There are four major trials of ivermectin for early COVID, one completed and three (3) in progress. Patients received about 20% of the ivermectin dosage they should have in the completed Together Trial in which it showed possible mild benefit. Principal investigator, Dr. Edward Mills, announced that ivermectin showed “absolutely no benefit” but the actual data showed otherwise. Was Dr. Mills biased? ACTIV-6, COVID-OUT, and PRINCIPLE are using even lower doses of ivermectin than the Together trial, clearly absurd and suspicious for corruption.
Who will Share the Truth?
Many physicians are anxiously awaiting the results of these trials. They deserve to know what is going on but will major medical journals report the underdosing in all the trials? The editors in chief of NEJM, JAMA, the Annals of Internal Medicine, CHEST, British Medical Journal, and the Lancet have been informed. The president elect, treasurer and head of ethics for the ACP have been told. The president, president elect, and CEO of the Infectious Disease Society of America have been told. 15 board members of the American Medical Association have been told. So has the principal investigator of ACTIV-6 and WCG IRB. The principal investigator of COVID-OUT at the University of Minnesota has been told. So has the the PRINCIPLE group in London. Moreover, the president of NIH and deputy chairman of NIAID have been told.
The Response
After numerous email communications with associated letters articulating the situation this was the response obtained: “At this time, the issues you have raised regarding dosing are under active consideration by those involved in oversight of the study. There is not much more we can say at present but anticipate the study team may have something to say in the future.”
It’s been 11 weeks since Together was reported and patients are still being randomized to placebo or a dose of ivermectin they know doesn’t work.
Goodbye Practice of Medicine
The pandemic has seen a lot of controversial decisions by our federal healthcare agencies. By and large physician healthcare organizations have rubber-stamped everything the government does. The AMA went public that ivermectin should only be used in trials. All fear their members will never see grant money from NIH or drug companies again if they misspeak.
Medical journals rarely say anything controversial. JAMA printed the infamous Lopez Medina study sponsored by 5 drug company competitors of ivermectin which 100 experts demanded be retracted but wasn’t. Many individual physicians speak their minds often to consequences. No one with clout will stand up to Dr. Anthony Fauci et al. even when their decisions are absurd. On that topic, numerous researchers have informed us off-record that to go up against Fauci is to lose any hope of NIH funding.
Dosed for Failure
In Together, ivermectin was dosed initially at one day of 0.4 mg/kg on an empty stomach. When challenged that it was ridiculous, principal investigator, Dr. Edward Mills increased it to 3 days which is still ridiculous. Fluvoxamine was given for 10 days. Ivermectin is 2.6 times better absorbed with a meal. For the delta variant, patients should receive 0.6 mg/kg with food for 5 days or until cured per the FLCCC Alliance. There is much evidence of the safety of this dosing on the FLCCC Alliance website. One might think that Dr. Mills’ mentor, Bill Gates, Dr. Fauci’s friend, might have had something to do with it. Yes, that sounds conspiratorial, and, no, we are not conspiracy theorists here.
Here is a review of the ivermectin portion of Together. By COVID Analysis. Analysis of Ivermectin in Together
Hiltzik the Hack
The newspapers, who would have no idea how to review a study, gleefully leaped to ring the death knell of ivermectin. Michael Hiltzik, the business reporter for the LA Times, had written an article very critical of ivermectin after Together was reported. When I told him of the problems in the trial and that ivermectin was being underdosed in all 4 major trials his response was:
“Thanks for writing. It’s crystal clear that no evidence exists for the efficacy of ivermectin against COVID. My feeling is that any physician who prescribes it for that purpose should have his license scrutinized.”
For a TrialSite review of Mr. Hiltzik’s writing, follow the link.
Media Blackout
Together was presented to NIH 8/6/21. NIH did not comment on the obviously absurd way they treated Ivermectin patients. There has been little to nothing in the press or in medical journals about the problems with the study. It has not been officially peer-reviewed. Dr. Mills attacked ivermectin proponents and showed a high level of bias. One hopes when the ivermectin portion of Together is peer-reviewed, Dr. Mills will be cited for investigator misconduct.
The Test: And We Are Watching
The important people in medicine have had this information only a few days. We will find out who is willing to stand up for honor and integrity, who will stand up for right and wrong and who will stand up for physicians and patients.
The power of medical journals and physician organizations is limited by how much they can induce physicians to respond. I don’t have a lot of faith in physicians right now. They wouldn’t use repurposed drugs that might have worked on sick COVID patients. Our totalitarian medical system has them afraid of being called before a medical board if big brother doesn’t like what they do.
I hope someone in medicine will stand up but I’m not holding my breath until someone does. You are better off going to your congressmen and senators about the obvious corruption. NIH is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to intentionally make ivermectin fail. Maybe they will pay attention.