Invictus Games Toronto 2017
The triumph for Ivermectin over Covid19 is reviewed in biznews Studies on Ivermectin show positive results as Covid-19 treatment. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
The use of Ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of Covid-19 has been the subject of much debate. The World Health Organisation‘s recommendation against Ivermectin as an alternative treatment for Covid-19 is shrouded in suspicion as the WHO’s second biggest donor is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Bill Gates also founded and funds The Vaccine Alliance (GAVI). The connection and clear conflict of interest is thus astounding. This 3,000 word synopsis, done by Rubin van Niekerk, is on Bryant’s peer reviewed meta analysis published in the American Journal of Therapeutics about 60 studies on the treatment impact of Ivermectin on Covid-19. Van Niekerk notes that:
‘Ivermectin studies vary widely, which makes the consistently positive results even more remarkable.”
Ivermectin Meta Analysis Synopsis By Rubin van Niekerk*
Meta analysis of 60 studies on Ivermectin and Covid 19 by Bryant, published in the American Journal of Therapeutics. (Version 93 Updated 21/6/21)
This is a brief 3000-word synopsis of the analysis of all significant studies concerning the use of ivermectin for COVID-19. Search methods, inclusion criteria, effect extraction criteria (more serious outcomes have priority), all individual study data, PRISMA answers, and statistical methods are detailed. Random effects of meta-analysis results for all studies, for studies within each treatment stage, for mortality results, for COVID-19 case results, for viral clearance results, for peer-reviewed studies, for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), and after exclusions are presented.
Please read the original 18 000-word comprehensive research analysis should you need more detail and insight into the methodology on Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 61 studies
♦ Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 76% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.24 [0.14-0.41] and 0.15 [0.09-0.25]), with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis, restriction to peer-reviewed studies, and restriction to Randomized Controlled Trials.
♦ 81% and 96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.19 [0.07-0.54] and 0.04 [0.00-0.58]). Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 28 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.
•The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 60 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 2 trillion (p = 0.00000000000045).
•Heterogeneity arises from many factors including treatment delay, population, effect measured, variants, and regimens. The consistency of positive results is remarkable. Heterogeneity is low in specific cases, for example early treatment mortality.
•While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 27% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm.
•Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Not doing so increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage.
•Administration with food, often not specified, may significantly increase plasma and tissue concentration.
•The evidence base is much larger and has much lower conflict of interest than typically used to approve drugs.
•All data to reproduce this paper and sources are in the appendix. See [Bryant, Hariyanto, Hill, Kory, Lawrie, Nardelli] for other meta analyses, all with similar results confirming effectiveness.