COVID-19

planner wrote:

There are zero proper scientific studies on this.

There is a ridiculous amount of anecdotal stories!

Proper studies take a lot of time and money.

But since April there have been 18 great studies.  All of them are here:

https://youtu.be/NOpiMasSvSE

jdjonesdr wrote:

Great resource. I wish he'd slow down his talking a little.  It's like trying to understand Dominicans when they talk fast. lol

Some other good videos here:

https://vimeo.com/490351508https://youtu.be/4V3yxrJwJQs

planner wrote:

And yes its time to  re open restaurants to  50% inside dining.

If I look at Post #2224.... your post.... I get confused about your position on this.

Yes - It's time
No - It's not

Are you still thinking about it - undecided ??

planner wrote:

1,261 people arrested for violating the curfew last yesterday.

On one hand I am glad they are  extending by one hour weekdays the ability to get home. AND adding  3 hours on  weekends to get home!   Traffic is brutal in the bigger cities.

I am not happy they will allow churches to move forward or that they are allowing restaurants to  have dine in at  50%.   I have not seen enough data on restaurants not being  locations of spread. I  have certainly seen enough data on churches!

Here it is.....

DRVisitor wrote:

Any thoughts on why Santiago is skyrocketing?

Saw a video today of people in a Santiago barrio resisting police as they partied.

I would worry about Puerto Plata province(470k) equally which has a much lower population than Santiago province (1.5m) and has been having lots of cases. And it is where many of our expats reside. Hospital care is worse too.

You reap what you sow.

luisenriquereyes wrote:

Are doctors in the DR prescribing Ivermectin (Ivermectina) as a Prophylaxis & Early Outpatient Treatment Protocol for COVID-19?

No.

Public Health does not recommend the use of ivermectin in medical operations against covid-19

https://listindiario.com/la-republica/2 … l-covid-19

Nor does PAHO.

lennoxnev wrote:

Remember chloroquin?

Isn’t the promotion of Ivermectin the same thing as hydroxychloroquine – everyone claims it works when all the randomized controlled trials showed it didn’t?

The decision to adopt hydroxychloroquine was made early in the pandemic, when, despite the lack of clinical trials data to support use, there existed a scientific rationale given pre-clinical data suggesting anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties. Thus, the decision at that time was likely a sound one based on a risk/benefit calculation given HCQ’s low cost, minimal adverse effect profile, wide availability/ease of compounding, and long history of use.

Such a decision was also entirely in keeping with Principle 37 of the Helsinki Agreement on Medical Research, first formulated in 1964, which declares that “physicians may use an unproven intervention if in the physician’s judgement it offers hope of saving life, re-establishing health or alleviating suffering. This intervention should subsequently be made the object of research.”

In keeping with Declaration 37, immediately after the widespread adoption of HCQ, studies were immediately conducted by many centers. Unfortunately, all of the RCT’s reported negative results which led to rapid de-adoption with the exception of sporadic continued use in early phase disease.

Note that the current widespread non-adoption of Ivermectin in the face of hundreds of thousands of ill and dying, currently violates Declaration 37 in that adoption is being purposely and overtly avoided despite the efficacy/risk assessment of now numerous well controlled trials including over 3,000 total patients which report massive drops in transmission and large decreases in mortality when used in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

The data supporting adoption is now approaching that of corticosteroids, where widespread use began almost immediately upon the reporting of results of the 6,000 patient RECOVERY trial which demonstrated a mortality benefit (with only 2,000 patients treated with corticosteroids in that trial).

lennoxnev wrote:

We need proven, thorough and peer reviewed clinical results and most importantly approval by regulating bodies first.

Aren’t the majority of the existing studies not yet peer-reviewed?

14 of the 24 controlled trial results have been peer reviewed, along with 2 of the 5 case series.

Applying findings from trial manuscripts posted on pre-print servers have been a standard in many of the sciences, including medicine, particularly during the pandemic. Every novel therapeutic that has been widely adopted in medical practice during COVID-19 happened before the peer-reviewed manuscript was available for analysis by the medical community, with the exception of hydroxychloroquine which was initially adopted without any posted or published clinical evidence base. Examples of pre-print adopted therapeutics are remdesivir, corticosteroids, monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma and the vaccines. Again, all were widely adopted before succeeding the peer-review process.

Note that the vaccines represent an even more unique case as inoculations of citizens began even before a pre-print manuscript was made available for wider review by the scientific community. Thus, to dismiss the value of Ivermectin study results because only 50% have been published in peer-reviewed journals, would suddenly create a new evidentiary standard at a critical point in the pandemic that willfully ignores both the extreme importance that pre-prints play in the rapid dissemination of medical knowledge as well as the reason for their creation. Peer-review takes months. We do not have months. Thousands are dying every day.

lennoxnev wrote:

We need...most importantly approval by regulating bodies first.

If Ivermectin is so effective in COVID-19, how come no countries have adopted it into their national treatment guidelines?

Multiple countries and regions have formally adopted ivermectin into their treatment guidelines, with several having done so only recently, based on the emerging data compiled by the FLCCC Alliance.

Examples include:

Macedonia – December 23, 2020
Belize – December 22,2020
Uttar Pradesh in Northern India – a state with 210 million people – adopted early home treatment kits which include ivermectin on October 10, 2020
State of Alto Parana in Paraguay – September 6, 2020
Capital City of Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh – August 22, 2020
State of Chiapas, Mexico – August 1, 2020
8 state health ministries in Peru – Spring/summer 2020
Lima, Peru – Many clinics, districts use and distribute ivermectin, as of October the hospitals no longer use.

More answers to frequently asked questions can be found here:

Frequently Asked Questions on Ivermectin

or in this PDF here:

Download FAQ on Ivermectin as PDF