normal person would have been happy to take a cheap, safe drug if it had a 91% chance to help them.

8. The investigators never reported any of the interim analyses because that would have revealed significant benefit at 900 patients. Ivermectin was effective for the first 900 patients who had over 90% Delta. It is highly likely that ivermectin would also have shown benefit at 600 patients. The actual data from the trial is needed to prove this. It could be obtained by a subpoena from the House Select Subcommittee on the COVID-19 pandemic or in discovery in targeted litigation.

9.Ivermectin should have been declared effective in the initial ACTIV-6 trial, later called ACTIV-6 400. As suggested above, at certain points the data suggested efficacy.

10. Early intervention with combinations such as ivermectin with doxycycline and zinc could have helped alleviate some of the suffering during the pandemic. I am a retired physician, and it is my opinion that had ivermectin been declared effective as it should have been by December 2021, hundreds of millions to billions of people around the world could have received and benefited from the drug. In the U.S., about 200 million people fell ill to COVID-19 since Dec 2021, and in my opinion, the information war launched against ivermectin by the U.S. FDA and to some extent, NIH caused tremendous unnecessary harm to Americans and others worldwide.

TrialSite chronicled extensively public health initiatives involving the combination of ivermectin, doxycycline and zinc in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh for example, where the battle against Delta was so successful that even the World Health Organization issued a press release to celebrate the turning around of the COVID-19 [Delta] surge during the spring to summer of 2021.

Read “Uttar Pradesh going the last mile to stop COVID-19” by the WHO---they report on the entire public health initiative, only omitting the medicines used in the local home medical kit---which of course included ivermectin. See the link.

Let's do a proper comparison. In my opinion, a large, randomized trial of ivermectin at an appropriate dose versus Paxlovid or molnupiravir in patients with COVID-19 for five days or less would settle the issue once and for all. A recent study revealed Paxlovid isn’t even effective against placebo in healthy people, and molnupiravir is avoided by most doctors now.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/why-major-ivermectin-clinical-trials-need-to-be-questioned-investigated-2d031e89

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

AstraZeneca Covid vaccine withdrawn over side effects but ‘fear more deadly’

I have doubts about whether ANY of the Covid vaccines was of net benefit but if we accept that AstraZeneca was of net benefit, the observations below are reasonable

A leading infectious diseases physician says overblown fears about the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine probably caused more deaths than the vaccine’s rare ­adverse side effects.

The response comes as the vaccine was withdrawn globally after the manufacturer admitted it can cause rare blood clots.

The Anglo-Swedish pharmaceutical producer withdrew the vaccine globally on Tuesday.

It comes after Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Authority discontinued use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in April last year.

On April 30 this year, AstraZeneca conceded the vaccine, sold under the name Vaxzevria, can cause fatal blood clots.

The admission came through court documents in a British class action lawsuit that sought £100m ($190m) for almost 50 victims of AstraZeneca vaccine side effects.

The application to withdraw the vaccine was made on March 5 and came into effect on May 7.

“I can see why it’s recalled because it does have probably a death rate of about 1 in 100,000 people from this clotting disorder,” the ANU’s Professor Peter Collignon said.

“But having said that, there are deaths associated with every drug and every vaccine we have – even aspirin, if you take it regularly, about 1 in 100,000 people per year die from that.

“One of the things that this side effect induced back in 2021, in my view, was the fear and the publicity about the adverse effect caused more deaths than the actual vaccine did. If you were an 80-year-old and got Covid, you had a 1 in 10 chance of dying. Yet, if you had this vaccine, you had a 1 in 100,000 chance of dying from the effect of a complication. Yet, there were a lot of people, because we had zero Covid at the time, who said, ‘oh no, I’ll wait because the Pfizer vaccine’s better’.”

The TGA provisionally approved the AstraZeneca vaccine for use for people aged 18 and over as a primary course from February 15, 2021 and as a booster from February 8, 2022. In the same period, Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were recommended over the AstraZeneca vaccine.

In June 2021, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation recommended that Australians over the age of 60 avoid taking Vaxzevria.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/science/fear-more-deadly-than-astrazenecas-vaxzevria-covid-vaccine/news-story/d01da75123d8f3ec0ffc2902e1398134

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

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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