We had a discussion of Ivermectin and the potential to block the spike protein of Chinese Wuhan Covid here:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2021/08/11/w-o-o-d-11-august-2021/#comment-149175
That reminded me I’ve gotten behind is watching John Campbell videos. I’ll have these running in the background today while I do other things and will update comments about each video as time permits. To that end, I’m collecting some of his videos on Ivermectin here:
Ivermectin prophylactic study from India
602,777 views May 6, 2021
.
Ivermectin in India, Prophylactic role of ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers
The folks doing the study, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences.
Note that in this study they did a tiny dose and only once a month. Way low, yet got some positive results.
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-208785/v1/d6ff79a3-d354-4aba-a6b0-4bc123bbd225.pdf
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-208785/v1
Background
Healthcare workers (HCWs) are vulnerable to getting infected withSARS-CoV-2
Preventing HCWs from getting infected is a priority to maintain healthcare services
The therapeutic and preventive role of ivermectin in COVID-19 is being investigated
Based on promising results of in vitro studies of oral ivermectin,
this study to look at prophylactic role of oral ivermectin
Methods
Prospective cohort study was conducted at AIIMS Bhubaneswar
Two-doses of oral ivermectin, 300 μg/kg at a gap of 72 hours
Primary outcome, COVID-19 infection in the month following
Of 3892 employees,
3532 (90.8%) participated in the study
Ivermectin uptake n = 2, 384 (67.5%)
Non uptake, n = 1147 (32.5%)
Results
Development of symptomatic infection
331 participants, developed symptoms
131 in takers
200 from non takers
Ivermectin takers, 6%
Non takers, 15%
Testing positive, 201
Ivermectin takers, 2%
Non takers, 11.7%
Implications for transmission
HCWs who had taken two-doses
(Single dose did not reach significance)
Significantly lower risk of contracting COVID-19 disease during the following month was 0.18
Adjusted Relative Risk 0.17
1.8% reported adverse events, mild and self-limiting
Conclusion and relevance
Two-doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduces the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month.Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis have relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine.
[…]
Ivermectin, Mexico, Peru, India
633,223 views Jun 1, 2021
Looks at 3 “Community Based Studies” in Mexico, Peru, and India. Essentially “case studies”. Mexico set up kiosks that handed out self-treatment kits with “quite a low dose” of ivermectin. 12 mg for 2 days. I do 50 in one dose / week. IMHO, the low dose and the eventual intervention by “officials” to stop it in some States are why Mexico cases didn’t stay down after several months of dropping fast.
Result? 50% to 76% (depending on group in the study) REDUCTION in hospitalization. From just 12 mg for 2 days.
In Peru, different States used different degrees of Ivermectin. Divided into Maximal, medium, and minimal user States, the decline in deaths was proportional to amount of Ivermectin used.
Grouped by extent of IVM distributions
Maximal, medium, minimal
Reductions in excess deaths (30 days after peak deaths)
maximal, 74%
medium, 53%
minimal, 25%Reduction of excess deaths is correlated with extent of IVM distribution by state p less than 0.002
This strongly suggests that IVM treatments can likewise effectively complement immunizations to help eradicate COVID-19.
The indicated biological mechanism of IVM,competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein,
is likely non-epitope specific,
possibly yielding full efficacy against emerging viral mutant strains.
Then there is this amazing statement from India. RRT is Rapid Reponse Team – the folks who go out and get in the face of new highly infective patients:
Uttar Pradesh government, first to have introduced a large-scale “prophylactic and therapeutic” use of Ivermectin
Helped the state to maintain a lower fatality and positivity rate as compared to other states
Health Department introduced Ivermectin as prophylaxis for close contacts of Covid patients, August 6, 2020Agra, Dr Anshul Pareek and State Surveillance Officer Vikssendu Agrawal
Administered Ivermectin to all RRT team members in Agra
None of them developed Covid-19Despite being in daily contact
Despite being the state with the largest population base and a high population density, we have maintained a relatively low positivity rate and cases per million of population
.
Vaccination and ivermectin
277,171 views Jun 15, 2021
.
The vaccine he looks at is “Novavax”, a “protein based vaccine”. Basically they make spike proteins in moth cells in a vat. One hopes the spike proteins would be more localized into the injection site that way.
I think I’d be more inclined to take this vaccine than the mRNA ones. Guess it’s a good thing that some of us have avoided the mRNA ones so that there IS a group of folks on whom this new vaccine could be tested and who can benefit from it as it comes to market.
He points out that “officials” are not addressing Ivermectin given that there’s plenty of information that it works… Lots of questions that need to be answered (in a bit of a rant… in that polite British way ;-)
Double blind placebo controlled trial of Ivermectin in Israel finds
Favorable outcome on viral load and culture viability using ivermectin in early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with mild Covid-19 – double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial.
Sheba Medical Center, and Tel Aviv University
The referenced paper:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1
Favorable outcome on viral load and culture viability using Ivermectin in early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19 – A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial
View ORCID ProfileAsaf Biber, Michal Mandelboim, Geva Harmelin, Dana Lev, Li Ram, Amit Shaham, Ital Nemet, Limor Kliker, Oran Erster, Eli Schwartz
Abstract
Background Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic agent, also has anti-viral properties. Our aim was to assess whether ivermectin can shorten the viral shedding in patients at an early-stage of COVID-19 infection.Methods The double-blinded trial compared patients receiving ivermectin 0·2 mg/kg for 3 days vs. placebo in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. RT-PCR from a nasopharyngeal swab was obtained at recruitment and then every two days. Primary endpoint was reduction of viral-load on the 6th day (third day after termination of treatment) as reflected by Ct level>30 (non-infectious level). The primary outcome was supported by determination of viral culture viability.
Results Eighty-nine patients were eligible (47 in ivermectin and 42 in placebo arm). Their median age was 35 years. Females accounted for 21·6%, and 16·8% were asymptomatic at recruitment. Median time from symptom onset was 4 days. There were no statistical differences in these parameters between the two groups.
On day 6, 34 out of 47 (72%) patients in the ivermectin arm reached the endpoint, compared to 21/ 42 (50%) in the placebo arm (OR 2·62; 95% CI: 1·09-6·31). In a multivariable logistic-regression model, the odds of a negative test at day 6 was 2.62 time higher in the ivermectin group (95% CI: 1·06–6·45). Cultures at days 2 to 6 were positive in 3/23 (13·0%) of ivermectin samples vs. 14/29 (48·2%) in the placebo group (p=0·008).
Conclusions There were significantly lower viral loads and viable cultures in the ivermectin group, which could lead to shortening isolation time in these patients.
Gee, using a cycle count of 30 as the cut off to say you are not sick…
And finally, a Meta Analysis…
Best ivermectin meta analysis
358,987 viewsJun 24, 2021
.
Musings from the Chiefio 
Cheap effective treatments are against the policy of the government. And big pharma. It would relegate this porn panic to the dust bins, which they will not tolerate.
John Campbell has a new video which raises an interesting question. The first twenty minutes talk about natural immunity after infection versus immunity from vaccines. Natural immunity is better. Ending with an idea from one immunologist that the best thing to do is first get the vaccine and then go out and try to get covid to get the full protection. Makes sense. Protection from all 28 proteins instead of just the spike protein.
Then my question would be if someone was protected by diligent IVM use, would the same strategy work, going out and trying to get infected with covid?
He also discusses that location of immunity makes a difference:
Immunoglobulin A, mucous membranes
Immunoglobulin M and G, in the blood
@YMMV:
As Ivermectin plugs up the ACE2 receptor AND the Spike Protein, it protects against all variants. But they still get into your airways and gut.
My expectation is that “size of inoculum matters” and small exposures will not result in immunity, but that if you get large and frequent exposures (such as your spouse shedding spike proteins after the vaxxination or your kids bringing a case of it as sniffles back from school) have a good chance of giving you some resistance (as your body would be exposed to enough to decide antibodies were worth making…)
But perhaps our resident M.D. can clarify…
Remember, with a new infection, the first immunoglobulin made is IgM, regardless of location. Only afterward do more specific ones get made. IgA for mucous membranes, IgE for tissue and IgG for extracellular fluid/lymphatic fluid/blood plasma.
All along I’ve asked the question about the minimum infectious dose. The more infectious (not the same as virulence or the modeled reproduction number), the smaller that dose is. Wonder why *that* has never been published, to my knowledge. /sarc
About whether you’d get the same effect from a competitive inhibitor that isn’t an immune globulin versus one that is, that’s a good question. I do not recall that being asked of the infectious disease folk I knew. From a chemistry point of view I can see that working similar to using a vaccine then exposure to a natural infection. But, and this is a big one; ADE and similar adverse reactions happen from natural infections from time to time with or without vaccines. There really may not be enough known to say either way.
Dr. Campbell’s point was that frequent exposure to the virus would act as a booster. Otherwise the antibodies would fade; the frequent exposure keeps them in top form. Like the kids bringing something home from school. It’s a good thing and not something to fear (if played right).
But if you are taking IVM, does that prevent the infection too much? You do want your immune system to react enough to make antibodies (but without getting sick).
I like the point that IVM is better than the vaccines — it works against all variants.
First hand exposure to the effectiveness of IVM. Friend and his family got covid from a fully vaxxed and infected coworker. Had all the symptoms including taste and smell lost. He took it for one day and his symptoms were gone, but the others did not and still have them. They are choosing to do the antibody therapy instead. His doctor prescribed the pill for him, 3mg twice daily. He did use the paste for one treatment prior to obtaining the scrip.
Proof enough for me to stock it.
@HR, it was the charter captain across the street.
I would note, the taste and smell has yet to come back for my reference above. It has only been a couple days.
Covid is the new cooties.
Ever wake up and wonder if everything you know is wrong? Someday I hope the “woke” will wake up. There is little hope for true believers; they are committed; truth be damned. The madness of crowds; it’s a disease.
Anyway… https://motls.blogspot.com/2021/08/vaccine-efficacy-at-preventing-covid.html
It’s very hard to argue successfully against Motl. “the Pfizer jab is basically useless in the age of delta”
Pfizer used to be about 90%. Now it may be only about 40% — but there is still the claim to 90% against serious hospitalization. That’s a nice hopeful thing to believe. But Motl blows up that hope, showing that is impossible. That’s bad news.
In other bad news, or should that be bad news reporting, IVM is being mentioned in the news. As the new HCQ. It’s sooo bad for you. Don’t take it!!! with reporting like that, who needs reporters? Washington Post had a hit job on IVM. Perhaps in response to Tucker Carlson mentioning it. Other papers have reposted that article. “Mississippi State Epidemiologist Paul Byers wrote in a letter to the MS Health Alert Network that “at least 70 percent of the recent calls” have been related to the ingestion of ivermectin “purchased at livestock supply centers.””
Okay, then give us access to human IVM pills!
Notice what is NOT said:
That could mean folks calling up to ask where to get it, to ask “does it work”, to say “It’s working FINE for me, so STFU!”.
It does NOT say the people are being harmed by it. (May be in the video somewhere, but if so, that is ONLY going to be because someone did something a bit dumb like took a whole horse dose instead of a human proportion or drank the Rubbing Alcohol Solvent Based POUR ON in stead of just pouring it on per directions.
Note too it says “Animal DOSES are not safe for humans”. As the target animal is often 10 to 20 times heavier than a human, yes, their DOSE is not good for you. The drug, however, is working just fine for me.
But yes, Ivermectin ought to be Over The Counter as it is in many countries for human use.
If anybody takes the wrong dose the responsibility is on the authorities for not advising the public how to use it for COVID.
Dr Been looks at the Israeli study of Ivermectin in outpatients and finds it reduces viral load fairly quickly.
Sometimes it’s a bit hard to follow his point due to a bit of “wandering” and some odd units being used, like “probability of a positive test after N days”…
I find it fascinating that the also tested swabs for “viable virus” (late in the video) and found 72% of the test group (ivermectin group) had no viable virus while a lot of them were still “PCR Positive” as the dead virus RNA was still showing up as a “positive” case…
The lastest Dr. John video says: you WILL be exposed. It IS endemic. We need to shift policies. You need to be prepared. He mentions a number of things but misses out IVM.
@YMMV:
He probably got a nag from EwTube about “Don’t cross the line on Ivermectin”.
He’s been close to it with reporting results in other countries (but was mostly just giving raw data on results, so no “recommendation”). To shift to saying “and Ivermectin is a working treatment” would get his video pulled (others have been pulled for exactly that, saying IVM works).
The single most effective thing you can do to avoid Covid-19, and it seems like 99% will avoid it anyway, is to increase you Vitamin D3 levels:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.22.21263977v1
There are other papers with similar results.
So, Ivermectin seems good if you have ignored the advice about Vitamin D3, but why put yourself in that position?
@Crew – my Doc told me to start taking 5000iu of D3. He did not say why or if I was low on Vitamin D. Just to start taking it.
He also did not vote for Grandpa Gropes. He will not tell fakebook why he is doing it, but I have been going to him for over 20 years now. He is not going to play politics.
I certainly would like to pop an OTC Ivermectin pill, but the liquid form is easy enough and it doesn’t have to be all that exact.
If your weight works out that you need 10ml and you get 12, it’s no biggies.
W-a-a-y back when, I think E.M. posted LD50 on it and it was some ridiculous times the amount of the proper dose, like 40X maybe?
If that’s so and I remembered correctly, and your dose is 10ml and you have the small 250 ml bottle (25X), you can use the whole thing without fatal consequences. You’d probably be pretty woozy though.
All that said, I’d still like to have the people-pill version.
Crew: “The single most effective thing you can do to avoid Covid-19, and it seems like 99% will avoid it anyway, is to increase you Vitamin D3 levels”
Vitamin D3 is good. No argument there. But is it the “single most effective thing you can do”? The linked paper did not say that. A year ago, there was a discussion. Given that Vitamin D levels are good, is it because that indicates you have a healthy immune system? In other words, if you do not have good Vitamin D levels, will taking Vitamin D pills: A) increase your serum vitamin D levels, or B) improve your immune system, or C) improve your metabolic health, or D) fill in the blank.
There was a Spanish study which showed that giving a form of Vitamin D to Covid patients actually worked. I don’t think they have heard of that paper in our health system yet.
In any case, taking Vitamin D is good for you. It may be really good for you. And it is not harmful.
You could say the same thing about IVM. Except we know that the PTB don’t want to hear that. They don’t want to hear about Vitamin D either, but they have contained that outbreak of information better.
Interview with Tess Lawrie, who supports IVM. She says all her interviews get taken down by The Powers Who Think They Know Better. “for your own good”.
This one has been up for 19 hours so far.
Instead of looking at Ivermectin as a single drug, it must be combined with other drugs normally used for respiratory conditions, especially anti histamines. Many of these drugs from different use streams have some anti viral property by virtue of their nitrogen structures. And respiratory diseses require multiple drugs normally. With each one of them contributing a bit of anti viral activity, the combination can provide the total anti viral needs. With this kind of clinical backing, one wonders why one should need a dedicated anti viral. It must be realised that being anti viral need not be the exclusive feature of a single drug, but the resident feature of a large number of other functional drugs by virtue of their nitrogen structures – anti histamines, anti inflammatories, immuno modulators, broncho dilators, other respiratory drugs, anti biotics, antichloregenics, different types of hypertension drugs etc. The fixation on a single drug is responsible for this unending misery.