olympus-google-fonts
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/peterjim/drbannonsblog.aprendo.co.uk/drbannonsblog_wp/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114jetpack
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/peterjim/drbannonsblog.aprendo.co.uk/drbannonsblog_wp/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID19 has generated a huge number of conspiracy theories, much emotion, scientific interest, research and analysis. <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n It has now reached the end of the road, to become, like hydroxychloroquine, one of the enduring and dangerous pandemic myths. <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Fair comment??<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n I have posted on Ivermectin earlier in the pandemic\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0here<\/a>. There was however, one last big trial outstanding which could have changed my mind and it has finally arrived, so it\u2019s time to look again at what has turned out to be the scandalous myth of Ivermectin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The idea that IVM might work for COVID19 originated in what are called in-vitro (lab) studies. They showed that very high levels of Ivermectin inhibits viral replication and had other interesting effects that require exploration. A plethora of small studies followed, some supporting its use, but most\u00a0riddled with errors<\/a>\u00a0or fraudulent<\/a>. Cherry picked meta-analyses were published by\u00a0those who wanted to see it work<\/a>, but were clearly biased and misleading. Conflicting views gave birth to the conspiracy that an effective treatment for a serious illness was being denied by the Establishment.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Slowly, science caught up with the sensation. Trial after trial showed Ivermectin to have no useful effect in prevention, early treatment, hospitalisation or death. Platform trials, a novel approach to drug research during a pandemic also found no effect<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The latest and the last<\/strong> big trial on Ivermectin<\/a> for COVID19 has finally published and this is the authors conclusion:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis analysis from an open-label platform, randomised controlled trial of ivermectin for COVID-19 in the community suggests clinically meaningful improvements in recovery time are unlikely, with no reduction in hospital admissions, little difference in symptoms and no difference in days unwell, or impact on work and studies, at one, three, six and 12 months<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Their findings will add to meta analyses (which add trial data together) and show no significant benefit from Ivermectin<\/a> . It follows other large, placebo controlled outpatient trials COVID-OUT<\/a> and ACTIV6 (low dose),<\/a> and ACTIV-6 (high dose)<\/a> and the TOGETHER<\/a> trial. You can follow all these links, but suffice it to say they all show the same thing – IVM is sadly not effective. <\/p>\n\n\n\n After four long years, the hope that Ivermectin was a \u2018wonder drug\u2019 that could have helped prevent or treat COVID19 is finally over.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The last trial included 2157 patients randomised to treatment with IVM, compared to 3256 given usual care. For pragmatic reasons the trial was open label \u2013 that meant that those getting IVM or placebo knew what they were getting. The patients were symptomatic with COVID19 and had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. They were either over 65 or younger with co-morbidities. So what happened? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Interestingly, the difference between resolution of symptoms was slightly earlier in the IVM group, but the difference in objective measures – hospitalisation or death – showed slightly worse outcome in those taking IVM. This signifies the small reported differences in length of illness were due to the well know placebo effect. There were no long term benefits of IVM.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For the vast majority of doctors, prescribers, regulators, advisors, public health doctors, GP\u2019s and anyone else with the best interest of patients at heart, Ivermectin can go back to its place as a useful anti-helminth. The story, in reality over some time ago, is finally dead and buried.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Further, it would now be unethical to do any more studies. To do so would be a waste of time and precious resources which would add to add to the monumental amounts of time money and energy already diverted from better causes. I argue that the real scandal is that the whole IVM saga has been harmful \u2013 why? <\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/figure>
MYTH MAKING<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
THE FINAL NAIL?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
IVM HARMS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n