May 30th, 2024

Ivermectin no treatment for COVID-19


By Lethbridge Herald on October 16, 2021.

Editor:

The COVID-19 pandemic has been long and tiresome to say the least. We all want – and need – safe, effective therapies to help prevent more suffering and death. 

Unfortunately, in the sometimes desperate search for treatments to prevent or treat COVID-19, an epidemic of misinformation has emerged around which medications are, and aren’t, effective against COVID-19. There are several effective medications Alberta Health Services (AHS) is using to treat COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, but ivermectin is not one of them. 

To suggest that AHS is withholding life-saving treatment by not supporting the use of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 is wrong. 

Claims that either the veterinary or human form of the drug is a life-saving medication against COVID-19 are not supported by current research. 

If there was good evidence for its use against this virus, AHS would absolutely be using it to help patients and reduce the burden on our healthcare system. As this evidence does not exist, AHS does not recommend the use of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 – not even as a “just in case” measure. 

Although some early studies into the use of ivermectin against COVID-19 suggested possible benefit, none of the recent high-quality trials where results have been reviewed and assessed have supported these findings. There are genuine concerns of fraudulent data being reported from some of the early trials, and the largest trial that supported ivermectin use has already been withdrawn as a result of data fraud.

Alberta Health Services’ Scientific Advisory Group has reviewed the existing studies using ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Based on the weakness of the existing studies – including small sample sizes, inappropriate study designs and inadequate controls – the Scientific Advisory Group agrees with expert groups like Health Canada, the Food and Drug Administration, World Health Organization and professional regulatory groups such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta and the Alberta College of Pharmacy. There is no high-quality evidence that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. 

Neither the veterinary nor human drug versions of ivermectin have been deemed safe or effective for use in treating or preventing COVID-19. Even the drug manufacturer has issued a statement that ivermectin should not be used for COVID-19.

Ivermectin is a useful anti-parasitic developed initially for treatment of worms and parasites in animals. It has also been found useful in the treatment of some human diseases related to worms and parasites. But parasites are not the same as viruses, and COVID-19 is caused by a virus. 

There is no evidence that ivermectin benefits COVID-19 patients, but there are known harms. 

Ivermectin use has been associated with rash, nausea, vomiting, low blood pressure, abdominal pain, tremors, seizures and severe hepatitis (liver disease) requiring hospitalization. 

Further, the use of veterinary versions of ivermectin is risky because they may contain ingredients not used in medications for humans, and are meant for use in much larger animals like horses and cattle. Ingestion of large amounts of veterinary ivermectin can cause poisoning and even lead to death.

The use of a veterinary drug not approved for use in humans is not acceptable within AHS facilities. Any claims of it being used will be thoroughly reviewed. 

Further, because of inappropriate use of ivermectin there is a critical shortage of it in many areas and it is not available to treat those with parasitic diseases, meaning some individuals may suffer needlessly. 

It can be easy, especially in today’s digital age, to become caught up in disinformation circulating through social media, where scientific-sounding videos and articles of “evidence” and conspiracy theories play off pandemic anxiety. This pandemic of misinformation is eroding public confidence in effective medical treatments and in the healthcare system to the point of endangering lives. 

 We urge the public not to misuse unproven medications in their efforts to avoid or manage COVID-19. It is dangerous. Visit http://www.ahs.ca/covid to get the facts, and to view the full report from the Scientific Advisory Group. 

Vaccination remains our best means of preventing COVID-19. Our vaccines are safe, fully approved and have been studied in high quality trials of tens of thousands of people. All Albertans who are eligible are encouraged to book their shot by calling 811, visiting a walk-in clinic, contacting a doctor’s office or visiting bookvaccine.alberta.ca. 

 Dr. Mark Joffe – Vice President & Medical Director, Cancer Care Alberta, Clinical Support Services & Provincial Clinical Excellence, Alberta Health Services

Dr. Lynora Saxinger, Medical Lead – Antimicrobial Stewardship Northern Alberta & COVID-19 

Scientific Advisory Group co-chair, Alberta Health Services 

Dr. Braden Manns – Associate Chief Medical Officer, Alberta Health Services 

Share this story:

23
-22
43 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Trudeau for prison

You are wrong! Ivermectin does work but the bias media never talks about it’s success rate because they’d rather push the untested clot shot!
It’s too bad this is such a left wing rag that you won’t even entertain the idea of something that has proven to work over pushing a false narrative.
You’re so called health professionals are all devotees of the left leaning Lieberal government so of course they will discount the benefits of other treatment for covid cause they don’t get paid to tell the truth.

Mrs. Kidd (she/her)

I’ve just examined the academic credentials and research contributions of each of the authors of this letter. Their respective records are quite remarkable, which brings me to your contribution to this discussion. On what did you base your statement “You are wrong!”, and why did you refer to the letter writers as “so called health professionals”?

h2ofield

He has no base. He’s just another blabbing idiot.

h2ofield

Thanks for the paranoid partisan rant. Please go suck down a tube of ivermectin. Giddyup!

Guy Lethbridge

Quite right Mrs. Kidd. The authors of the letter each by themselves have impressive credentials and positions. But I’m no expert. I’m certainly not qualified to question statements made by that level of expertise.. So, I’m left with (like most of us) deciding which expert opinion I’m going to trust to form my opinion. For the commenter to simplify state “You are wrong!”, he must have superior (or at least equal) credentials to all three of them combined! WOW , if true, that’s an accomplishment. Can’t wait to hear what they are.

Last edited 2 years ago by Guy Lethbridge
Andrew Blair

I appreciate that the authors of this letter are trying to ward off false hope in a non-vaccination approach to the pandemic. They think that getting everyone vaccinated is the safest most effective way. Perhaps their efforts at persuasion are effective for most people who are Covid-19 vaccination hesitant, but for me their efforts are counterproductive. When I look at the evidence surrounding ivermectin, it appears to me that their reasoning is distorted by the desire to drive people to get vaccinated. This distortion causes me to distrust them, and, if they cannot be trusted with regard to ivermectin, it undermines my trust in what they have to say about vaccinations. I wish I could trust them, but their arguments do not constitute good science.
They make many assertions about the evidence, but they do not cite sources that would enable people to check for themselves. They are saying, essentially, “We’ve looked at the evidence, so trust us that we have come to the right conclusions.” That’s not good enough for me. 
They say “Neither the veterinary nor human drug versions of ivermectin have been deemed safe or effective for use in treating or preventing COVID-19.” I ask who has done this deeming and why.
First, consider safety. One of the many studies that have been done is Jacques Descotes’ Medical Safety of Ivermectin. You can google it. Descotes did an extensive analysis of over 500 articles and web sources and came to this conclusion: “Hundreds of millions of human subjects have been treated with ivermectin for curative or prophylactic purposes worldwide over the last 3 decades…. Taking into account all the above, the author [Descotes] of the present analysis of the available medical data concludes that the safety profile of ivermectin has so far been excellent in the majority of treated human patients so that ivermectin human toxicity cannot be claimed to be a serious cause for concern.” Granted, these hundreds of millions of subjects were being given ivermectin for parasites, but why would ivermectin be any less safe for Covid-19? Where are the studies showing that it is not safe? 
If the veterinarian version of ivermectin is not safe because of added ingredients, or if there is a danger of using too much, then why does AHS not make it easy to get the human version? The argument that this would create a critical shortage is nonsense. Sure, current supplies might not be adequate, but supplies can easily and cheaply be increased.
Second, consider effectiveness. The letter says “There is no evidence that ivermectin benefits COVID-19 patients …” This is very misleading. There are many dozens of studies that favour ivermectin. The evidence in the majority of these studies has not lent a high degree of certainty to their conclusions, and one appears to have been fraudulent, but that’s not “no evidence”. For further research investigation I recommend googling an article by Martin Neil and Norman Fenton titled “Bayesian Hypothesis Testing and Hierarchical Modeling of Ivermectin Effectiveness”.
Here’s what I wish AHS would do. I wish it would say “The science on ivermectin appears to us to be uncertain, but we cannot rule out the possibility that it has some beneficial effect in the prevention and treatment of Covid-19. Our policy on this has been mistaken. We are no longer discouraging its use, and we are making supplies available. Be aware, however, that ivermectin is not a substitute for vaccinations. Please get vaccinated.”
If AHS did this it would increase my confidence in the vaccination policy. It would make me think that they really are following the science. But I doubt that they will do it. They will think that such a reversal in policy will undermine public trust. Maybe it would. So I may just be stuck in my general distrust of AHS with regard to its Covid-19 policies.

phlushie

if ahs makes your suggested statement, then the reason for the vaccine being released for emergency use is invalid. the vaccine was released because there was no alternative treatment. they are bound to the lie.

Mrs. Kidd (she/her)

One of the reports referenced — “Medical Safety of Ivermectin” — was prepared by a consulting firm, has not been vetted by the peer-review process, does not contain a conflict of interest statement, nor is the funding source identified.

Andrew Blair

Thank you very much for this Mrs. Kidd. I welcome any comment that helps to keep me honest. I will look into this further myself.

Andrew Blair

Medical Safety of Ivermectin” is a comprehensive review of the literature on the safety of ivermectin. It appears to me that most of the 350 articles that were reviewed were themselves peer-reviewed, though I have not gone through the whole list to check them all. 

The report was produced by the consulting firm Immunosafe at the request of MedinCell SA. The report does not explicitly say that MedinCell paid Immunosafe, but I assume that it did, and that Immunosafe remunerated the author. In March 2021 MedinCell said that “The analysis will be submitted shortly by the author for peer review to an internationally acknowledged journal,” but that “MedinCell is making this review available immediately.”  (See https://www.medincell.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/PR_MDCL_safety_ivermectine-50321.pdf.) As far as I know it has not yet been published as a peer-reviewed article, but I would like to see this happen because I would like to be more sure that the articles selected for review were not cherry-picked. When I read the report itself it appears to me that the articles were not cherry-picked, but a peer review would help to confirm this. 

All the same, I consider the article to constitute strong evidence that ivermectin is very safe.

biff

the best thing to do if one has covid is to ride it like you would a cold or flu, and stay away from people for a good 10 days. that is how i approached it. moreover, that is what about 1.6 million canadians that have tested positive for covid have already done…and guess what? about that many have survived. only 28k did not, and of those 28k, over 17k were 80+, another over 5k were 70+ (so, about 23k of 28k deaths attributed rather loosely to covid were not only among the most aged in our society, they also tended to have comorbidities). nutshell: out 1.6 million cdns that have tested positive for covid, almost all of them have survived.
this is not to say do not vax if you feel it is right for you. that is free choice. get as many as the system allows, if that is what you feel serves your needs.
it is also not to say that vaxes have not saved lives. it is to say that vaxes need not be – and are not – for everyone.
vaxes are not to be mandated – ever. they are also not to be forced upon people via coercive methods. ever. what kind of freakshow have we become whereby people can be forced and pinned to the wall such that they have to ingest something? it is bad enough we have laws that tell people what they cannot choose to take, but to effectively have laws that force people to take something is beyond decent and acceptable.
what is wrong with people? it is like a dystopian sci fi story: upon taking a vax, they forgo all sense of freedom, and, zombie like, as though they have inhaled some other worldly spore, they sigh with vacuous eyes and simple smile: “yes, i get it now…vaxes must be for everyone. doing as you are told on vaxes and all things both restores and equates to freedom. can’t wait for us all to be garbed in man from glad outfits.”

Last edited 2 years ago by biff
Freedom

I completely agree that we would all be better off if transmission and infection of covid could be minimized and eliminated. There are a growing number of studies and experts who are finding this can happen through the use of ivermectin!
Dr. Pierre Kory asserts: “Long haul covid is only caused by one thing; undertreatment. Hospitalized covid is only caused by one thing; undertreatment. Getting covid is only caused by one thing: which is a lack of effective preventative strategy” (8 Doctor Open Discussion, YouTube).
Ivermectin IS safe and effective in the prevention and treatment of covid, but it is off patent, and it makes the vaccines unnecessary.
As Canadians, we collectively need to insist that doctors in Canada are not only allowed, – but encouraged to prescribe ivermectin! This would immediately ease the growing divide between us, and based on what other countries have seen, – see us emerge from this pandemic (Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 63 studies). Something that is not and will not happen effectively with the current approach.
8 Doctor Open Discussion – September 2021 – YouTube
Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 63 studies

grinandbearit

I urge people not to fall for YouTube or other unscientific, non peer reviewed sources of information just because of COVID-related anxiety. The only thing we have great certainty about at this point is vaccination, distancing and masking.

Andrew Blair

 When you talk of certainty about vaccination I guess you mean certainty of efficacy for a few months against hospitalization with a case of Covid-19. Is that what you mean? 
 
I am looking for certainty of safety of the vaccinations. Are you able to point me to some scientific peer reviewed sources about that? 
 
I am also interested in finding such studies about distancing and masking – not just studies that find weak support for distancing and masking, but studies that provide a higher degree of certainty than that. If you know of some please point me in their direction.

h2ofield

Poor helpless Andrew. Try harder!

grinandbearit

This is obviously just trolling. There is no medical intervention that has certainty of safety. Analgesics, antibiotics, anti-parasite drugs, vaccines, etc., all have potentially adverse outcomes. You have to look at the efficacy vs chance of adverse outcomes and compare that ratio to other interventions and no intervention to make a rational decision.

Andrew Blair

No I am not trolling, but I am questioning whether you simply assume that because AHS, or the CBC, says something, that it therefore must have backing in scientific peer reviewed sources. Have you actually looked for these sources yourself? 
 
You and I agree that we need to look at efficacy vs chance of adverse outcomes. I know of studies that claim that the risks of adverse events outweigh the risks of COVID. One example is “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?” by Kostoff et. al. Can you please point me to a study that shows the opposite.

grinandbearit

I could cherry-pick papers too. To what end?

Elohssa Gib

I hear you re AHS and the People’s Network. I get most of my science information from my friend, Johnny-Down-the-Bar, and from re-runs of Lost in Space. Danger, Will Robinson.

phlushie

did you know that an vaccinated person only has a 1.3% better chance of getting covid than a triple vaccinated person.Israel is the test. 92% vaccinated yet covid is rampant. didn’t someone say if you do the same thing over and over expecting a different result; you are insane. theorem: there is some other reason for the vaccine

Freedom

Perhaps you’re not familiar with Dr. Kory?
Kory P – Search Results – PubMed (nih.gov)

Guy Lethbridge

WOW, the disinformation factory is pumping it out today.

phlushie

Just STAND BY, you may also gain some answers for question you were afraid to ask,