According to Arthur Allen, a Senior Correspondent writing about the pharma industry and FDA and COVID-related topics, ivermectin has been a complete “fiasco” with absolutely no proof of any efficacy or benefit. This KHN-employed author blames the hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin “fiascoes” for souring physicians’ point of view on repurposed medicines. At the same time, he acknowledges that the pharmaceutical industry pursues billions of revenues and profits even with mediocre drugs, according to scientists in the field.
Mr. Allen declared in the article that ivermectin, while showing “hints of value initially,” unfortunately, “failed in clinical trials” yet continues to remain in circulation.
But what about the majority of the 82 studies to date involved with ivermectin? See the link to the tracker. Well, mainstream medicine has determined that although numerous studies reveal positive results, the ethics and integrity underlying these studies are questionable; thus, all of them should be discounted.
Also, how can Allen declare failure when the U.S government is still studying ivermectin via the large ACTIV-6 trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) as well as the University of Minnesota and Optum (UnitedHealth)-backed COVID-OUT study? This makes no sense when the two biggest studies involving ivermectin in America aren’t even done yet. This is a tell-tale sign of either a biased or uninformed writer. Given his background in the industry, we lean toward the former over the latter. Has he referred to the NIH’s own recommendations? The NIH doesn’t declare studies have “Failed.” In fact, their formal position is:
“There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.”
In the spirit of the divisive writing we have come to expect of the mainstream media, Allen blames the problem of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as symbols affiliated with a “culture war” for at least “some of President Donald Trump’s followers.”
This media platform has no affinity to Donald Trump or his followers but simply follows what the data, the studies, and the real-world experience reveal. For example, several high-profile studies involving ivermectin haven’t met endpoints (we report on those just as we do others), yet many others show some efficacy. And we don’t believe all of the studies involving ivermectin are fraudulent, as some mainstream writers incorrectly allege. True, many of these studies were conducted in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) during the pandemic, so resources, capital, and capacity may have been stretched.
Allen does introduce fluvoxamine but fails to mention that the drug wouldn’t have been investigated had it not been for the financing of Silicon Valley entrepreneur Steve Kirsch and the Early Treatment Fund. This was a heroic move on the part of Kirsch.
Yet because Kirsch has been critical of the vaccines, he has become persona non grata among the mainstream. Thus, he does not even get credit from Allen where credit is due—putting millions of his own money up to evaluate fluvoxamine, something the National Institutes of Health (NIH) should have been doing with our public commitment to finding repurposed, economical drugs.
Allen didn’t show the decency to even present the truth on how this drug emerged, which is unfortunate. Although, he does include Dr. Eric Lenze at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who was absolutely essential, as was David Boulware.
To Allen’s credit, he does educate that Boulware went ahead and filed an emergency use authorization (EUA) for fluvoxamine on December 21, 2021, something reported by TS News.
Allen correctly features another parallel tract for pharma with a very different outcome. While Boulware waits…and waits…for any fluvoxamine action, Merck (just two days after Dr. Boulware’s submission) received authorization to market their far more costly molnupiravir yet the side effects and safety issues with this antiviral drug cannot be ignored. It’s not recommended for pregnant persons as it causes genetic and fetal harm in preclinical testing, reports the KHN author.
Allen also highlights a positive Brazilian study involving fluvoxamine yet identifies that since the positive impacts of the Brazilian study, “fluvoxamine’s future has dimmed. Neither the NIH nor the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends fluvoxamine to prevent respiratory distress” despite significant data showing it, in fact, helps.
However, Allen mentions some concerns about the drug and underlying studies. Yet, as TS News reported, the first remdesivir study leading to the EUA failed to meet the endpoint (death reduction), so the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) sponsor (part of the NIH) along with Gilead actually changed the endpoints toward the end of the study! That ensured Dr. Anthony Fauci could announce a new standard, although he mentioned it was “no knockout drug.”
The contractions, hypocrisy, and double standards associated with industry versus generic, repurposed approaches are clear for those in America and beyond that bother to take the time to look into these matters with any seriousness. Sit back and listen to the boob tube and one is subject to a point of view, a truth, and some propaganda.
Meanwhile, TS News recently reported that the World Health Organization (WHO), heavily influenced by industry, interestingly now embraces Traditional Chinese Medicine for COVID-19. Yet they completely ignored any signs of success with repurposed drugs such as fluvoxamine or ivermectin (remember WHO publicly praised the health authorities of Uttar Pradesh for their home health outreach during the delta surge of COVID-19, including the use of home medical kits—they forgot to mention, however, that ivermectin was included in those medicine kits). See a summary of that piece on TS News’ YouTube.
Ivermectin isn’t a cure for COVID-19 and may or may not help in some instances, but significant research reveals some efficacy. Blaming this drug for the fact that doctors don’t want repurposed drugs is ingenuine at best, if not another attempt at social manipulation, this time by an esteemed health care foundation. It misses waves of misinformation campaigns as the health authorities wanted universal vaccination without dependence on what they considered unproven generic drugs used during early care by many front-line doctors.
So, Allen gets partial credit for addressing some of the challenges with industry incentives yet gets poor scores from this media for what reeks of a hit piece with carefully placed political undertones.