Recently, Professor Eli Schwarz, the Director of the Center for Geographic Medicine at Sheba Medical Center in Tel-Hashomer, Israel, reported on the success of a randomly controlled, double-blind clinical trial showing that the generic drug ivermectin materially reduces COVID-19 viral shedding. Professional Schwarz was recently interviewed for BizNews Radio in South Africa to report on his study’s findings. In a nutshell—while he acknowledges that, of course, more research is vital that public health authorities and apex research bodies should be funding such initiatives now. His study, well designed and conducted in one of the top health centers in the world, reveals that, in fact, ivermectin does reduce viral shedding overall in patients with COVID-19. Although the patient sample was not sufficiently sized, the data did reveal that the off-label FDA-approved drug can reduce infectivity duration.
TrialSite recommends listeners with the time tune into this brief interview with Professor Eli Schwarz. Noting that at the time he commenced this study, the world was embracing hydroxychloroquine; his effort was based on the initial lab findings in Australia at University of Monash and collaborators—that the ivermectin in a lab cell culture experiment absolutely destroyed the novel coronavirus in 48 hours.
That’s exactly when the team at TrialSite started tracking this fascinating and unfolding situation. Since then, dozens of randomized controlled trials, observational studies and case series initiatives have been completed involving the use of ivermectin and COVID-19 patients.
Professor Eli Schwarz acknowledges in the interview that the industry won’t embrace the drug because there is no financial incentive to do so and hence why public health authorities should be involved in conducting research.
The Israeli tropical medicine expert now works furiously to write-up and hopefully publish the study results in a peer-reviewed journal. He sees the future as needing this low-cost drug as vaccines will never help the entire population. TrialSite has showcased how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsors all sorts of COVID-19 therapeutics at great expense, even while the vaccination initiative occurs in parallel. AstraZeneca received hundreds of millions of public funds for prophylaxis testing of this AZD7442, a promising drug. Ivermectin would fall in a generic category of drug used to help, for example, those in high-risk categories—that is, people over 50, for example, that may present obesity, hypertension and diabetes. Or he gave an example if there was a COVID-19 breakout in a school, the teachers could be given the drug as prophylaxis.
Of course, as the positive ivermectin data accumulates, a good website to check out called @CovidAnalysis, set up by some dedicated researchers and scientists, reminds the world that 42 trials have been completed associated with ivermectin and COVID-19, involving 331 scientists, 14,906 patients and 21 randomized controlled trials.
The results are overwhelmingly positive, yet a majority of the major economy health authorities and research institutes emphasize the lack of quality in the studies. The net effect of this resistance is the prospect that physicians are dissuaded from looking into it themselves as they are very busy and, most often, simply look to the authorities for guidance—e.g., the National Institutes of Health, etc.
Call to Action: Check out the data from the meta-analyses from Dr. Tess Lawrie, Dr. Andrew Hill and the output from the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC).