Watch LIVE

Horowitz: New study shows denial of ivermectin is a crime against humanity

Op-ed
RapidEye/Getty Images

"How can I get hold of ivermectin in case I get sick?" is probably the most common email inquiry I receive daily. It's a shame we didn't make this safe, Nobel prize-winning drug as available as we do needles in San Francisco for the injection of dangerous drugs. Perhaps we can ask the Mexican cartels to get into ivermectin production.

In all seriousness, given the data behind ivermectin, it is shocking how our government refuses to even embark on a study. In the meantime, insurers refuse to cover it and pharmacists refuse to dispense it — and that's if you can get hold of a doctor willing to prescribe it.

Until now, despite dozens of studies and doctors all around the world with no financial gain at stake vouching for its efficacy, our government has balked at ivermectin because, it claims, the studies are too small. Well, the Argentinian Provincial Ministry of Health just published the results of a retrospective study of a trial of over 21,000 participants. The results were unmistakable among those participants above age 40, all non-vaccinated. Overall, when adjusting for confounding factors like less healthy people joining the ivermectin group, those in the ivermectin group had a 66% lower ICU admission rate and a 55% lower mortality rate than those in the control group. Anyone in the ivermectin group was treated with a dose of 0.6mg per kg of weight one time a day for five days.

This is just the latest study, but the key is to look at the preponderance of the evidence. A meta-analysis posted earlier this week of 65 total studies netted the following pooled results.

As the author notes, while many of the studies are small sample sizes, taken together, "The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 65 studies is estimated to be 1 in 403 billion."

So many people, including actor Louis Gossett Jr., are human testimonies to ivermectin being more than a theoretical statistical benefit. They are alive today, even after having used it at a late stage. The war on ivermectin and the embargo against early treatment are truly a crime against humanity.

Ultimately, it's important to keep in mind that this has never been about any one treatment. Imagine if along with making ivermectin cheap and available, our government had helped empower people to raise their vitamin D levels and exercise more rather than gaining a ton of weight over the pandemic. Imagine if our government had encouraged doctors to treat this early and often with a cocktail of several drugs plus made the monoclonal antibodies available for everyone the minute they came out, over one year ago, in addition to the successful nasal irrigation techniques using povidone-iodine sprays. Well, then the reduction in mortality would have been closer to 100%.

Vitamin D alone could have saved anyone who has gotten seriously ill recently, a year and a half after our government should have been encouraging people to take high-dose supplements. There are now at least 113 studies vouching for the correlation between high vitamin D levels and positive outcomes. The results of a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of eight vitamin D studies showed that the risk of COVID mortality for people with D levels at 50 ng/ml is close to zero.

Then, of course, there is exercise and obesity. Weight is such a strong factor in determining risk of serious illness that BMI is now being used as a way of vetting people for eligibility for the monoclonal antibodies. Yet our government encouraged a lifestyle that caused obesity to skyrocket. The rates have gone up so quickly that, according to the latest CDC data, 16 states now have obesity rates of 35% or higher, an increase of four states in just one year.

Rather than encouraging people, in addition to seeking early COVID treatment, to pound vitamins, exercise, and eat right — which would induce a cascading confluence of benefits in every other area of health and wellness — they placed all of their eggs in the vaccine basket. Now what do they have to offer those people getting infected despite taking on so much known and unknown risk from the shots?

Finally, more than any one drug or therapeutic, it's about the art of practicing medicine, which involves having a competent doctor prescribe the right course of action for the right patient for the given symptoms at the right time. Every primary care doctor should have been encouraged, rather than discouraged, to treat this virus early with their respective patient workloads. Each drug alone might have a 30%-60% efficacy rate, but a good doctor putting it all together achieves close to 100% success.

Drs. Brian Tyson and George Fareed posted a summary of their patient outcomes after treating thousands of COVID patients in Imperial County, California, since last March. Out of 6,000 patients they treated, they never lost a patient who came to them within the first week of symptoms. What Dr. Tyson explains is so simple, yet eloquent:

"We started seeing inflammation, so we used anti-inflammatories," Dr. Tyson explains. "We saw blood clots, so we used anti-coagulants. We saw patients having trouble breathing, so we used asthma medications. … It wasn't just one drug. It was the art of what we see and how those patients responded to what we gave them."

As Tyson notes, if you are not in favor of early treatment, that's fine, but why do you have to attack others who try to treat the virus? "If I'm wrong, people are still going to die," asserted Tyson. "But if I'm right, how many thousands of lives would have been saved?"
Most recent
All Articles