(Updated: 13th March, 2023)
A health professional wrote to me:
"What is the latest word on Ivermectin? Siouxsie Wiles quotes a 2023 study and others that appear to throw cold water on its efficacy against covid."
I'm not an expert in these matters, but I do have a brain, so I have some observations:
Firstly, when it comes to our sources of health advice, I caution you to be wary of advice coming from persons who appear to be less healthy than yourself.
For health advice, why would you trust someone whose expertise, besides having the gift of the gab, is the study of a bacteria that glows pink in the dark?
Or would you instead prefer to get your advice from this bloke who has 45 years of full-time work at the coalface of health and who practices what he preaches?
I rest my case. You decide.
Now, back to Ivermectin:
Please take a few minutes to read this article by Dr Tess Lawrie to get a better understanding of why professionally compromised experts are coming down so hard on drugs like Ivermectin:
"Ivermectin and cancer: reserved for horses?"
One thing in common with several "alternatives" for treating COVID, such as HCQ, IVM, and artemisia, is that they are popular antiparasitic treatments, some augmenting uptake of protective minerals such as Zn and Se, which may inhibit viral replication while reducing inflammation. I find this commonality fascinating.
Science is never settled. It is dynamic and sometimes called "anarchic". We should never grab a single study and say, "Aha, proof - end of the argument - the case closed!"
Here is the study she is hanging her reputation on:
As an aside, 83% of the infected patients in the study had at least two vaccine jabs, which adds weight to the observation that the vaccine does not work and may make the recipients more likely to get ill! If they reported the number of infected participants in the study with at least one jab instead of two, would the figure be 90%? Or might it be 100%? Why are so few unjabbed people going down with COVID?
As it is said, "one swallow does not make for a summer", so it can also be that "one study does not make for a conclusion". There must be a flock for one to be sure that summer is with us. There is a flock of positive studies that favour IVM. Check them out here:
Finally, our Pink Lady is a lightweight science commentator compared to the international experts I like to listen to, such as Professor Eli Schwartz:
Or Dr Mobeen and Professor Prof Matjaž Zwitter:
Lightweight, the Pink Lady might be; however, I must credit her skills as a cherry-picker, adept at selecting studies that support the dark corner of pseudo-science she has backed herself into. My impression about her and her friends at the Ministry of Truth and the online Fact-Checkers is the opposite of what they say is usually where the flock of truth perches.
Here's more evidence that supports the use of Ivermectin (There's plenty of it!):
"Ivermectin reduces risk for COVID-19 with very high confidence for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, progression, recovery, cases, viral clearance, and in pooled analysis."
"Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."
Concluding words
Especially in health, science is never settled. So the challenge for people like me, working at the coal face, is to study each topic as best we can, weigh the evidence, call on our experience, apply some common sense and then reach some conclusions about the best way forward, including whether or not a medication, supplement, or whatever is suitable for the person sitting before me seeking assistance. I do this daily, always ready to change, and sometimes admit I got it wrong.
People on pedestals, such as our Pink Lady, need to be mindful of their power and influence over the population and, in so doing, be aware of their limitations and the harm they can do by giving wrong advice. She is a Narrow-Field expert relying on her gift of the gab as she strays outside her limited expertise. Yes, anyone can cherry-pick research evidence to suit their agendas, and others, like myself, are duty-bound to point out the error of their ways.