Ivermectin remains a suitable alternative to the vaccine for COVID-19

Jun 18, 2021 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

This is a direct response to a letter in Stabroek News of June 13, 2021, entitled “Ivermectin is an unproven drug not to be used for treatment of COVID-19” by Dr. Jacquelyn Jhingree, PhD. This letter is such an affront to sense and basic logic; it forces me to pen this letter. The letter begins by outlining some knowledge of the use of Ivermectin in South America and posits that Ivermectin is used in desperation. The article then directly attacks a meta-analysis of over 56 clinical trials showing the effectiveness of Ivermectin against COVID-19. With direct emphasis being placed on the weakness of “meta-analyses” as a type of study. I find this overview to be very emaciated and shows complete lack of knowledge of the scope of acceptance by some, on the effectiveness of Ivermectin.
First of all, Ivermectin is a 40-year old, Nobel Prize winning drug. It has specifically seen its service as an anti-parasitic drug in this 40-year period. It has been proven to be safe with little side effects and almost non-existent severe side effects. It is understood that Ivermectin has anti-viral properties, an effect that has been studied and replicated in many studies. As it relates to COVID-19, there are multiple mechanisms that are thought to be used by Ivermectin to enforce its anti-viral effects: 1) competitive binding of Ivermectin with the host-receptor binding region of COVID-19 spike protein, 2) limiting binding to the ACE-2 receptor, binding/interference with multiple essential structural and non-structural proteins required by the virus in order to replicate, and others. The Australian study Dr. Jhingree refers to, most importantly was not a human model, and posits the least likely mechanism for Ivermectin to work, the blocking of import in alpha and beta protein channels into the nucleus. It is because of this study it is erroneously concluded that extremely high amounts of Ivermectin will be needed to combat COVID-19.
North Macedonia, Belize, Uttar Pradesh (210 million people), State of Alto Parana in Paraguay, State of Chiapas Mexico, 8 State health ministries in Peru, this is a short list of states or countries that have accepted Ivermectin officially into their treatment guidelines based on the developing evidence.
It makes absolute little sense to me that vaccine proponents would cite “lack of approval by the FDA or anywhere,” as a reason not to take Ivermectin. It is in fact laughable considering some of the following.
1) All vaccines are approved by the FDA for emergency use; this is NOT THE SAME AS REGULAR APPROVAL. In fact, this is approval in desperation.
2) Ivermectin had more anti-viral studies completed than vaccines when the FDA granted vaccine use for emergency.
3) Ivermectin has more anti-COVID studies today, than the vaccine had on when approved, Ivermectin has not received FDA emergency approval.
4) It is not for lack of trying that Ivermectin has not undergone multiple large US or European trials. The sponsors of such trials appear to have a bias and preference for the highly profitable vaccines.
Let it be known that I am not anti-vaccine, as a health professional I have seen firsthand the benefits of effective vaccination campaigns and I have been the recipient of many of these vaccines regularly and continually, even taking part in these campaigns. However, there are many worrying facts about the COVID-19 vaccine that bothers me and should bother all intelligent people in Guyana.
1) There are no long-term trials on the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine.
2) High costs – these vaccines are NOT free. One way or the other, unless gifted, the nation must repay the manufacturers for these vaccines,
3) Significant adverse effects: In just four months, the COVID-19 vaccines have killed more people than all available vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 2013 – a period of 15.5 years! VAERS (national vaccine safety surveillance programme) reports as of April 23, 2021: 12,618 serious adverse events and 118,000+ adverse events and 3,500+ deaths. EuraVigilance (the EU version to VAERS) reported, as of April 17, 2021, 330,000+ injury reports after vaccination and 7,766 deaths.
4) VAERS only reports one percent of actual data, according to a Harvard Study commissioned by the US government. There is a second study in the Journal of the American Medical Association that quotes it may be two percent. I shudder to do the math to calculate missing data and actual deaths and adverse effects.
5) The absence of even pre-print study data availability for wider scientific review for vaccines. Data that is now required in copious amounts for Ivermectin, the comparatively amount available, being insufficient.
According to the data available to us from over 1,000 studies, 56 clinical trials (the majority being large), Ivermectin works against COVID-19. Its antiviral properties are not affected by the strain of COVID-19. At .2mg per kg or 24mg for the average adult, every two weeks, Ivermectin prophylaxis/prevention is about 85 percent to 90 percent, comparable to the vaccine. For those who have been infected already with COVID-19, the use of Ivermectin has shown to prevent spread by the carrier. Those acutely ill with COVID-19 have been shown to significantly improve with Ivermectin included in the treatment regime, with many no longer needing intensive hospital care.
It needs to be noted that in one study of over 788 health care workers, 12mg Ivermectin was given once weekly for three months. None of the health workers tested positive for COVID-19 vs. 58 percent of the control group! This outcome was replicated in a second study. The vaccines have never achieved 100 percent protection in any trial, faulty or otherwise.
I strongly encourage the administration to investigate the mountainous literature available on Ivermectin. A simple solution to this problem is for the government to initiate its own clinical trials. There are many in the health system who are reluctant to take the vaccines with good reason. They are not alone, at one point, 66 percent of Los Angeles health workers were choosing to delay or skip the vaccine. No sane person appreciates rushed science. Many healthcare workers may be willing, myself included, to participate in Ivermectin trials.
I cannot decide if individuals should or should not take the vaccine. Ultimately this is a matter of personal choice and advice from a health care provider that considers a person’s complete medical history. However, to tout the vaccine as the only option or that Ivermectin is “unproven” is the most dishonest opinion circulating in the public sphere during this pandemic.
Due to the lack of medical debate in the public domain about Ivermectin and COVID-19 by doctors or anyone else, I encourage all to do their own research. Please see the website of The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) at covid19criticalcare.com. It is an excellent resource for all things Ivermectin vs. COVID-19. Regardless of vaccination or alternative pharmaceutical use, please continue to wear your masks properly, N95 masks still provide the best protection a mask can provide, practice social distancing and maintain a healthy lifestyle with a proper diet and exercise.
Please consult your physician before taking any medication.

Yours sincerely
Kamana Burnham RN

---

---