Findings From the Largest Ivermectin Trial in The World with Dr Lucy Kerr and Dr Flavio Cadegiani

Dr. Lucy Kerr is the founder of Doctors for Life Brazil and pre-pandemic, her area of expertise was diagnostic ultrasonography. She was tasked by the mayor to create a protocol for the city of Itajai, to help them treat the Covid-19 virus and this led her to ivermectin and conduct a world-class study on the subject.

Dr Flavio Cadegiani is an Endocrinologist & Visiting Professor, Faculty of Floriano (FAESF), Brazil. He is also Founder, President & Medical Director at the Corpometria Institute, Brazil. He is an Ad hoc consultant for the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa) and a Consultant for Nat’l. Commission for Incorporation of New Technologies, Devices and Drugs,  Brazilian Health System (SUS)

This is an edited segment from the weekly live General Assembly meeting on April 4, 2022. This presentation is also available on Rumble and on Odysee. The full General Assembly Meeting is available in our Newsroom. A transcript of this presentation can be found below.

Here’s what WCH members, staff, and coalition partners are saying about Dr Kerr’s presentation:

“Amazing Study Lucy…..Thank you so much!!!” – Christof Plothe DO

“AWESOME WORK MRS. IVERMECTIN” – Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg

“Mrs Ivermectin… saving lives!” – Mark Trozzi MD

“A lot of lives saved – God bless you Lucy!!!” – Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg

“Amazing presentation and conversation!”  – Zoe Strickland

“Lucy Kerr’s country study in Brazil is the world’s largest study ever done. All her data is official from official city data banks. The results are so impressive that the push back is building to discredit all the authors as having conflicts of interest. We are dealing with this as Dt Cadegiani touched on.” – Jennifer

“It has been very surprising and concerning that the health authorities have ignored real world data of the effectiveness of ivermectin, especially during a health emergency.” – Dr Tess Lawrie

“Dr Kerr and Cadegiani, we can not thank you enough, or express more support or solidarity with you!” – Mark Trozzi MD

[00:00:00] [00:00:37] Dr. Mark Trozzi: We will start with Dr. Lucy Kerr from Brazil. Lucy is a phenomenal doctor and she did so much good work, in this whole crisis. Lucy is from Brazil. She is the founder of Doctors for Life Brazil and pre-pandemic, her area of expertise was diagnostic ultrasonography. Since COVID, she was tasked by the mayor to create a protocol for the city of Itajai, I hope I pronounce that correctly to help them treat the COVID-19 virus and this led her to ivermectin and conducting the fantastic trial she’s here to discuss with us tonight. [00:01:18] Lucy has probably issues with her internet connection from Brazil, so we, prerecorded her presentations. So this very important presentation won’t be interrupted. But Lucy is with us here in this meeting, and she’s happy to answer your questions after the presentation. [00:01:38] Thank you so much, Lucy for joining and thank you so much for your really important work and I think everybody from the World Council for Health knows her and knows that this was the largest ivermectin study with over 200,000 participants. So looking forward to the presentation. Thank you. [00:01:55] Dr. Lucy Kerr: First of all, I would like to thank for the invitation and the opportunity of presenting this work done in Itajai in Santa Catarina, in the south of Brazil, with Ivermectin against COVID-19 as profilaxy. And we have no conflicts of interest. [00:02:14] This study has been published in Cureus on 15, January 2022. And the goals of this presentation is to show why Itajai is a very special study, why we chose Ivermectin for Itajai’s study, data of profilaxy with Ivermectin in Itajai against COVID-19 pandemic and results and conclusions. And why does the study represent a very strong pressure over World Health Organization, and other agencies to approve ivermectin into COVID-19. Why Itajai study is special? It’s because it’s the world’s largest study about the ivermectin, the COVID-19 and it’s the second largest worldwide studying COVID-19. [00:03:08] The first is a study in Israel with vaccines of COVID-19 the Pfizer. And because it’s a prospective observation that we studied that can be analyzed and comparable with a randomized control trial, this means it is almost a double-blind. And, it’s supported by SUS, it’s a unified health system in Brazil and the city hall will provide the Ivermectin. [00:03:37] And it is important to understand that SUS is the largest universal health program in the world. Why? Because it’s for all Brazilian population, doesn’t matter if you are rich or poor, you have the right to be in the program, including non-Brazilian that are in that moment in Brazil. This means that we do not need to ask for extra money to carry out this work. [00:04:05] And we use exactly the money that has been already established for health for that population and don’t need the extra money. So was very economic, despite being a very large program. Why Itajai was chosen? We didn’t choose Itajai. The mayor of Itajai chose me because Itajai was the first city to be infected with COVID-19 in the state of Santa Catarina by COVID-19 because its port of entry and exit for goods and sailors, so there is a lot of opportunities of infections. [00:04:46] And Itajai became the center of Santa Catarina’s largest COVID-19 outbreak. At that moment, I was the only face of Ivermectin in Brazil. And, uh, I told you to the mayor, the were successful campaign then in Trinidad, Bolivia with Ivermectin for the whole population of that city and the mayor approved the Itajai campaign. [00:05:15] Itajia study is the largest of all studies conducted with Ivermectin against COVID-19 that showed the numbers, the total population of Itajai is 200,517. Itajai population above 18 years old, who participate in the study and because could give the authorization for is 158,934. The population that use it Ivermectine years, 121,907, and the population that did not use ivermectin is 37,027. And the COVID-19 infection that use the ivermectin is 4,311. And those who did not use Ivermectine, but have infection was 3,034. And the total tested population was 7,345. And why we choose Ivermectin? I could say it’s the best anti-viral drug that has been proven against 22 viruses and acts in all critical phases of COVID-19. [00:06:27] But, at that time (May 2020) I and many other people did not know anything about this. And the only thing I knew for sure is Dr. Caly’s in vitro study Australia national university, with monkey cells infected by COVID-19. And my personal risk experience with Ivermectin in the COVID-19 was very good and Trinidad campaign. [00:06:54] Let’s, present the preliminary data of Itajai study. It was an initiative of the mayor Volenei Morastoni began prophylactic and voluntary administration of Ivermectin after medical consultation and weighing and the patient received one tablet of 6mg of Ivermectin for every 30Kg weight for 2 consecutive days, every 15 days during 241 days, that was, they studied them. And this means that our file was updated for registration medical data diseases and comorbidities. And we also know who took Ivermectin and who does not, how many cycles and evolution. And that we also know what other medications the patients are taking that could interfere with the results of ivermectin. [00:07:52] And the laboratory test results comes from those were hospitalized. And we collected data from medical records and SARS-Cov-2 testing of three locations; the temporary outpatient clinic in the Itajai convention center, SUS health posts of Itajai and the hospital. We have a higher accuracy in data collection and exclusions. [00:08:19] And the majority of the population is from German descent. And it is probably the only Brazilian city that has 100% digitized medical records. So this was the main reason that allowed us to study 100% of the population. What we have done when the patient come in is just to update the records during the consultation and all patients included had complete data in the medical records. There was no missing information. This was very impressive. All clinical variables present besides the Ivermectine effect was considered; the variables that affect mortality. Those which influenced the patient’s cure; analyze that impact of the treatment with Ivermectin; and for all this reason, this is such a strong, robust, accurate, and very high quality study. [00:09:27] And the 10 variables we considered for a statistical propose was all these we show in this light. And there are four reasons why our statistics are so high quality. First of all, we do the adjustment by Poisson Method. And after we do the balance by Propensity Score Match. It is association between Poisson which propensity score matching is considered a gold standard for statistical purposes in this moment, and is able to turn a retrospective study equivalent to prospective randomized, almost a double blind clinical trial and requires that the number of participants is, should be large. [00:10:16] And ours is huge. So no problem at all. And we use the same programs and techniques that are used by FDA, Cochrane and World Health Organization. [00:10:31] Let’s see who took Ivermectine. 76.7% of those who participate, they are older. We have a 50% of our patients above a 50 years old, 30% fewer patients less than 30 years old, and has much more co-morbidities who did not take Ivermectine 23.3% and 7% or more diabetes, 6%, or I hypertension two times more kind of vascular disease, and 2.5 more asthma. [00:11:02] The comparison between who used the Ivermectin, who did not use Ivermectin from the full population above 18 years old. And the, we had 57% decreasing infection rate by COVID-19 who took Ivermectin. And after balancing and matching to groups, we have 3034 subjects, and we have a decreasing 56% hospitalization rate. [00:11:34] And the, we have a degrees of 68% of COVID-19 mortality rate. And when we saw the risk of dying from COVID-19, those who use ivermectin is five in 10,000, who did not use Ivermectin is 21 in 10,000 or 76% decrease of dying from COVID 19. Is incredible. Let’s compare data proving Ivermectin in Itajai, before and after the program. Before we have much less cases than after, because we have a longer period of observation and we have decreasing their hospitalization even so that has decreased to 73% by COVID-19. And did that also had decreased and the mortality rate was 2.4% before the program and only 1.4% after the program. So we have a decrease of 69% mortality rate for Covid-19. They say that Ivermectin is dangerous, but, our group who took Ivermectin has much more elderly and patients with more comorbidities and mortality, so should it be higher in this group that took Ivermectin. But let’s see the real results let’s compare Ivermectin versus age. [00:13:09] Between 30 and 50 years old, we have a decrease in the mortality rate of 85% by COVID-19, or this means that we save at five, every 1000 people. [00:13:22] Above 50 years old, we have a decrease in 59% mortality rate by COVID-19? And we are able to save you 66, every 1000, means that we have saved and much more because this group are exactly those who are higher risk. Ivermectin versus diabetes and hypertension. Diabetes, we have a decrease of 81% mortality by COVID-19 and we save 211 people for every 1000. The hypertension group, we have a decrease of 67% of mortality, and we saved 117 people every 1000. [00:14:07] Let’s see now the comparison between the citys that improved the most response to COVID-19 infection from July to November, 2020. And Itajai is the champion because it has increased the only plus 23% mortality for 100,000 applicants. [00:14:27] And the Santa Catalina average was 201% more mortality. And the champion was the city of Lages with 1014% increasing the mortality rate. [00:14:48] It’s important to note that we have many studies done with Ivermectin, but these is the first that demonstrated greater protection due to ivermectin for the elder and patients with comorbidities – exactly the high risk group. All the other therapies for COVID-19 do not favour this group. Large study and a very long period of observation has allowed to show this effect that the other papers do not present. Conclusion; prophylactic use of ivermectin, reduce COVID-19 infection, COVID-19 hospitalization, COVID-19 mortality, and the chance of dying from COVID-19 during a large population study. The controlled statistical analysis of Poisson for all relevant confounding variables and the use of propensity score matching allowed us to have a level of a randomized clinical trial evidence. Then impact was greater in the elderly and or with comorbidities. A single drug that protect high risk population. [00:16:08] What I would say is not in the papers, my private opinion; not administering Ivermectin [for] COVID-19 is genocide. And this study shows what could have been done and has not, due science denial. Thank you. [00:16:28] Mark Trozzi MD: Thank you very much, Dr. Kerr. Well, this is a very, very profound science, you know, I think in my own country, 70% of all the people that died from COVID, didn’t have to. I think of all the people that through this element of the racketeering have been pushed into injections that are causing just record harms. [00:16:50] So I can’t thank you enough. And your team for such a massive study. This absolutely drives the nails into the coffin of the racketeering argument, that there isn’t a treatment, so you need to stay in a pandemic. And so you need to take these injections. God bless you and your team. Lucy, thank you so much. [00:17:09] People need to understand how profound this is and, and we need to, to share this far and wide. There’s no debate left. Ivermectin works profoundly. [00:17:16] Dr. Flavio A. Cadegiani: Okay. Thank you very much. So first of all we see in inequities and lack of proportionality when the study comes with positive results and with negative results from the editors, from the media, from this data scientists – from everyone. When it comes out with positive results for a repurposed drug, everyone requires the data sets, everything turns out to be mandatory. Editor asks for tonnes of extra information and detailments, and when it comes to be negative or not effective for ivermectin, strangely the same editors do not require for any further information, they just publish rubbish papers. I’m telling that because I have, from my own experience, I will bring out the editorial gates in a couple of months, show me how New England Journal of Medicine and British Medical Journal were acting actively to suppress everything that is not from big pharma. [00:18:19] But anyway, let’s focus on this one. This one was astonishingly weird. First point; I found that one year ago I tried to participate in this trial as a site. I’ve never told this before here. I tried, I contacted, [inaudible], I contacted everyone, just know I contacted them. It was before the controversies regarding my position. Strangely, they did not accept at all. They just ignore it completely. So I found it strange because they had pre established sites. They didn’t want more. It’s not because they were full of sites. They were searching for sites and they didn’t want to share the protocols with the rest of us. [00:19:05] Second point, which is very strange. The national ethics committee in Brazil accepted the protocol after the study was initiated and they were changing the protocol and they were not communicating to the national ethics committee and very curiously, the president of the national ethics committee who’s got undeclared conflicts of interests with a certain big pharma industry. [00:19:35] Some of them accepted the data to the chronology, to be included as ‘the study will occur in 2022′. This point it’s very weird because he’s persecuting me personally and throwing my name and trying to destroy my reputation through the media, saying that everything I did was ethically illegal, which has nothing to do. [00:19:58] We are, we are winning from him in the justice for everything we are going against him. And the same person signed something very weird. The person signed that the Together trial was to be conducted starting on January, 2022. And that one, I always give the benefits of the doubt. So I think that what we need here are clarifications. [00:20:25] I’m not accusing anyone. I think they need clarify all this. It’s very unlikely because the interval you include for your trial to be conducted is the PI the principal investigator writes the dates of when it is beginning and when it ends. And it is written there starting January 2022 up to April 2022. [00:20:49] Was it possible that he got the wrong year? I’m not really sure. I’m not a hundred percent sure. I don’t think so because all the sites received approval in March 2022 and not all sites have been approved yet. Okay. So there are a lot of irregularities regarding the sites where they conducted the study. [00:21:12] But that’s only a part of it. This is going to be investigated within the country here nationally. And this is very important because the lack of control, they did not disclose who the [inaudible] was, whose protocol they were following, whether there was any audit in their numbers, who they recruited, how was the data? There are several points that are missing. [00:21:36] They didn’t even write a limitation section in the New England publication. And most strange thing, the strangest thing is that the quality of the paper itself is extremely low and it was published like that in New England Journal of Medicine, right after its editor-in-chief showed it to the world that Ivermectin doesn’t work. The conclusion by itself is completely imprecise because the conclude the correct conclusion would be: Ivermectin alone did not work sufficiently to achieve statistical significance with the number of subjects they enrolled. And there was a person from the group that said that if more subjects were enrolled, they would’ve achieved statistical significance, which I agree. But they terminated the study based on {inaudible} criteria. [00:22:31] So of course they didn’t want it to achieve statistical significance. Well, let me bring some more information regarding, I have brought through some emails, some of the information, there’s a huge list of inconsistencies to be brought here, but I need to bring some extra ones. I haven’t said before to anyone. [00:22:52] Everyone knows what Ivermectin tablet looks like in Brazil, because by that time there was only one manufacturer who by the way, did not provide the pills for them. They do not recognize anyone asking them to buy the pills, so that’s very weird. Second. They had to have it looking exactly the same as the placebo. [00:23:16] They did not mention, not only to you have the bottles looking like each other, you need to have the tablets looking like each other to be exactly the same looking. Otherwise, the blindness of the study is broken. So it’s not blinded anymore. So they must address this issue. If you got the protocol, they say- they measure two types of ivermectin, one six milligram tablet and the other one is 5 or 10 milligrams under the tongue. [00:23:45] So it’s weird because they’d say they, they mentioned both and they do not specify how the capsule, they must have specified what contains in the capsule, the tablets, what is in the placebo, everything and it’s not specified there. Well, what is my one hypothesis here is that people who participated in the study, they tended to be… I can tell you here in Brazil, it’s almost impossible to conduct a peer double blind without any medication for COVID-19. I tried in 2020, so I’m telling by my own experience, if you do not provide a basic standard of care, which would be Ivermectin, people do not get enrolled in the study. They do not enroll because usually at least here, people go to the studies to get treated. [00:24:37] What very likely happened here was that these patients wanted to be included in this study for a closer medical follow up and earlier detection of disease progression or complications. So that may be the point, okay. They accepted to be in the study because they wanted to be followed up more regularly. [00:25:01] Okay. So that is a huge question. And this needed to be highlighted. Another point is that the P.1-variant, it looks like very coincidentally, they enrolled ivermectin the ivermectin arm. Exactly. When the P.1, the Gamma variant was prevailing. The P.1 progressed through the inflammatory stage with three to four days of disease, unlike the others. Okay. Whereas the others you progress after seven to eight days. With the P.1 variants you progress to after three to four days. We have sufficient evidence to show that and they knew it. Okay. So that was on purpose because they knew everyone knew in Brazil that with three to four days, they were progressing to inflammatory stage. [00:25:56] So we have more than sufficient information to say that drug efficacy for COVID-19 is variant dependent, is stage dependent. And what we’re seeing here, we’re seeing the publication in New England where they do not specify the variant that was prevailing by the time and not discussing the potential limitations of being studied on these variants. [00:26:18] So this is extremely important for you to know because, the high sensitivity C-reactive protein should have been included as an exclusion criterion. So our own study, we included that. On other points, they started the recruitment in March, 2021. By that time, all doctors in Brazil were extremely familiar with the P.1, with the Gamma variants, and they knew that regular dose as a monotherapy of ivermectin would not work if not combined with other drugs or if not in higher doses. [00:26:57] In a matter of that, I have a study, a trial that I never started on high dose ivermectin, which was approved to be conducted in Brazil during the P.1 variant, in two, one milligram per kilogram, per day, for five days. That was approved to be conducted here because they knew that lower doses wouldn’t be sufficient to achieve efficiency, to, to show efficiency, uh, in these variants. [00:27:27] So it seems very convenient that this trial was conducted in the period that it was conducted, without any adaptation. They said they’d adapted from one day to three days because, but actually my feeling is that they adapted because one day you could easily exclude them as I studied that wouldn’t be considered for meta-analysis, for example. [00:27:51] So actually it surprises me that there were differences. So Ivermectin shows that it worked more than I would expect it to work for this variant. I’m telling you, I drew more than 3000 patients. This variant was something very different. Thankfully it did not spread because it was very aggressive. [00:28:10] So you need to understand that they knew they were testing a drug in a regular dose for a variant that would not respond. They knew that, okay. [00:28:20] So what they must provide the raw data, their recruitment, and a location order, per sites. And the description of the molecules and placebos, whether they were manufactured or compounded to look identical. Besides, all the other, we have tonnes of other inconsistencies in the numbers, in the results, between number of deaths and et cetera, et cetera. [00:28:47] The lack of side effects is something that calls our attention. So how come the placebo has more side effects than the ivermectin? And we know that in Brazil due to the high prevalence of (inaudible) and other (inaudible) parasites, we know that gives a lot of diarrhorea so it’s very all together. [00:29:07] And the lack of rigor from the (inaudible) altogether allows us hypothesized that there was a directed objective with this trial. So I think that they deserve to clarify, they need to have the chance to clarify all these points. But if they fail to provide the raw data, we’re at a time in the pandemics that I consider, I, we published, I published all the raw data for all the studies I conducted, a hundred percent, that the known publication of the raw data is a confession is a presumption, assumption of guilt. Because nowadays with all these uncertainties and controversies regarding vaccines and (inaudible) and et cetera, transparency is more required than ever. And the lack of full transparency means that something’s wrong. [00:30:02] We must start considering that the failure to provide raw data means that there’s something wrong behind it. This should start to be seriously considered as a presumption of guilt. Because there is no other reason. Okay. There is no other reason. I’m pretty sure this one will be very hard. I have a feeling that if we get the right pressure over this, I cannot myself write a letter to the editor, Eric J. Rubin, because I have a conflicts with him regarding some email exchanges we had, um, last year, uh, where he proves that he rejected my paper based, on undeclared interests. And with this, we’ll come out to public in a couple of months, but I need others to, to write a letter to the editor. Just to let you know what editors do. Okay. It happened to me last week. They will at first accept the letter, but then they will come out and refuse the letter saying that the ones who wrote it have conflicts of interest with ivermectin. So instead of responding to the questions. I happen to meet with the Pfizer (inaudible) trial, they were not able to address my questions. So instead of saying, okay, we cannot address your questions, they threw it back to me, saying that I had conflicts of interest when actually it did not influence the contents of the questions at all. So there was a way for them to run away from the questions. So just for you to get prepared, that now, if you believe in ivermectin, this has become a conflict of interest. So there’s an expanded ploy, so everything became conflict of interest when it comes to try to destroy the drug and the authorities find any excuse to do so, so we need to think very strategically how we’re going to…. the number of issues this study needed to be retracted and re written. Okay. [00:32:05] And we have a confession of one of the authors, saying that they knew that there was a trend to benefit. Okay, we have it. And they never mentioned this in the paper. In the discussion, you clearly see the authors wanted the drug not to work. They never mentioned the possibility of this working. [00:32:25] So when you see the discussion, it tells a lot about what the authors think. So the, this should be considered. Besides all the other issues, all cause mortality should be considered for any. COVID mortality is a very bad end point, because you can say just anything, any complications, not related to COVID, so all cause mortality for complex disease is what really matters as an end point. So they cannot use the excuse of being COVID, COVID death non-COVID death. Everything should be all-cause mortality. So that’s my first point. There are tons of other points. [00:33:03] Oh, last thing, this study, or the other studies; if you join the worst studies, you still have a reduction in mortality getting closer to statistical significance. And this study does not reflect our practice because the practice was never to give ivermectin alone, but you give ivermectin combined with vitamin C, D, zinc and others. So ivermectin alone was very convenient to be studied alone, because the disease is complex, and it would never show a hundred percent effective. So it was very interesting that we don’t see a combined therapies at our cities with ivermectin, because if you had so, you’d have a real effective trial and that would be undeniable. So what they do, they do ivermectin alone. They know there’s going to have a partial efficacy, and they can interpret the partial efficacy as no efficacy. [00:34:02] So the methods is there. It’s easy. It’s easy to detect. When you say the editor-in-chief says it doesn’t work, it means that he wanted it not to work. And it’s first time in history that we see people getting happy for not having treatments for diseases killing millions. That, that itself tells a lot about those who are behind it. [00:34:22] That that’s it. I’m sorry for being…. I wanted to present, but, uh, there are things that I couldn’t say here. [00:34:29] Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg: Thank you so much for your words and for the presentation. And it’s so important that people around the world know that there is somehow a war on ivermectin. We know that. I live in Austria and now the mainstream media newspapers, again, started to discredit ivermectin and the doctors that use it or used it in the last year. [00:34:50] So there is really a bit more on ivermectin. And so your work, the work of Lucy Kerr and her colleagues and the specialty also Tess Lawrie is so important to all of us to the people around the world. And please Tess probably before we come to the questions or probably later, you wanted to mention, or let’s say add something to this. [00:35:12] Dr. Tess Lawrie: Thanks, Maria. Yes, well, a lot of people have been asking us to update our meta analysis with the latest data and we are planning on doing that in due course, but with all the controversy around the Together study I just thought to illustrate the importance of meta analysis I could share with you the updated mortality meta analysis with the Together trial data. [00:35:37] So, and I think more than ever, it just shows the importance of not taking the latest study and, you know, out of context of the huge pool of data that has already been accumulated. Uh, the tendency is that as soon as a new study comes out, um, especially if it’s a negative study, in fact, all most recent studies, um, published in high-impact journals and both NEJM and JAMA have been negative in their conclusions, not necessarily in the data. [00:36:08] And then these findings tend to be broadcast in the media even before sometimes they’ve reached the scientific journals. So it’s really important to realize that there’s a huge number of trials that have come before these negative studies and our role as reviewers is to pool the data and then evaluate the risk of bias of the individual studies. But, you know, we, we treat all the studies equally in that we will pool the data and then we can do a series of analysis subsequently to see what would be the impact if we then remove those data or the study and does it change the findings. [00:36:43] So I’ll just share my screen. [00:36:46] So this is the analysis with the data for death or mortality. In this analysis, I’ve put in the Together trial data here and we’ve used the all cause mortality data. So it’s 20 deaths in the ivermectin arm out of 679 people who took part and then 25 deaths in the control arm out of 679. [00:37:13] And that study, although the point estimate favors ivermectin, it’s not powered enough to show a clear difference. And the estimate crosses the line of no difference. However, because, all of the data get added together in a meta analysis, when we get to the final summary estimate, we get an estimate of 0.51, which is a 49% reduction in deaths with Ivermectin compared with the control group and it’s clearly to the left of the line of no difference. So it, if it crosses this line it includes the possibility that there’s no difference, but this is clearly to the left. So it appears to exclude the possibility that there’s no difference with Ivermectin. And if we were to change these data and say, okay, well we’ll use the Covid deaths data, which is 21 and 24, you can see, it really makes very little difference. So it’s really important. And I can’t stress it enough that, any new trial that comes forward, there would have to be very many deaths in the Ivermectin arm to show that ivermectin actually caused harm compared with controls. [00:38:30] So we have a situation where Ivermectin clearly has benefit and on this analysis of mortality. And remember that mortality is not the only outcome there’s mechanical ventilation, there’s hospitalization and so on. So I would just like to say two things: [00:38:53] Yes, there are limitations with the Together trial and hopefully clarification by the study authors will put everyone’s minds at rest and we can continue using the data as they have provided, but to remember that there are many studies now and when all those data are pooled, there’s clear evidence that Ivermectin works for treatment, plus with Lucy Kerr’s beautiful study with these huge numbers, it’s very, very clear that it works for prevention too. So the media really needs to stop this disinformation that it is spreading about ivermectin and just allow people to access the safe old medicines, especially Ivermectin for treatment of Covid and also for long COVID and for post COVID vaccine care, which Ivermectin is now proving to be extremely useful from doctors’ experiences, which is now what we have to go on with this new emerging illnesses. [00:39:58] So I’m going to leave it there and hope Lucy is able to take some questions. Um, Lucy, has your audio come back yet? [00:40:06] Jennifer: She’s having trouble getting her audio working. I think Maria, you want to carry forward with questions? I’ll leave it in your hands. [00:40:14] Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg: Yes, good evening. It’s an evening in Austria. So good day, Lucy. Nice to see you. We have questions in the chat for you, so my co-host Mark Trozzi is going to ask them, thank you. [00:40:27] Mark Trozzi MD: Actually, Marie, I’ve been, I’ve been standing in the wings in case you needed me. So Karen has been monitoring the questions. Maybe I could start with one before Karen starts. I have a question for you Tess, which is, what do you think of the ivammeta.com real-time analysis of currently 81 studies? [00:40:44] Dr. Tess Lawrie: I like ivmmeta.Com a lot, and I wish that they would come forward and we could learn who’s behind the website and these analyses because they do phenomenal work. They’ve been extracting these data from the beginning. And it just gives you the real big picture on how many trials there are, on how much data there is and how consistent it is and how the emphasis on randomized controlled trials is really a mistake, especially in the context of these of these older repurposed medicines and widely available medicines, as well. [00:41:21] Karen McKenna: We’ve got a few other questions from the chat Lucy, this one’s from Dr. Tess Lawrie. It says, ‘Congratulations Lucy! Has the study influenced COVID prevention strategy and policy in Brazil, and if not, have the findings reached to people so that they can protect themselves? [00:41:37] Dr. Lucy Kerr: What has really influence the people with the work we have done past year, er, lecturing every week for mayors, for businessmen and try to teach them to use Ivermectin for the whole population, because this paper has not had just one line in the media that, uh, say was complete and what was achieved – not at all, not at all. [00:42:15] Dr. Flavio A. Cadegiani: I’m wanting to tell a story and we’ll see it’s very, um, it’s heartbreaking actually. We were conducting the study in the Amazon, just for everyone to know, there was, uh, an aggressive media campaign against anyone or any politician that ever considered using ivermectin as prophylaxis. [00:42:34] So even Itajai he suffered a lot of pressure, he really had a very hard time. So that’s a reason why only less than 10% continued using Ivermectin to one point, I need to tell this story. This should be for history. We were in the middle of the P.1 pandemic outbreak in the Amazon state, this state was the first state where the P.1 variant emerged. Hospitals were backed, even private ones. The health system was collapsed. We were flying and driving through the cities in the Amazon. And then we arrived to the city and we were including the cities in the trials, we were offering oxygen, respirators, all these machines and advices. We arrived to a city called Coari, in the middle of the Amazon. And it was not far from others. I mean, it was in the middle. We arrived there, their regional hospital was empty. Okay. The city was supposed to participate in our study for the bicalutamide for the anti-androgen. We couldn’t, we were not able to include the city as a site because the city had no sick people. [00:43:49] So what happened? We started to see the hospital was empty and the health secretary of the city wanted to tell me something. She was very shy to tell. After everything, after we rounded the hospital and talked to the city mayor, she came to me and she went to me: ‘I like to talk to in particular for one moment’. I say okay. Of course. And then I asked her what happened here, that you don’t have sick people, just like the rest of the Amazon? [00:44:23] ‘We provided ivermectin for the whole city. We provided ivermectin in all public places, in the bakeries, in libraries, everywhere. There were ivermectin free for everyone, but we cannot tell this openly, that happens when there were more than 3000 deaths per day in Brazil. And there were almost no deaths in that city’. That story is huge because I had a research team that did not believe in ivermectin to that point. They changed their opinion completely from that city, from that point on. I need to tell because that was huge, that was massive. And you see from the graphs, I can send the graphs, the graphs from the city are clearly opposite to the graphs from every other city in the states. I can send the graphs afterwards, but that city used ivermectin prophylactically, silently, because in the states where the study on hydroxychloroquine was given, to show that hydroxychloroquine kills, if you remember early 2020, is the state that receives the highest amounts of money from The Bill Gates, from the Gates Foundation, okay, in their Tropical Disease Foundation. And the treatment in Amazonas is overly suppressed, just for regional, so the city had to work hidden from the other, from the states, from the other cities. That’s the point I wanted to tell the story. [00:45:53] Dr. Lucy Kerr: And this was not the only one because this would explain the 1000 times increasing the consuming of ivermectin observed in Brazil. And the, this was told to us by (inaudible) and also because many people do not use the vaccine, but has the passport and they use ivermectin. [00:46:20] So this is the point that there are many people using Ivermectin due to our videos. You understand? I was the main person that incentivized the use off ivermectin in Brazil. They call me Mrs. Ivermectin here. You understand? So I think it’s very important to understand that Brazil has been using Ivermectin in many, many places, but not for a political or from the government. [00:46:57] Dr. Flavio A. Cadegiani: I think I found the graph from Coari. If you like, if I can share with you here. [00:47:01] Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg: Yes, please go ahead. [00:47:03] Dr. Flavio A. Cadegiani: I will compare with the state of Amazonas, okay. If you see here, this was the first wave and this was the second wave. In Amazonas, this is number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths. [00:47:21] Everywhere the second wave was much bigger than the first wave. Here, you see the opposite in the city of Coari. And another point here is that the wave was more in the beginning. I think they reinforced the ivermectin prophylaxis here and then it fell down. Just to let you know, this point here, like [inaudible] and you see that the number of cases was very low compared to the what was before. So you see that the first wave was in 2020, the second wave was much worse than the first one, which was already a huge wave, but that was not the case for Coari. And they were kind of relaxing a little bit. Of course, the population relaxes, you know that less than 10% keeps using it regularly and then probably they started using it again more strictly, which make virus went up after this first, this went down here. This quite clear. [00:48:15] Dr. Lucy Kerr: That’s true. And if we do not have the political antagonism in Itajai probably we would have the whole population doing Ivermectin. [00:48:26] The problem is the media always say, Ivermectin – do not use it -doesn’t have any effect. [00:48:36] Dr. Flavio A. Cadegiani: These cities here, used early treatments and their mortality rates was this one. These cities here, Campina and Rio did not use ivermectin. Just as a reminder, our mortality rates is higher because of the P.1 variant where 70% of deaths in Brazil occured to the gamma variant. [00:48:57] We can share the paper showing that the gamma variant was four times more lethal than the other ones. So here you see, and if you go to Coari, remember, Coari have very few resources, no ICU beds, but they used prophylaxis with ivermectin. They had half the mortality rates of this capital, with much more resources, hundreds of ICU beds, but they had suppression of treatments. [00:49:23] This is shouting to us that it works. As far as I learned in science, this is stronger than any RCT. RCTs seem to be a way to deviate from the real information, real life data, when they are rightfully controlled and their limitations are addressed is much more powerful than double-blind randomized placebo controlled with very few subjects – especially when you see that all the concerns regarding any issues are not properly addressed. [00:49:56] So I think this data should have been accepted to have this emergency approval. Never forget, even for Coari, they only started [inaudible] research after the approval of vaccines. They never started research before because it could impact in the emergency use authorization for vaccines. [00:50:18] That’s my hypothesis. We would require clarification. I’m not accusing you. Just, I would like to know. I would like to have everything clarified. That’s it. [00:50:29] Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg: Thank you. Karen, I think we have other questions in the chat before we move on. Probably some more. [00:50:37] Karen McKenna: Sure. We’ve got a few, but I’m going to start with these ones. This is from, um, Christof Plothe: ‘Do you know about other variables in that treatment approach in micronutrients, vitamin D levels, zinc, ionozphere, NAC, which positively influenced the outcome? [00:50:52] Dr. Flavio A. Cadegiani: Can you repeat the question? [00:50:53] Karen McKenna: Do you know of other treatments used, micronutrients, vitamin D levels, zinc, Ionozphere, NAC how did that influence your study? Did you map other things apart from ivermectin. [00:51:07] Okay. So first of all we need to remember that COVID-19 has a very complex pathophysiology, so it has much more mechanism of action during the sequence. [00:51:18] So it’s very hard to believe that a monotherapy would do all the work for a hundred percent of the cases. So synergistic therapies may be the solution, just like for HIV. HIV only had real treatments when they started the HIV cocktails of drugs. So in this case here, there are more than 100 options we could use as combined therapies, associations. [00:51:43] But if you compare, drug by drug, a head-to-head comparison, if you compare one drug, I think ivermectin alone works more than any other alone, if you consider each one. But it really depends on the variant as well. So the only current variant you can have hydroxychloroquine working because it works on the [inaudible] the way that very interesting. [00:52:04] So it depends a lot. My studies we conducted probably the population that used ivermectin may have used vitamins as well, [inaudible]. But however, the vast majority of the population was not able to purchase more vitamins. So that makes me question whether they really used more than ivermectin. [00:52:28] I don’t think the majority did, because they will not be able to purchase other vitamins. By that time vitamins raised their prices a lot because of the search. So the majority was treated everyone was treated in public health system and they were not able to purchase other vitamins etcetera. So I don’t think so. Unlike this ivermectin costs very, well, the prices raise here was too affordable. And in 2021, when we started with this variant killing thousands of people everywhere, everyone was using ivermectin. Everyone was using ivermectin, irregularly, okay, many times. But many of them I’m a hundred percent, I’m positive that there were influences from these users in the outcomes of the Together trial. That’s important. I think the Together trial by its design, was supposed to release all the data from all the arms, not only ivermectin, out to the public. [00:53:30] It will be very interesting. There will be a proof of transparency and in case they got something wrong, there would be a great chance for authors to read it and apologize and correct. I think this is a good time for them to do that. I think it is time for transparency. I would love to see that. Not to say I’m right, they were wrong. [00:53:49] It’s enough for having battles and battles. I think it’s time to call people to work together and look, okay, you may have overreacted over this saying that ivermectin doesn’t work at all which is completely wrong. Your clinical and research skills do not feed with your conclusions, you’re better than that, than concluding that it simply doesn’t work. In the case of Eric Rubin, you clearly see that he’s influenced by the narrative or whatever. But I think there will be a time that okay, we need to bring them. The point is how many lives could be here today, if we hadn’t fought so strongly against ivermectin. [00:54:28] And the question that remains is, if the drug really didn’t work, if Ivermectin really didn’t work and it’s just water in terms of safety, doesn’t make, if you take any drug for any symptom, the risks are higher than ivermectin. Why was this fight so strong against ivermectin? If it didn’t work, why were they fighting against the drug that didn’t work? [00:54:52] They would just leave it alone, leave it there. It wouldn’t influence. So this questions by themselves are more than enough for people to start questioning. And when we come down in two to five years perhaps, when history will be told retrospectively, these questions may have answers. That’s it. [00:55:15] Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg: Thank you so much again, thank all of you for this great information and presentation about ivermectin. [00:55:23] And I think Jennifer, my lovely steering committee member just wrote in the chat that we have of course things set up and I think it is really important that scientists from around the world who are pro ivermectin start to write letters to the editors. And I think there are so many awakening, mainstream media journalists. We have this in Europe right now in Germany and Austria, for example. So we really reach out to these people to present them our data and we can really hope that these let’s call them guerilla mainstream journalists start to bring out the message about how safe and effective ivermectin is. So thank you. [00:56:02] A big, thank you goes out to all the doctors around the world who still even if they are discredited around the world still prescribe and give ivermectin to the people if they need it. So brave souls out there, a really big thank you from all of us, for this great work that they are doing. [00:56:21]