Patients with COVID-19 who took ivermectin as a treatment recovered more quickly than those who did not receive the medication, according to a large new study that was published in the Journal of Infection. In fact, the patients recovered so much faster that it was considered statistically significant, with those taking the medication recovering a median of two days faster.
In addition, those who were given ivermectin had a lower likelihood of being hospitalized or dying. In the study, people in the comparison group who had COVID-19 and received typical care instead of ivermectin had a 4% chance of being hospitalized or dying, while those who were given ivermectin had a 1.6% chance of being hospitalized or dying.
Not surprisingly, people who took ivermectin also reported a decrease in severe symptoms and better recovery. This study, which was carried out in the UK, involved more than 2,000 people who were given ivermectin for COVID-19 and more than 3,000 who underwent typical care during a period from June 2021 to July 2022.
Despite this finding, the researchers involved in the study insist that this does not support the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. They noted: “Overall, these findings, while evidencing a small benefit in symptom duration, do not support the use of ivermectin as treatment for COVID-19 in the community among a largely vaccinated population at the dose and duration we used.”
Doctor criticizes researchers for downplaying study's findings
However, an American physician who did not take part in the study, Dr. Pierre Kory, maintains that the study's authors were wrong to downplay the improved recovery noted among those patients who took ivermectin for COVID-19.
Human knowledge is under attack! Governments and powerful corporations are using censorship to wipe out humanity's knowledge base about nutrition, herbs, self-reliance, natural immunity, food production, preparedness and much more. We are preserving human knowledge using AI technology while building the infrastructure of human freedom. Speak freely without censorship at the new decentralized, blockchain-power Brighteon.io. Explore our free, downloadable generative AI tools at Brighteon.AI. Support our efforts to build the infrastructure of human freedom by shopping at HealthRangerStore.com, featuring lab-tested, certified organic, non-GMO foods and nutritional solutions.
The doctor, a longtime advocate of the drug as part of a COVID-19 treatment regimen, said: “PRINCIPLE was a profoundly positive study that was instead analyzed and written up as a negative one.”
Dr. Kory, who wrote the book The War on Ivermectin, has been following many of the studies involving ivermectin use in COVID patients, including this one, with great interest. He points out that the six biggest trials of the drug were conducted by investigators who had serious conflicts of interest.
He identified several problems with this study in particular, such as the use of an unrealistically low dose on an empty stomach for a very short duration, even though the drug is considered more effective when taken with food. In the trial, ivermectin was used once a day for three days at a dose well below what is considered a real-world use, and patients began the course of treatment very late after the onset of the disease compared to other treatments.
He also took the researchers to task for sitting on the study for so long despite it potentially providing useful information for a disease in the middle of a viral pandemic that was considered a major global public health emergency at the time. They claimed that they needed more time for a follow-up, but it can also be argued that its results could have threatened the profits of more expensive COVID-19 drugs as well as the vaccines Big Pharma was peddling.
There were plenty of reasons for Big Pharma to try to demonize ivermectin, from Donald Trump’s support for the treatment to the fact that it costs less than a dollar a dose and is generic and therefore no longer under any patent protection.
Dr. Kory explained his theory for the delay: “My hypothesis (and really the only rationale that makes sense) was that they obtained an immensely positive result for ivermectin and thus they needed a lot more time to “cook the books” (i.e. manipulate the data or its presentation) so that they could conclude ivermectin was ineffective.”
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.