Study purporting to show ivermectin inefficacy debunked

The Wall Street Journal recently reported on the results of a study purporting to show that ivermectin is not “clinically useful” as a treatment against COVID-19.  According to the report, researchers “found [that] ivermectin didn’t improve patient outcomes.”

“This is the first large, prospective study that should really help put to rest ivermectin and not give any credibility to the use of it for Covid-19,” Baylor College’s National School of Tropical Medicine dean Peter Hotez told the Journal.

One wonders why Professor Hotez is so against the use of ivermectin. 

Before that though, let’s look at the study itself.  It is well known that early treatment is crucial for successful results.  The longer one waits, the less likely treatment will result in a good outcome.  For this reason, Dr. Zelenko’s protocol and others call for treatment within five days of the onset of symptoms.

Not surprisingly, Pfizer’s Paxlovid trial gave results for people treated within 3 and 5 days of symptom onset.  They wanted to maximize the chances of an optimal outcome.

This trial allowed treatment up to eight days after the onset of symptoms.

In addition to early treatment, correct dosage is critical.  In response to the report, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) wrote that “. . . no qualified physician or scientist recommends treating COVID-19 with the low dosage of ivermectin used in the trial. . .”

Another critical component of treatment is how long the subject gets treatment.  The FLCCC said that no qualified physician recommends “. . .treating a patient with ivermectin for only three days on an empty stomach, as TOGETHER did. FLCCC physicians have understood for nearly 18 months that ivermectin works best against COVID-19 when administered with a fatty meal and until symptoms resolve.”

To summarize, the trial failed to administer early treatment, used inadequate dosage, and did not treat for a long enough period.  In short, this trial was designed to fail.

Why was it designed to fail? One clue is the study’s sponsors. As the saying goes, if you want to get to the truth, “follow the money”.

Here is a list of some of the organizations and people associated with the study as reported on the c19ivermectin.com website, a site that reviews scientific ivermectin studies.

The trial is associated with:

MMS Holdings - a company whose mission includes helping pharmaceutical companies get approval and designing scientific studies that help them get approval. One of their clients is Pfizer [mmsholdings.com].

Cytel Inc. - another statistical modelling company that helps pharmaceutical companies get approval - they work very closely with Pfizer [cytel.com].

One of the senior investigators was Dr. Craig Rayner, President of Integrated Drug Development at Certara - another company with a similar mission to MMS Holdings. They state on their website that: "Since 2014, our customers have received over 90% of new drug and biologic approvals by the FDA." One of their clients is Pfizer [certara.com].

A co-principal investigator works for Cytel and the Gates Foundation [empendium.com].

The DSMB chair has published a paper with members of a well known anti-treatment [i.e. only vaccines can end the pandemic] research group [Thorlund].

It is worth noting the sponsors above who have a paid client relationship with Pfizer.  Pfizer has secured Federal government contracts worth $5.3 billion for its antiviral treatment, Paxlovid.  It is in Pfizer’s best interests for ivermectin’s efficacy in treating COVID-19 to be debunked. It stands to reason and the FLCCC maintains that “Trials of generic medicines that are funded and influenced by profit-driven pharmaceutical companies will always fail.”

Now, back to Peter Hotez.  “The Real Anthony Fauci”, bestselling exposé of Anthony Fauci’s corruption specifically and Big Pharma's corruption in general, has this to say about Peter Hotez.

In August 2021 Dr. Fauci’s acolyte – CNN’s television doctor, Peter Hotez – published an article in a scientific journal calling for legislation to “expand federal hate crime protections” to make criticism of Dr. Fauci a felony.  In declaring that he had no conflicts, Dr. Hotez, who says that vaccine skeptics should be snuffed out, evidently forgot the millions of dollars in grants he has taken from Dr. Fauci’s NIAID since 1993, and the more than $15 million from Dr. Fauci’s partner, Bill Gates, for his Baylor University Tropical Medicine Institute.^[1]

We should probably take anything Dr. Hotez says about ivermectin with a huge grain of salt.

According to c19ivermectin.com there have been “153 ivermectin COVID-19 studies, 104 peer reviewed [of which] 81 comparing treatment and control groups.”  These studies show clearly the efficacy of ivermectin in early treatment of COVID-19.  In addition the website continues, “Ivermectin has been officially adopted for early treatment in all or part of 22 countries (39 including non-government medical organizations).”

The FLCCC response to the WSJ article ends with this call for independent research.

We need to create an independent, well-funded government body dedicated to conducting well-designed trials and transparent research studies of repurposed generic treatments – not only for COVID-19, but for all diseases that may have safe and affordable remedies. The use of independent research is our only hope of understanding how these medicines can best be used to help patients.

We agree.