In keeping with the latest trend as the science shows:
Just yesterday even more ivermectin controversy started: this time around joint nonclinical research being done with the drug by Japanese company Kowa Co Ltd.
Except, instead of the “normal” ivermectin controversy - which consists of arguing over whether or not the drug is “horse paste” despite its discovery being nominated for a Nobel Prize for use in humans, it being including on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines and being dosed hundreds of millions of times to human beings by doctors - this week’s controversy was about how Kowa’s research was reported on Tuesday.
Reuters initially ran the headline:
The corrected Reuters headline
Advocates claimed victory because it was yet another study - despite being a nonclinical joint study - that showed antiviral effects from the medicine in vitro. Ivermectin is already a well-known antiviral.
Ivermectin skeptics like the Washington Post claimed the article was “botched”, but still were forced to admit the truth: the “actual news” was that ivermectin was found to carry an “antiviral effect” against Omicron and other coronavirus variants in joint non-clinical research.
The facts as put forth in the corrected version of the Reuters article still seemed to be a net positive:
A translated version of Kowa’s Japanese PR seems to confirm that ivermectin is in the midst of a clinical trial for Covid. Included in the translated PR were the following lines:
But, let’s put aside the Kowa study for a second.
What most people don’t know is that this Japanese trial, whether successful or not - whether clinical or nonclinical - would only serve to supplement robust data already available about ivermectin’s effectiveness on Covid-19.
The website c19ivermectin.com keeps a running tally of such studies, and aggregates the data as it comes in.
The website keeps a chronological log of studies, news, theories, of all types of information available about ivermectin that can be aggregated, including meta analyses, dating back to April of 2020. At most recent update, it includes 147 studies, 96 peer reviewed, 77 with results comparing treatment and control groups. (It currently includes the Kowa writeup, but has yet to correct the Reuters headline as of the time of this writing.)
The website also notes that Ivermectin has been officially adopted for early treatment in all or part of 22 countries (39 including non-government medical organizations).
Has The Red Carpet Been Rolled Out For A Mainstream Pivot On Ivermectin?
Forget the lab leak or cloth masks. The mainstream pivoting on ivermectin would be the most disgusting and disgraceful Covid pivot we've seen yet.
 | Quoth the Raven
|
Just yesterday even more ivermectin controversy started: this time around joint nonclinical research being done with the drug by Japanese company Kowa Co Ltd.
Except, instead of the “normal” ivermectin controversy - which consists of arguing over whether or not the drug is “horse paste” despite its discovery being nominated for a Nobel Prize for use in humans, it being including on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines and being dosed hundreds of millions of times to human beings by doctors - this week’s controversy was about how Kowa’s research was reported on Tuesday.
Reuters initially ran the headline:
That headline was incorrect, and Reuters was forced to retract it. They re-ran the story with a title congruent with the facts:
Both ivermectin advocates and detractors claimed victory on the day.
The corrected Reuters headlineAdvocates claimed victory because it was yet another study - despite being a nonclinical joint study - that showed antiviral effects from the medicine in vitro. Ivermectin is already a well-known antiviral.
Ivermectin skeptics like the Washington Post claimed the article was “botched”, but still were forced to admit the truth: the “actual news” was that ivermectin was found to carry an “antiviral effect” against Omicron and other coronavirus variants in joint non-clinical research.
The facts as put forth in the corrected version of the Reuters article still seemed to be a net positive:
Kowa and Kitasato University appear to be in the midst of a clinical trial studying whether or not ivermectin is effective, though it was difficult to confirm the details due to a language barrier at the source of the information.
A translated version of Kowa’s Japanese PR seems to confirm that ivermectin is in the midst of a clinical trial for Covid. Included in the translated PR were the following lines:
But, let’s put aside the Kowa study for a second.
What most people don’t know is that this Japanese trial, whether successful or not - whether clinical or nonclinical - would only serve to supplement robust data already available about ivermectin’s effectiveness on Covid-19.
The website c19ivermectin.com keeps a running tally of such studies, and aggregates the data as it comes in.
The website keeps a chronological log of studies, news, theories, of all types of information available about ivermectin that can be aggregated, including meta analyses, dating back to April of 2020. At most recent update, it includes 147 studies, 96 peer reviewed, 77 with results comparing treatment and control groups. (It currently includes the Kowa writeup, but has yet to correct the Reuters headline as of the time of this writing.)
The website also notes that Ivermectin has been officially adopted for early treatment in all or part of 22 countries (39 including non-government medical organizations).
