SEARCH
COVID-19: why are the CDC and FDA avoiding Randomized Controlled Trials of Ivermectin that would validate or repudiate it?
Related: COVID medications, ethics in medicine, gear, gears of the machine, SARS-CoV-2 aka COVID-19 aka Coronavirus
re: psyop and gaslighting and mass hysteria
Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.
Free and open discourse should be at the heart of COVID measures. We have the opposite.
Our CDC and FDA here in the United States are in full-on suppression+psyops mode about Ivermectin, aided and abetted by the rest of the US and state governments, Big Tech and the propaganda outlets formerly known as news.
How could I (or you) really know the truth about Ivermectin?
Ivermectin is claimed by some to so drastically reduce hospitalization and death that it would effectively end the pandemic by making COVID a treatable infection with high-success mitigation (if used immediately upon symptoms).
If Ivermectin does not work, let’s prove that ASAP, and relegate it to the dustbin of history as one more fraudulent claim.
But if Ivermectin works as claimed, the hospitalization and death rates would plummet, the vaccine-profit gravy train for Big Pharma would run into a brick wall, and the fearmongering propaganda machines would be silenced. And we would all get our lives back.
I have to err on the side of thinking that Ivermectin works against COVID, if only because so many actors are so intent on suppressing all discussion of it. It’s a 'tell', a huge red flag that says some Big Lie is at work.
Overwhelmingly strong benefit?
How would a layman or a doctor evaluate the findings below?
If taken as truthful studies, Ivermectin appears to be a life-saving miracle drug that could end COVID as an issue within weeks. And with no profit for Big Pharma. Thus any suppression efforts around Ivermectin would be vigorous and highly coordinated, which is exactly what we see here in the USA.
If the assumption is made that most studies are bullshit these days, then the only rational conclusion is to throw up one’s hands. Along with wondering why the FDA and CDC remain with thumbs up their behinds instead of running randomized controlled trials across the country (real ones, with treatment protocols not designed to intentionally fail).
Using meta analysis should be highly suspect. But to reject the overwhelming claimed success for Ivermectin you have to reject dozens of studies.
Moreover, the studies claim such a huge effect that you not only have to claim fraud across nearly all of the studies, but consider the data to be some kind of mass conspiracy. Which cannot be ruled-out.
Intellectualizing the matter by arguing over study validity is an exercise for idiots: why not answer the questions with randomized controlled trials in every state across the USA, ASAP?
Negative findings would relegate Ivermectin to history as another crackpot claim. But positive findings would expose powerful actors to repudiation and halt massive profit-making machinery (vaccines). Why does no one in power want to settle the matter by the only fair means? Follow the money (and the power dynamics).
Can anyone cite a persuasive reason to NOT run RCTs of Ivermectin?
Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 63 studies
August 12, 2021
- Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 73% and 86% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.27 [0.16-0.44] and 0.14 [0.08-0.25]), with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis, restriction to peer-reviewed studies, restriction to serious outcomes, and restriction to Randomized Controlled Trials.
- 61% and 96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.39 [0.17-0.90] and 0.04 [0.00-0.59]). Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 27 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation...
- The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 63 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 1 trillion ( p = 0.00000000000083).
- Heterogeneity arises from many factors including treatment delay, population, dose, and effect measured, and is low in specific cases, e.g., early treatment mortality.
- While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 29% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm.
- Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Those denying the efficacy of treatments share responsibility for the increased risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and the increased mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage.
- Evidence base is much larger and has much lower conflict of interest than typically used to approve drugs.
- All data to reproduce this paper and sources are in the appendix. See [Bryant, Harrington, Hill, Kory, Laurie, Ardelia] for other meta analyses with similar results confirming effectiveness.
