On first glance the figures quoted would support its use but as far as I can see all the studies quoted are not randomised or controlled. This means that the results are open to both selection and observer bias. The studies are small in number with often only a few hundreds included.
What is needed is a true randomised controlled trial involving a few thousand recipients in each age and sex matched group. If this shows a response then it’s worth trying until then it could be hydroxychloroquine all over again.
Take the time you feel appropriate, there are a number of randomised and controlled studies, believe me - I know you should not and won't - but I've checked. Nor is it 'another HCQ', see the research findings.
I'm personally unconcerned whether you want to put one of the safest, most used medicines on the planet through whatever further trials you wish to conduct and for whatever possible reasons, nobody is going anywhere soon after all, and having already taken my FDA/WHO approved medicine, albeit in 'unconventional' form, I'm confident that I'll personally neither be shedding virus and thus contributing to the problem in the interim. Thus I am first and foremost doing no harm, something that cannot truthfully be said of the current advice.
A lot of very fine minds globally have contributed positively to the effort thus far, and I see
nothing whatsoever to refute what any of these protagonists are finding, and saying and publishing in their findings as regards the positive effects of Ivermectin in preventing and treating Covid-19 in all its stages. Personally, I read, I understand, and thereafter I decide to take responsibility for my own health, not something I wish to delegate to either government, vaccine makers of as yet unproven efficacy in respect of the changing virus strains, nor, perhaps understandably, cautious medical professionals seeking to further pontificate as to whether the great many smaller scale (largely unfunded) trials which are of sufficient merit, when the results of same are accumulated and aggregated to show an overwhelming body of evidence to rational, objective lay persons such as myself and others can observe and draw our own conclusions, but I'll happily consider any contradictory evidence as you may be able to unearth. FYI, the FDA also approve the use of Ivermectin, they are just a bit unhappy to think of people being able to care for themselves without medical supervision/oversight/control/payment, call it as you see best.
I'm aware of the potential for serious adverse interactions with certain medicine types (4 known) of Ivermectin, happily none of these apply to myself. There is a great deal more I have personally looked into as regards Ivermectin, and found to be of great interest and further confirmed my convictions as to its suitability and efficacy in preventing the reproduction of cytokines, Nitric oxides, and its other means of basically beating the virus. Much of it is pretty dry stuff, of course, and I have therefore abbreviated most of my posts in recognition of this.
I am very happy most of all that I am not prevented by others in taking responsibility for my own health choices, particularly with regard to the current situation, and what I regard as the deeply flawed strategy being pursued by the government and NHS for dealing with cases - the 'wait, wait, oops - too late' strategy, which seems to be otherwise meekly accepted by rather too many unfortunate 'believers' that entrust their health to a doubtless well meaning, hard worked government and NHS, but to practitioners and carers at every level of health care who are possibly less well read on the aspects I've sought to bring forward.
Belief is a very personal thing, and as you may infer, I am rather more of an 'inquiring mind'-type of potential patient as oppose to a blindly obedient one, i.e. not a 'doctor-always-knows-best' type. I don't believe government is presently acting in the best possible interests of the country in the aspects of their coping strategy, nor in their prevention of spread measures, which place rather too great trust on the population at large doing what is required, as opposed to what they will, eg clandestine wedding parties, secret get togethers, errant positive tested people and politicians carrying on regardless, etc. It is the nature of man and woman to think they know best, these examples are testament to this, as indeed are you and I, respectfully at some odds as to the best way forward; time will serve to show whether my instinct based upon the research I've done for my own curiosity will be a wise decision or not, but I can assure you, as to my recent self-treatment, I feel fine, and am wholly confident in my decision being the right one for me and my loved ones, again based upon the findings of those very fine minds who have applied their efforts almost exclusively to the problem these past ten months.
I'm aware too, of the implications of the governments health strategy being found wanting, but I won't be accepting a 'who knew' defence, when the inquiry eventually concludes. The prescription of Ivermectin as an effective prophylaxis and/or treatment for Covid-19 may
appear to conventionally-minded but as yet (in my view) not up-to-speed medical practitioners to be 'unconventional', possibly cutting edge, but it most certainly is not bleeding-edge; for an independent-minded deer stalker in the wilds of Grampian, that is my starting point, I am not prepared at this later stage to wait any longer for someone else to do the required reading and to 'okay' that which I can determine for myself.
Oh, and I've taken the liberty of running these matters past my retired gastro-enterologist-and my retired consultant surgeon friends and my currently practicing GP stalking chum, all seemed rather convinced, too, as you say, at first glance. One of them has taken up cudgels internally in the Health Board, suggesting that we should be acting upon the information emanating 'from the experts, via the glen'.
