Canadian Press story on ivermectin shows ignorance or bias
By Lethbridge Herald on April 27, 2024.
Editor:
The Canadian Press demonstrated either its ignorance or its bias in the news story headlined “Premier stands by pick of ‘contrarian’ chair to lead COVID data review” in the April 24 edition of the Lethbridge Herald.
The story’s second-last paragraph states: “Smith questioned the mainstream science approach to the pandemic and endorsed debunked COVID-19 treatments, such as horse dewormer ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.”
A news story crafted with the aim of objectivity might have said it this way: Smith questioned the mainstream science approach to the pandemic and endorsed alternative COVID-19 treatments such as ivermectin, which critics dismissed as “horse dewormer,” and hydroxychloroquine.
Ivermectin actually has a long history as an antiparasitic medication for humans, and is commonly used as such to deal with parasites prevalent in tropical countries. After ivermectin’s discovery in 1975, it was originally used by veterinarians to treat heartworm and acariasis in horses, but was approved for human use in 1987. Since then, it has been used to combat a number of parasite-caused maladies including head lice, scabies, river blindness (onchocerciasis), strongyloidiasis and trichuriasis, to name a few.
Ivermectin’s value as a treatment in humans earned its discoverer, Satoshi Omura of Japan, the 2015 Nobel Prize in Medicine.
In a 2017 article in the Journal of Antibiotics, author Andy Crump noted: “Over the past decade, the global scientific community have begun to recognize the unmatched value of an extraordinary drug, ivermectin, that originates from a single microbe unearthed from soil in Japan. . . . Today, ivermectin is continuing to surprise and excite scientists, offering more and more promise to help improve global public health by treating a diverse range of diseases, with its unexpected potential as an antibacterial, antiviral and anti-cancer agent being particularly extraordinary.”
A December 2023 article in the European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry said of ivermectin: “There are only a few drugs that can claim the title of ‘Wonder Drug’. Alongside penicillin and aspirin, two drugs that probably had the greatest medicative impact on human health and well-being, ivermectin is also a worthy contender for this title as its effect on global health to date has been extraordinary.”Ivermectin is approved by Health Canada “for the treatment of intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, potentially devastating tropical parasitic infections,” according to a 2018 news release from Health Canada.
In the U.S., the website of the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) notes: “Ivermectin is the drug of choice for strongyloidiasis. CDC presumptive overseas ivermectin treatment was initiated in 2005.” This contradicts the message presented by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that ivermectin is only “horse dewormer.”
In fact, the FDA recently settled a lawsuit in which it agreed to remove its social media posts which made that claim in its attempt to discourage the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. Ivermectin is clearly much more than “horse dewormer.”
The Canadian Press writer is welcome to his opinion either way on the matter, but if The Canadian Press seeks to be an objective news agency, it should ensure such bias does not make its way into news stories.
Dave Sulz
Coaldale
14-13
The letter writer has failed to reference any clinical trials that support Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid …
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/09/19/1038369557/ivermectin-anti-vaccine-movement-culture-wars
… because there aren’t any, to date.
You are right, Sophie, that Dave Sulz does not quote any clinical trials that support ivermectin as a treatment for Covid. However, I didn’t take him to be arguing that it worked, but just that we should not presume that it does not.
I don’t understand why you would say that there aren’t any supporting clinical trials. At this site, https://c19ivm.org/, you can see a lengthy list of studies which in aggregate favour ivermectin as a treatment for Covid.
Perhaps you and other commenters will dismiss this site as providing misinformation, but in doing so I think you are missing an important point, which is that ivermectin has a proven record of safety in humans. This is acknowledged by the CDC, as is indicated in Dave’s letter.
If ivermectin is safe why should it not be taken as both a preventative and treatment for Covid, on the off-chance that all those studies favouring it might actually be right?
Sure. I think you are descibing a clinical trial, with scientists, doctors, and ethics review.
But I respectfully disagree that this is what is being said in this letter.
I don’t understand what you’re disagreeing with. What’s the “this” that you’re referring to?
Incidentally, that site is not a description of a single trial – it refers to several dozens.
I believe chocolate covered almonds are considered safe , perhaps we should take them on the off chance they may be a treatment for COVID.
There are two differences between chocolate covered almonds and ivermectin:
1) Doctors in Alberta, and elsewhere, were prohibited from prescribing ivermectin. Not so for chocolate covered almonds.
2) There is a large number of peer reviewed studies which show a statistically significant reduction in mortality for those who take ivermectin. Not so for chocolate covered almonds. See https://c19ivm.org/.
Kind of a nontransparent site ?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/covidanalysis-network-c19early-com-bias/
Thank you Sophie for this reference to a fact checking site that assesses https://c19ivm.org/. I will add it to my tracking of claims and counter-claims surrounding the Covid-19 vaccination issue.
According to the link you provide, “The CovidAnalysis Network [i.e. https://c19ivm.org/] promotes misinformation regarding alternative treatments for Covid-19 by cherry-picking and misrepresenting studies with favorable outcomes. In this way, they are promoting anti-vaccination propaganda without stating it for unknown reasons.”
I do not endorse this assessment, but I do agree that the promotion of ivermectin as a possible treatment for Covid is one strand in a string of attempts to warn the public about the dangers of the Covid-19 vaccines.
In an attempt to sort out what is true from false in the massive welter of claims and counter-claims surrounding Covid-19 vaccines I have gathered literally thousands of links and arguments. There is a very consistent pattern in this data. Those who favour the mRNA vaccines refuse to engage with those who call them into question. They treat the questioners with contempt. In contrast, those who call the vaccines into question beg to be heard and to be engaged with.
Just this morning I was reading yet another article about one of those questioners, Dr. Patrick Provost. Chances are, unless you go looking for this type of material, you’ve never heard of him, but here’s the article: https://douglasfarrow.substack.com/p/dissent-equals-iniquity. It illustrates the pattern I just mentioned. Here are a few excerpts from a letter that Provost wrote to his colleagues:
“Trained as a biochemist, my research work has led me to develop expertise in RNA (over the last 20 years) and lipid nanoparticles (over the last 10 years), which are the two active ingredients in these new ‘vaccines’. I am therefore in a position to understand and explain the concepts behind how these ‘vaccines’ work and, above all, to appreciate the risks they pose to human health. …
“Being aware of the potential risks, known and unknown, associated with these new”vaccines”, I could not remain silent on such important issues, where lives were at stake, particularly those of children. So I decided to go public with my deep and legitimate concerns, which have evolved over time and are based on recognised concepts, solid scientific evidence and reasoning. The main purpose of my statements was to inform and alert the public, my colleagues, my superiors, government experts, doctors and those elected to represent us in the Quebec National Assembly. In a factual, analytical, thoughtful, well-sourced and respectful manner, but insistent (in the absence of a response), I appealed to my interlocutors to reason, prudence, transparency, collaboration, dialogue (or contradictory debates) and respect for the precautionary principle, the rules of ethics, oaths (e.g. the Hippocratic Oath) and medical codes of ethics (e.g. the Nuremberg Code), always with the avowed aim of wanting to ‘ensure the protection of the public’. …
“Throughout my 35-year career in research, I have been in competition with my peers and I have worked hard to eventually make my mark as a professor and remain competitive in research. I have constantly been challenged, confronted, questioned, criticised and called upon to debate my work, my ideas and my opinions by my peers. Why haven’t I been so in the last year or two, when I’ve made so many public appearances? Why have peers disappeared from adversarial public debate?”
My guess, Sophie, is that you have accepted what the medical establishment has been saying and that, as a good citizen, you want to protect the public from misinformation. However, it appears to me that you have not done a lot of investigation of what the dissenters have to say. The fact that you said in your initial response to Dave’s letter that there were no clinical trials supporting ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19 indicates that you were unaware of them. I could have referenced several other sources that support ivermectin, but I thought that that one would be enough.
I do not fault you for not knowing about these clinical trials. You, and the public in general, has been shielded from a great deal of information on the grounds that the average person will not be able to make sense of a genuine scientific debate. It is feared that the public will draw the wrong conclusions from stories of harm done by the vaccines, so the mainstream media refuses to publish such stories.
For example, you may not have heard about the story about Carrie Sakamoto, a woman from the Lethbridge area who was grievously injured by the vaccines: https://thecanadianindependent.substack.com/p/watch-a-young-alberta-woman-who-suffered. She is pursuing a lawsuit against the provincial and federal governments alleging deceptive practices in promoting the vaccines. Included in the lawsuit are charges that the CBC would not carry her story. If you want the details, here is the statement of claim: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Eohi6U-x5n0cx9zBOwy35PmoZ-VotnlN/view.
There are thousands of stories like Carrie’s which are being hidden from the public. Maybe in the beginning, when the stories of adverse events first arose, there was a plausible case to be made for suppressing them so as not to encourage vaccine hesitancy. But now, as I see it, we have a situation in which mass illusion prevails, a situation in which many people recoil in horror when they get a glimmer of what the real truth of it is. The harms will continue to be perpetrated until more of us begin to face up to this horror.
I heard on talk radio, Guy, that Smith was banning CCAs due to increased dental carries, as the province positions itself to throw boxes and chairs in front of a federal dental plan.
She is, however, encouraging scopolamine for her base. Asked about this decision she was heard to say ‘Science! We don’t need no stinking science! … And if we do, well, look, Preston will investigate it for a price.’
each point made is supported, you are usually an astute commenter, but i think you somehow feel the writer is saying ivervectin is a proven cure for covid? nowhere is that even intimated.
No citations here, nor authors of the studies, names of the scientific journals published in, and dates of publications and what universities involved.
I am very skeptical about this story, it has the stink of fake news.
each point made is indeed supported, have another look. you are usually an astute commenter, but i think you somehow feel the writer is saying ivervectin is a proven cure for covid? nowhere is that even intimated.
I find it amazing that the anti-vax and anti-everything crowd dispels any medical science with the “not in my body” chant, but will put anything in their body if it is supported by their Facebook friends.
They seem to load up on all kinds of lotions potions and concoctions as long as they are suggested by the homeopathic crowd, with little to know fact based evidence, but won’t follow a Doctors advice.
But, if you want to take Ivermectin to cure your ails knock yourself out!
Now, I better go worm my horses before I can’t get anymore Ivermectin. Hmmmm? No wonder they never got Covid!
great job at scoffing. as good a scoffing as i have ever come across. what i find curious with this particular episode of scoffing is that the scoffer appears to entirely embrace big pharm, whilst entirely dismissing natural approaches. given that big pharm bases the brunt of its noncures on the natural world. i note noncures, as big pharm is not at all in the business of cures, but, rather, in the business of making money…via the serial torture of sentient creatures. that, by the way, makes the users of their stuff supporters of serial animal torture, despite what one may wish to disbelieve and overlook.
so, why scoff at the investigation of natural approaches, that further spare sentient creatures from the pain, misery and death perpetrated by big business that cares most about money and little about matters of decency and the heart?
I’m the first to defend free speech or free exchange of ideas. This letter goes far beyond an alternative opinion. It is deliberate misinformation posing as fact or expert opinion. That’s dangerous and irresponsible.
Dave, Dave, Dave. To use your words from the title of your article……Your story on ivermectin shows ignorance or bias.
You went off on a tangent of oh so many words without saying anything whatsoever to back your premise that these drugs do anything at all to cure Covid, the point of the original article.
You seem to pretend to be educated yet your premise would prove wholeheartedly you are not. You claim Ivermectin cures strongyloidiasis as if that is proof it cures Covid. For your info, strongyloidiasis is a disease caused by guess what, a worm.
I have a friend who swears she was cured of COVID-19 by Ivermectin because five days after starting to take it, she felt better. Duh. Almost everyone feels better after 5 days of Covid on their very own.
To put it succinctly. Ivermectin cures worms. Covid is not a worm.
it was my experience and my observation that the very few felt much better after just 5 days of covid, let alone being cured.
oh, to also put it succinctly, ivermectin, as noted and supported in the letter, has many more uses than combating worms. hint: that is one of the points of the letter, which is to support the primary concern of the letter: media bias. it seems here, with you and the many that have blindly reacted here, that media bias has a significant effect.