EDITOR, The Tribune.
When I read the article written by Dr. Pinto under the headline “You are not a horse - FDA warns against the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19”, I was surprised to see how little of what he said was evidenced by any science.
The FDA consumer article that he quotes from states that “The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or prevent COVID-19!” So how can the FDA make its bold claims?
The FDA even states “Using the drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19 can be dangerous and even lethal”. This is surprising indeed, as Ivermectin is a drug that has been around for more than 30 years, one of the most distributed drugs on Earth, with more than 2.5 billion doses given out to humans. It is so safe that it is listed as one of WHO’s essential medicines! The Nobel-prize winning scientist, who won his prize for developing Ivermectin, Satoshi Omura, reported that the rate of serious adverse events for ivermectin is one per million doses.
Dr Pinto also says that “Ivermectin is not even an antiviral application.” I have found three studies that refute his statement. The June 2020 issue of the journal Antiviral Research “The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro” indicated a single treatment of ivermectin was able to cause a 5,000-fold reduction of SARS-CoV-2 in a cell culture within 48 hours.
A September 2020 article in the journal Cells, “Ivermectin as a Broad-Spectrum Host-Directed Antiviral: The Real Deal?” reported that “cell culture experiments show (ivermectin exhibits) robust antiviral action towards HIV-1, dengue virus (DENV), Zika virus, West Nile virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, Chikungunya virus, Pseudorabies virus, adenovirus, and SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19.)”
A research article published by the Lancet on 17 June, 2001 determined the “Antiviral effect of high-dose ivermectin in adults with COVID-19: A proof-of-concept randomized trial”.
Furthermore, there are over 70 studies showing its effectiveness as a prophylaxis and treatment. Not one of these studies states that ivermectin “can be dangerous or even lethal.” In fact, Theresa Lawrie’s meta study on Ivermectin’s dated 21 June, 2021 concluded “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”
There are at least five protocols using Ivermectin as a combination therapeutic currently being used by physicians with positive results (with up to 85% reduction in hospitalizations): 1/ Thomas Borody triple therapy, 2/ I-MASK+ Prevention & Early Outpatient Treatment Protocol for COVID-19, 3/ Dr. Peter McCollough COVID Treatment, 4/ The Zelenko protocol, and 5/ Ivermectin + Iota-Carrageenan protocol.
Instead of demonising Ivermectin, why don’t we take some time and review the mounting evidence. If the protocols described above are effective, should we not be trying them here? Could they possibly save lives? I challenge our physicians to think outside the box.
Even the Wall Street Journal recently questioned the FDA’s science when it published an oped piece on 28 July, 2021 entitled “why is the FDA attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?” Dr Pinto would be well advised to read it.
MARK PALMER
September 2, 2021.
Comments
carltonr61 3 years, 3 months ago
Massive problem is. Vaccines are Emergency Use Only under the lying assumption that there is no medication on Earth that could eradicate Covid and save millions of lives. Convenient for many who will vaccinate the planet for profit. Had or should Ivervectin been approved one vaccine company today boasted of securing 15 billion dollars in hard profits.
JokeyJack 3 years, 3 months ago
Yep - all about money.
JokeyJack 3 years, 3 months ago
If Aspiring had been discovered back it the 1970s to cure cancer - trust me - it would have quickly been labeled as dangerous and taken off the market.
Bobsyeruncle 3 years, 3 months ago
Mr Palmer
The FDA consumer article that he quotes from states that “The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or prevent COVID-19!” So how can the FDA make its bold claims?
Are you really serious ? Why the heck do you think we have an FDA in the first place ? If it hasn't gone through the full spectrum of Tox, Pre-clinical and Clinical studies to treat a SPECIFIC disease or ailment, then it definitely could, and probably will, be dangerous.
It's because companies & doctors were touting treatments for ailments and diseases without any supporting data. Some would refer to it as Snake Oil. What dose would you give a patient ? How frequently would they have to take it ? What age ? Pregnant or breast feeding women ? Have you ever heard of Thalidomide ? Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug that is used to treat river blindness and intestinal roundworm infection in humans and to de-worm pets and livestock - PERIOD. And guess how they determined it's usefulness for those treatments? They performed clinical trials to obtain supporting data, which was then reviewed and approved by appropriate regulatory authorities. Would you undergo Chemotherapy to treat your appendicitis ? Of course you wouldn't - duh!
“The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro”
You know what in-vitro means right ? I thought not!
A research article published by the Lancet on 17 June, 2001 determined the “Antiviral effect of high-dose ivermectin in adults with COVID-19: A proof-of-concept randomized trial”.
Actually, it was 2021, not 2001. And like it says, it was a "Proof of concept" trial, not a clinical trial. In fact it states very clearly that "large trials with clinical endpoint are necessary to determine the clinical utility of Ivermectin". All this "proof of concept trial" determined was that Ivermectin was generally well tolerated by the 45 volunteers.
In fact, Theresa Lawrie’s meta study on Ivermectin’s dated 21 June, 2021 concluded “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”
In the highly regulated drug world, words like 'possible', 'may', 'likely' etc. are used when you don't have validated data to support your claim. Any regulatory authority would see these as red flags.
I'm not saying that Ivermectin could not possibly be used in the future as an additional tool to fight COVID, but until a full spectrum of Randomized & Placebo controlled Clinical Trials have been performed SPECIFICALLY for treating COVID, then it should be considered as a "Snake Oil" treatment along with Lysol Bleach.
IvanMectin 3 years, 3 months ago
Comparing Ivermectin to bleach? That’s utterly ridiculous. It just shows the lengths some will go to disparage something they’ve never used. Numerous physicians (including Infectious Disease specialists) have successfully treated the overwhelming majority of their pts with it. Is it 100%? No, but nothing is. When people are dying, heroes are needed. IVM has been safely used for decades. Remarkably, suddenly there is toxicity? I’ve got an idea. Stop trying to prevent licensed physicians from prescribing it, and no one will try to take horse paste. Deal?
Sign in to comment
OpenID