Dr. Pierre Kory and his colleagues at the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) are leading an effort to assess the effectiveness of ivermectin as a prophylactic against and treatment for COVID and to communicate to the public the mounting evidence of its efficacy.  (Ivermectin is well known as an anti-parasitic, and millions of doses are distributed annually in complete safety.)

Kory recently published two important papers.

The first, in the May–June issue of the peer-reviewed American Journal of Therapeutics, is "Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19." Its conclusions, backed by rigorous consideration of bountiful evidence, are as follows:

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

The ... FLCCC and other ivermectin researchers have repeatedly offered expert analyses to respectfully correct and rebut the PHA recommendations, based on our deep study and rapidly accumulated expertise "in the field" on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19. These rebuttals were publicized and provided to international media for the education of providers and patients across the world. Our most recent response to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and others recommendation against use can be found on the FLCCC website here.

In February 2021, the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD), [https://bird-group.org] an international meeting of physicians, researchers, specialists, and patients, followed a guideline development process consistent with the WHO standard. It reached a consensus recommendation that ivermectin, a verifiably safe and widely available oral medicine, be immediately deployed early and globally. The BIRD group's recommendation rested in part on numerous, well-documented studies reporting that ivermectin use reduces the risk of contracting COVID-19 by over 90% and mortality by 68% to 91%.

A similar conclusion has also been reached by an increasing number of expert groups from the United Kingdon (UK), Italy, Spain, United States (US), and a group from Japan headed by the Nobel Prize-winning discoverer of Ivermectin, Professor Satoshi Omura. Focused rebuttals that are backed by voluminous research and data have been shared with PHAs over the past months. These include the WHO and many individual members of its guideline development group (GDG), the FDA, and the NIH. However, these PHAs continue to ignore or disingenuously manipulate the data to reach unsupportable recommendations against ivermectin treatment. We are forced to publicly expose what we believe can only be described as a "disinformation" campaign astonishingly waged with full cooperation of those authorities whose mission is to maintain the integrity of scientific research and protect public health.

The following accounting and analysis of the WHO ivermectin panel's highly irregular and inexplicable analysis of the ivermectin evidence supports but one rational explanation: the GDG Panel had a predetermined, nonscientific objective, which is to recommend against ivermectin. This is despite the overwhelming evidence by respected experts calling for its immediate use to stem the pandemic. Additionally, there appears to be a wider effort to employ what are commonly described as "disinformation tactics" in an attempt to counter or suppress any criticism of the irregular activity of the WHO panel.

The evidence is analyzed in the papers, but, following the adage that one graph is worth many words, here is Mexico's experience using ivermectin:

The psychological barriers to accepting FLCCC's analyses are strong because it strains credulity to believe that the public health authorities, Big Pharma, and our political overlords are so divorced from reality and morality as to reject a well known and quite safe life-saving drug.  But a great deal of current public policy, ranging from climate change to gender identity to election integrity to foreign policy, bears little connection to reality, and the powers that be are under heavy financial and reputational pressure to deny ivermectin.

So one should read the papers and decide for oneself.

Image via Flickr, Public Domain.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.