In late 2020, a curious article from Nature Magazine made the rounds: Its chief concern? That people in Latin America were taking ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and therefore local studies were very hard to execute: Some early studies in cells and humans hinted that the drug has antiviral properties, but since then, clinical trials in Latin America have struggled to recruit participants because so many are already taking it.
An other small piece of information: in July 2021, Dr Vallejos was active commenting a paper on TrialSiteNews. You still can read replies by Dr Vallejos to several comments here:
I took the opportunity to ask him if he knew what proportion of each group had taken ivermectin more than 7 days before their enrolment into the trial.
Vallejos replied "It was not our study objective" (but it's not clear whether he was answering we or the next person who commented.)
Unfortunately, I can't find that the exchange on TrialSiteNews anymore, but a picture of it is still readable: it's the last document inserted in this paper:
I believe RCTs should have been done mainly to assess hospitalization and deaths and also separating these outcomes. In hospital settings, however, there was very few use of ivermectin here in Brazil, except for rare cases, due to the fear doctors and hospitals felt from the propaganda of media and other sources against it.
People used mostly by themselves as a preventive resource, not prescribed by doctors. I would guess up to 20% of the population used it like that (just a guess), no more than that.
Thank you for your persistence with this topic. Any idea of the best place for Covid treatment in CA. I’ve been told I can only get treatment other than Paxlovid if I am part of a study. I just want pre-2020 healthcare.
Somewhat more off topic. It appears that specialist physicians did not fully think through their support of family physicians' refusal to provide early treatment for covid. To the degree that deaths occurred and are still occurring among those with comorbidities beyond mere age, the specialists are going to experience reduction of their patient/procedure pool. That's got to hurt their bottom line a bit. There are about 20,000 cardiologists, so each one perhaps lost 50 potential patients and counting.
Sunday is the presidential election in Brasil between Bolsonaro and Lula. The people in the video have a banner with "If you are for Lula, honk." on one side, and on the other "If you are for Bolsonaro, honk." They alternate presenting the sides to the oncoming traffic. The results are dramatic. The caption in the video says, "This is real research."
My sister-in-law, a Bolsonaro supporter, says that Lula supporters would dismiss this experiment by saying that Lula supporters don't drive, don't have cars.
Would be interesting to use a similar method to ask questions about Ivermectin use or the drivers' beliefs about it.
My thing on this front is if we're going to say background use was an issue then the follow up to this inquiry is did these regions with background usage of the drug fair better with the disease. They tried to do this with an observational study of Ivermectin and HCQ use in Africa and our good friend Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz I believe ripped it apart for not categorizing the countries correctly. Has a similar one been done for latin america? I mean if the problem is the drug's effect is obscured by the drug's effect then do we see a lower case fatality rate in the region?
The drug’s popularity “practically cancels” the possibility of carrying out phase III clinical trials, which require thousands of participants —
However it takes just a few mice for a vaccine clinical trial.
Not entirely off topic.
Exclusive: Hindawi and Wiley to retract over 500 papers linked to peer review rings
https://retractionwatch.com/2022/09/28/exclusive-hindawi-and-wiley-to-retract-over-500-papers-linked-to-peer-review-rings/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
An other small piece of information: in July 2021, Dr Vallejos was active commenting a paper on TrialSiteNews. You still can read replies by Dr Vallejos to several comments here:
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/ivercor-covid19-co-principal-investigators-respond-to-trialsites-article#comments
I took the opportunity to ask him if he knew what proportion of each group had taken ivermectin more than 7 days before their enrolment into the trial.
Vallejos replied "It was not our study objective" (but it's not clear whether he was answering we or the next person who commented.)
Unfortunately, I can't find that the exchange on TrialSiteNews anymore, but a picture of it is still readable: it's the last document inserted in this paper:
https://blogs.mediapart.fr/enzo-lolo/blog/060821/covid-19-letiquette-fact-checker-est-elle-gage-de-competence
I believe RCTs should have been done mainly to assess hospitalization and deaths and also separating these outcomes. In hospital settings, however, there was very few use of ivermectin here in Brazil, except for rare cases, due to the fear doctors and hospitals felt from the propaganda of media and other sources against it.
People used mostly by themselves as a preventive resource, not prescribed by doctors. I would guess up to 20% of the population used it like that (just a guess), no more than that.
Wow...
Amazing that want to have Stage III testing on Ivermectin, that has been around for 40+ years safely...
...but they can skip ALL COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine”, except the Bivalent was tested on a total of 8 rats
Thank you for your persistence with this topic. Any idea of the best place for Covid treatment in CA. I’ve been told I can only get treatment other than Paxlovid if I am part of a study. I just want pre-2020 healthcare.
Somewhat more off topic. It appears that specialist physicians did not fully think through their support of family physicians' refusal to provide early treatment for covid. To the degree that deaths occurred and are still occurring among those with comorbidities beyond mere age, the specialists are going to experience reduction of their patient/procedure pool. That's got to hurt their bottom line a bit. There are about 20,000 cardiologists, so each one perhaps lost 50 potential patients and counting.
Because the question of what evidence is valid looms large in your mental life, I thought this video would be interesting for you.
https://connect.xfinity.com/appsuite/api/mail/6182e42e-c713-4b96-81bf-490d11195fe7.MP4?action=attachment&folder=default0%2FINBOX&id=98586&attachment=2&user=2&context=10318809&sequence=1&session=34979785bbc644cf82ec704f4c682091&delivery=download&callback=antivirus
Sunday is the presidential election in Brasil between Bolsonaro and Lula. The people in the video have a banner with "If you are for Lula, honk." on one side, and on the other "If you are for Bolsonaro, honk." They alternate presenting the sides to the oncoming traffic. The results are dramatic. The caption in the video says, "This is real research."
My sister-in-law, a Bolsonaro supporter, says that Lula supporters would dismiss this experiment by saying that Lula supporters don't drive, don't have cars.
Would be interesting to use a similar method to ask questions about Ivermectin use or the drivers' beliefs about it.
My thing on this front is if we're going to say background use was an issue then the follow up to this inquiry is did these regions with background usage of the drug fair better with the disease. They tried to do this with an observational study of Ivermectin and HCQ use in Africa and our good friend Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz I believe ripped it apart for not categorizing the countries correctly. Has a similar one been done for latin america? I mean if the problem is the drug's effect is obscured by the drug's effect then do we see a lower case fatality rate in the region?
How does ivermectin use affect the vaccine clinical trials conducted in Latin America?
I remember Flavio Cadegiani discussing this confounder effect with Pierre Kory.
Great to see Alexandros adding meat to the bone. I wish he were working for the MOH in NZ, otherwsise my IVM may have passed border control.