Dr. Bryan Ardis: Ivermectin didn't fail people on COVID, the researchers and media did

Dr. Bryan Ardis: Ivermectin didn't fail people on COVID, the researchers and media did – Brighteon.TV

By royluarca // 2022-03-23

Copy

The title was sure and clear, an eye-catcher: "Ivermectin flops again for COVID. This time in high-risk adults." Even the subtitle was definitive, authoritative: "Malaysian trial finds no difference in progression to severe disease over standard of care." Coming from a medical news website, MedPage Today, the article should be enough to convince ordinary readers that ivermectin doesn't fit as an alternative treatment for Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19). But for discerning doctors like Bryan Ardis, who took time to read and dissect the full content of the study done in Malaysia and concluded in December 2021, the article published on February 18 diverted from the truth. It was deliberately slanted to mislead the public and suit the interest of those opposing ivermectin as a cheap, early treatment for COVID-19. The main paragraph stated: "There were also no significant differences between the groups in terms of onset of deterioration, like when they started to progress to severe illness, at average, 3.2 days for the ivermectin group, and 2.9 days in the control groups, or there was no difference. Also, no significant difference in any other secondary outcomes, which included being mechanically ventilated, being admitted into the intensive care unit (ICU), or dying in a hospital at day 20." Ardis, who focused on the "Ivermectin Treatment Efficacy in COVID-19 High-Risk (I-TECH) Patients" study on the March 16 episode of "The Dr. Ardis Show" on Brighteon.TV, said the first assertion may be considered correct if the statistical significance of the difference is considered as what the Malaysian researchers stated. The same argument may be raised in the other assertion pertaining to the secondary outcomes – broken down into mechanical ventilation section, ICU admission and in-hospital mortality at day 28 of the patients. As the study noted, four patients constituting 1.7 percent of those administered with ivermectin and 10 patients comprising four percent of the control group experienced worsening lung symptoms and had to be put on a vent. Also, six patients (2.5 percent) from the ivermectin group and eight patients (three percent) from the control group landed in the ICU. Eventually, three patients (1.2 percent) from the ivermectin group and 10 patients (four percent) from the control group died at the hospital.

Numbers don't lie: Ivermectin group shows better results

Based on the results, fewer people from the ivermectin group ended up on vent and ICU or died. But look back at what lead writer Molly Walker, deputy managing editor of MedPage, put in the title: "Ivermectin flops again for COVID. This time in high-risk adults." No mention of the glaring death discrepancy, even in the subtitle. This is despite the fact that the prevention of death from COVID-19 is the main reason for all the studies, surveys, researches, experiments and clinical trials being done worldwide. (Related: Japanese study finds that ivermectin is "safe and effective" for treating covid.) Using slides to give his audience a better grasp of the points he's raising, Ardis said the very limited study (490 patients) did not look at "whether or not people were living or dying being treated for COVID." Of the 13 reported deaths, nine were attributed to COVID pneumonia or 69 percent. No death was attributed to ivermectin, but for the researchers that was insignificant. MedPage saw the article fit to print without even bothering to see if ivermectin somehow prevented someone from dying from COVID. "That's pretty ridiculous," said Ardis. "I thought the intention for all research studies right now should be, does it stop us progressing to severe illness, ending up on vent in a hospital and dying from COVID?" Ardis then cited the last paragraph of the article. "The authors were unequivocal in their conclusion. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19." The actual study from the Journal of American Medical Association got published on February 18 and was on MedPage the same morning. "So anyway, let's go to the title, efficacy of ivermectin treatment on disease progression among adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 and comorbidities," said Ardis. "Do you know how many people have professed and how many doctors have professed that ivermectin used in severe cases of COVID has saved their lives? A whole bunch of them." But again, that's not the study's concern. Ardis, however, saw a distortion by the researchers when they claim the 28-day in hospital rate was similar for the ivermectin and control groups. Remember, only three persons died from the ivermectin group and 10 from the control group. It was one percent versus four percent. "How on the planet does MedPage publish an article that the author says there's no evidence that supports ivermectin helps to reduce the progression of severe COVID-19 disease, including death? How in the world can they publish this and say that ivermectin flopped even at these statistics?" Ardis asked. "It [ivermectin] proved to be better, way better than the standard of care, at reducing ICU admission, keeping people off the vent and then keeping people from dying. This is a flat-out lie, pumped out into the media to make everybody think ivermectin doesn't work. Well, it worked." Other studies, like those done in Brazil, Japan and even in the U.S., agree with Ardis' observations. Ivermectin isn't toxic and it's effective against COVID. It passed the test. It was the inept researchers and the corrupt media who flunked. Follow IvermectinScience.com for more news related to ivermectin. Watch the video below for the full March 16 episode of "The Dr. Ardis Show." Catch new episodes of the program every Wednesday at 10-11 a.m. on Brighteon.TV.

NATURAL NEWS

Numbers don't lie: Ivermectin group shows better results

More related stories: