The Simple Truth Ivermectin and HCQ Supporters Fail to Acknowledge

Statistically, they weren't going to die anyway

MOBILIZE™ HEALTH PUBLIC RESOURCE

You can add your voice to this article. Scroll to the footer to comment

How many people do you know that swear by all they hold sacred that one of these drugs, and in desperate instances, both, saved them from dying of Covid? How many people do you know that use this rationale as evidence of the efficacy of the drugs and as yet another unfounded reason to besmirch vaccines?

Ask a room full of people any of the above and a lot of hands would go up. They would, of course, all be wrong. The reasons are relatively simple and straightforward, the logic undeniable and yet millions of Americans still pursue these drugs, in some instances forfeiting their lives in the process.

To understand why the evidence for the success of these drugs as a treatment for Covid isn’t compelling, we need to establish a few facts first. For instance, take the following question. Just how much risk is there of Covid killing you? It seems like a simple question to answer, but in truth, it is anything but.

Case Fatality Rates, CMR, and IFR

The probability that someone dies from a disease doesn’t just depend on the disease itself, but also on the treatment they receive, and on the patient’s own ability to recover from it. This makes interpreting data complex and very nuanced.

- Advertisement -

Catching SARS-CoV2 and developing Covid isn’t a death sentence, not for most of the people who contract it. Global figures based on PCR testing reflect over 222 million cases to date. Of these cases, 4.5 million have proved fatal. The press will tell you this works out roughly at a risk ratio of around 2%, commonly referred to as the Case Fatality Rate (CFR), where the number of deaths is divided by the number of cases. The press is wrong.

Not to be confused with the Crude Mortality Rate (CMR), CFR is far from perfect in determining your personal risk from Covid. There are a few problems using CFR, the most obvious being the reported number of infected in a population. Cases could underreport infections as not everyone is tested and some patients present as asymptomatic (no symptoms).

CFR can decrease or increase over time, as responses change; and that it can vary by location and by the characteristics of the infected population, such as age, or sex. For instance, older populations would expect to see a higher CFR from COVID-19 than younger ones. For similar reasons, the Crude Mortality Rate or CMR is also not a reliable indicator.

So if neither the CFR nor CMR are a good indicator for risk, where do we turn. The scientific community (not the press and media) uses another measure called the Infection Mortality Rate, or IMR. This is the number of deaths from a disease divided by the total number of cases. If 10 people die of the disease, and 500 actually have it, then the IFR is [10 / 500], or 2%.

Confused?

To work out the IFR, we need two numbers: the total number of cases and the total number of deaths, but some of you may already have figured out that we don’t know the true number of cases and probably never will. We cannot test everyone and many are, as discussed earlier, asymptomatic, so researchers will use a ‘best guess’ in their calculation. Far from ideal, but we have no other method.

Despite what some press and media reports imply, the CFR is not the same as, or, even similar to the IFR. If the CFR is 2% then in reality the IFR for Covid will be far lower. For the purposes of this piece, let’s assume it to be 1%. For every 100 confirmed Covid cases, 1 patient will die.

And that is where the rub lies for treatments of the infection, particularly treatments that rely on early-stage administration. Drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and treatments like monoclonal antibody infusions. It is only possible to tell if these drugs work in a clinical setting.

Pepsi® is the miracle cure

If all the 100 infected patients were to self-administer Pepsi® at home, 99 would statistically survive and 1 patient would die. People would sing the praises of Pepsi® and stores would be looted as a naive population stockpiled Pepsi®, just in case. The unfortunate patient who died would have had to stop drinking Pepsi®. Being intubated has its drawbacks.

The press and general public would of course be able to extrapolate these data and expand them to reach the following conclusions. Pepsi® is effective against Covid, offering you up to 99% protection. It isn’t an effective treatment in the late stages of the disease, so make sure you order your Pepsi® early from Americas’ Frontline Doctors (AFLDS). Sound familiar?

Obviously the above is an analogy, please don’t rush out and buy Pepsi® in the mistaken belief it will help your body combat Covid. The point is that exactly the same principle applies to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. If 99 out of 100 people were going to survive no matter what, then arguably you could ascribe their recovery to literally anything, including Pepsi®, Coke, Dr. Pepper’s, or tap water.

There are however mouth-watering sums of money to be made out of a gullible public that has in large part lost confidence in the system. A public that is in many ways its own worst enemy, spreading news of miracle cures online and belittling science and themselves in the process.

If you are one of the true believers, I hope you’re still reading and I’d recommend reading the above again. Let it really sink in.

Clearly, this problem isn’t merely limited to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. It affects all early-stage treatments and there are carefully controlled situations where the real efficacy of the treatments can be assessed and monitored, but these are also fraught with pitfalls.

Is there any way of proving that drugs or treatments do help?

Yes and no. Speak to almost any frontline doctor that’s been embedded in the Covid wards since the start of the pandemic and they’ll tell you the following. HCQ and ivermectin make no difference to the mortality rate of patients in their wards.

This, you can correctly argue, could simply be because the patient is too far gone by the time they are admitted for the drugs to have any effect. True, but in that case, please refer to the preceding argument.

Ideally, patients would need to be identified in the early stages of infection, treated with the drugs, and then have the viral load in their systems monitored. This method assumes that we have established viral loads across all patient populations and variants. We cannot identify deviations from the disease’s natural progression without these control data.

Sadly, a trial of this nature would be unable to correctly identify if the treatments actually ‘cure’ the patient or if they simply speed up the patient’s natural ability to recover. Something, let’s remind ourselves, 99 out of 100 were going to do in any case. Again, this problem isn’t mutually exclusive to ivermectin and HCQ, it affects the assessment of all Covid treatments.

To be able to confirm without a doubt that a treatment is effective against the onset of death from Covid, the treatment would need to prove effective in reducing mortality in admitted patients. That is the gold standard and doctors will tell you, it doesn’t apply to either ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.

Sorry.

Vaccines however do work. That 1% can be reduced to 0.05% if you simply get vaccinated. That’s a proven fact.

- Advertisement -
CONFIRMED GLOBAL CASES
229,887,351
Updated on September 21, 2021 9:57 am
GLOBAL DEATHS
4,714,933
Updated on September 21, 2021 9:57 am
ACTIVE GLOBAL CASES
20,326,386
Updated on September 21, 2021 9:57 am
The article lives hereThe Simple Truth Ivermectin and HCQ Supporters Fail to Acknowledge
Dr Robert Turnerhttps://cre8tive.media
Robert is a Founder of Medika Life. He is a published author and owner of Cre8tive Digital Media. He lives between the Philippines and the UK. and is an outspoken advocate for human rights. Access to basic healthcare and eradicating racial and gender bias in medicine are key motivators behind the Medika website and reflect Robert's passion for accessible medical care globally.

More from this Author

6 COMMENTS

  1. I have a lot of questions….here are just a few. Please tell us about the shedding aspect of the vaccine ? Is it affecting children? It seems the more people that are vaccinated, the more cases of Covid there are. I have a friend who is fully vaccinated….has always worn a mask, and yet, got Covid.??? How do the antibodies play into this? What about natural immunity?? I know of people that have had Covid, got care from a Functional doctor and now is fine except that her smell is not fully back.

    • Hi Linda
      Thank you for reading and your questions. We’ll try and address what we can below.

      Vaccines don’t stop you contracting Covid or spreading it. What they do is increase your chances of surviving Covid by up to 95%. So if 1 in 100 die in an unvaccinated population if they contract Covid, in a vaccinated population, 1 in 10 000 would die. Thats a massive difference.

      In terms of natural immunity, we still don’t know how this will impact the persons ability to catch Covid a second time or be vulnerable to new strains. We have to hazard a best guess based on our experience with the influenza virus, Covid is very similar. Some people react mildly, some seriously and some not at all when they contract the virus, and as with influenza, new strains appear each year. Covid may disappear, but it unlikely and therefore we may need a yearly vaccine booster for vulnerable segments of our population (the aged and immune compromised). In the long term, as with influenza, we may find that the healthy sector of the community doesn’t require protection as they are able to deal with the virus naturally, having been exposed to earlier versions.

      The problem with a vaccine driven approach is that the whole community needs to engage. If portions don’t then we cannot bring the disease under control. We eradicated polio because everyone was immunized.

      Vaccine shedding is when an individual releases, or sheds, the components of a vaccine either inside or outside of their body.
      This can only happen with a certain type of vaccine called a live-attenuated vaccine. The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines are mRNA vaccines and the COVID-19 vaccines produced by Johnson and Johnson and AstraZeneca use an adenovirus vector. None of these can ‘shed’ viral material. To use an example, the older type of oral polio vaccine was capable of shedding and was discontinued.

  2. Hi Dr Turner, you commented in another piece that you believed there was some merit in ivermectin, do you no longer believe this to be the case? I fully understand the benefit of getting vaccinated if one is at high risk due to comorbidities/age/exposure, however I personally feel the risk benefit ratio as a young and healthy person catching covid vs a new vaccine with no long-term data isn’t worth it. (Especially now that the point of herd immunity is moot and that delta renders sick vaccinated and unvaccinated people as more or less equally contagious due to similar viral loads.)

    • Hello Amy
      Thank you for the considered comment and reading. The truth is we simply cannot tell at this point if early-stage dosing of Ivermectin helps the patient recover more quickly. There is no evidence to support any prophylactic effect. In principle, I have no issue with people using Ivermectin responsibly and even if it turns out to have no effect, the placebo benefit if you believe it helps, may speed up recovery and reduce stress.
      However, the big problem faced by this drug and others is society itself. We have proven ourselves irresponsible and uneducated (using veterinary versions of the medication), abusive, manipulative, and without ethics (quacks seeking to profit from the medication) and even faced the manufacturer trying to suppress the drug in favor of a new treatment they are developing.
      If used in the correct dosage, in a form designed for human consumption, at the correct time (at the onset of symptoms), then I see no particular issue with the drug. It has a solid safety profile and unlike HCQ poses a very small risk (mostly an upset stomach) to the patient.
      Does it actually help? Depends on who you ask, the 99 patients who recovered or the one that died.

  3. While I agree with all that Dr Turner has stated, he has not answered the question of what does work as a treatment. That is, what can be done for people who have contracted the virus, whether they have been vaccinated or not in the time frame BEFORE the end up in hospital. If there is any evidence, whether it be anecdotal or not, it should be considered.

    The number of deaths in the vaccinated population still remains high. Of course, this may rely on breaking down the overall statistics into finely tuned populations, such as people with pre existing conditions etc, whereby whatever measure your use whether its the CFR or IFR, it will likely be much higher than either of those measures for the general population.

    So yes, vaccines help. Tick. Do we still need treatments? Yes! While the argument and the big N design that Dr Turner provides cannot tell you whether Pepsi works, it is possible that anecdotal experience of some doctors may suggest that for some people pepsi does work. Of course I am using pepsi in place of other rebranded treatments, such as Ivermectin, but Dr Turner hasn’t really answered anything as far as treatment goes for some people (ie sub populations, someone with pre existing conditions).

    By the way, the difference between the CFR and IFR in terms of the formula, based on how Dr Turner defined them, has me stumped. Yes I am confused. Below is how Dr Turner has defined them. I understand the problem about estimation of “true total number of cases and deaths” but they are the same formula.

    “Case Fatality Rate (CFR), where the number of deaths is divided by the number of cases.”

    “To work out the IFR, we need two numbers: the total number of cases and the total number of deaths, “

    • Hi Liam
      Thanks for reading. To clarify the CFR and IFR properly, IFR relies on total actual infections across the entire population, nor reported cases as we currently employ with CFR. If every Covid infection resulted in a green rash, it would be easy to identify those actually infected, sadly that isn’t the case. We cannot arrive at an IFR for Covid, hence an accurate figure for risk cannot be properly determined but we know it would be considerably lower than the current CFR.

Leave a response to this article

COVID 101 - THE BASICS

Paid Advertisement

PREGNANT IN A PANDEMIC

What Pregnant Women Need to Know About Coronavirus

Millions of pregnant women are worried and trying to understand what to do. They want to protect their babies and find out if they are at risk.
Paid Advertisement

LATEST COVID ARTICLES

Seriously, People, Just Get A COVID Vaccine

The extent that some people will go to try and prevent COVID baffles me to no end. Now, there are people advocating gargling with...

Now Medika has you covered for online health retailers. Our Rotten Retailer list will warn you about scammers, dangerous products, and "potential cures" that could kill you. This list is part of Medika's MOBILIZE™ HEALTH project to encourage consumer awareness and safety. Click on the image above to view or contribute to our list of Rotten Retailers

%d bloggers like this: