Mention Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment and often the conversation could go two ways: The torches may be lit and the pitchforks gathered ready for a burning at the stake; or, “I’ve seen that too.”

In a world littered with propaganda, censorship and ‘fake news’ how do you find good information?

‘Fake news’ and propaganda isn’t just on Facebook, and like it or not, we actually need honest open conversations if we are interested in preserving life, limiting risk to patients and navigating a way forward where people are not under totalitarian rule.

For this article, we will not talk about the vaccine, fully sidelining that emotional red flag to the bull of angry fear-drivers. We are looking at Ivermectin.

Ivermectin, along with at least 12 other treatments, now have a significant volume of data, research trials, and in the case of Ivermectin, has been used in the human body for decades.

I am at a loss as to why mainstream media continue to ignore or downplay what does appear to be safe, effective, cheap treatment and prevention of COVID-19.

One of the few politicians to speak on the subject was Craig Kelly MP in Federal Parliament. Craig Kelly is often a polarising political figure but that does not mean the information he is trying to convey is not worthy of consideration. 

Consider this. From the current trials on Ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment, the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 61 studies to date, is estimated to be 1 in 354 billion. 

Let that sink in: 1 in 354,000,000,000.   

Yes, 61 trials, with 578 scientists and 19,432 patients.

32 were randomized controlled trials.

Overall the results are as follows:

• 14 prophylaxis trials, (prophylaxis is a treatment given or action taken to prevent disease) 85% improvement; 
• 26 early treatment trials, 74% improvement;
• 21 late treatment trials, 46% improvement;
• 23 mortality results, 68% improvement;
• 32 randomised controlled trials, 62% improvement.

Are we not trying to save lives and improve the quality of life?

If you are prepared to wade through the data and studies one notable study was conducted in Argentina. A total  of  1,195  health  care  workers  were  recruited  from four major  hospitals  in  Argentina. 

407 of the recruited healthcare workers were in the no treatment group, relying on PPE for COVID-19 protection, and 788 were treated with a combination therapy (IVERCAR) consisting of carrageenan,  sodium  chloride and Ivermectin.

Of the 407 in the control PPE group, 58.2% (or 237) tested positive for COVID-19. 

No  patients  of  the  788  treated  with  IVERCAR, tested positive for COVID-19 during the study.

I encourage everyone to do their own research and ask the fundamental questions: What are the risks? What are the outcomes? What are the costs? What are the ethics and motivations of those preaching the narrative?

This article appeared in The Koondrook & Barham Bridge Newspaper, 8 July 2021.

Related story: COVID-19 testing:infectious or RNA identification?