I’m sure you are aware of the Fluvoxamine data, which was announced August 6, 2021 and published in the Lancet October 27, 2021. Surprisingly no media covered this important breakthrough. The government healthcare agencies don’t talk about it. In my opinion Fluvoxamine is grossly underutilized. A 32% decrease in hospitalizations and death would certainly help patients, healthcare workers and hospitals. Steve Kirsch founded the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund which funded the trial. According to Mr. Kirsch no one treated with fluvoxamine gets long COVID. On the IDSA website updated November 11, 2021, Fluvoxamine is listed last of 24 drugs and is recommended for use only in clinical trials. There are no guidelines on the site recommending its use. The Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) should be putting its efforts into getting all newly infected people treated with Fluvoxamine rather than solely mandating the vaccination of the 45% of the population with natural immunity who have little if anything to gain from vaccination and may risk significant risk of side effects.
In the Together trial, patients were first given ivermectin 0.4 mg/kg on an empty stomach for one day. After a lot of complaints, Dr. Edward Mills increased it to 3 days. Ivermectin blood levels are 2.6 times higher with food. The FLCCC Alliance recommends for delta 0.6 mg/kg with food for 5 days until resolved. Despite patients getting about 20% of the correct effective dose, admissions fell 9% and mortality 18%, not statistically significant, even though Dr. Mills announced that it showed “absolutely no benefit”. IDSA had nothing to say about it.
ACTIV-6 (NIH), COVID-OUT (University of Minnesota) and PRINCIPLE (Oxford) are giving lower doses than in Together. How can that be? They had 3 months to change the dose or add a new arm. The Together ivermectin results haven’t been published in a peer reviewed journal. Maybe it has to do with the fact that NEJM, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, Chest, BMJ and the Lancet know about the dosing in Together and won’t publish the results? The four IDSA representatives I contacted about the dosing failed to respond. Is it possible for IDSA to not know how badly ivermectin was underdosed in Together and will be in the two American trials and PRINCIPLE? If they knew about it, it appears that they couldn’t or didn’t try to get the dosing changed.
Subscribe to the Trialsitenews "Ivermectin" Channel
No spam - we promise
Dr. Alan Bain had a tremendous success with IVM after a court order. I can see IDSA not liking the existing ivermectin data and not recommending ivermectin but how can they stand by and condone hospitals not giving it to near terminal patients when ordered by a physician?
The idea that IDSA discouraged physicians from giving a safe drug when there was arguable evidence of efficacy is hard to understand. Patients needed to get any drug that might have worked. I hope someday an important ivermectin study is positive so patients will have another option and those who were previously infected will know that IDSA recommended no treatment rather than a drug that would have worked.
Dr. Adarsh Bhimraj, who heads the IDSA COVID recommendation committee, went to medical school in India and certainly knows that Uttar Pradesh, 230 million people had great success with ivermectin. The public health authority for India’s most populous state embraced the drug in a serious way to combat the Delta variant over a year ago. Even the World Health Organization (WHO) did a write up on the amazing job public health authorities were doing—of course they mentioned that part of the aggressive public health treatment included a home medicine kit which was based on ivermectin. Today the SARS-CoV-2-based pandemic appears in control.
It doesn’t seem to matter to IDSA who has determined that only randomized trials matter and that only a small number of them warrant consideration, none of them satisfactory to them. Dr. Bhimraj commented in the Washington Post on what a well-done study Lopez Medina was, not noticing that the authors were compensated by industry. Apparently he wasn’t aware that that particular study, rife with problems, was sponsored by actual competitors of ivermectin and that over 100 scientists called for its withdrawal. IDSA complains of the lack of good trials, but they did nothing to sponsor a trial that might have given unequivocal results.
Ivermectin may never get the needed data in the U.S. because when paxlovid and molnupiravir get EUAs it will be unethical to enroll patients in ACTIV-6 and COVID-OUT. I hope that PRINCIPLE will use a reasonable dose of ivermectin. England probably won’t have enough antivirals for everyone so the trial could be run. By the way, when we get the antivirals, they both should be administered with Fluvoxamine which has a different mechanism of action, mainly anti-inflammatory, probably by being an agonist of sigma-1 receptors.
Data on famotidine 80 mg 3 times a day is coming soon. Three trials of high dose famotidine plus celecoxib are starting. The two US studies may not commence because of the antivirals. The one in India should happen. NIH knew about famotidine since the early stages of the pandemic yet did not sponsor a trial. It also looks like someone dissuaded the American Association of Asthma Allergy and Immunology from doing any work with COVID and mast cell therapies. The IDSA website last reviewed famotidine June 18, 2020 and did not realize the mechanism of action is blocking H2 receptors on mast cells.
Eventually I believe NIH will get the credit for ignoring Uttar Pradesh and intentionally not studying ivermectin a year ago when the urgency called for just such a move. The FDA did everything possible to sabotage it. They were even exposed for purposely conflating self-medicating involving the veterinary variety from licensed physicians writing off-label prescriptions. Moreover, both public agencies should get credit for not promoting Fluvoxamine which would have a profound impact on the pandemic. They deserve credit for pushing vaccine mandates, including for the 45% of Americans previously infected who have as good or better immunity than those vaccinated, and children who have little risk. The idea that immunity to the spike protein alone could be as good as to all 29 viral proteins from infection is absurd.
The IDSA has followed government healthcare agency guidance for COVID to a tee except that of note, NIH at least until the present has maintained a neutral position on ivermectin—yet IDSA firmly stands against that position. IDSA deserves the same condemnation as the government healthcare agencies. They should have been objective, data-driven and independent and committed to the patient rather than governmental and industry power, prestige and pecuniary gain—they should have warned Americans as to the unreasonable, industry -influenced strategies of the government healthcare agencies. However, they are joined at the hip. It is likely they conferred with the governmental agencies on those strategies. I feel quite certain that like our government healthcare agencies, IDSA will be looked upon unkindly by history.