Dear Editor,
This is a response to a letter in Stabroek News of June 13, 2021, entitled `Ivermectin is an unproven drug not to be used for treatment of Covid-19’ by Dr Jacquelyn Jhingree, PhD. This letter is such an affront to sense and basic logic it forces me to pen this letter. The letter begins by outlining some knowledge of the use of Ivermectin in South America and posits that Ivermectin is used in desperation. The article then directly attacks a meta-analysis of over fifty-six clinical trials showing the effectiveness of Ivermectin against Covid-19. With direct emphasis being placed on the weakness of “meta-analyses” as a type of study. This overview shows complete lack of knowledge of the scope of acceptance by some on the effectiveness of Ivermectin.
First of all, Ivermectin is a forty-year-old drug. It has specifically seen its service as an anti-parasitic drug in this forty-year period. It has been proven to be safe with little side effects and almost nonexistent severe side effects. It is understood that Ivermectin has anti-viral properties, an effect that has been studied and replicated in many studies. As it relates to Covid-19, there are multiple mechanisms that are thought to be used by Ivermectin to enforce its anti-viral effects: 1) competitive binding of Ivermectin with the host-receptor binding region of the Covid-19 spike protein,2) limiting binding to the ACE-2 receptor, binding/interference with multiple essential structural and non-structural proteins required by the virus in order to replicate, and others. The Australian study Dr. Jhingree refers to, most importantly was not a human model, and posits the least likely mechanism for Ivermectin to work, the blocking of importin-alpha and beta protein channels into the nucleus. It is because of this study it is erroneously concluded that extremely high amounts of Ivermectin will be needed to combat Covid-19.
North Macedonia, Belize, Uttar Pradesh (210 million people), State of Alto Parana in Paraguay, State of Chiapas Mexico, this is a short list of states or countries that have accepted Ivermectin officially into their treatment guidelines based on the developing evidence.
It makes absolutely little sense to me that vaccine proponents would cite “lack of approval by the FDA or anywhere,” as a reason not to take Ivermectin. It is in fact laughable considering some of the following.
1) All vaccines have been approved
by the FDA for emergency use,
this is not the same as regular
approval. In fact, this is approval
in desperation.
2) Ivermectin had more anti-viral
studies completed than vaccines
when the FDA granted vaccine
use for emergency.
3) Ivermectin has more anti-Covid
studies today, than the vaccine
had when approved, Ivermectin
has not received FDA emergency
approval.
4) It is not for lack of trying that
Ivermectin has not undergone
multiple large US or European
trials. The sponsors of such trials
appear to have a bias and
preference for the highly
profitable vaccines.
Let it be known that I am not anti-vaccine, as a health professional I have seen firsthand the benefits of effective vaccination campaigns and I have been the recipient of many of these vaccines regularly and continually, even taking part in these campaigns. However, there are many worrying facts about the Covid-19 vaccine that bother me and should bother all intelligent people in Guyana.
1) There are no long-term trials on
the effects of the Covid-19
vaccine.
2) High costs – these vaccines are
not free. One way or the other,
unless gifted, the nation must
repay the manufacturers for these
vaccines,
3) The absence of even pre-print
study data availability for wider
scientific review for vaccines.
Data that is now required in
copious amounts for Ivermectin,
the comparatively large amount
available, being insufficient.
According to the data available to us from over 1000 studies, 56 clinical trials (the majority being large), Ivermectin works against Covid-19. Its antiviral properties are not affected by the strain of Covid-19. At .2mg per kg or 24mg for the average adult, every two weeks, Ivermectin prophylaxis/prevention is about 85% to 90%, comparable to the vaccine. For those who have been infected already with Covid-19, the use of Ivermectin has been shown to prevent spread by the carrier.
It needs to be noted that in one study of over 788 health care workers, 12mg Ivermectin was given once weekly for three months. None of the health workers tested positive for COVID-19 vs 58% of the control group! This outcome was replicated in a second study. The vaccines have never achieved 100% protection in any trial, faulty or otherwise.
I strongly encourage the administration to investigate the mountainous literature available on Ivermectin. A simple solution to this problem is for the government to initiate its own clinical trials. There are many in the health system that are reluctant to take the vaccines with good reason.
I cannot decide if individuals should or should not take the vaccine. Ultimately this is a matter of personal choice and advice from a health care provider that considers a person’s complete medical history. However, to tout the vaccine as the only option, or that Ivermectin is “unproven” is the most dishonest opinion circulating in the public sphere during this pandemic.
Due to the lack of medical debate in the public domain about Ivermectin and Covid-19 by doctors or anyone else, I encourage all to do their own research. Please see the website of The Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) at covid19criticalcare.com. Regardless of vaccination or alternative pharmaceutical use, please continue to wear your masks properly, N95 masks still provide the best protection a mask can provide, practice social distancing and maintain a healthy lifestyle with a proper diet and exercise.
Please consult your physician before taking any medication.
Yours sincerely
Kamana Burnham RN
