https://www.theblaze.com/news/ivermectin-covid-treatment-new-study

88k studied
Peer reviewed
92% death reduction using ivermectin

We'll see how long this one stays up. Talking about the study, not the post. His last one was dropped fairly quick and I'm seeing the same sort of questions beginning to surface on this one.

Blue star OP

Why did they exclude a majority of ivermectin users? I couldn't find an explanation. Why wouldn't they show this data? They show irregular usage and no usage, but not this group.

Quote:

---

Results
There were 159,560 participants aged 18 years and above not infected with COVID-19 prior to July 7, 2020, from the city of Itaja, Brazil. Among them, 45,716 (28.7%) did not use ivermectin and 113,844 (71.3%) used ivermectin prophylactically. Of the 113,844 participants, 8,325 (7.3%) subjects used ivermectin regularly and 33,971 (29.8%) used ivermectin irregularly. In total, 88,012 subjects were included in the present analysis. The 71,548 (62.8%) remaining participants used intermediate doses between 60 mg and 180 mg and were not included in this analysis.

---

https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching/correction/126

This is for an earlier article, but in regards to same study and same authors.

Quote:

---

Correction
It has come to the attention of the journal that several authors failed to disclose all relevant conflicts of interest when submitting this article. As a result, Cureus is issuing the following erratum and updating the relevant conflict of interest disclosures to ensure these conflicts of interest are properly described as recommended by the ICMJ:

Lucy Kerr: Paid consultant for both Vitamedic, an ivermectin manufacturer, and Mdicos Pela Vida (MPV), an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Flavio A. Cadegiani: Paid consultant ($1,600.00 USD) for Vitamedic, an ivermectin manufacturer. Dr. Cadegiani is a founding member of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Pierre Kory: President and Chief Medical Officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. Dr. Kory reports receiving payments from FLCCC. In February of 2022, Dr. Kory opened a private telehealth fee-based service to evaluate and treat patients with acute COVID, long haul COVID, and post-vaccination syndromes.

Jennifer A. Hibberd: Co-founder of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance and World Council for Health, both of which discourage vaccination and encourage ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Juan J. Chamie-Quintero: Contributor to the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and lists the FLCCC as his employer on his LinkedIn page.

---

Lastly, how much of this was due to treating covid vs improving general health due to treating parasites?

I'm not a doctor, and my last biology course was in high school, so please bear with my questions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8186895/#:~:text=The%20prevalence%20of%20intestinal%20parasitic%20infections%20(protozoa%20and%2For%20helminths,Central%2DWest%20regions%2C%20respectively.

Quote:

---

The prevalence of intestinal parasitic infections (protozoa and/or helminths) in Brazil was 46% (confidence interval: 39-54%), with 99% heterogeneity.
...
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of intestinal parasitic infections is high in Brazil, and anthelmintic drugs should be administered periodically as a prophylactic measure, as recommended by the WHO.

---

Not a surprise that improving baseline health by curing parasitic infection improves COVID outcomes. Not likely to be replicated in countries with low baseline parasitic disease but worth a study.

PerpetualLurker said:

---

Why did they exclude a majority of ivermectin users? I couldn't find an explanation. Why wouldn't they show this data? They show irregular usage and no usage, but not this group.

Quote:

---

Results
There were 159,560 participants aged 18 years and above not infected with COVID-19 prior to July 7, 2020, from the city of Itaja, Brazil. Among them, 45,716 (28.7%) did not use ivermectin and 113,844 (71.3%) used ivermectin prophylactically. Of the 113,844 participants, 8,325 (7.3%) subjects used ivermectin regularly and 33,971 (29.8%) used ivermectin irregularly. In total, 88,012 subjects were included in the present analysis. The 71,548 (62.8%) remaining participants used intermediate doses between 60 mg and 180 mg and were not included in this analysis.

---

---

Then why did the NIH recently add ivermectin as a medicine that is now approved to treat covid?

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/

Quote:

---

Recommendation
The Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in clinical trials ().

---

Its on the list because its being studied in trials, but they recommend against it, currently.

PerpetualLurker said:

---

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/

Quote:

---

Recommendation
The Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in clinical trials ().

---

Its on the list because its being studied in trials, but they recommend against it, currently.

---

but but its on the NIH list, it wouldn't be on that list if it didn't work. many countries used ivermectin as their main treatment drug and it worked amazingly, this information has been out a long time already. Now the Brazilian study on 88k people showing its extremely effective. this isnt a cow paste as the MSM called it, its a legitimate covid treatment med and the NIH is FINALLY recognizing it... the first step in recognizing its usefulness as a covid med has been taken, let the rest of it fall into place..

Im done on this subject, not going to argue something that is now fact..

PerpetualLurker said:

---

https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching/correction/126

This is for an earlier article, but in regards to same study and same authors.

Quote:

---

Correction
It has come to the attention of the journal that several authors failed to disclose all relevant conflicts of interest when submitting this article. As a result, Cureus is issuing the following erratum and updating the relevant conflict of interest disclosures to ensure these conflicts of interest are properly described as recommended by the ICMJ:

Lucy Kerr: Paid consultant for both Vitamedic, an ivermectin manufacturer, and Mdicos Pela Vida (MPV), an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Flavio A. Cadegiani: Paid consultant ($1,600.00 USD) for Vitamedic, an ivermectin manufacturer. Dr. Cadegiani is a founding member of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Pierre Kory: President and Chief Medical Officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. Dr. Kory reports receiving payments from FLCCC. In February of 2022, Dr. Kory opened a private telehealth fee-based service to evaluate and treat patients with acute COVID, long haul COVID, and post-vaccination syndromes.

Jennifer A. Hibberd: Co-founder of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance and World Council for Health, both of which discourage vaccination and encourage ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Juan J. Chamie-Quintero: Contributor to the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and lists the FLCCC as his employer on his LinkedIn page.

---

---

I'd be curious to see Pierre Kory's survival rate throughout the pandemic. I'm willing to bet it is far higher than the national average. If this is the author's way of trying to disparage him, that is laughable. I'm sure the author hasn't done one damn thing to help people.

fullback44 said:

---

PerpetualLurker said:

---

Why did they exclude a majority of ivermectin users? I couldn't find an explanation. Why wouldn't they show this data? They show irregular usage and no usage, but not this group.

Quote:

---

Results
There were 159,560 participants aged 18 years and above not infected with COVID-19 prior to July 7, 2020, from the city of Itaja, Brazil. Among them, 45,716 (28.7%) did not use ivermectin and 113,844 (71.3%) used ivermectin prophylactically. Of the 113,844 participants, 8,325 (7.3%) subjects used ivermectin regularly and 33,971 (29.8%) used ivermectin irregularly. In total, 88,012 subjects were included in the present analysis. The 71,548 (62.8%) remaining participants used intermediate doses between 60 mg and 180 mg and were not included in this analysis.

---

---

Then why did the NIH recently add ivermectin as a medicine that is now approved to treat covid?

---

They didn't. If you actually go to the site and look rather than just trusting a screenshot on twitter, when you click on the ivermectin link it still very clearly says they don't recommend it for treatment of Covid.

Just got sick a heck. Deep cough. Started the FLCCC ivermectin protocol yesterday. No fever today. Cough is a lot better. And no, I'm not dumb enough to get tested. But... tonight, my cough is almost gone. I only feel a little bit sick.

Completely anecdotal, but I felt a lot better about 4 hours taking my first dose of Ivermectin and damn near feel normal after my second.

And then again it all could be the pseudo effect

Hoosegow said:

---

Just got sick a heck. Deep cough. Started the FLCCC ivermectin protocol yesterday. No fever today. Cough is a lot better. And no, I'm not dumb enough to get tested. But... tonight, my cough is almost gone. I only feel a little bit sick.

Completely anecdotal, but I felt a lot better about 4 hours taking my first dose of Ivermectin and damn near feel normal after my second.

And then again it all could be the pseudo effect

---

Awesome! Ivermectin works again.

On the Pfizer payroll = no conflict of interest

Prescribed ivermectin for covid treatment = conflict of interest

Ivermectin and HCQ always worked

Bankrupt FTX Gave $18.2M to Early COVID-19 Researchers Who Cast Doubt on Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine

Quote:

---

Samuel Bankman-Fried's bankrupt and scandal-plagued cryptocurrency empire gave $18.25 million to early COVID-19 researchers whose findings cast doubt on the benefits of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for patients with COVID-19.
The FTX Foundation provided initial funding worth $3.25 million and followed it with another $15 million grant, according to a press release issued May 16.
"The FTX Foundation is excited to commit $15 million to funding additional trial arms in the TOGETHER Trial and its growing global network of sister trials," said Ross Rheingans-Yoo, from the FTX Foundation.
"Our initial $3.25 million grant to expand the trial network's core infrastructure has helped bring the model from Brazil to key sites across the globe, and we look forward to finding further opportunities to support the consortium's growth and help prevent future pandemics," he said.
Together Trial's research included a study that found ivermectin's benefits for patients suffering from COVID-19 were unclear and a study that concluded hydroxychloroquine did not show any benefit in decreasing hospitalizations. Both studies were influential amid debates over the use of conventional, inexpensive treatments as opposed to expensive mRNA injections developed by the large pharmaceutical companies, like Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson.

Both drugs were floated early in the pandemic as potential treatments for those suffering from the virus, but they quickly became politically polarizing when they received support from President Donald Trump and podcaster Joe Rogan. Mainstream physicians and the media raced to discredit the cheap, safe drugs that have been used for decades for a host of other diseases. Both of these studies were led by Dr. Gilmar Reis.

---

.tb_button {padding:1px;cursor:pointer;border-right: 1px solid #8b8b8b;border-left: 1px solid #FFF;border-bottom: 1px solid #fff;}.tb_button.hover {borer:2px outset #def; background-color: #f8f8f8 !important;}.ws_toolbar {z-index:100000} .ws_toolbar .ws_tb_btn {cursor:pointer;border:1px solid #555;padding:3px} .tb_highlight{background-color:yellow} .tb_hide {visibility:hidden} .ws_toolbar img {padding:2px;margin:0px}

Guardian Angel said:

---

Ivermectin and HCQ always worked

Bankrupt FTX Gave $18.2M to Early COVID-19 Researchers Who Cast Doubt on Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine

Quote:

---

Samuel Bankman-Fried's bankrupt and scandal-plagued cryptocurrency empire gave $18.25 million to early COVID-19 researchers whose findings cast doubt on the benefits of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for patients with COVID-19.
The FTX Foundation provided initial funding worth $3.25 million and followed it with another $15 million grant, according to a press release issued May 16.
"The FTX Foundation is excited to commit $15 million to funding additional trial arms in the TOGETHER Trial and its growing global network of sister trials," said Ross Rheingans-Yoo, from the FTX Foundation.
"Our initial $3.25 million grant to expand the trial network's core infrastructure has helped bring the model from Brazil to key sites across the globe, and we look forward to finding further opportunities to support the consortium's growth and help prevent future pandemics," he said.
Together Trial's research included a study that found ivermectin's benefits for patients suffering from COVID-19 were unclear and a study that concluded hydroxychloroquine did not show any benefit in decreasing hospitalizations. Both studies were influential amid debates over the use of conventional, inexpensive treatments as opposed to expensive mRNA injections developed by the large pharmaceutical companies, like Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson.

Both drugs were floated early in the pandemic as potential treatments for those suffering from the virus, but they quickly became politically polarizing when they received support from President Donald Trump and podcaster Joe Rogan. Mainstream physicians and the media raced to discredit the cheap, safe drugs that have been used for decades for a host of other diseases. Both of these studies were led by Dr. Gilmar Reis.

---

.tb_button {padding:1px;cursor:pointer;border-right: 1px solid #8b8b8b;border-left: 1px solid #FFF;border-bottom: 1px solid #fff;}.tb_button.hover {borer:2px outset #def; background-color: #f8f8f8 !important;}.ws_toolbar {z-index:100000} .ws_toolbar .ws_tb_btn {cursor:pointer;border:1px solid #555;padding:3px} .tb_highlight{background-color:yellow} .tb_hide {visibility:hidden} .ws_toolbar img {padding:2px;margin:0px}

---

https://www.uncoverdc.com/2023/02/10/gold-standard-rct-from-gates-funded-company-proves-ivermectin-works-against-covid/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827

Effect of Higher-Dose Ivermectin for 6 Days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19

Quote:

---

Among outpatients with mild or moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a targeted maximum dose of 600 g/kg daily for 6 days, was not shown to improve time to sustained recovery compared with placebo. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in outpatients with COVID-19.

---

RCT with total of about 1200 patients across all 50 states.

A fourth randomized controlled trial of longer duration and higher ivermectin doses show no treatment effect.

two editorials in JAMA 2023 329(11) 897-898 now call into question whether it is ethical to continue the ten clinical trials currently underway, maintaining that equipoise no longer exists to justify continued evaluation of an obviously failed therapeutic (ie, ivermectin) for COVID 19

the reason for posting this is so that those considering ivermectin may understand that proven effective alternatives exist. this stands in stark contrast to ivermectin, whose lack of efficacy is now firmly established

woodlees said:

---

A fourth randomized controlled trial of longer duration and higher ivermectin doses show no treatment effect.

two editorials in JAMA 2023 329(11) 897-898 now call into question whether it is ethical to continue the ten clinical trials currently underway, maintaining that equipoise no longer exists to justify continued evaluation of an obviously failed therapeutic (ie, ivermectin) for COVID 19

the reason for posting this is so that those considering ivermectin may understand that proven effective alternatives exist. this stands in stark contrast to ivermectin, whose lack of efficacy is now firmly established

---

Can you post a link to the study? I'd be interested in the time frame in which it was given and what doses were used. I already had it on hand when I got Covid, so I took my first dose on the day symptoms started. It turned me around within 2 hours of taking it. There is no doubt in my mind that it was the ivermectin that helped.

ETA: I followed the FLCCC protocol exactly, so there were other things I took, but the change in symptoms with ivermectin was very obvious.

01agtx said:

---

woodlees said:

---

A fourth randomized controlled trial of longer duration and higher ivermectin doses show no treatment effect.

two editorials in JAMA 2023 329(11) 897-898 now call into question whether it is ethical to continue the ten clinical trials currently underway, maintaining that equipoise no longer exists to justify continued evaluation of an obviously failed therapeutic (ie, ivermectin) for COVID 19

the reason for posting this is so that those considering ivermectin may understand that proven effective alternatives exist. this stands in stark contrast to ivermectin, whose lack of efficacy is now firmly established

---

Can you post a link to the study? I'd be interested in the time frame in which it was given and what doses were used. I already had it on hand when I got Covid, so I took my first dose on the day symptoms started. It turned me around within 2 hours of taking it. There is no doubt in my mind that it was the ivermectin that helped.

ETA: I followed the FLCCC protocol exactly, so there were other things I took, but the change in symptoms with ivermectin was very obvious.

---

Tons of studies say ivermectin works. Thousands of doctors that actively treated covid patients prescribed ivermectin. Joe Rogan took it and got better within hours (as did you and I). Instead of the media praising the awesome therapeutic regime prescribed to Rogan, they belittled him for taking "horse dewormer".

Peer reviewed ….. published in a medical journal of the very lowest calibre

Never heard of anyone using the terms regular user v irregular user

Extemely low quality study in extremely lowly ranked journal with questionable trial methods

Author is an endocrinologist? Never heard of an endocrinologist doing an infectious diseases clinical trial or being lead author

This has to be by usual and standard criteria amongst the least credible evidence that one could quote

Sorry, the truth has to be told

I am not posting a link to the study

[Then don't comment on the thread and post in a condescending way toward others posting their own information. Those engaged in this thread asked a legitimate question of you based on posts you made on the thread. If you did not want to engage in the discussion in good faith you should have ignored the thread. - Staff]

Thats staff comment is ridiculous. Here is a verified doctor fighting against misinformation and you choose to take the side of disinformation.

Here is a link to why ivermectin is not recommended as a treatment.
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/miscellaneous-drugs/ivermectin/

Quote:

---

Rationale
The Panel's recommendation is primarily informed by adequately powered, randomized trials of ivermectin that reported clinical outcomes. Studies that randomized participants to ivermectin or a matched placebo had the greatest impact on the Panel's recommendation.6-13

Trials have failed to find a clinical benefit from the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 in outpatients. In TOGETHER, an adaptive platform trial conducted in Brazil, there was no apparent difference between the ivermectin and placebo arms for the primary outcome of risk of emergency department visits or hospitalization (14.7% vs. 16.4%).14 In addition, there was no statistically significant difference between the ivermectin and placebo arms in mortality (3.1% vs. 3.5%). In COVID-OUT, a randomized factorial trial, the use of ivermectin when compared with a matched control (5.7% vs. 4.1%) did not reduce occurrences of a composite outcome of emergency department visits, hospitalization, or death.6

The ACTIV-6 trial was an adaptive platform trial conducted in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 in the United States.15,16 Participants were randomized to an ivermectin regimen (either 400 g/kg for 3 days or 600 g/kg for 6 days) or a matching placebo. In the 400 g/kg phase of the study, the median time to sustained recovery was 12 days for the ivermectin arm and 13 days for the placebo arm. In the 600 g/kg phase of the study, the median time to sustained recovery was 11 days for both arms.

I-TECH, an open-label trial conducted in Malaysia, found no difference between the ivermectin and standard of care arms (21.6% vs. 17.3%) for the primary outcome of risk of progression to severe COVID-19.17 The ivermectin arm had a lower risk of mortality than the standard of care arm (1.2% vs. 4.0%) (relative risk 0.31; 95% CI, 0.091.11; P = 0.09), but this difference was not statistically significant.

The study populations in most of the reviewed trials were patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who had a relatively low risk for disease progression, and the number of deaths was low (as expected). In these randomized trials, completely excluding an effect of ivermectin on COVID-19 disease progression is difficult because the trials were not powered to detect differences in secondary outcomes, such as death. However, data from these trials do not provide evidence that the use of ivermectin is effective for the treatment of COVID-19. For this reason, and because other medications now have demonstrated clinical benefit for the treatment of COVID-19, the Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 ().

---

I am not a doctor or even work in the medical field. I am a layman. This is all easily found via google.

Hoosegow said:

---

Just got sick a heck. Deep cough. Started the FLCCC ivermectin protocol yesterday. No fever today. Cough is a lot better. And no, I'm not dumb enough to get tested. But... tonight, my cough is almost gone. I only feel a little bit sick.

Completely anecdotal, but I felt a lot better about 4 hours taking my first dose of Ivermectin and damn near feel normal after my second.

And then again it all could be the pseudo effect

---

I didn't take any of the "vaccines", almost never wore a mask, didn't wear gloves, didn't really "social distance" much, and I only washed my hands just marginally more than before covid. Just couldn't get in the habit of it.

Immune system took care of me, I guess. Then once the pollen was everywhere, I got a bad cough, congestion, guess it was allergies. I think that compromised my immune system but after 5 or 6 weeks of it, I got covid. Already had the cough, I felt really bad (am almost never sick, last time I had a cold or flu was 1966 or 1967), had 102.4 fever, slept a lot, did have issues with my legs shaking and balance problems, but I took Ivermectin (bought a bunch of it when there was all the battling back and forth over doctors not prescribing it and places not wanting to sell it). Couple of days later I was up and at it just like nothing had happened.

woodlees said:

---

the reason for posting this is so that those considering ivermectin may understand that proven effective alternatives exist. this stands in stark contrast to ivermectin, whose lack of efficacy is now firmly established

---

Interesting take.

https://texags.com/forums/84/topics/3451192