Why has Ivermectin not been approved for the treatment of Covid-19?

  • Why has Ivermectin not been approved for the treatment of Covid-19?

    Avatar MGJoe updated 2 weeks, 2 days ago 5 Members · 12 Posts
  • Avatar

    mhadfield

    Member
    April 9, 2021 at 1:32 pm

    With the growing body of evidence from around the world, why has the CDC, NIH, WHO and others not approved this widely test treatment?

  • Avatar

    ArchipeligoLeach

    Member
    April 12, 2021 at 4:40 am

    1) Everyone seems to focus on the fact that the pharmaceutical industry has an incentive to eliminate cheap generic competition to their expensive new patentable therapeutics. That is correct but it is the least of your worries. There are much more powerful forces arrayed against Ivermectin.

    2) The government and medical establishment has a strong incentive to deny or at least delay any acknowledgment of a practical therapeutic because that might threaten the vaccination program in two ways: (i) it might increase the resistance to vaccination; (ii) it would remove the justification for accelerated approval of the vaccines. Unfortunately, this is a misplaced worry. People forget that the primary goal is to reduce hospitalization and mortality associated with COVID-19 while eventually allowing herd immunity. If a combination of therapeutics and vaccination can reduce hospitalization and death most efficiently and quickly, then we shouldn’t be concerned if vaccination rates are slowed. After all, a COVID-19 infection contained by therapeutics, like Ivermectin, is essentially a live and cheap vaccination. But for those who believe in the religion of only vaccination, Ivermectin is heresy. That’s why we have scientists supporting Ivermectin, like the FLCCC, who are all PRO-vaxxers, being smeared as anti-vaxxers.

    3) There are powerful political forces that want to keep the country in lockdown and preserve the concentration of emergency powers at the federal, state, and municipal level. If you have vaccines and a good drug to cover both unvaccinated people and virus variants, how can you be the CDC director and tell everyone that you have a sense of “impending doom”. Thus, good cheap therapeutics pose a threat to their ability to use the pandemic emergency to pursue their political agenda. These forces will try to muzzle or cancel you, if your pursuit of therapeutics threatens this agenda. Look at how BigTech has been censoring videos on alternative therapeutics because it is “disinformation” (including Senate testimony by Dr. Pierre Kory of the FLCCC). Look at how the only Ivermectin paper the media has publicized is the JAMA article. Don’t underestimate the determination and reach of these forces!

    • Avatar

      mhadfield

      Member
      April 12, 2021 at 9:54 am

      You may be right, but a part of me wants to believe in the good of America. Over 500k Americans have died. How do you justify any political or money oriented agenda in the face of that?

  • Avatar

    IveyTech

    Member
    April 14, 2021 at 12:48 pm

    Grow a virus, find an antibody, evolve antibody. manufacture and deliver a solution.”

    Background references have been found linking the military to Operation Warp Speed. This relationship has stifled distribution of Ivermectin, because it interferes with the planned research and tracking… https://duckduckgo.com/?q=operation+warp+speed+is+DARPA&t=brave&ia=web

     The clues to the answer are here:

    D-A-R-P-A.

    DefenseAdvancedResearchProjectsAgency 

    “…What is required now are breakthroughs in three other technology areas to bridge those past DARPA achievements and overcome the remaining bottlenecks that hinder rapid response to pandemic threats. The P3 program will pursue innovations in those three areas:

    Growing virus needed to support evaluation of therapies in laboratory tests;

    Subjecting antibodies to rapid rounds of evolution outside of the body to increase their potency beyond that of even the most effective antibodies obtained from infected patients; and

    Developing means of efficiently delivering nucleic-acid-based protective treatments, since the technologies used to administer conventional vaccines do not readily translate.

    Achieving and integrating breakthroughs in all of these areas will require choreographed cooperation among researchers and engineers specializing in such areas as immunology, microbiology, virology, medical infectious diseases, molecular biology, and medical countermeasure product development and manufacturing.

    DARPA-funded teams will be required to demonstrate their integrated platforms in five simulations during the planned four-year program; they will initially test their platforms using pathogens of their choice, but ultimately they will test using DARPA-selected pathogens[…]”

  • Avatar

    IveyTech

    Member
    April 14, 2021 at 12:50 pm

    The suppression of other cures allows the testing of a vaccination campaign controlled experiment to be more “efficacious”.

    Grow a virus, find an antibody, evolve antibody. manufacture and deliver a solution.”

    Background references have been found linking the military to Operation Warp Speed. This relationship has stifled distribution of Ivermectin, because it interferes with the planned research and tracking… https://duckduckgo.com/?q=operation+warp+speed+is+DARPA&t=brave&ia=web

     The clues to the answer are here:

    D-A-R-P-A.

    DefenseAdvancedResearchProjectsAgency 

    “…What is required now are breakthroughs in three other technology areas to bridge those past DARPA achievements and overcome the remaining bottlenecks that hinder rapid response to pandemic threats. The P3 program will pursue innovations in those three areas:

    Growing virus needed to support evaluation of therapies in laboratory tests;

    Subjecting antibodies to rapid rounds of evolution outside of the body to increase their potency beyond that of even the most effective antibodies obtained from infected patients; and

    Developing means of efficiently delivering nucleic-acid-based protective treatments, since the technologies used to administer conventional vaccines do not readily translate.

    Achieving and integrating breakthroughs in all of these areas will require choreographed cooperation among researchers and engineers specializing in such areas as immunology, microbiology, virology, medical infectious diseases, molecular biology, and medical countermeasure product development and manufacturing.

    DARPA-funded teams will be required to demonstrate their integrated platforms in five simulations during the planned four-year program; they will initially test their platforms using pathogens of their choice, but ultimately they will test using DARPA-selected pathogens[…]”

  • Avatar

    IveyTech

    Member
    April 16, 2021 at 3:51 pm

    Ivermectin (as Merck Mectizan) has shown less serious adverse effects in its many years of distribution than vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Astra Zeneca and the not listed vaccines that failed.

    “…a summary of reported cases of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) following treatment with Mectizan<sup style=”font-family: inherit;”>®</sup> (ivermectin, Merck, Sharpe & Dohme) in onchocerciasis mass treatment programs from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 2001 through a passive surveillance system. A total of 207 SAE cases were reported out of approximately 165 million reported treatments delivered during the period under review, giving rise to a cumulative incidence of 1 reported SAE per 800,000 reported treatments…”

    https://filariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2883-2-S1-S3

    In these few months, the mRNA vaccines may be less safe, statistics being “apples and oranges” and not a direct comparison.

    <b align=”center”>From the 4/8/2021 release of VAERS data:Found 1,109 cases where Onset Interval is 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 and Vaccine is or COVID19 and Patient Died and Did Not Recover

    https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php

    content://com.brave.browser_beta.FileProvider/images/screenshot/16186098131691743087202.jpg

  • Avatar

    IveyTech

    Member
    April 16, 2021 at 3:56 pm

    Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System CDC

    (VAERS)

    Deaths following Vaccinations

    August 1 – December 31, 2007: 150 deaths

    January 1 – December 31, 2008: 252 deaths

    January 1 – December 31, 2009: 258 deaths

    January 1 – December 31, 2010: 258 deaths

    January 1 – December 31, 2011: 234 deaths

    January 1 – December 31, 2012: 257 deaths

    January 1 – December 31, 2013: 249 deaths

    January 1 – December 31, 2014: 241 deaths

    January 1 – December 31, 2015: 207 deaths

    January 1 – December 31, 2016: 235 deaths

    January 1 – December 31, 2017: 196 deaths

    January 1 – December 31, 2018: 172 deaths

    January 1 – December 31, 2019: 196 deaths

    January 1 – November 30, 2020: 96 deaths

    August 1, 2007 – November 30, 2020 13+ Years

    TOTAL ALL VACCINE DEATHS = 3,001 December 1, 2020 – April 13, 2021 4+ Months

    TOTAL COVID VACCINE DEATHS = 3,005

  • Avatar

    IveyTech

    Member
    April 18, 2021 at 10:03 pm
  • Avatar

    IveyTech

    Member
    April 18, 2021 at 10:42 pm

    With variants in the virus, the narrow-focused mRNA vaccines and monoclonal antibodies may have to give place to a broad-spectrum therapeutic already proven

    https://www.drugtargetreview.com/article/88831/covid-19-broad-spectrum-therapeutics-and-the-magic-blanket-paradigm/

    COVID-19, broad-spectrum therapeutics and the magic blanket paradigm

    Posted: 12 April 2021 | Dr Praveen Prathapan (Research Consultant) | 

    “Dr Praveen Prathapan explains why broad-spectrum therapeutics need to be identified to provide a safety net against pandemics, including COVID-19. The pandemic has challenged the paradigm of drug development. Over a century ago, Paul Ehrlich’s magic bullet, a hypothetical drug that targets a given pathogen without harming the host, materialised in the 20th century as a plethora of therapeutics successfully treating diseases around the world.1,2 When COVID-19 emerged there were, however, no magic bullets.3,4 A year since the pandemic began, there are still over 300 therapeutic candidates being developed in various stages of pre-clinical or clinical research, making evident that de novo magic bullets for novel pandemics can only be developed after a pandemic has emerged…”

    “…To discern how antiviral a given antibiotic or antiparasitic drug is, we used the Drug Repositioning Evidence Level (DREL) system propounded by Opera and Overington in their seminal review of drug repositioning studies.8 An advantage of this particular system is its parallelism with classification schemes used for quantifying drug-drug interactions. As quality of evidence increases from in vitro investigations to animal and human clinical trials, a higher DREL number is assigned accordingly (Figure 1). The DREL assessment was borne out of unsubstantiated claims for repositioning projects and a lack of experimental evidence or corroboration with the literature. As a measure of the pharmacological and clinical evidence of given drug against a particular disease, the DREL system provided us with a simple yet useful method of comparing the potential efficacy of any drug against COVID-19. When we did this, however, we discovered something startling. At least two of the drugs being trialled against COVID-19 were DREL 4 for more than one pathogen type (that is, clinically and pharmacologically effective against infection by more than one pathogen type): azithromycin, a macrolide antibiotic that is used to treat malaria; and nitazoxanide, a broad-spectrum antiparasitic and antiviral agent that is effective against bacterial infections.9 To our knowledge, these drugs represent the first of a new antimicrobial class, a class that recognises drugs that are effective against multiple infection types. In our review of azithromycin entitled Azithromycin: The First Broad-spectrum Therapeutic, we coined the term ‘broad-spectrum therapeutic’ (BST) to describe this new drug class.10 This term reflects both the broad pharmacological profile of these drugs as well as their wide-ranging applicability against different disease types. Using the DREL system, BSTs can be defined alternatively as DREL 4 for multiple diseases pertaining to more than one pathogen class. A BST that is used clinically as an antimalarial and an antiviral but has not been studied as an antibiotic or antifungal is a 0:0:4:4 BST; the order of the DREL numbers here are: antibiotic = 0, antifungal = 0, antiparasitic = 4, antiviral = 4. According to this system, azithromycin is a 4:0:4:2 BST and nitazoxanide a 4:0:4:4 BST.

    SARS-CoV-2

    As the discovery of antibiotics has advanced our understanding of bacterial infection over the last century, so the discovery of BSTs will unearth infection mechanisms conserved across pathogen classes. Indeed, azithromycin’s lysosomotropic properties have shown to be useful against both malarial and viral infections. Furthermore, identification of cellular and nuclear signalling pathways targeted by BSTs, such as azithromycin’s modulation of antiviral responses via IFNβ activation and nitazoxanide’s inhibition of autophagy via ING1 upregulation, will instigate and iteratively improve BST drug-disease interaction networks, further contributing to a shift away from the ‘single drug-single target’ paradigm and towards a polypharmacological one in which therapeutics engage multiple targets within the interactome. This emergence of network pharmacology has already been described as a paradigm shift in medicine.11Azithromycin and nitazoxanide are not magic blankets, but they are almost so. With an increasing number of repositioning studies conducted worldwide, particularly with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is foreseeable that new BSTs will be identified. We point to ivermectin and niclosamide as potential broad-spectrum therapeutics in the near future.12,13[…]”

  • Avatar

    mjnelson99

    Member
    April 22, 2021 at 6:58 pm

    I am currently living in Mexico and my doctor friend was able to get me 4 boxes of 4 pack Ivermectin. I am using for prevention as far as I know. No side effects.

    I now cut back on dosage to 1 ea 6 mg to 2 ea 6mg Ivermectin weekly. May cut back further.

    I equated Ivermectin’s status to hydroxychloroquine – old generic effective inexpensive

    • Avatar

      MGJoe

      Member
      April 22, 2021 at 11:33 pm

      Ivermectin in vitro is probably the most effective antiviral on the planet, with a 5,000 reduction. Hydroxychloroquine is only slightly effective as antiviral.

  • Avatar

    mhadfield

    Member
    April 22, 2021 at 7:15 pm

    Got to love Mexico – if you have money you can pretty much get whatever you need.

Log in to reply.

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018
Now