Image Credit: Soumyabrata Roy/NurPhoto via Getty Images 
A meta-analysis of ivermectin use against Covid-19 praised the drug for its “positive results,” according to the Epoch Times.
Ivermectin, a cheap and readily-available medicine used mostly for its anti-parasitic properties, was heavily demonized by the mainstream media as a “quack” treatment during the 2020 Covid outbreak.
“In a meta-analysis of 63 studies of ivermectin versus COVID-19 in humans, 100% of these have shown positive results,” the outlet reported. “Studies were from all continents except Antarctica. Considered individually, 29 of those studies were found to be statistically significant regarding use of ivermectin alone.”
“Over the 63 studies in meta-analysis, pooled effects showed 69% improvement in early treatment, and prophylactic use showed 86% improvement.”
The results of these studies come in direct contrast with the Food and Drug Administration, which stated that “any use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 should be avoided as its benefits and safety for these purposes have not been established.”
The FDA claim, as well as its overall handling of the Covid outbreak, led to some critics suggesting the agency was growing too political.
“The FDA offered no supporting evidence for their claim,” the Epoch Times added. “One concerning risk is that ivermectin is sold over the counter for veterinary use, and if people feel desperate to use it to ward off COVID-19, they might break off too large a piece from a large horse pill.”
“For this reason, it is much better to consult a healthcare provider for ivermectin use and dosing.”
The controversy over ivermectin put a spotlight on long-standing criticism – predating Covid-19 – that the FDA is a ‘revolving door’ for Big Pharma.
According to a 2016 report by Stat News, which of course predates Covid-19 by several years:
Researchers who studied the careers of FDA medical reviewers found that more than half of the hematology-oncology assessors who reviewed drugs between 2001 and 2010 went on to work for the biopharmaceutical industry.
“I think it’s astonishingly high,” said Dr. Vinay Prasad, senior author on the paper and assistant professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University. “When you are talking about cancer drugs, with high toxicity and sometimes small benefit, it’s a place where judgment really matters. “
Prasad also wonders if reviewers might make more favorable calculations if they are looking ahead to more lucrative industry work in the future.
Much more to The Twitter Files: Covid Editon than this introductory thread.
Follow-up piece to come next week, featuring leading doctors & researchers from Harvard, Stanford & other institutions. https://t.co/TeEeCvMZa2
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 26, 2022