Independent COVID-19 Guides, Resources and Protocols - Reducing Risk of COVID-19 Infection and Severity
The Ivermectin Debate - Swiss Policy Research 2022
Dr Frank Yap, M.D.
Is ivermectin highly effective or totally useless against covid? And why is there still no agreement on this question?
Please note: Patients are asked to consult a doctor.
To date, about 60 studies – among them about 30 randomized controlled trials and about 40
peer-reviewed publications – have been done on the use of ivermectin against
covid. Most of these studies found that the use of ivermectin was associated
with a positive outcome, such as a reduced risk of infection, hospitalization
or death (see chart above; not all of these results were significant).
Based on these studies, several meta-analyses computed positive results, too. Most recently, a WHO-supported meta-analysis of 24 randomized controlled trials found a 56% mortality reduction
overall and a 70% mortality reduction in patients who received early
outpatient treatment. There even appears to be a positive dose-response
relationship, which is another indicator of effectiveness. (Update: The WHO-supported meta-analysis has been updated, see postscript below.)
Nevertheless, several concerns have been raised regarding the reliability of these results, and major
– although not necessarily “independent” – health authorities like the WHO,
the US FDA and the European EMA all continue to advise against the use of ivermectin outside of clinical trials.
First, it has been argued
that there might be some publication bias, that is, only positive studies may
have been published, while negative studies may have remained unpublished.
However, the above mentioned meta-analysis was able to show that there is in
fact no publication bias: studies that had been registered or announced did indeed get published, at
least as a pre-print.
But secondly, and more
importantly, it has been argued that many of the existing studies are of rather low quality: due to
budget constraints, many of them are small, single-center, open-label (not
double-blinded) and not perfectly randomized, thus significantly limiting
their reliability. It is possible that at least some of these studies were
biased towards getting a positive result.
Thirdly, and most worryingly,
some of the ivermectin studies may simply be fraudulent or fake. As a matter
of fact, one of the first positive studies on ivermectin, published in
mid-April 2020, was from the very same group (Surgisphere) that published a
fraudulent (negative) study on HCQ in the Lancet (both studies were ultimately retracted). And just last week, another seemingly positive study on ivermectin by an
Egyptian group was shown to be very likely fraudulent. (See updates below.)
It remains debatable whether the groups behind these fraudulent studies simply
tried to jump on the bandwagon of a promising medication, or if their role was
in fact more substantial. In a context unrelated to ivermectin and covid,
a former editor of the British Medical Journalrecently argued that “we have now reached a point where those doing systematic reviews must
start by assuming that a study is fraudulent until they can have some evidence
to the contrary.”
Finally, and contrary to what
some ivermectin proponents have argued, the epidemiological evidence in favor
of ivermectin is rather weak. Ivermectin hasn’t “crushed the curve” anywhere;
rather, decreases in infections were mostly driven by seasonal and endemic effects. In fact, ivermectin pioneers like Peru
and Mexico have some of the highest covid mortality rates in the world; to their defense, even in Latin America, ivermectin use
has often been limited and local.
On the other hand, the few
studies claiming that ivermectin did not work against covid are also of rather
low or dubious quality. The most famous one – a Colombian trial published in
JAMA – was done so poorly that over 100 scientists and doctors called for its retraction. Furthermore, the only negative meta-analysis simply excluded most positive
trials, confused the control and treatment group of another trial, and made
several statistical mistakes, also triggering calls for retraction.
Some of the weakest arguments against ivermectin include questioning its safety (as done by Merck, the WHO and the US FDA, despite the fact that it is one of the safest drugs in the world), or calling it a “veterinary medicine” (it is used as an
anti-parasitic drug in both humans and animals, as are many other drugs). Such
dubious arguments, as well as some rather obvious conflicts of interest, raise legitimate questions about the motivations of some of the critics of
Regarding the potential mode(s) of action of ivermectin against Sars-CoV-2 and covid, proposals by various studies (molecular simulations, in vitro and in vivo) range from direct
anti-viral action or interference with cellular receptors to immuno-modulatory
mechanisms. Critics argue that doses needed to achieve anti-viral action are
too high, but some ivermectin study authors have disagreed.
Most recently, a detailed covid animal study by the renowned French Institute Pasteur found that ivermectin “limited inflammation and prevented clinical
deterioration”, but did not reduce viral load. The study “supports the use of
ivermectin as an immuno-modulatory drug in covid patients”, but it would also,
if applicable to humans, directly question the validity of several studies
that claimed ivermectin works as an anti-viral prophylaxis against coronavirus
infection (more on this).
To resolve this situation and finally answer the question of the effectiveness
of ivermectin against covid, several high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs)are currently ongoing, sponsored by large foundations or public funds. While rather late in the
pandemic, these trials are certainly of crucial importance to settle the
Large and expensive RCTs may, however, come with their own intricacies. Specifically, RCTs may to some extent be “designed to succeed” – as was the
case with some covid vaccine trials as well as remdesivir – or be “designed to fail”. In the case of covid – a multi-phasic
disease with a very steep age-based risk gradient – a trial can be designed to
fail by enrolling (young) low-risk participants, using a drug late instead of
early, under-dosing the drug or in some cases even over-dosing it.
For instance, the ongoing TOGETHERtrial of
ivermectin, sponsored by the Gates Foundation, was caught using just a single dose of ivermectin, whereas successful trials used two to four doses per day
for up to five days. The Oxford PRINCIPLEtrial, meanwhile, was
caught enrolling participants up to 15 days after symptom onset, at which point some high-risk covid patients are already dead. Of note, the
Oxford group had previously “botched” several other early treatment trials.
Finally, ivermectin is also a prime example of the media war that has been going on during the covid pandemic, with US social media
platforms – most notably Facebook and Youtube – having censored numerous doctors, scientists and politicians supporting ivermectin,
while the GAVI vaccine alliance has been buying Google ads discouraging its use. Moreover, one of the major social media “fact
checking” organizations turned out to have financial ties to a covid vaccine manufacturer.
In conclusion, the current
evidence base concerning the use of ivermectin in the early treatment of covid
continues to be positive, but important questions regarding the quality and
certainty of many studies remain. It is to be hoped that ongoing high-quality
RCTs will be able to resolve the debate. Given a still rising global covid mortality of currently about ten million people, if ivermectin is even just 10%
effective against covid, its professional use could already have saved a
In the meantime, preliminary results of the Gates-funded TOGETHER trial of ivermectin have been published: the trial found a non-significant reduction in hospitalization of 9% and a
non-significant reduction in deaths of 18%; the probability of superiority
(vs. standard treatment) was calculated as 76%. Limitations of the trial
include a rather short treatment duration (just three days) and a rather young
patient cohort (18+, median age 52); the treatment delay is not yet known.
Overall, the trial results are consistent with ivermectin being either useless
or being up to 30% effective.
Update October 2021
Several additional ivermectin studies turned out to be likely fraudulent (detailed discussion here). Once low-quality studies are excluded from the analysis, the mortality
benefit of ivermectin is no longer statistically significant.
The epidemiological evidence doesn’t support a strong effect of ivermectin,
either: for instance, in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, known for its use
of ivermectin, the total death count turned out to be 43 times higher than the official covid death toll.
Some beneficial immuno-modulatory effect – as found by the French Institute Pasteur – is still plausible, but the available evidence has become rather
uncertain. Two high-quality RCTs of ivermectin are still ongoing, and
ivermectin recently passed the “futility threshold” in both of these trials (i.e. >33% chance of benefit).
Base Spike Detox According to Dr Peter McCullough (in a Twitter post - July 2023): Base Spike Detox is what I am currently using in my practice for those who have had COVID-19 multiple times, one or more of the COVID-19 vaccines, or both and believe persistent SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein could be causing problems in their body. A major publication is under review and editing; however, the information is far too important to hold back. Update: Published on August 25, 2023 in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. CLICK HERE FOR THE COMPLETE PAPER > Base Spike Protein Detoxification . I have arrived, based on the emerging scientific literature and my clinical observation, that three OTC products are essential as a triple base combination: Nattokinase 2000 FU (100 mg) twice a day Bromelain 500 mg once a day Nano/Liposomal Curcumin 500 mg twice a day Additional products can be add
Dr. Peter McCullough is an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, a full professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine in Dallas, USA. He also has a master's degree in public health and is known for being one of the top five most-published medical researchers in the United States and is the editor of two medical journals. McCullough Protocol 2022 Updates: Omicron variant XBB found to be resistant to monoclonal antibody treatments ( New England Journal of Medicine . Dec 2022) What really killed COVID-19 patients: It wasn't a cytokine storm, suggests study (2023) Everyone is familiar with nasal and oral swab testing for COVID-19. It should be obvious the virus is replicating in the nose, and with Omicron, the speed of replication has become much greater than the
Well-respected North Texas cardiologist, Dr. Peter McCullough has impeccable academic credentials. He's an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, a full professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine in Dallas. He also has a master's degree in public health and is known for being one of the top five most-published medical researchers in the United States and is the editor of two medical journals. McCullough et al. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2020 McCullough Protocol 2022 Updates: Omicron variant XBB found to be resistant to monoclonal antibody treatments ( New England Journal of Medicine . Dec 2022) How to Detox Spike Protein from Body (August 2023) As published in Dr
Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough asked European lawmakers to take COVID-19 vaccines off the market, warning that the vaccines are responsible for a host of illnesses, including heart inflammation, blood clots, and neurological diseases. “COVID-19 vaccines and all of their progeny and future boosters are not safe for human use. I implore you, as a governing body, European Medicines Agency (EMA), to apply all pressure and due urgency to remove the COVID-19 vaccines from market,” Dr. McCullough said in Sept. 13 testimony to the European Parliament (video below). “In the United States, it's going jurisdiction by jurisdiction, probably state by state will remove them off the market if the federal government doesn't do so. It's going to happen all over the world.” Dr. McCullough said that everything he has learned about messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines has been “horrifying.” In the United States, 94 percent of Americans wh
Is povidone iodine the next ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine? Is there any evidence that povidone iodine can treat COVID-19? Iodine 1% Nasal Spray is part of the FLCCC I-CARE early treatment protocol : Nasal spray with 1% povidone-iodine: 2-3 times a day. Do not use for more than 5 days in pregnancy. If 1% product is not available, dilute the more widely available 10% solution and apply 4-5 drops to each nostril every 4 hours. Use 1 % povidone iodine commercial product as per instructions 2–3 x daily. If 1 %-product not available, must first dilute the more widely available 10 %-solution. To make 1% povidone iodine concentrated solution from 10% povidone iodine solution, one dilution method is as follows: – First pour 1½ tablespoons (25ml) of 10% povidone/ iodine solution into a nasal irrigation bottle of 250ml. – Then fill to top with distilled, sterile or previously boiled water. – Tilt head back, apply 4–5 drops to each nostril. Keep tilted for a few minutes, let drain. - Not recom
Biography Well-respected North Texas cardiologist, Dr. Peter McCullough has impeccable academic credentials. He's an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, a full professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine in Dallas. He also has a master's degree in public health and is known for being one of the top five most-published medical researchers in the United States and is the editor of two medical journals. Personal History Dr. Peter A. McCullough was born in Buffalo, New York, on the 29th of December 1962. During high school, he and his family moved to Wichita Falls in Texas and later settled in Grapevine. He has lived and worked in various parts of the United States, including Washington and Michigan, and he now resides in Dallas, Texas. McCullough Protocol 2022 Dr Peter McCullough Early Treatment Protocol
SELF-HELP without a Doctor ( source ) Zinc 50 mg daily (can take half twice daily if upset stomach) Quercetin 500 mg twice a day three times a day if sick (switch to HCQ/IVM if available) Vitamin D3 40,000-50,000 for five days Melatonin 5 mg - 20 mg nightly for 14 days stomach) Pepcid 40-80 daily 14 days – women or Cimetidine 400 daily -men Full Aspirin (325 mg) daily one month N acetyl cysteine (NAC) Up to 2000-2400 mg 1-2 days, then 1000-1200 mg for a week Treatment: Latest Prescriptions ( source ) Monoclonal Antibodies: outpatient, FDA approved, early treatment, within 10 days Only. Note and Update: Omicron variant XBB found to be resistant to monoclonal antibody treatments ( New England Journal of Medicine . Dec 2022) HCQ 200 mg twice a day 7 days or IVM (weight based 0.4/kg) 20-36 mg daily 2-5 days Fenofibrate (Tricor – anti-lipid) 145 mg daily (inflammatory/cytokine phase. Antioxidant) Cyproheptadine (Periactin – antihistamine) 4 mg BID for 14 days (cytokine phase) D
Treatment should start based on clinical suspicion as soon as possible, preferably within the first 3 days of symptoms. Perform PCR testing, but do not withhold treatment pending results. 'Early' treatment will make significant difference in outcome as opposed to late treatment. To assist all who are having difficulty finding pharmacists to fill prescriptions for ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) for preventing or treating COVID-19 , check out Find a Pharmacy to fill Ivermectin (US). See the directory of professionals in US below. Directory of Doctors (by State) Prescribing Effective Outpatient COVID-19 Therapy USA MULTIPLE STATES (Telemedicine or online consultation) The Wellness Company ( twc.health ) Medical Specialty: Family Medicine, Functional Medicine Supported Protocols: I-PREVENT (COVID Protection), I-CARE (Early at-home treatment), I-RECOVER (Long COVID and Post-Vaccine treatme
Do nasal sprays actually work against COVID-19? There has been quite a lot of activities in the COVID nasal spray space. Below, we look at some of the best nasal sprays for COVID-19 and summaries of the rationale and evidence for each category. Do note that some of them are available as an over-the-counter medication but some are still under clinical trial stage. McCullough Protocol 2022 Best Nasal Sprays for COVID-19 (2023) There are lots of great nasal sprays out there, and this list is by no means complete. We’ve included nasal sprays with proven anti-COVID-19 ingredient, you can buy over the counter or online. 1. Povidone Iodine Nasal Spray and COVID-19 Povidone iodine (PVP-I
There is evidence that cancers are occurring in excess after people receive COVID-19 vaccinations, according to Dr. Harvey Risch. Dr. Risch is professor emeritus of epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine. His research has focused extensively on the causes of cancer as well as prevention and early diagnosis. In an interview for EpochTV’s " American Thought Leaders ," Dr. Risch said patients must now wait months, not weeks, to get an appointment at an oncology clinic in New York. There is difficulty in observing whether a vaccine can cause cancer, because cancer usually takes time to develop, Dr. Risch said. It can take anywhere from two years to 30 years, depending on the different types of cancer, from leukemia to colon cancer. “What clinicians have been seeing,” said Dr. Risch, “is very strange things: For example, 25-year-olds with colon cancer, who don't have family histories of t