/CarlosChaccour
Carlos Chaccour has become the "go-to expert" who is ready, willing and able to provide "reasons" why ivermectin should NOT be used to treat COVID-19.
How could one man do so much harm, to so many people, by being so astonishingly wrong, while being portrayed as an expert, and still keep his job?
Carlos, think of all the people who have suffered and died because of the words you have spoken and written. Because of your religious belief and adherence to "protocol" and "authority", YOU bear a portion of the responsibility for their deaths.
How do you live with yourself?
Doesn't your conscience bother you?
You are going to be shown to be so amazingly wrong about ivermectin and COVID-19 that your career should be over and you should retire in shame.
Please open your mind to the possibility that you have been wrong up until now.
ADMIT that you were overly cautious, but NOW there is ample evidence to use ivermectin for COVID-19 because it is so safe that no one will be harmed.
Change your position NOW, and redeem yourself while you still have a chance, or forever live in shame for the harm that you have caused.
PUBLICATIONS:
Nicolas P, Maia MF, Bassat Q, Kobylinski KC, Monteiro W, Rabinovich R, Menéndez C, Bardají A, Chaccour C. Safety of oral ivermectin during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(1):e92-e100. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30453-X
Chaccour C, Hammann F, Ramón-García S, Rabinovich NR. Ivermectin and COVID-19: keeping rigor in times of urgency. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7253113/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7253113/
Chaccour CJ, Brew J, García A. Ivermectin and COVID-19: How a flawed database shaped the pandemic response of several Latin-American countries.
https://www.isglobal.org/en/healthisglobal/-/custom-blog-portlet/ivermectin-and-covid-19-how-a-flawed-database-shaped-the-covid-19-response-of-several-latin-american-countries/2877257/0%20#
https://www.isglobal.org/en/healthisglobal/-/custom-blog-portlet/ivermectin-and-covid-19-how-a-flawed-database-shaped-the-covid-19-response-of-several-latin-american-countries/2877257/0%20#
Chaccour C, C, Ng´habi K, Abizanda G, Irigoyen-Barrio A, Aldaz A, Okumu F, Slater H, Del Pozo JL, Killeen G. Targeting cattle for malaria elimination: marked reduction of Anopheles arabiensis survival for over six months using a slow-release ivermectin implant formulation. Parasites & Vectors. 2018 May 4;11(1):287
Chaccour CJ, Hammann F, Rabinovich NR: Ivermectin to reduce malaria transmission I. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations regarding efficacy and safety. Malar J. 2017; 16:161
Chaccour C, , Irigoyen A, Gil AG, Martinez D, Slater H, Hammann F, Del Pozo JL. Screening for an ivermectin slow-release formulation suitable for malaria vector control. Malar J. 2015; 14:102.
Chaccour CJ, Kobylinski KC, Bassat Q, Bousema T, Drakeley C, Alonso P, Foy BD. Ivermectin to reduce malaria transmission: a research agenda for a promising new tool for elimination. Malar J. 2013; 12:153.
Chaccour C, Lines J, Whitty CJ. Effect of ivermectin on Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes fed on humans: the potential of oral insecticides in malaria control. J Infect Dis. 2010; 202:113-6.
EXCERPTS FROM ARTICLES QUOTING CHACCOUR:
"The drug could also work differently in humans than in isolated cells"
"The in vitro study alone was not enough to start treating people en mass with ivermectin"
"The in vitro study alone was not enough to start treating people en mass with ivermectin"
VIDEOS:
- Mass de-worming due to ivermectin could have repercussions on the severity of COVID-19.
This is a made-up theoretical concern. Dr. Chaccour has no evidence; it could be the cast that the mass de-wormings reduce the severity of COVID-19. This is nonsensical regardless of how mass de-wormings affect COVID-19. The mass de-wormings are DONE. The issue is whether Latin American countries should use ivermectin going forward to treat/prevent COVID-19. Why are the mass de-wormings even relevant? They aren't.
- Moral hazard, due to a false feeling of protection or treatment with the drug.
This hypothetical fear must be weighed against the evidence that it actually does provide protection. Dr. Chaccour's weak risk threats have to be weighed against the risk of COVID-19 spreading more widely and being treated less effectively.
- Impossibility to conduct clinical trials should ivermectin become the new standard of care.
Seriously? First question when screening prospective patients: Have you taken ivermectin? Problem solved! LOL.
Regarding risk:
In a pandemic, some risk is warranted.
Ivermectin has an incredibly good safety record.
An upside of the Latin American countries applying ivermectin, IMO, besides very possibly reducing infection rates, reducing severity of the illness, and saving lives... is getting more experience with ivermectin vs COVID-19.
For example, 350K doses being distributed to the residents of Trinidad. Look at that city's rate of infection over time and see if it changes at the point that ivermectin is distributed. After a few weeks, compare Trinidad's COVID-19 statistics with a comparable untreated city.
Another advantage of countries getting experience with ivermectin is understand the supply chain (where can we buy a LOT?) and distribution (mass administrations require organization, probably technology).
Why wait until the RCTs finally come in, to start those learnings?
By trying ivermectin now, they learn more about ivermectin, even if their learning isn't worthy of publication in Lancet.
Veterinary ivermectin gives good results in Peru:
https://t.co/boQqMEzIqN?amp=1
A doctor in Chile says the results are promising:
"we are seeing that 85% of patients at 48 hours no longer have viruses in the polymerase chain reaction. This is that the viremic stage is shortened and we only have to deal with the inflammatory stage."
https://t.co/kYt2iZOdxo?amp=1
If ivermectin works, then production of beef in the Beni region of Bolivia will be protected because the Scientific Committee there concluded ivermectin was worth distributing to town residents and eventually the region.
https://t.co/qD42PdE3yj?amp=1
COVID-19 infection is spreading in Peru, Chile and Brazil. It's a deadly disease that ravages many of its victims who survive the virus.
What is Dr. Chaccour's advice?
WAIT UNTIL PERFECT STUDIES ARE AVAILABLE????
There are no perfect studies. People are dying, etc NOW.
This is the trial being conducted by IS_GLOBAL -- by Dr Chaccour and colleagues. Dr. Chaccour is quoted talking about the trial in this article. The trial is discussed in reddit's science-heavy subreddit r/covid19 here. My summary of the study, that I wrote on 2020-05-16:
A dose of 400mcg is average; the range of the trials is 150mcg to 600mcg.
The sample size of 24 is disappointingly low but time to completing the trial is comparatively fast. IIRC, only one trial is expected to be done before this one.
Trials have been ADDED since I wrote that Dr Chaccour's would be the second one to complete.
On ClinicalTrials.gov there are ivermectin trials with N = 30 (June 10 completion), N = 100 (July completion), N = 77 (July), N = 400 (August), N = 66 (August) and N = 50 (August). All 6 trials have larger N's than Dr. Chaccour's study, a couple with MUCH bigger N's. 3 trials will be completed before Dr. Chaccour's trial, and 3 more will be completed in the same month as his. ALL 6 of them are going to have more statistical power than Dr. Chaccour's study, a function of N.
Dr. Chaccour's trial is only going to have 12 experiment subjects, giving it relatively little statistical power*. His may well conclude that "Differences between the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant; ivermectin was not shown to be effective against COVID-19" -- ONLY because Dr. Chaccour's N is so small. One wonders: what were they thinking? Maybe they can boost the N?
Still, I suppose Dr. Chaccour's study is worth completing. Even if N = 24 turns out to be too low to produce statistically significant results, it will still contribute to the growing scientific consensus about ivermetin.
*Go here for an explanation of statistical power. Sample size (N) is critical. "A power analysis can be used to estimate the minimum sample size required for an experiment". It appears possible that Dr. Chaccour did not do that analysis.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/gszo08/ivermectin_and_covid19_how_a_flawed_database/
This is a made-up theoretical concern. Dr. Chaccour has no evidence; it could be the cast that the mass de-wormings reduce the severity of COVID-19. This is nonsensical regardless of how mass de-wormings affect COVID-19. The mass de-wormings are DONE. The issue is whether Latin American countries should use ivermectin going forward to treat/prevent COVID-19. Why are the mass de-wormings even relevant? They aren't.
- Moral hazard, due to a false feeling of protection or treatment with the drug.
This hypothetical fear must be weighed against the evidence that it actually does provide protection. Dr. Chaccour's weak risk threats have to be weighed against the risk of COVID-19 spreading more widely and being treated less effectively.
- Impossibility to conduct clinical trials should ivermectin become the new standard of care.
Seriously? First question when screening prospective patients: Have you taken ivermectin? Problem solved! LOL.
Regarding risk:
In a pandemic, some risk is warranted.
Ivermectin has an incredibly good safety record.
An upside of the Latin American countries applying ivermectin, IMO, besides very possibly reducing infection rates, reducing severity of the illness, and saving lives... is getting more experience with ivermectin vs COVID-19.
For example, 350K doses being distributed to the residents of Trinidad. Look at that city's rate of infection over time and see if it changes at the point that ivermectin is distributed. After a few weeks, compare Trinidad's COVID-19 statistics with a comparable untreated city.
Another advantage of countries getting experience with ivermectin is understand the supply chain (where can we buy a LOT?) and distribution (mass administrations require organization, probably technology).
Why wait until the RCTs finally come in, to start those learnings?
By trying ivermectin now, they learn more about ivermectin, even if their learning isn't worthy of publication in Lancet.
Veterinary ivermectin gives good results in Peru:
https://t.co/boQqMEzIqN?amp=1
A doctor in Chile says the results are promising:
"we are seeing that 85% of patients at 48 hours no longer have viruses in the polymerase chain reaction. This is that the viremic stage is shortened and we only have to deal with the inflammatory stage."
https://t.co/kYt2iZOdxo?amp=1
If ivermectin works, then production of beef in the Beni region of Bolivia will be protected because the Scientific Committee there concluded ivermectin was worth distributing to town residents and eventually the region.
https://t.co/qD42PdE3yj?amp=1
COVID-19 infection is spreading in Peru, Chile and Brazil. It's a deadly disease that ravages many of its victims who survive the virus.
What is Dr. Chaccour's advice?
WAIT UNTIL PERFECT STUDIES ARE AVAILABLE????
There are no perfect studies. People are dying, etc NOW.
This is the trial being conducted by IS_GLOBAL -- by Dr Chaccour and colleagues. Dr. Chaccour is quoted talking about the trial in this article. The trial is discussed in reddit's science-heavy subreddit r/covid19 here. My summary of the study, that I wrote on 2020-05-16:
A dose of 400mcg is average; the range of the trials is 150mcg to 600mcg.
The sample size of 24 is disappointingly low but time to completing the trial is comparatively fast. IIRC, only one trial is expected to be done before this one.
Trials have been ADDED since I wrote that Dr Chaccour's would be the second one to complete.
On ClinicalTrials.gov there are ivermectin trials with N = 30 (June 10 completion), N = 100 (July completion), N = 77 (July), N = 400 (August), N = 66 (August) and N = 50 (August). All 6 trials have larger N's than Dr. Chaccour's study, a couple with MUCH bigger N's. 3 trials will be completed before Dr. Chaccour's trial, and 3 more will be completed in the same month as his. ALL 6 of them are going to have more statistical power than Dr. Chaccour's study, a function of N.
Dr. Chaccour's trial is only going to have 12 experiment subjects, giving it relatively little statistical power*. His may well conclude that "Differences between the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant; ivermectin was not shown to be effective against COVID-19" -- ONLY because Dr. Chaccour's N is so small. One wonders: what were they thinking? Maybe they can boost the N?
Still, I suppose Dr. Chaccour's study is worth completing. Even if N = 24 turns out to be too low to produce statistically significant results, it will still contribute to the growing scientific consensus about ivermetin.
*Go here for an explanation of statistical power. Sample size (N) is critical. "A power analysis can be used to estimate the minimum sample size required for an experiment". It appears possible that Dr. Chaccour did not do that analysis.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/gszo08/ivermectin_and_covid19_how_a_flawed_database/
