The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) has strongly challenged the American Medical Association’s (AMA) recent statement that urges a stop to the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19.
In a letter September 4 to Gerald E. Harmon, M.D., AMA president, Jane M. Orient, M.D., executive director of AAPS, wrote AMA’s position statement recommending physicians immediately stop prescribing ivermectin is “startling and unprecedented.”
AMA said in its statement:
[W]e are calling for an immediate end to the prescribing, dispensing, and use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial. In addition, we are urging physicians, pharmacists, and other prescribers—trusted health care professionals in their communities—to warn patients against the use of ivermectin outside of FDA-approved indications and guidance, whether intended for use in humans or animals, as well as purchasing ivermectin from online stores.
AMA continued it is “alarmed by reports that outpatient prescribing for and dispensing of ivermectin have increased 24-fold since before the pandemic and increased exponentially over the past few months.”
The group also condemned the use of ivermectin to treat COVID because it is “also available to treat certain veterinary conditions,” and, therefore, according to AMA, “medications formulated or intended for use in animals should not be used by humans.”
In urging such an action, AMA “is thus contradicting the professional judgment of a very large number of physicians who are writing about 88,000 prescriptions per week,” wrote Orient, adding:
AMA claims that ivermectin is dangerous and ineffective despite the safe prescription of billions of doses since 1981, and the mostly favorable results of 63 controlled studies in COVID-19.
AMA does not specify any recommended early treatments, but simply urges face masks, distancing, and vaccination.
AAPS’s Orient observed the establishment medical organization’s apparent hypocrisy:
On what basis does AMA demand use only within a clinical trial for ivermectin, but call for virtually universal vaccination outside of controlled trials, despite FDA warnings of potential cardiac damage in healthy young patients, and no information about long-term effects?
AMA’s statement seems doubly questionable given, as Daniel Horowitz wrote at The Blaze earlier this month, our own Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended use of ivermectin in 2019 for “all Middle Eastern, Asian, North African, Latin American, and Caribbean refugees.”
The refugees, CDC stated, should receive “presumptive treatment for intestinal parasites” with: “Albendazole, single dose of 400 mg (200 mg for children 12-23 months) AND Ivermectin, two doses 200 mcg/Kg orally once a day for 2 days before departure to the United States.”
To the “chorus of ignorant fools” who shout, “But that is for parasitic infection, not viral infection,” Horowitz responded, “[T]hat is only a question about efficacy, not safety.”
“Government agencies are slandering ivermectin as if it’s not a safe drug and even convincing people that it’s for animals,” he wrote. “Why would the government stand in the way of ivermectin treatment that it mass-distributes to refugees, even if the establishment bureaucrats personally believe it won’t help for COVID?”
The move by AMA also counters that of Haruo Ozaki, chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, who, in February, urged all doctors in Japan to immediately begin use of ivermectin to treat COVID.
As LifeSiteNews reported, following that initial recommendation, Ozaki again in August called resistance by the medical establishment to use ivermectin to treat COVID “deplorable.”
During an interview with The Yomiuri Shimbun, Ozaki said, “I am aware that there are many papers that ivermectin is effective in the prevention and treatment of [coronavirus], mainly in Central and South America and Asia.”
“Participants who took ivermectin prophylaxis had a lower risk of getting symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” Ozaki also observed, citing a recent study of 3,532 healthcare workers [HCWs] by researchers at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.
According to the study, healthcare workers “who took ivermectin chemoprophylaxis had an 83% lower risk of contracting COVID-19 disease in the following month compared to those who did not receive the drug.”
The researchers concluded:
Based on its long history of clinical use, favourable safety profile, and emerging evidence from the in-vitro study, observational study, and open-label RCT [randomized control trial], ivermectin was used as a prophylactic agent for COVID-19 disease in our hospital for HCWs and has shown promising results. The adverse effects reported by the subjects were few and fit into the safety profile of this drug.
Ivermectin is a widely available anti-parasitic drug and has been included in the WHO list of essential medicines. The safety of the drug has been established by its large-scale use in the last four decades for various indications such as onchocerciasis, scabies, head lice, and other parasitic infestations such as ascariasis and trichuriasis.
Ozaki said he believes the increasing difficulty in obtaining Ivermectin has been due to its manufacturer, Merck & Co., Inc., which has restricted its distribution, claiming the drug is ineffective in treating COVID.
As a result of Merck’s restriction of the drug, Ozaki said, “Even if a doctor writes a prescription for ivermectin, there is no drug in the pharmacy.”
Data analyst J Chamie tweeted Friday that, regarding COVID-19 in Japan, the “facts” are;
- State of emergency started on July 12
- Cases grew exponentially
- Tokyo Medical Association recommended ivermectin on August 13
- Tokyo’s drop in cases started on August 19
- The drop in cases keep accelerating.
“Draw your own conclusions,” Chamie suggests.
Last week, John Diggs, M.D. joined southern New England’s Jim Polito Show, which airs weekdays on WTAG-AM and News Radio 560 WHYN, to weigh in as well on AMA’s attempt to suppress the use of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID.
Diggs, who practices in Wilbraham, Massachusetts, said the AMA position statement was nothing less than “shocking”:
I’ll give you a little bit of background. Ivermectin is considered by the World Health Organization to be one of the necessary drugs for the world. It was discovered by a Japanese scientist back in the early 1970s, I think. It was released as a drug in 1981. And it’s actually treated and caused the prevention of blindness of more people in the world than any other act or any other surgeon, for example.
Regarding the media frenzy over doctors prescribing, and humans taking, a drug that also has a use for animals, Diggs said, “They made that sound like that’s what the drug was primarily for, and some people were using it for humans when it’s actually designed for animals. That is just the opposite.”
Diggs observed as well that, in 2015, the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine conferred its award for the treatment of infectious diseases upon the discovery of ivermectin, for its ability to successfully treat some parasitic infections, most often found in tropical climates.
“Most of the people in the northeastern United States, or maybe most of the United States, who know about ivermectin know about it from a veterinary point of view,” Diggs explained, stressing how “bizarre” it was when AMA took to the media to make it sound as if ivermectin was predominantly “a veterinary drug that was somehow repurposed for human beings – when it’s just the opposite.”
Diggs said the strangeness of the AMA statement led him to look more deeply into the reasons for such an odd position:
I’m treating a lot of people from all over the state who are not getting treated by their own doctors, who say there is no outpatient treatment for COVID-19, and that is completely false. There are many, many sources, many journals, there’s multiple publications, on the order of 60 or 70, which support the use of ivermectin from a medical point of view for COVID-19. There are many studies that support hydroxychloroquine, and for some reason, we’re not getting this outpatient treatment here in the States.
“Why would you decide to block something which has been shown, in multiple studies, to have an effect on COVID-19, while you’re having people in the hospital, and telling them not to get treated until they get to the hospital?” he asked. “It’s a little bit late.”
Diggs advised Polito’s listeners to “follow the money” when it comes to considering why AMA would be attempting to stop doctors from prescribing a drug that has shown to be effective in treating COVID-19.
“The thing about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine is that they are both off patents, which means there’s not a whole lot of money to be made from them, even for this purpose,” he noted. “However, there is a huge cash cow in vaccines, and that’s what’s happening. These vaccines could not have been released unless there was no treatment for COVID-19.”