massimaux | 12 points
Ivermectin as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 among Healthcare Providers in a Selected Tertiary Hospital in Dhaka –An Observational Study (Bangladesh 2020-12-15) Return of the Jedi: Dr. Tarek Alam strikes back: 91% protection offered by IVMABSTRACT
Introduction:
While multiple vaccines are undergoing clinical trial across the globe, we yearn for an FDA approved drug to protect us from the devastating pandemic for the time being. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of Ivermectin when administered as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19.
Method:
An observational study, with 118 healthcare providers who were enrolled purposively, was conducted in a tertiary hospital in Dhaka from May 2020 to August 2020. The subjects were divided into experimental and control groups; and the experimental group received an oral monthly dose of Ivermectin 12mg for 4 months. Both groups were exposed to COVID-19 positive patients admitted in the hospital during the course of study. The symptomatic subjects were evaluated by physical examination, COVID-19 RT-PCR and/or HRCT of chest. Differences between the variables were determined using the Chi-square test and the level of statistical significance was reached when p<0.05.
Result:
73.3% (44 out of 60) subjects in control group were positive for COVID-19, whereas only 6.9% (4 out of 58) of the experimental group were diagnosed with COVID-19 (p-value < 0.05).
Conclusion:
Ivermectin, an FDA-approved, safe, cheap and widely available drug, should be subjected to large-scale trials all over the world to ascertain its effectiveness as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 3 points
Jedi
yearn
purposively
This post has everything!
Unfortunately not placebo controlled or double blinded.
Prophylaxis dose taken once per month, this is an interesting detail.
Even so, only 6.9% in the treatment group diagnosed with COVID-19 after 4 months. That's a big result even accounting for the design weaknesses.
Yes, not randomized. But, who cares?
It elegantly replicates the results from Carvallo's, Shouman's and Elgazzar's prophylaxis studies:
Carvallo: 100% protection by IVM + iota carrageenan
Shouman: 87% protection by IVM
Elgazzar: 80% protection by IVM
Alam: 91% protection by IVM
This compares to the Pfizer's and Moderna's vaccines 90-95% protection.
Bonus: IVM taken 12mg per month. Wow! This hurts! LOL.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 3 points
Just pointing out the "randomized" thing for the detractors. The question this creates is whether knowingly receiving treatment alters behaviour which could affect the results. However since the difference is so large, the result is significant.
Vaccine protection rates are comparisons between the placebo and the vaccine group, it will be interesting to see what the true numbers are once a large population has been vaccinated.
The good thing about the Ivermectin protection rates is they are known to all have been exposed to the virus.
Just pointing out the "randomized" thing for the detractors. The question this creates is whether knowingly receiving treatment alters behaviour which could affect the results. However since the difference is so large, the result is significant.
I appreciate your comment. You are always very meticulous.
Shouman's post-exposure prophylaxis study was randomized, although not placebo-controlled and double-blind. The results were staggering: 7% vs. 58% infection rates.
If this is not prevention, I don't know what is.
EDIT: Elgazzar's was also an RCT. 2% vs. 10% infection rates.
To quote Dr. Marik: What more do they need?!?
[-] Fun_Journalist_727 | 3 points
The doctors of the FLCCC (Marik, etc.) are advocating weekly doses for ten weeks and then biweekly from then on. That will likely offer even better protection than just 12 mgs per month.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Never mind.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 5 points | Dec 16 2020 17:07:24
I think this study shows that weekly doses are better than monthly.
permalink