Public German International Broadcaster’s COVID-19 Fact Check: FLCCC a Force to Factor In

Public German International Broadcaster’s COVID-19 Fact Check FLCCC a Force to Factor In

Germany’s state-owned international public broadcaster recently seemingly endorsed Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. Of course, the taxpayer-funded entity known as Deutsche Welle or “DW” isn’t a medical agency and has no authority or credentials to recommend any drug. But they certainly have reach, influenced and are backed by deep pockets. The public broadcaster makes content available in 30 languages from Hindi and Spanish to Arabic and English. Because the content created by DW’s employees are regulated by the Deutsche Welle-Act, its independent of government influence, affording more independence than perhaps available for other comparable public broadcasters. DW quietly released a “Fact Check: Effective (and Ineffective) COVID-19 Treatments.” The international media powerhouse chimed in on Ivermectin.

First, TrialSite finds it interesting that the Remdesivir conflict just gets more controversial. On the one hand, Remdesivir, supported by a series of taxpayer-supported trials via the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). TrialSite’s critical view questioned a number of actions along the path of approval, including the modification of endpoints toward the end of the pivotal NIAID-based initial trial, leading to first its emergency use authorization.

The independent German public media offers an objective view, sharing that the drug has conditional approval in Europe as well as full approval for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in America. They also share that the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends against the use of remdesivir (Solidarity trial). For the Remdesivir (VEKLURY) label, see here. They declare that ‘remdesivir “…efficacy has not been proved.”

On the topic of Ivermectin, the prominent public German media concern notes that WHO and the U.S. FDA advise against the drug at this point but as a counter they share the perspective of the “U.S. Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance” known as the FLCCC. According to the FLCCC meta-analysis of dozens of clinical trials, this drug has the potential to augment and support a vaccination scheme worldwide. That is vaccines, plus proper measures such as hygiene, social distancing and masks coupled with a competitive mix of treatments, preferably including low cost generic ones, and nations around the world will pull out of the pandemic.

Responses

  1. There is some confusion about the the FDA approval status of ivermectin. That is only tangential to this article but it does need clarification.
    (a) This statement is true: The FDA has not taken a position for or against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19.
    (b) The following statement is true but misleading: "Ivermectin is not FDA-approved for the treatment of any viral infection". The FDA approved the use of ivermectin in 1987 for onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis. That approval allows physicians to prescribe ivermectin for any indication. A more accurate statement would be " Ivermectin is not FDA-approved for the treatment of any viral infection …. but as with all FDA approvals, off-label use is allowed". The original statement was from the NIH Treatment Guidelines.
    (c) This statement is true but irrelevant: Ivermectin has not received an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA for use in COVID-19 from the FDA.. The lack of an EUA does not prohibit the use of ivermectin in COVID-19. It does prohibit vendors from marketing ivermectin for use in COVID-19.

      1. I agree that the mishandling of this COVID-19 treatment is a result of deeper problems. One thing I have also been thinking about is the degradation of the reliable sources of information. There are so few bedrock solid sources of information and it is becoming easier to shape peoples’ knowledge of even basic provable facts.

      2. That AP statement is a baldfaced lie.
        First of all, I detest the name "miracle drug."
        However, if the term MUST be used, any drug that reduces acquisition of a rampant, potentially lethal infection by over 90% in a randomized trial qualifies to be called a miracle drug.
        At best the statement was put out of date some two weeks later by the WHO-funded meta-analysis of the 11 randomized trials that were evaluable. The statement is now a month out of date and needs to be removed and replaced by a summary of the WHO meta-analysis.

    1. The weaknesses in our corporate driven health care system are obvious and severe. Most doctors are compelled by corporate interests to follow the SOC rather than give a best effort to save lives. Few are willing to buck the system. They get into a professional "no man’s" land if they do.
      A year into this pandemic, SARS COV-2 positive patients who are either asymptomatic or moderately symptomatic are still being sent home to "wait it out". By the time they are admitted to the hospital they have already entered a severe or critical phase of the disease. It’s difficult to tell whether this is a triage effect or simply failure to recognize the need for early stage care.
      Trump got early stage care. Why is that not the minimal standard of care? Where is the effort to get monoclonal antibodies to the most vulnerable? Why aren’t antivirals administered at an early stage so we could at least if they work while the virus is actively multiplying? It should be easy and quick to get Ivermectin thru a clinical trial in early stage exposure and disease. Why hasn’t the US done this?
      The system is deeply soiled with political and financial interests. Physicians working for corporations generates that the patients best interests are not aligned with corporate interests.
      adriaan.dehan is oh so right!