![\\"logo\\"](\\"/img/logo-dpa-factchecking.svg\\"/) *About ![\\"IFCN](\\"/img/ifcn-certificate.png\\"/) ![\\"EFCSN](\\"/img/efcsn- certificate.png\\"/) # Lower mortality of corona patients due to ivermectin is still unproven 19.5.2021, 14:40 (CEST) In a message on Facebook (archived here), a fan account of Forum for Democracy has commented on the effect of ivermectin. This is how the claim is made that the drug reduces the risk of death from COVID-19 by 96%. Also it is stated that general practitioners who prescribe the drug risk a fine can amount to 150,000 euros. REVIEW: The message is incorrect. That ivermectin helps corona patients for a 96% lower risk of mortality is unproven. The website being referred to linked indeed gives two studies that would support this, but this one are unreliable. (Inter)national scientific bodies are waiting further research before reaching a definitive conclusion about its operation of the drug against COVID-19. It is true that general practitioners Prescribing ivermectin in the Netherlands can result in a high fine. FACTS: In the comments below the post, the account links to a web page which contains 56 scientific studies that show the effect of ivermectin against COVID-19. It's true that the 96% lower mortality here can be found. The platform provides a comprehensive overview of a large number of studies on the drug, but the question is how reliable they are. Medical microbiologist Miquel Ekkelenkamp wrote for Medisch Contact in January 2021 already a column about the so-called 'preprint platforms': sites where studies are shared without a review. He outlines a few here examples of inconsistencies in ivermectin studies. In one In a telephone response to dpa, he even indicates that in some cases doubt whether a study actually took place: \"If the research group is over 1200 people, it seems very unlikely that this could have been carried out by only four scientists.\" Another thing is that many of the studies published on these types of websites have not yet been peer reviewed. That means the research is not checked by a peer, which is common in science to ensure the to ensure validity and reliability. Also the website that would show that that taking ivermectin reduces the risk of death from COVID-19 by 96% collection is a bundling of reviewed and non-reviewed studies. The 96% is indeed stated on the shared website: “81% and 96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis”. Prophylaxis involves that it concerns the preventive administration of a medicine. Who clicks \"mortality\" ends up on the table that supports these percentages. Here it is to see that the figure is based on two studies, by Bernigaud et al. and from Tanioka et al. At the very top of Tanioka et al.'s publication is the DOI number of the study. This links to the page of the institute that conducted this research for it first published. Here is a very explicit warning (in English). at: \"This article reports new medical research that is still being evaluated should be and therefore should not guide clinical practices.\" The The study has therefore not yet been peer reviewed. Moreover, the three authors did not investigate the effect of the drug, but only looked at the differences in corona mortality between countries prescribe ivermectin and those who do not. That is not yet demonstrated that the observed differences are due to ivermectin, or to tal of other factors that may play a role. Also this way is not clear which patient received which dose. The study of Bernigaud et al. (peer reviewed) has the same problem. This research took place in French retirement homes. Had in one home residents were given ivermectin because of an outbreak of scabies, a disease where ivermectin can be prescribed. Saw in that home researchers found a lower mortality from COVID-19 than in homes where none scabies had broken out and so no ivermectin was being taken by residents. However, this again still does not prove that the lower mortality is also explicit is caused by the ivermectin. In no case can it be concluded from these two studies that Ivermectin reduces the risk of dying from COVID-19 by 96%. The The Antibiotic Policy Working Group Foundation (SWAB) discusses this on its website several publications on ivermectin. They also indicate that 'preprint platforms' unjustified conclusions are drawn and dare in everyone It is not yet possible to provide a definitive answer in terms of mortality. \"When further data on effectiveness and safety from larger randomized good quality studies become available, this drug can take its place be better determined," SWAB concludes its argument. The European Medicines Agency EMA supports that reading and recommends it use of ivermectin. Even according to the EMA, there is insufficient so far scientific evidence for the effectiveness of the drug. Well, it seems so high doses counteract the multiplication of the virus, but it is It is not yet known whether such a high amount of ivermectin is safe for people to take. The EMA is therefore awaiting further investigation before approval to give. The British fact checkers from Full Fact have also not yet arrived at one final conclusion on ivermectin. The claim that doctors who prescribe ivermectin can face a large fine get, that's right. Although this only applies if the drug is used incorrectly prescribed against COVID-19. Ivermectin is authorized as a medicine against other medical complications. The fine can indeed amount to 150,000 euros, but a spokesperson told Medisch Contact that this included: depends on the number of people the doctor in question wrongly administered the drug to has prescribed. So it seems unlikely that ivermectin once recommending against COVID-19 can cost a doctor 150,000 euros. It could be that in the future when there is more and better research is available, ivermectin is approved as a drug against COVID-19. However, this research is not yet available and cannot therefore be stated that the effect has been proven. For the time being, the EMA advises against its use. It is true that general practitioners can receive a heavy fine if they use the drug prescribe against the coronavirus. \--- Left: Facebook post: (archived: Preprint platform ivermectin: (archived: Miquel Ekkelenkamp about preprint platforms: (archived: University of Groningen about 'peer reviewed': (archived: Prophylaxis: (archived: SWAB about ivermectin: (archived: About the SWAB: PDF study Tanioka et al.: (archived: Information Tanioka et al.: (archived: Study Bernigaud et al.: (archived: Apotheek.nl about ivermectin against scabies: (archived: EMA advises against ivermectin: Full Fact about the effectiveness of ivermectin: (archived: IGJ fines doctors: (archived: Medical Contact about fine: (archived: \--- Contact the dpa fact check team: factcheck-netherlands@dpa.com powered by dpa-newslab | Imprint | Privacy | About:
vermectin ensures a 96 lower risk of death from COVID19 and Dutch general practitioners are fined 150000 euros if they prescribe ivermectin