Would Use of Ivermectin for COVID Just Have Been Conspicuous Caring? - Should Ivermectin Have Been Banned?
I have never seen this behaviour by regulatory agencies before
The prohibition of ivermectin use during the COVID pandemic is fascinating and baffling at the same time. It makes no sense - or then again maybe it does. I detest inconsistency of behaviour and decision making. And that is in full evidence here.
I have now written 2 Newsletters on the topic of conspicuous caring. In the first I discussed the concept in general. In the second I poked fun (sort of) at the use of antibiotics for the common cold - which occurs and can be net detrimental to society. It got me thinking as to why there was such strong attack on Ivermectin as a therapeutic for COVID, especially when there were no other real treatments available. Are these regulatory bodies hypocrites? Of course they are.
Conspicuous caring has been defined as:
The ritualized transaction between people in which demonstrations of caring that lack therapeutic value are offered and performed so that both parties benefit;
The giver benefits by showing their loyalty and concern; and
The recipient benefits by knowing that someone seems to care for them.
COVID has been an interesting illness to see evolve, not only the various mutations of the virus itself (due to man-made manipulation if a true investigation were done) but the various mutations in the behaviour of countries and then states and provinces within those countries, especially in the so-called western world. Despite everyone claiming to be ‘following the science’ (which we know is meaningless drivel) the policies and recommendations were almost as varied as the virus mutations. If it wasn't so serious and harmful, it might be laughable.
I have not had COVID that I know of. Where I live people have flocked to get COVID tests (about 95% of the PCR tests were negative) and if they were positive they were simply sent home with no treatment recommendations apart from isolation. If they became increasingly ill they would go to the hospital. As I pointed out in the previous Conspicuous Caring Newsletter antibiotic use was 75% in one study of COVID cases. And outpatient antibiotic use increased compared to pre-pandemic prescription patterns. Clearly conspicuous caring with antibiotics was seen but not banned.
I am not going to go into a long discussion of the use of the Nobel prize-winning drug Ivermectin in COVID. It is an interesting drug that is approved by the FDA and Health Canada. It is used worldwide as an anti-helminthic (anti-parasite) but it also has demonstrable anti-viral properties. There is in-vitro evidence of activity against SARS-CoV-2 in infected Vero-hSLAM cells, for example. Ivermectin has an extensive safety record - it has literally been administered to many, many millions of patients.
There results in clinical trials are mixed. There have been a large number of meta-analyses. A recently published Cochrane Review did not determine evidence to support the use of ivermectin for COVID. Based on only 2 studies and 185 participants and compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). They concluded that based on very low to low certainty evidence they were uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID.
Other meta-analyses have been done. For example, one with a total of 13 RCTs with 2,196 COVID patients reported a non-significant odds ratio (OR) was 0.77 (95% CI 0.50–1.19) with no heterogeneity. A more inclusive meta-analysis of 15 trials, assessing 2438 participants, found that ivermectin reduced the risk of death by an average of 62% (95% CI 27%–81%). So, keep this in mind - it is not that the drug has been shown to NOT work; it is that in some analyses the evidence is not strong enough. I would interpret these studies as saying that there is a better chance that it reduces mortality by 23% than the very small chance that it might be harmful. Why is it not used? I will address why I say this in another newsletter as it is a bit math wonky.
Based on these studies there are no real recommendations for the use of ivermectin, even though it is definitely safe and could have benefit. Given that there were no other options for early treatment, and given the common use of antibiotics for viral infections, it is difficult to comprehend.
The WHO (World Health Organization) determined that the evidence on whether ivermectin reduces mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, need for hospital admission and time to clinical improvement in COVID-19 patients is of “very low certainty,” due to the small sample sizes and methodological limitations of available trials. The NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel states there is ‘insufficient data’ to recommend for or against use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. The FDA issued a warning concerning possible inappropriate use of ivermectin products intended for animals as an attempt to self-medicate for the treatment of COVID-19, which is of course non-sense.
At the other end of the spectrum the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) supports an A-I recommendation for use of ivermectin in both prophylaxis and treatment of all phases of COVID. And these are not fringe doctors at all - they look after real patients as compared to the bureaucratic physicians.
It is difficult to differentiate between the unfettered prescriptions written for an anti-bacterial versus ivermectin for a presumed viral infection? If anything, even if it was futile therapy (conspicuous care), ivermectin is a safe alternative. Yet it is the only medication that has been effectively banned. Not only that but if a physician were to prescribe it, or advocate it as therapy, they are threatened with the potential loss of their medical license, their hospital affiliations, their board certification, or mandated to undergo neuropsychiatric assessments.
So what is going on? It is hard to believe that the FDA, the NIH, the CDC, and Health Canada don’t actually understand the potential benefits of ivermectin and other repurposed drugs (eg. Fluvoxamine). But they also realize that these medications threaten a) the emergency use authorization (EUA) of the ‘vaccines’ and b) the profits of the pharmaceutical industry - they are financially entwined and that is not in doubt. Keep in mind is the approval of two new antiviral medications, Pfizer’s Paxlovid, and Merck’s Molnupivinir. Is that just a conincidence? These drugs have exactly one company-sponsored study each and the results of lukewarm at best. There are no long-term safety data for either medication. They have both received an EUA and are on government-approved treatment protocols.
Bottom Line: During the COVID pandemic the governments have been ‘all-in’ since day one on the approval of the mRNA drugs (which they refer to as vaccines). These drugs have overpromised their benefit and they have massively underperformed. Whatever small benefit they might have, that remains unproven, and will never be know given the lack of long-term RCTs, will winnow away soon after administration. Dr. Fauci is already touting the use of a 4th dose! Is that not proof positive (per falsification of Karl Popper) that these mRNA drugs are not effective? To think that the governing bodies might have actively suppressed the use of repurposed medications during a pandemic is unbelievable. Ivermectin is safe and has a long track record of use and is inexpensive. Even a modest effect could have had a substantial mortality benefit if used widely.
I have said in other Newsletters that this suggests a total collapse of ethics, morality or any sense of responsibility within the pharmaceutical industry and their partners/collaborators in the government and regulatory agencies. Perhaps it is corruption with human lives lost as the possible result. It is shameful.
Whatever happened to the basic tenets of medicine?