By: Denise Simon | Founders Code
You may have missed the outrage from Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) when he determined that Google removed congressional testimony from a medical panel that testified under oath about the effectiveness of the “anti-parasite, anti-viral drug, anti-inflammatory agent called ivermectin” as a COVID treatment. Trials are important and the basis of advancing treatment and consequence.
Study finds anti-parasitic drug could kill coronavirus in 48 hours
6 April 2020 (Last Updated September 4th, 2020 05:39)
Researchers from Biomedicine Discovery Institute (BDI) at Monash University in Australia have found that an anti-parasitic drug called Ivermectin could kill the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, within 48 hours in a laboratory setting.
It is not a matter of being controversial but rather collaborative. As noted by the Science magazine in part:
The editors of Frontiers in Pharmacology have taken down an article about the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin in COVID-19 patients. The paper, which was written by members of an organization called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), had been provisionally accepted and posted in abstract form by the journal in January, but was ultimately rejected this Monday (March 1). The editors determined that it contained unsubstantiated claims and violated the journal’s editorial policies.
Does Google have a secret panel of doctors that have resumes more powerful than other experts in the field? It seems that Google does not want virologists and experts collaborating on medical science and exploration much less allow citizens access to information and knowledge about health, threats and treatments. So, Google is going against the National Institute of Health and even clinical trials. How so?
When it comes to treatment and the testimony, the National Institute of Health has this on their website:
Last Updated: February 11, 2021
Ivermectin is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved antiparasitic drug that is used to treat several neglected tropical diseases, including onchocerciasis, helminthiases, and scabies.1 It is also being evaluated for its potential to reduce the rate of malaria transmission by killing mosquitoes that feed on treated humans and livestock.2 For these indications, ivermectin has been widely used and is generally well tolerated.1,3 Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection.
Proposed Mechanism of Action and Rationale for Use in Patients With COVID-19
Reports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response.4,5 In addition, ivermectin docking may interfere with the attachment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein to the human cell membrane.6 Ivermectin is thought to be a host-directed agent, which may be the basis for its broad-spectrum activity in vitro against the viruses that cause dengue, Zika, HIV, and yellow fever.4,7-9 Despite this in vitro activity, no clinical trials have reported a clinical benefit for ivermectin in patients with these viruses. Some studies of ivermectin have also reported potential anti-inflammatory properties, which have been postulated to be beneficial in people with COVID-19.10-12
Some observational cohorts and clinical trials have evaluated the use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Data from some of these studies can be found in Table 2c.
Going further, under the Federal government’s clinical trials management there is this information:
Patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia were included in the study. Two groups, the study group and the control group, took part in the study.
Ivermectin 200 mcg/kg/day for five days (9 mg between 36-50 kg, 12 mg between 51-65 kg, 15 mg between 66-79 kg and 200 microgram/kg in > 80 kg) in the form of a solution prepared for enteral use added to the reference treatment protocol -hydroxychloroquine (2x400mg loading dose followed by 2x200mg, po, 5 days) + favipiravir (2x1600mg loading dose followed by 2x600mg maintenance dose, po, total 5 days) + azithromycin (first day 500mg followed by 4 days 250mg/day, po, total 5 days)- of patients included in the study group. Patients in the control group were given only reference treatment with 3 other drugs without ivermectin.
The mutations in 29 pairs of primers in mdr1/abcab1 gene by sequencing analysis using Sanger method, and the haplotypes and mutations of the CYP3A4 gene that cause the function losing were investigated among the patients who meet criteria and who were included in the study group according to randomization. Mutation screening was done when the first dose of the research drug ivermectin was given, ivermectin treatment was not continued in patients with mutations detected as a result of genetic examination and these patients were excluded from the study.
Patients were followed for 5 additional days after treatment. At the end of the treatment and follow-up period (At the end of 10th day), clinical response and changes in oxygenation and laboratory parameters were evaluated.Study DesignGo to
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||66 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Intervention Model Description:||Patients who were hospitalised with a pre-diagnosis of severe COVID-19 pneumonia and thereafter diagnosis of COVID-19 was also confirmed microbiologically with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity in respiratory tract samples were included into the study. They were randomized to the study and control group, respectively. Single numbered patients were accepted as study group and double numbered patients as control group|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Official Title:||The Effectiveness and Safety of Ivermectin as add-on Therapy in Severe COVID-19 Management|
|Actual Study Start Date :||May 11, 2020|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||September 2, 2020|
|Actual Study Completion Date :||September 2, 2020|
Perhaps, the medical field should sue Google for interfering with medical science, treatment and even the possibility of causing health threats. Why is it that not a single Democrat is not outraged? Why is it that not a single state/governor is sounding the alarm when it comes to their own state/county health departments having access to viable information?
You know the reason… control…