News Corp media is the latest major media to report on the proposal of Professor Thomas Borody. This gastroenterologist received credit for developing the world’s first peptic ulcers, saving lives in the process. What’s his proposal? Make Ivermectin available for at least those economically disadvantaged individuals–without health care access (vulnerable people)–infected with COVID-19 as the drug in real-world usage has evidenced safety and efficacy in an endeavor to reduce the severity and duration of the novel coronavirus. Professor Borody stepped up to publicly declare this need despite a great majority of health authorities that don’t think much on this topic. A few clinical trials have been completed (Bangladesh and Iraq), but because they have been on the smaller scale and TrialSite suspects (and this is just a speculation), because they originate out of low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) health regulators and research elites in richer countries aren’t paying attention. A real-world, observational off label initiative was deemed successful in Broward County U.S., but no medical journals are willing to consider a review of the findings. Borody broadcast his concerns due to the complete lack of intellectual curiosity exhibited by a majority of the world’s leading research agencies and health authorities.
In the meantime, Shannon Molloy from News Australia was given the green light to write about Ivermectin. TrialSite emphasizes this because a good many highly respected journalists working for major media won’t, at least up until this point, benefit from such a decision. The Sydney-based doctor, Borody, now urges health authorities to consider an Ivermectin plan for at least A) low-and middle-income countries and B) the underdeveloped areas within developed countries.
Molloy reports that Borody believes the “answer to Australia’s COVID-19 crisis” is what was termed the Australian combination of Ivermectin, Doxycycline, and zinc.” Borody, a well-established and prominent figure suggests at least in Australia A) these medicines are already approved by authorities (in Australia the Therapeutic Good Administration) and proven safe and B) they do not need to go through any more preclinical research, or for that matter clinical trials unless they are to be combined in a capsule.
He has put his professional “neck on the line,” declaring this combination can save lives. TrialSite reminds this is one individual’s opinion, and the overwhelming majority of scientists on record would probably take an oppositional view at this point.
For example, Dr. Ian Musgrave, with the University of Adelaide, declared, “Oh no, not Ivermectin.” Dr. Musgrave continued, “No, it’s not a cure for COVID-19.” His rationale: “It works in test-tube experiments, but is unlikely to work clinically as it is hard to achieve effective plasma concentrations. No clinical trial data are available yet, and in the absence of any public data, claims of the high efficacy are to be taken with a grain of salt.”
Musgrave’s retort is a common one but unfortunately based on faulty logic. There are now results from ivermectin-based clinical trials: that is, data is available. It’s just that no one seems to care, possibly because such data originates out of Iraq, or Bangladesh. Could research communities have class hierarchy pecking orders?
Otherwise, why wouldn’t interested scientists bother at least to thoroughly review the results? Moreover, many dozens of nations are now using common and available drugs to treat COVID-19. This certainly doesn’t equate to absolute evidence but does indicate an accumulating amount of real-world data (RWD) that, when combined with trials, could ultimately become actual evidence for future claims. On the other hand, the lack of discipline and rigor in real-world scenarios, at least in some cases, could compromise what is possibly a low cost and available option.
The Molloy article from News Corp refers to the South American use of Ivermectin. TrialSite will release a documentary on the topic on Friday, August 14; the company assembled a professional film team to investigate the use of Ivermectin in that continent. As an objective and critical look, the film should trigger a good deal of conversation.