Tag: covid misinformation

Categories : COVID Ethics and LawTags :

“Anti-vax” Doctor’s Disciplinary Inquiry gets Underway

On By ModernMedia

Shankara Chetty is accused of failing to act in the best interests of patients

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

By Tania Broughton for GroundUp

The disciplinary hearing against “anti-vax” doctor Shankara Chetty got underway in Durban this week, after changes to the charge sheet were made.

This comes after Chetty asked that the charges be dismissed or revised – or he would approach the high court for relief.

The charges are based on allegations by Francois Venter, a medical professor at Wits University who was at the forefront of Covid research in South Africa. He said Chetty was practicing “pseudo-science” at the height of the pandemic, with Chetty claiming that vaccines made no sense.

Chetty’s argument, in the main, focusses on his right to freedom of expression and claims that expressing a view is not a violation of the ethical guidelines of the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA).

His lawyers argued that the charges should have been dropped. Instead, the disciplinary committee ordered that they be amended.

The revised charge sheet contains four charges of unprofessional conduct.

They include that he contravened norms and standards by using unproven and unrecommended health technologies, namely Chetty’s “8th day” protocol, and that he failed to act in the best interests of patients by prescribing ivermectin, corticosteroids, and hydroxychloroquine for Covid, which were not approved by the South African Health Products Regulatory Council for this purpose.

He is also charged with casting aspersions on expert health care professionals who were authorised to provide advice and develop protocols, by stating that they engineered protocols in hospitals to “cause death and damage” to Covid patients.

The final, and fourth charge, is based on allegations that he “mischaracterised the cause and identification of the Covid illness, spike proteins and the toxicity of the virus”, which was not in line with the tenets of science.

In his complaint to the HPCSA, Venter said Chetty had made unprecedented claims in a video regarding the toxicity of Covid vaccines and that they were a “deliberate mass poisoning and planned to kill billions”.

He said Chetty, on his own website, had also made “outlandish physiological claims” which undermined the most basic tenets of accepted science about the vaccines, and advocated outpatient remedies of his own.

He said the video and the website “were more than enough evidence of gross misrepresentation of the vaccine programme: anybody watching would be justified in being severely alarmed at the prospect of mass poisoning”.

Chetty’s narrative, Venter said, went against the Department of Health, local experts, and international guidelines.

“This level of pseudo-science within the profession needs to be firmly and quickly clamped down on. The HPCSA must do its duty in protecting the public and discipline Chetty.”

In his written response, Chetty said the video was taken at a three-day Caribbean Summit held by the Word Council for Health, which brought together experts in various fields to share opinions and insights on the pandemic. (Wikipedia describes the World Council for Health as a pseudo-medical organisation dedicated to spreading misinformation to discourage COVID-19 vaccination and promoting fake COVID-19 treatments.)

The summit was not open to the general public and was a behind-closed-doors robust discussion.

Chetty said he did not consent to any recording being shared with the public.

He said he was not an “anti-vaxxer” but he was of the view that the vaccine technology had been rushed to market, with poor safety surveillance by clinical trials, and with a disregard for informed consent and individual choice.

In a written response, Venter said Chetty’s right to freedom of speech did not absolve him of his ethical duties.

This included not posting opinions on the professional reputations of their colleagues on social media “lest the public lose faith in the healthcare profession”.

Chetty is expected to plead not guilty to all the charges. According to the minutes of a pre-inquiry conference, both the HPCSA and Chetty intend to call expert witnesses.

Republished from GroundUp under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Source: GroundUp

Categories : COVID VaccinesTags :

After COVID, Trust in Vaccines has Plunged in Sub-Saharan Africa

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash

In a concerning trend, a study of 17 000 people has revealed that public confidence in vaccines has plunged across sub-Saharan Africa since the COVID pandemic. The study, published in Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, covered eight countries including South Africa – which saw one of the biggest falls in trust.

The findings come as the World Health Organization and UNICEF have reported the largest sustained fall in uptake of routine childhood immunisations in three decades. Six million fewer children in Africa received routine shots for diseases including tetanus, polio, diphtheria and measles over the past two years, and rising outbreaks threaten to reverse decades of progress against preventable diseases. 

Previously, this was attributed to pdisruption of vaccination programs by the pandemic – however these new findings, which followed a study carried out by a team from London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, suggest there could be other possible reasons too. 

“Our study paints a worrying picture of declining vaccine confidence trends across many sub-national regions in sub-Saharan Africa, notably in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where confidence losses are particularly large,” states lead author Dr Alex de Figueirido, a Research Fellow at LSHTM. 

The team’s results could be an early warning sign of wider scale loss in vaccine confidence, say the authors. Critically, regional losses in confidence – as seen in this study – could lead to clusters of non-vaccinated people which could have a negative impact on ‘herd immunity’ – the point at which a population is protected from a disease, either by enough people being vaccinated or by people having developed antibodies through having the disease.  

The research involved face-to-face interviews with over 17 000 adults across eight sub-Saharan African countries: the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Ivory Coast, Kenya, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa and Uganda. The experts used sampling methods to get an accurate cross section of the population and to gain a picture of vaccine confidence at both national and regional levels. 

Interviewees’ age, sex, religion, employment status and highest education level were recorded to help the researchers to analyse whether social background affected confidence in vaccines. The interviews were carried out in 2020 and again in 2022, after the pandemic. 

Respondents were asked to say how strongly they agreed with statements such as ‘Vaccines are important for all ages’, ‘Vaccines are important for children’ and ‘Vaccines are safe’. They were also asked specifically about COVID vaccines, rating their agreement that COVID vaccines would be important, safe and effective – both before they had been developed (in 2020) and then after they had been developed and rolled out, in 2022. 

Findings showed a fall in people’s view that vaccines are important for children across all eight countries between 2020 and 2022, particularly in DRC (20% decline), followed by Uganda (14%) and Nigeria (10.5%). In Nigeria and DRC, public confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness also declined, and fewer people agreed that ‘vaccines are important for all ages’ in Ivory Coast, Kenya, Nigeria, South African and Uganda.  

When it came to COVID vaccines, people thought they were less important in 2022 than they had in 2020 in seven out of the eight countries, with the biggest loss of trust in DRC, South Africa and Uganda. People in DRC, Kenya, Niger, Senegal and Nigeria thought that the COVID vaccine was less effective in 2022 than they had expected it to be in 2020. However, trust in the safety of the COVID vaccine stayed consistent over the two years.  

In 2022, the over-60s were more likely than younger adults to agree that vaccines are generally safe, effective and important for children, but no other links were found between vaccine confidence and sex, education, employment status or religious affiliation.  

“Early warning signals of confidence losses – such as those detected in this study – can provide time to respond, in the case of other epidemics, pandemics or other emerging crises,” adds co-author, Professor of Anthropology, Risk and Decision Science Heidi Larson, who is the Founding Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project at LSHTM. 

“Confidence monitoring at sub-national resolutions can also provide clearer signals to the regions and groups facing confidence losses and can better prepare policymakers and stakeholders for potential losses in vaccine uptake.” 

A thorough investigation is now needed to find out whether loss of confidence in COVID vaccines will trigger mistrust of other immunisation programmes, say the study authors.  

“Considering global decreases in routine immunisation rates over the past two years, vaccine confidence losses could prove to be highly disruptive at this time when there are concerted efforts to address losses in routine immunization rates post pandemic. We need to understand the impact of the COVID pandemic on confidence in routine immunisation programmes, not just in Africa, but across the world,” says Dr Defigueirido. 

“Understanding the role of the COVID pandemic and associated policies on wider vaccine confidence can inform post-COVID vaccination strategies and help rebuild immunisation system resilience.”

Source: EurekAlert!

Categories : General InterestTags :

Half of Teens Trust Fake Health News

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Freestocks on Unsplash

A new study has found that teenagers have a hard time discerning between fake and true health messages. Only 48% of the participants trusted accurate health messages (without editorial elements) more than fake ones. Meanwhile, 41% considered fake and true neutral messages equally trustworthy and 11% considered true neutral health messages less trustworthy than fake health messages. The results highlight a need for better training of teenagers to navigate a world where fake health news is so widespread.

Health mis- and disinformation are a serious public health concern, with an increased spread of fake health news on social media platforms in the last few years. Previous research has shown that online health messages are mostly incomplete and inaccurate and have potentially harmful health information. Fake health news can lead to poor health choices, risk-taking behaviour, and loss of trust in health authorities.

“There has been an explosion of misinformation in the area of health during the COVID pandemic,” said principal investigator Dr Radomír Masaryk, of Comenius University.

While most research on message credibility has focused on adults, Dr Masaryk and his colleagues investigated whether teenagers are similarly equipped.

“As adolescents are frequent users of the internet, we usually expect that they already know how to approach and appraise online information, but the opposite seems to be true” Dr Masaryk said.

The researchers found that 41% of teenagers couldn’t tell the difference between true and fake online medical content. Additionally, poor editing of health messages was not perceived as a sign of low trustworthiness. These latest findings were published in Frontiers in Psychology.

Teenagers and the media

As so-called ‘digital natives’, modern teenagers are the world’s most well-connected group, with 71% of the world’s youth using the internet.

Studies have shown that teens increase their risky behaviour in response to positive portrayals of risky behaviour in the media, such as smoking and drinking. On the other hand, online health information that supports information provided by professionals can lead to healthy lifestyle changes, self-care, and treatment compliance.

Teenagers look at the structural features of a website, such as language and appearance, to evaluate online information. For example, authoritative organisations, trusted brands, or websites with business-like language tend to be more trusted.

Previous research on message trustworthiness with adolescents identified five editorial elements that deduced perceived message credibility: superlatives, clickbait, grammar mistakes, authority appeal, and bold typeface. Based on this prior study, the researchers developed a method to evaluate the effects of manipulation with content and format of health online messages on their trustworthiness in an adolescent sample.

They presented 300 secondary school students (aged between 16 and 19 years old) with seven short messages about the health promoting effects of different fruits and vegetables. The messages had different levels: fake message, true neutral message, and true message with editorial elements (superlatives, clickbait, grammar mistakes, authority appeal, and bold typeface). Participants were then asked to rate the message’s trustworthiness.

The participants were able to discern between overtly fake health messages and health messages whether true or slightly changed with editing elements; 48% of participants trusted the true neutral health messages more than the fake ones. However, 41% of participants considered fake and true neutral messages equally trustworthy and 11% considered true neutral health messages less trustworthy than fake health messages.

Clickbait less likely to work

“Putting trust in messages requires identification of fake versus true content,” said Dr Masaryk.

In the case of health messages that seem plausible and reasonable, teenagers could not tell the difference between true neutral health messages and health messages with editorial elements. Teenagers did not seem to decide on the trustworthiness of a message based on editing cues.

“The only version of a health message that was significantly less trusted compared to a true health message was a message with a clickbait headline,” continued Dr Masaryk.

The results highlight a need for better instruction of teenagers to spot editing cues that give away the quality of a piece of information. The authors suggest focusing on health literacy and media literacy training, and skills such as analytical thinking and scientific reasoning.

“Analytical thinking and scientific reasoning are skills that help distinguish false from true health messages,” Dr Masaryk concluded.

Source: Frontiers

Categories : Addiction Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Up in Smoke: The Tobacco Wars and Lessons for Vaccination Efforts

On By ModernMedia
Tobacco companies waged a massive disinformation campaign to keep people consuming their products. There are parallels with today’s antivaxx movement. Even before the 1964 US Surgeon General’s report on tobacco, the tobacco industry was deflecting health concerns by featuring doctors in their advertising and actively courting the medical industry. This advert is from 1930.

In a perspective piece published in the New England Journal of Medicine, authors find a parallel between the tactics used in the ‘tobacco wars’ and vaccination efforts. In a seeming repeat of history, anti-vaccination groups are using the same tactics the tobacco industry used to defend their products and undermine trust in science, but the successful anti-tobacco campaign holds important lessons for turning the tide against misinformation and normalising vaccination.

In late 2020 when the first COVID vaccines became available, the authors note that surveys indicated that about a third of US adults were keen to be vaccinated, 15% expressed strong resistance to vaccination (a proportion that has stayed fairly constant), and the remainder didn’t harbour strong ideological resistance. Now, about 27% of US adults now remain unvaccinated – and reaching this remainder is an important public health challenge.

The authors believe that the ‘tobacco wars’ can provide perspective. The tobacco industry fuelled preventable deaths by glamourising smoking, with almost 50% of US adults smoking cigarettes in the 1960s.

The current rate of about 12.5% is the result of decades of public health efforts to make tobacco use less socially acceptable. The first US Surgeon General’s report on smoking and health in 1964 was attacked by the tobacco industry. It was only until C. Everett Koop’s overwhelming report in 1986 that cemented tobacco use as a major preventable cause of cancer and death and highlighted the dangers of second-hand smoking.

Koop and others were vilified by the tobacco industry, which mounted a sustained campaign that cast doubts on the science, publicised misinformation, emphasised tobacco’s economic importance, and warned against restricting individual freedom. Industry leaders directly lied about knowing that nicotine was addictive and the lethal dangers of tobacco use. Indeed, from the 1920s to 1950s, in response to growing health concerns, the tobacco industry had actively courted doctors and influenced medical journals, widely reporting positive findings of studies that were deeply flawed. This may have only played into the hands of antivaxxers, creating a historical example of distrust in the medical system.

A 1940s advert showing how ‘doctors’ (probably actors) enjoyed Camel brand cigarettes. With the 1950 publication of studies showing the connection between cancer and tobacco, the public began to be suspicious and such campaigns featuring doctors ended by 1954.

While the focus of the debate was initially on smoking as an individual choice, two 1981 studies on nonsmoking wives of smokers vs nonsmokers revealed the dangers of secondhand smoke and shifted the discourse.

The US Congress has never enacted a federal smoking ban, but did grant the FDA limited authority to regulate tobacco in 2009, enabling restrictions on youth sales.

However, the broad-based effort from all levels of society that were important, discouraging smoking in public settings. This was supplemented by messaging from celebrities, taxation, and even a 1998 legal battle against the tobacco industry.

Efforts undertaken by the antivaccination movement, which is hardly new but is thriving during the COVID pandemic, bear many similarities to strategies used during the tobacco wars. Although not driven by a single industry but a collection of celebrities and social media groups, it sows mistrust in science and promotes conspiracy theories. Misinformation tactics are used that are strikingly similar to the tobacco industry’s, and this time Dr Antony Fauci is vilified instead of Koop.

There are big differences between tobacco control and vaccination; such as taking a long time for smoking interventions to reduce chronic diseases, whereas vaccinations usually reduce hospitalisations and severe illness within days or weeks.

The authors believe that success against antivaccination movement can draw on the tobacco wars’ lessons, illustrating COVID’s harm and the power of vaccines. Getting vaccinated and boosted should be the accepted social norm during a pandemic, they stress.

Drawing on similar efforts for anti-tobacco campaigns, vaccination campaigns using real patients in ICU who express regret over not being vaccinated. Unvaccinated people often assume they can be cared for if they get sick, so messages could also be included from healthcare works talking about the strain of the pandemic.

“There is an opportunity to mount a serious effort to provide accurate vaccination information using the same media channels on which people currently consume misinformation,” they wrote.

They also consider vaccine mandates which make being vaccinated a social norm such as wearing a seatbelt, and other regulations at the community and business level may be more effective.

They note that personal physicians play a key role, being the best way to transmit health information. But many people at risk of remaining unvaccinated have had negative experiences with health care, compounded by doctors spreading misinformation.

The authors note that the dangers of tobacco use were known to public health practitioners for years, but it took a well-funded concerted effort that emphasised the impact on others to achieve a change in behaviour. This is something that needs to be repeated for vaccinations.

“Freedom of choice remains; people can still smoke cigarettes and decline vaccinations. But the roadmap drawn by tobacco-control efforts shows that the public mindset can be tilted toward public health and social good. With vaccination, this work shouldn’t take decades; it needs to begin immediately.”

Source: New England Journal of Medicine

Categories : COVIDTags :

End of the Road for Ivermectin as COVID Treatment in South Africa

On By ModernMedia
Stop sign

South Africa’s medicines regulator has officially terminated the special dispensation to use Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID, stating that “there is currently no credible evidence to support a therapeutic role for Ivermectin” in the treatment of the disease.

On Monday 30 May, the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) officially withdrew its authorisation [PDF], bringing to end something of a saga which saw vocal proponents pitched against the scientific and regulatory establishment.

The antiparasitic Ivermectin gained considerable notoriety as the COVID pandemic went on, based on preliminary studies that seemed to demonstrate its effectiveness. Pressure born out of desperation for some kind of treatment led to SAHPRA – amidst its own apparent misgivings – granting compassionate use authorisation under strict guidelines in January 2021. Use was allowed under Section 21 guidelines without having to wait for Section 21 authorisation, which was misinterpreted as full authorisation by some media sources.

The social media furore and misinformation surrounding Ivermectin led to dangerous instances of COVID self-treatment, with hospitalisations and even deaths reported.

In its terribly botched response to COVID, Brazil adopted Ivermectin on a mass scale, and essentially became a living laboratory for its effectiveness. Despite even administering Ivermectin as prophylaxis, Brazil’s health system was overwhelmed with COVID patients during the surge caused by the Gamma variant.

Studies turned up scant evidence in favour of Ivermectin’s effectiveness, with serious flaws and even outright data fabrication were picked up in a number of studies that seemed to show a significant benefit – even flying right through the peer review process only to be picked up at a later stage. This lead to a major meta-analysis by Hill et al. showing a effectiveness instead being retracted, which SAHPRA noted in its decision.

Finally, the I-TECH and the Together randomised clinical trials of 2021 showed no effect. Like hydroxychloroquine before it, Ivermectin prescribing was found to be driven by political interests. Thus, Ivermectin quietly disappeared from the media as viable antivirals such as Paxlovid came into the market.

The termination comes after a distinct decline in demand for Ivermectin use in South Africa, with no new applications for importation of unregistered Ivermectin products place since August 2021. SAHPRA also noted a marked decline in the number of health facilities applying for permission to hold bulk stock after August 2021.

Furthermore, no individual named patient applications have been approved since December 2021. Finally, there was little in the way of reporting of outcomes achieved by the treating healthcare providers.

Categories : Ethics and LawTags :

Medical Bodies Push Back against Commission for Gender Equality’s Statement

On By ModernMedia
Image source: NCI on Unsplash

The South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC), along with other professional medical and scientific institutions released a statement  distancing themselves from the Commission for Gender Equality’s (CGE) press release of 16 January, 2022, titled “Warning Against Imposing Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccination on Employees and Students”. [PDF]

The CGE cited an article published in Obstetrics and Gynaecology which found that women receiving Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or J&J COVID vaccines, vaccine administration was associated with less than a one-day change in cycle length for both vaccine-dose cycles compared with pre-vaccine cycles. The article concluded that clinically meaningful change in menstrual cycle duration associated with COVID vaccination was found. 

The CGE used this study as justification, cautioning businesses and institutions against mandatory vaccination and recommended against sanctions for employees who chose to remain vaccinated.

The signatories expressed their concern at the contents of the statement which is at odds with the scientific understanding of COVID vaccinations, a concern which is compounded by the “enormous influence” of the GCE.

They accept that the vaccine mandates are subject to legal scrutiny, but take issue with the commission “trying to bolster its argument by wrongly insinuating that COVID vaccination has the potential to harm women’s health.”

They also point out that the commission seems to disregard the much greater risks to women and their unborn babies of COVID infection, while misinterpreting evidence on minor menstrual cycle lengthening. This creates fear and confusion in vaccinated women, and may increase vaccine hesitancy.

“It fails to appreciate that one in six unvaccinated pregnant women admitted to hospital in South Africa with COVID infection requires mechanical ventilation, and one in 16 has a fatal outcome,” the signatories stated.

They noted that COVID vaccination provides upwards of 80% protection against severe disease, hospitalisation and death.

They endorse the view of the College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of South Africa, which draws on research of the highest quality, that the menstrual effects are minor.

The evidence is “indisputable” that COVID vaccination is safe, does not negatively affect women’s bodies and saves the lives of women, they stress. Statements to the contrary are strongly repudiated.

“We are of the view that the CGE, like all state institutions, medical and scientific bodies, social partners and civil society formations working in the fields of women’s rights, empowerment and equality, should urge women to get vaccinated and advance and defend their rights to all relevant information about and access to vaccination.”

The signatories call on the CGE to withdraw its 16 January statement and to share with it scientific facts on COVID vaccination and women’s health.

Source: South African Medical Research Council

Categories : UncategorizedTags :

COVID Misinformation Less Prevalent than Believed

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

Contrary to what might be expected, misinformation about COVID was less prevalent than for other health topics, researchers found.

Before the COVID pandemic, health misinformation was already widely spread. While all types of information about COVID (including misinformation) were popular between March and May 2020, posts about COVID were more likely to come from governments and academic institutions. Often, these posts were more likely to go viral than posts from sources that routinely spread misinformation.

“At the start of the pandemic, governments and organisations around the world started paying attention to the problem of health misinformation online,” said David Broniatowski, an associate professor at the George Washington University. “But when you compare it to what was going on before the pandemic, you start to see that health misinformation was already widespread. What changed is that, when  COVID-19 hit, governments and social media platforms started paying attention and taking action.”

The researchers collected public posts on Twitter and Facebook at the outset of the pandemic, between March and May 2020, when content about COVID was growing rapidly. They compared those to posts on other health topics from the same time period in 2019, and looked at the credibility of the websites that each post shared. More credible sources included government and academic sources as well as the traditional news media. Sources deemed “not credible” comprised conspiracy-oriented sites and state-sponsored sites known for spreading  propaganda, which were 3.67 times more likely to spread misinformation than credible sites.

“Misinformation has always been present, even at higher proportions before COVID started. Many people knew this, which makes the ensuing misinformation spread during COVID entirely predictable,” said study co-author Mark Dredze, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University. “Had we been more proactive in fighting misinformation, we may not have been in an anti-vaccination crisis today.”

“These findings suggest that the ‘infodemic’ of misinformation is a general feature of health information online, not one restricted to COVID-19,” Broniatowski said. “Clearly there is a lot of misinformation about COVID, but attempts to combat it might be better informed by comparison to the broader health misformation ecosystem.”

Source: George Washington University

Categories : COVIDTags :

Feeling of Invulnerability against COVID Leads to Vaccine Refusal

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez on Unsplash

An international survey has found that people who do not believe that being infected with COVID could seriously threaten their health are both less likely to believe in the importance of preventing spread of the disease and less willing to get vaccinated. 

To contain COVID, it may be critical for individuals to feel concern about taking action to prevent transmission within their community. However  such concerns and actions could be impacted by a number of both individual and cultural factors. Leonhardt and colleagues hypothesised that one factor influencing pandemic concerns could be people’s perceived invincibility to COVID. The findings were presented in PLOS ONE.

To test this idea, the researchers analysed responses from over 200 000 people across 51 countries from an ongoing online survey. The survey included a question about how serious it would be to get infected with COVID, as well as questions about willingness to get vaccinated and taking action to reduce spread in one’s community. The researchers also accounted for participants’ overall health, age, sex, and level of education.

Respondents who reported feeling more  invincibile to COVID were less willing to get vaccinated, the researchers found, and also less likely to believe in the importance of individual actions to reduce transmission.

The strength of this link varied between countries. Individuals with high perceived invincibility living in countries with a greater emphasis on individual freedoms and autonomy, such as the US, were less willing to get vaccinated and less willing to take action than individuals with high perceived invincibility living in cultures with greater emphasis on collective action.

The authors say their findings highlight the importance of considering both individual and cultural factors when addressing pandemics. They suggest that suppression efforts employ messaging underscoring the importance of collective action, especially in individualistic cultures. Meanwhile, future research could further explore the impact of cultural factors on health beliefs and behaviours.

The authors added: “While feeling invincible may be beneficial in overcoming economic hardships or during periods of war, the results of our study suggest that it threatens the likelihood that people get vaccinated against COVID, and this is especially the case in individualistic countries, such as the USA, where people tend to focus on their own health rather than the collective health of their community.”

Source: EurekaAlert!

Categories : COVIDTags : 1 Comment

Two Ivermectin Deaths Reported in US State

On By ModernMedia
Source: Unsplash

Two deaths in the US state of New Mexico have been linked to misuse of ivermectin, the anti-parasitic medicine that has repeatedly been used by people as an anti-COVID medication.

The patients were among 14 in the state who had been hospitalised after being poisoned by the use of ivermectin, which has been widely promoted.

Dr David Scrase, the acting head of the state health department, said the two patients who died (38 and 79 years old) had both contracted the coronavirus and attempted to treat it themselves with ivermectin, leading to kidney failure in one patient.

“It’s the wrong medicine for something really serious,” Dr Scrase said.

The American Association of Poison Control Centers reported 1440 cases of ivermectin poisoning up to 20 September, more than three times seen in the same period in 2019 and 2020. A majority of this year’s reports came over the past few months as people sought prescriptions after false claims about the drug’s effectiveness in COVID patients started to circulate on social media, podcasts and talk radio. Many other states are seeing increasing cases of ivermectin poisoning.

Dr Susan Smolinske, the director of the New Mexico Poison and Drug Information Center, said that about half of the reported cases of ivermectin poisoning this year were people who took the drug to prevent COVID.

While certain versions of ivermectin are prescribed to humans to treat head lice and other parasites, other more concentrated formulations are commonly used in the equine and livestock industries to combat worms and parasites.

Previously, Dr Smolinske said, many of the incidents in New Mexico involved children mistakenly taking chewable tablets intended for dogs, however the poison centres had recently seen more instances of people taking concentrated forms of the drug intended for large animals, which may contain other ingredients not intended for human use.

“Most of our cases are of the horse or dewormer or pour-on product, so they’re highly concentrated compared to those tablets for dogs,” said Dr Susan Smolinske, the director of the New Mexico Poison and Drug Information Center.

Dr Smolinske said misuse of the drug can cause drowsiness, dizziness, tremors or even a coma. “It gets into the brain, and if you take a high enough dose, it has difficulty getting out of the brain,” she said.

Source: New York Times

Categories : COVIDTags :

Now Iodine is the In-thing for COVID

On By ModernMedia

A dangerous new trend has emerged on social media, which involves a new COVID ‘cure’ by gargling the widely used antiseptic, povidone-iodine (PVP).

This trend has been sparked by an online video in Thai which has been widely shared on social media, featuring someone who claims to be a doctor. However this has been debunked. The trend is also cause for concern as the PVP may accidentally be swallowed. 

PVP, also sold under the name Betadine, is used for disinfection in surgical procedures and wound treatment. Gargling with 0.5% PVP has been shown to reduce the symptoms of sore throat associated with COVID, but has not been adequately shown to relieve any other symptoms.  
The immediate side effects of ingesting any PVP antiseptic include nausea, vomiting, general weakness, and diarrhoea. In severe cases, PVP ingestion can result in acute renal failure, cardiovascular collapse, liver function impairment, shortness of breath, low blood pressure, and even death.

In one study, researchers assessed the usage of 0.5% povidone-iodine mouthwash in patients as a way of reducing viral load during dental procedures, reducing possible exposure of healthcare workers. However, there is no evidence beyond in vitro testing that it actually reduces viral load in the throat. 

An official statement on the Betadine website reads as follows: “Betadine® Antiseptic First Aid products have not been approved to treat coronavirus. Products should only be used to help prevent infection in minor cuts, scrapes and burns. Betadine Antiseptic products have not been demonstrated to be effective for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 or any other viruses.”

Source: Newsweek