The first studies suggested this. But a mounting stack The study has since found no significant difference in survival rates between COVID patients receiving ivermectin and others.
One reviewpublished last year in the peer-reviewed Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, reviewed 14 studies involving 1,678 patients, identifying studies as “small” and “several … considered high quality”.
Another study released a few days ago, found that among 490 patients in 20 hospitals, “ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease”.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization warned against the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID, as well as the American Medical Association and two national associations of pharmacists. “categorically against”Its use as a COVID treatment outside of a clinical trial.
The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services also warned against the use of ivermectin, and Michigan Poison and Drug Information Center also issued a recommendation. Even the drug’s manufacturer, Merck, last year warned against its use for COVID, saying the research so far lacked “significant evidence” and safety data.
Although Ivermectin is not in the language of Michigan’s bills, since the bill was first heard in January, it has become clear that the controversial drug has been a staple for lawmakers considering withdrawing from the House Health Committee. that Whiteford repeatedly asked to exclude the word from discussion when it was raised by fellow lawmakers.
“I’m just asking us not to even talk about this drug,” she said when Lori Pahutski’s state representative, D-Livonia, began to question the safety of ivermectin for COVID. “I don’t want these hearings in committee to be about one drug.”
When Pogutsky insisted, Whiteford addressed the chairman of Bron Calais, R-Adrian, partially repeating: “I ask that this topic not be raised.”
Pogutsky again began to come to her question, to which Kale replied that “this is going in a direction that did not apply to this legislation to us.”
On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed the bill after lawmakers wrote two completely different pictures – supporters touted it as a hope for dying patients, while opponents rejected it as a gateway for rogue doctors promoting “snake oil” treatments, and patients guarding physicians. in the issuance of unproven treatments.
Julie Alexander’s state spokeswoman, R – Hanover, backed the bill.
“During any emergency, patients with a serious illness should be able to consider different treatment options to reduce the likelihood of death,” she said.
But Pagutsky, a Livonian Democrat, argued that the Michigan Trial Right Act already applies to patients with COVID and access to drugs such as ivermectin that have been approved for other diseases.
Pogutsky said the new law would “encourage people to pressure, harass, intimidate or even harm health professionals in an attempt to persuade them to prescribe treatment that they (professionals) may feel is inadequate, inappropriate or simply unavailable,” she said. .
William Sowerby, D-Clinton Township, said the bill “allows unscrupulous doctors to act unsupervised and treat patients as subjects.”
Still being studied
Health leaders and many physicians have stated that conservative efforts to promote untested drugs such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine give patients and their families false confidence in treating COVID that have not proven effective – to the point that some threatened the doctor if they do not give them medicine.
But proponents of ivermectin, including some doctors, argue that it was politics that kept ivermectin out of the reach of desperate patients. They still see the promising ivermectin, despite the disappointing results of peer-reviewed research to date.
Dr. John Bison, an ear, nose and throat doctor and state senator from Republicans of Battle Creek, said large studies of ivermectin were erroneous. This is because the drug has been used for very sick patients who have been infected with coronavirus for days or weeks – too late for ivermectin to work, he said.
These studies forced hospitals to stop using the drug, even though their own doctors still believed it. This, combined with political rhetoric and concerns about possible sanctions against doctors, has shaken the doctor-patient relationship of trust, said Bison, who said he was taking ivermectin when he had COVID.
“That’s what the doctor did to the doctor – it was your relationship with the man, and you and he are against the whole world,” – said Bison.
But for lack of clearer evidence that it works, ivermectin should not be used to treat COVID outside of a clinical trial – in its purest form, said Dr. Bobby Mukkamala, chairman of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association and direct president of the American Medical Association. Michigan Medical Society.
“The jury is still not considering ivermectin,” he said.
Mukkamala is an ear, nose and throat doctor based on Flint, but as an early and vocal supporter of COVID vaccines, he also gets a lot of questions about ivermectin, he said. His answer to those who ask?
“They shouldn’t rely on it as something that could save their lives, but instead they should try to prevent disease. And when they get sick, it has been shown to save their lives monoclonal antibodies“treatment,” he said.
Also authorized by the so-called Pills from COVID. Both pills and antibodies limited in those who have access to them, and both that must be administered in the first few days of infection to be most effective.