Although ivermectin cannot be directly compared to a vaccine, let’s look at its efficacy. Research has demonstrated that using this medicine for prophylaxis can reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection by 92.5%. This is based on seven controlled trials on over 2,600 patients. Six of these were prospective trials, as opposed to the retrospective studies that some opposed to other preventative COVID-19 treatments have criticized. Three of those six were both prospective and randomized, meeting anyone’s standard for a credible study.
Each subset of these trials shows the same thing: ivermectin reduces the chance of infection by over ninety percent. That’s not only comparable to the claims made for AstraZeneca’s vaccine. It’s significantly better, especially for short to medium term before we have global herd immunity through vaccination.
The British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Panel, following World Health Organization guidelines for meta-analysis of data, has recommended its use both to prevent and treat COVID-19. In so doing, they followed evidence that ivermectin both reduces the risk of infection and the risk of bad outcomes for those who get infected.
We understand why policymakers are focused on vaccines. Vaccines will offer better, or longer-lasting, protection than any drug. But vaccine hesitancy, supply and logistical problems will remain – especially in developing countries. What we cannot understand is why a treatment with the promise of ivermectin is disregarded. It’s safe, well-known, and the data shows that it works.
Universal vaccination may be the eventual goal, and the U.S. will hopefully approach that goal sooner than most. But what about those countries left behind? Ivermectin could be surged to them now, not years from now, and could prevent infection and save lives. All we have to do is keep an open mind and follow the science where it leads.
[-] stereomatch | 3 points | Apr 08 2021 12:55:19
Although ivermectin cannot be directly compared to a vaccine, let’s look at its efficacy. Research has demonstrated that using this medicine for prophylaxis can reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection by 92.5%. This is based on seven controlled trials on over 2,600 patients. Six of these were prospective trials, as opposed to the retrospective studies that some opposed to other preventative COVID-19 treatments have criticized. Three of those six were both prospective and randomized, meeting anyone’s standard for a credible study. Each subset of these trials shows the same thing: ivermectin reduces the chance of infection by over ninety percent. That’s not only comparable to the claims made for AstraZeneca’s vaccine. It’s significantly better, especially for short to medium term before we have global herd immunity through vaccination. The British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Panel, following World Health Organization guidelines for meta-analysis of data, has recommended its use both to prevent and treat COVID-19. In so doing, they followed evidence that ivermectin both reduces the risk of infection and the risk of bad outcomes for those who get infected. We understand why policymakers are focused on vaccines. Vaccines will offer better, or longer-lasting, protection than any drug. But vaccine hesitancy, supply and logistical problems will remain – especially in developing countries. What we cannot understand is why a treatment with the promise of ivermectin is disregarded. It’s safe, well-known, and the data shows that it works. Universal vaccination may be the eventual goal, and the U.S. will hopefully approach that goal sooner than most. But what about those countries left behind? Ivermectin could be surged to them now, not years from now, and could prevent infection and save lives. All we have to do is keep an open mind and follow the science where it leads.
permalink