Ivermectin prophylactic study from India

you are most welcome to this talk now unusually on this talk i will not uh be giving any of my own opinions at least i'd be trying hard not to give any of my own opinions and because we're going to be talking about therapeutics and a drug i have to tell you in the rules i have to tell you that you must never take any drugs based on anything i say in any of my videos always go to your own prescriber this is for educational purposes only right now i haven't got that out the way that this report is from the i'll show you it is from the uh all india institute of medical sciences based in new delhi so this is a fairly well well very well known indian research institution and uh the study is on the prophylactic role of ivermectin and sars coronavirus ii infection amongst healthcare workers now these are the authors of the paper here and we see that these are all associated with the all india institute of medical sciences and this this area here uh is is in uh east of india in uh i can't remember the name of the state now it's in eastern india anyway so that they're all the authors there the links are all there for you to look at um this study is dealing with prophylaxis preventative care so there's the full paper there you can read it for yourself now this is a preprint this is not in a peer-reviewed journal so you have to take that into account and they the authors say this they say that on the top this is a pre-printer preliminary version of a manuscript that's not been it's not complete to peer review etc so read that for yourself so that's kind of the provisos that are associated with this but these the the authors here are as far as i know they're all physicians and they're all associated with the uh all india institute of medical sciences so i think i think at least what they say is worth listening to so let's let's dive straight into it now um these are the various bits research square seems to be their pre-print server as far as i can gather and um here we'll hear of all the links so um click on those check them for yourself i'm just going to report my best understanding of what they say so i spent the last few hours uh reading this paper and going through it and i think i've got a bit of a gist of it i'm not saying my interpretation is perfect but i'm going to give my best interpretation to the best of my ability so prophylactic so prophylactic of course is that which prevents something that's which prevents disease in this case role of either mechanism corona virus to infection amongst healthcare workers now background briefly here healthcare workers are vulnerable to getting infected with sas coronavirus too that is certainly the case uh preventing healthcare works from getting infection as a priority to main health care services well well that's true but um it's also uh it's also important for well i would certainly consider important to for me as an individual healthcare worker not to get sick as well so both are true we want to look after the individuals and we want to maintain the service so nothing to disagree with there really um the next thing still in the background the therapeutic and preventative role of mechanic covered 19 is being investigated that's what this study is about based on promising results in uh lab-based in vitro studies of oral ivermectin this study looks at the prophylactic role of all ivormectin so we're looking at the prophylactic role of ivamectin now there are other papers that look at treatment but i'm sticking it's actually it's actually i wouldn't say it's complicated but there's a few things to get right so we're just going to stick in this video to the prophylactic role right method prospective cohort study was undertaken at the orlando institute of medical sciences so that's good prospective means the study was done from a particular day going forward this data was actually collected in uh i think it was october november last year when this was actually collected two doses of oil arrivamektin the dose was 300 that's micrograms that's a mu micrograms per kilogram of the individual's body weight with a gap of 72 hours so they give one dose they'd wait for three days and then they give a second dose three-day gap and that's all they gave for the month that was it that was considered to be prophylaxis for the month now this presumably is explained by the fact that ivamectin resides in the tissues for a period of time so just back of the envelope calculation for me what this means uh so 300 uh not 0.3 milligrams is 300 micrograms it's the same thing so they were giving as we said 300 micrograms so that's 0.3 milligrams so if we say the healthcare worker in question weighs 70 kilograms that would be a dose of 21 milligrams on one day and then a dose of 21 milligrams or three days later now this is interesting we had doctor tess laurie who's one of the in my view one of the world's leading medical academics on the on the channel um a few weeks ago she'd been on twice um now she reported that she her understanding is that the cost of ivan mectin is dollars a kilo but suppose it's 10 times that but but let's suppose it's 168 dollars a kilo that means it's uh 0.168 so is that 16 cents anyway um yeah isn't it 16.8 cents a gram um so that means a milligram it costs 0.00168 for a milligram and the dose here was uh 21 milligrams so that would be associated of a cost of 0.003528 so so that would be like that would be like uh 10 cents that would be one cent so it's a little over a little over a third of a cent isn't it but by my reckoning uh in in other words this doesn't cost anything um so i mean what this means is that the cost of preparing this drug and putting it into tablets it would cost way more i would have thought to put it into tablets than it does actually for the drug itself very very cheap to mass produce and uh indian uh pharmaceutical companies are brilliant at producing huge amounts of generics that they are there's a very well established industry in india on that now um employees at this institution where this study was done 3892 employees 300 sorry 3892 employees 3523 participated in the study so pretty good uptake a lot of them took part in the study now uh they described it as ivamectin the ones that had ivamectin now it's a slightly confusing actually because there was about 5.3 percent took the first dose and then didn't take the second dose but that the total so it was about 62 percent uh 62 points something percent took both doses so there was some poor compliance amongst the staff but the ivor met an uptake uh the group that took one or two doses was 2 384 individuals and as we say um the vast majority of those took the two doses so anyway that's 67.5 of all the staff and none uptake there was 1114 didn't take it that's 32 um 32.5 of the staff so you can see there this is not a randomized controlled trial but you can see there we've got two groups haven't we we've got one group took the ivormectin we've got one group did not take the ivamectin so it's an ideal comparator group ideal comparative group not going on to the results um first of all developing symptom development of symptomatic infection so 331 subjects developed symptomatic infection that may have been covered symptoms suggested of covered 19 and remember um there was there was quite a few more wasn't there in the in the ivor mexican group uh compared to the uh to the non-ivor mexican group what we could call the control group so there was more in the ivory metal group but of the 331 who got symptoms 100 131 were in the takers group who took the ivormectin 200 were further from the non-takers group so even though there was more people in this group less of them got symptomatic infection and that works out at uh symptomatic infection ivormectin takers six percent of the whole workforce got a symptomatic disease what may have been covered 19. none take us 15 so we see it's more but of course the study went on to do pcr testing of course and when pcr testing was done uh on they did pcr tests on um 201 individuals um the ivormectin takers two percent of them got uh pcr positive uh none takers 11.7 percent got pcr positive and uh we see a huge difference there between the two groups so either mectin two percent tested pcr positive none i've emec intake has 11.7 tested pcr positive now pcr test of course is exquisitely sensitive we all know this so if the pcr test didn't detect viral load in the either in in the ivor mexican group or only in two percent of the ivormectin group if it didn't detect the virus that means we can pretty well say there was no virus there because this test is very sensitive and you don't need me to tell you that if there's no virus there you can't transmit it on so it is highly reasonable to assume that these people would not be infectious as well because you can't pass on what you haven't got if i haven't got something in my hand i can't give it to you it's obvious so big difference there either mexican takers two percent got infected none i've met intake as eleven point seven percent got intact got infected as determined by the pcr test with obvious implications for transmission now healthcare workers who had taken two doses now if they took one dose that didn't seem to make a difference so one dose wasn't enough they needed two doses 72 hours apart but the ones who'd taken two doses had a significantly and this is this is the the 0.05 uh significant level the 95 significant level significantly lower risk of contracting covered 19 disease in the following month and the relative risk there was zero point one eight percent in other words the only ad there are only eighteen percent is likely to get it the adjusted relative risk was um in other words 83 level of protection based on this study now what about adverse effects well 1.8 reported adverse events which were mild and self-limiting none of which required medical intervention most drugs have some side effects but 1.8 mild and self-limiting side effects right conclusion and relevance this is not me this is this is what the study is saying this is this is not me this is all in all in here um it's all in here check it out it goes it's got all these sections in um conclusion and relevance two doses of all ivamectin 300 micrograms that's 0.3 milligrams per kilogram 72 hours apart as chemo prophylaxis among healthcare workers reduces the risk of covering 19 infection by 83 in the following month and because as we saw if they're not testing pcr positive they can't transmit it on as well so not only are they being protected they're breaking the chain of transmission one would assume the paper doesn't claim that but it's hard to think anything else the authors say safe effective and low-cost chemo prophylaxis uh have relevance in the containment of the pandemic alongside vaccine so they they are saying it prevents transmission basically without saying now this is not instead of vaccine this is as well as vaccine this is an important point we need vaccination i'm eagerly waiting for my second vaccine um this is as well as so we want to optimize the health of the immune system with things like vitamin d we want to prevent the disease with vaccination but this is another tool that these authors claim uh has relevance uh director of the orleans institute or india institute of medicine um earlier at least 20 to 25 healthcare workers were getting infected with the virus daily after the workers started taking ivamectin the number of infections has come down to one or two per day so that is his uh conclusion quite an interesting site actually check it out for yourself um lots of interesting stuff on there um right so that's not my opinions that's just directly from that paper the best way i am able to communicate it 83 protection in healthcare workers so that's the end of this video but i want to tell you about a couple of spooky things here now i'm not a big um not a big social media user really but um students um students bullied me to having a facebook page so i did one years and years ago um i'll put the links nothing very interesting on it but um it was basically for my students so they wanted me to do it so i did it and it's been useful for students different places around the world to appreciate it anyway um i i put the link for the video we did with dr tess laurie on facebook and we got uh we got fact checked and uh again and uh of course the one with uh pi corey got fact checked now i'm not i don't know what i'm allowed to tell you tell you and what i'm allowed to put on really but it's public domain so i've put i've put the link i've put the link in the description you can click on it and you can read the the uh the the critique uh that uh some uh person purporting to be an academic um wrote up um he didn't indicate on the the person writing the critique on on on here didn't indicate whether they were paid or not uh but this is just one report from the um there's one one report from direct quote from the paper that we've been looking at from the all india institute of medicine the safety of the drug has been established in large scale use in the last four decades for various indications such as oncoriosis scabies head lice and other parasitic infections this reviewer said that this toxicology data is not relevant to studies of ivamectin in sars coronavirus 2 which goes against so that this review goes against that or that point of that view goes against everything i understand about uh or almost everything i understand about toxicology and things like it just doesn't make any sense to me but then again i might be a bit cognitively challenged in this area read it for yourself it's there it's in the public domain so that's what that paper says 83 protection against healthcare workers and the cost is essentially zero so that is a research report from india for your perusal thank you for watching

Channel: Dr. John Campbell

Views: 751,939

Rating: 4.8817587 out of 5

Keywords: physiology, nursing, NCLEX, health, disease, biology, medicine, nurse education, medical education, pathophysiology, campbell, human biology, human body

Id: XYv30g7TKVM

Length: 17min 11sec (1031 seconds)

Published: Thu May 06 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/BigRedTomato]

Since OP neglected to summarise the results of this very informative, but long video:

About 3,000 workers at a hospital in India took part in an experiment testing the effectiveness of Ivermectin in preventing covid-19. 65% took two doses of the drug 72 hours apart; the remainder did not. A couple of hundred caught covid-19 during that month but those who took the drug were only around 20% as likely to catch it. In other words, it seemed to provide 80% protection.

Ivermectin is a dirt cheap generic drug with relatively mild side effects.

[u/captainpugwash2020]

People on this sub don't give a shit about possible treatments for covid. It is the vaccination or bust. I thought by now there would be a good treatment for covid on the market but it seems governments and big pharma have won out and just now push the vaccine. Governments aren't even providing funding anymore to look into treatments for covid so there cannot be anymore clinical trials as they are not interested.

[u/Daiki_Miwako]

Funny how this thread is currently 62% downvoted, you'd think that people would be glad to hear that there is an affordable and safe way to prevent infection from Covid-19....

[u/IAmAYoyoToo]

I'm scared to click. I once clicked on a link about how to use only 1 sheet of toilet paper each visit and I'm still scarred.

[u/crafub]

The article is here, if anyone wants to see the pre-print details https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-208785/v1

[u/HomerQuotingHomer]

Lol look at the downvoting of this post. This sub is proving once again that it is most definately not a hive of mindless ape reactions.

[u/Daiki_Miwako]

Yep, apparently Ivermectin is crushing Covid in the states where it has been approved in India:

https://rclutz.com/2021/05/29/update-may-29-2021-india-doing-well-with-ivermectin/comment-page-1/

Quite exciting as Ivermectin is a cheap drug that has already been proven safe over many decades of use.