By Karl Denninger, The Market Ticker
For those who can’t do basic math I’ll do it for you: Group I was people with mild and moderate symptoms. Group III was those with severe symptoms (and presumed hospitalization given the listed criteria.)
Groups II and IV were on the same criteria but with their standard of care, including HCQ.
May I point out the important point here — in the mildly-ill presenting people this drug dropped the mortality to ZERO and almost-completely (99% of the time) cut off progression to more-serious disease.
In the severely ill people, who had already gotten in a lot of medical trouble with the virus, it dropped mortality by 90%.
But it doesn’t end there. They also studied using it as a prophylaxis in both health care workers and family members of those infected, both of whom are obviously at high risk of getting it themselves.
That’s an 80% reduction in transmission folks — which is in the same range as a vaccine.
So why do we need vaccines again when you can take an under one dollar pill, once or twice (not once a day) and be protected just as well? And further, if the protection fails statistically you will not die, as the reduction in mortality for those treated with mild disease was zero and out of 100 only one progressed to more-severe disease rather than improving.
Ivermectin is an incredibly-safe drug that is used all over the world and in fact it is so safe we allow non-medical personnel to dispense it in the third world. It is also used on a routine basis in animals for parasitic control. Literal billions of doses have been consumed by both humans and animals and, on the strength of the evidence, it works.
This is just the latest reported out trial of a string of them that got my attention back in June. Yeah, I get it, the study is not yet peer reviewed. But this is not the only one; in Florida this drug was tried and led to an astonishing reduction in mortality as well. Why has this not been followed up and widely used given that it appears to be all potential reward and little or no risk?
A single study and one set of anecdotes? Nope. Plenty of studies and now, meta-analysis are showing up.
I was first alerted to Ivermectin as a “possible agent” in April by some folks I know who are in the medical field. I was deeply skeptical on first impression; I understand chemistry pretty well and couldn’t come up with a mechanism of action that was plausibly “in the game.” But medicine is a funny thing; sometimes you’re looking in the wrong place; you’re seeking the means of direct influence when what’s really going on is the agent blocks some process that stops progress of a disease. And then the data started to stack up and I changed my mind; by June I was definitely paying attention as results started to come in on a wider-scale basis. One doctor, somewhere, is interesting. Dozens of doctors in dozens of places treating thousands of people is not an anecdote especially when there are control groups you can examine in the same places — it’s data.
How many people have we shoved in the hole in America alone by refusing to attempt to interdict this infection again, instead sending people home and telling them to eat chicken soup?
The original report on this in Broward County and off-label use of Ivermectin occurred in APRIL.
Remember, the biggest complaint against this drug is that it’s ridiculously cheap (you can get enough to treat a horse for a few bucks over the counter) since it’s off-patent and, unlike most drugs you only need one or two doses, not one or more a day. This of course means that had we used it in June it is likely we would have largely cut off nosocomial infections and there would have been no reason to pursue vaccines or anything else.
Your grandma would probably be alive.
Tell the government to go to Hell — and mean it.