Rep. Andy Harris, a practicing anesthesiologist who represents the Eastern Shore in Congress, said he has prescribed ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19, the Washington Post reported Tuesday.
Ivermectin is used to treat parasites, with different products for humans and livestock, and the FDA, American Medical Association and national pharmacy groups warn against using it for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.
Harris, who made the comments on a Sept. 17 radio show, also said pharmacies would not fill the prescription, the Post reported.
Harris works part-time with a physician group that provides anesthesia and other medical services to the University of Maryland Shore Medical Center in Easton.
Anne Stalfort says
What an idiot.
Eva M. Smorzaniuk, M.D. says
That sums it up nicely.
Darrell Parsons says
I wonder how long the University of Maryland medical establishment will continue to have a relationship with him? It’s noteworthy that no pharmacy would fill the prescription, so he gets to brag to the ill-informed about his anti-establishment stance while at the same time not being responsible for the risk for anyone actually taking the medication.
Richard Merrill says
I suppose you commenters / doctors have read this and are familiar with the Nobel Prize?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34466270/
In 2015, the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, in its only award for treatments of infectious diseases since six decades prior, honoured the discovery of ivermectin (IVM), a multifaceted drug deployed against some of the world’s most devastating tropical diseases. Since March 2020, when IVM was first used against a new global scourge, COVID-19, more than 20 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have tracked such inpatient and outpatient treatments. Six of seven meta-analyses of IVM treatment RCTs reporting in 2021 found notable reductions in COVID-19 fatalities, with a mean 31% relative risk of mortality vs. controls. During mass IVM treatments in Peru, excess deaths fell by a mean of 74% over 30 days in its ten states with the most extensive treatments. Reductions in deaths correlated with the extent of IVM distributions in all 25 states with p < 0.002. Sharp reductions in morbidity using IVM were also observed in two animal models, of SARS-CoV-2 and a related betacoronavirus. The indicated biological mechanism of IVM, competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, is likely non-epitope specific, possibly yielding full efficacy against emerging viral mutant strains.
Paul Gilmore says
Interesting statements. Nothing beyond the use of ivermectin for various tropical diseases, a great discovery, provides references to peer reviewed studies of the use for treatment of Covid-19. Hmm … I wonder why?
PRGetson says
With respect Mr. Merrill, you have merely quoted the abstract of an article which has not stood up to scrutiny on the topic. As I am sure you and others know, just being available in PubMed has little bearing on the veracity of a citation and it appears many of he reported ‘results’ have other interpretations for their putative meaning.
Per ivermectin itself, yes, it is a well-known, much useful and amazing anti-parasitic that has ameliorated the woes of millions of people, particularly those living in tropical regions of the world where such infections are sadly common.
On the topic of its use for Covid treatment, management or prophylaxis, may I suggest https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/ . This is an exquisitely detailed Cochrane review of precisely such uses. For those unfamiliar, Cochrane is a highly technical and standardized way to extract all published peer reviewed literature on, in particular, health topics, especially focusing on properly conducted clinical trials. Most importantly the procedures provide a method for systemic comparative analyses of results. Many are meta-analyses; all include appropriate statistical treatments and effect size calculations. For this suggested 2021 review I include the summary:” …overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials. ”
Let’s hope more acceptance of clear evidentiary usefulness of vaccines leads to higher uptake in the US, instead of those grasping at any and every hopeful way to avoid such acceptance… for who knows what variety of reasons…. .
Peter Hartjens says
No wonder he votes “Neigh” so readily!
Bishop Joel Marcus Johnson says
All the great medicine makers first tried their new drugs on themselves. Of course, for Andy to try this on himself would require a diagnosis of his being – and then, why it’s given to horses.
Dick Deerin says
Andy Harris thinks his constituents are pigs, goats and cows. What an embarrassment to the good people of the 1st District.
Louis T Hart Jr says
And yet he’s still representing our district and still taking care of local patients!
Alan Boisvert says
Andy Harris is an a$$hole
Robert Parker says
There are 2 issues here: 1. why is Rep Harris who is not an infectious disease specialist or even a primary care clinician (and presumably not a veterinarian)ments available even prescribing ivermectin for covid when the drug is not approved for covid therapy and there are accepted treatments available, and 2. what are the data that would support use of this agent. While the answer to #1 is reasonably straight forward and has already been noted by other writers, the answer to #2 is more complex. Ivermectin has a structure that bases on 3-D modeling could/should interfere with the infectivity and or replication of SARS-CoV-19, and there are reports suggesting benefit. However, the quality of the data are generally not considered to be strong enough to reach firm conclusions re: efficacy. Indeed, there have been several publications that have looked at this issue (e.g., J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2020;23:462-469. doi: 10.18433/jpps31457 ; Pharmacol Rep. 2021 Jun;73(3):736-749. doi: 10.1007/s43440-020-00195-y. Epub 2021 Jan 3. just to note 2) that discuss these data. The conclusion of many of these studies is that larger randomized controlled trials are needed to reach a conclusion. While a p-value <0.05 is generally considered to show statistical significance (i.e., <5% chance of random effect) the setting by which the analyzed data are obtained do matter. It is an often stated concept that "correlation does not prove causation" in medical studies. It is worth noting that the birth rate in WWII Germany declined in direct proportion to the Stork population – food for thought.
PRGetson says
Point #2 so well-stated and added references to those I’ve used. Readers often omit the importance of experimental and trial design, without which study results can be meaningless or at least unattributable and not generalizable. But your first point is a perfect one for more consideration…. Thank you.
Linda Baker says
Richard Merrill, I applaud your research. Ironic it came from NIH considering Fauci (who has NEVER been a practicing physician) won’t tout it nor hydrochloriquine, which has also saved many lives. I wish more people, ESPECIALLY health care providers would do the same research that this is not a drug just for animals. It has been used for many years in Africa in pill form for people who contract parasitic infections in that region. It’s cheap and works well. Ivermectin has saved many lives and if the physicians would stop listening to the fake media and the crooked Fauci and CDC, they may learn how to take care of their patients. They would rather push a shot (which again they have not thoroughly researched) that is a “live infection “ (reason to be kept cold at -70 to -80 degrees) and has parasites in it ( I’ve actually seen them under microscope), as well as other nefarious components that should not be put in the human body. Needless to say, I am disgusted with the health care people receive today! Kudos to Harris for researching and probably saving some lives! Kudos to you Mr Merrill for the documentation!
Dennis Mesko says
Note: No pharmacy has filled Harris’ prescriptions for Ivermectin, therefore no lives saved.
PRGetson says
Ms. Baker–you have been given so much misinformation! First, the article Merrill simply referenced did not “come from” nor was endorsed by NIH. It was merely given a PubMed citation in the NLM library because it appeared in some publication somewhere. Use of the system requires as much critical reading as that of any library collection. And Dr. Fauci has been a real, fully practicing, expert, boarded infectious disease clinician for decades…both pre and after becoming the head of NIAID. I assume you have heard of the Clinical Bldg 10 at NIH campus or any of his prior hospital appointments? Dr. Harris by contrast is a very, very part time obstetric anesthesiologist by his own identification, and this is even quite different from general anesthesia, much less infectious disease. Why he is touting anti-parasitics in full off-label formats is anyone’s guess, but not without risks. And live parasites in the vaccines??! Especially the ones using mRNA platforms? Oh my–no wonder you are fearful if you have been told these things or viewed a graphic or photo which seemed to depict a parasite, but they are simply not true. These misunderstandings are worrisome; your physician should be able to help ..you otherwise remain at unnecessary risk. Of course, to each his own for “medical care”….but this is only reasonable until refusing vaccination in the case of a pandemic prolongs its course and adds to virulence via mutations which affect others or ends up causing rationing of available useful care, such as mAb or available intensive care beds. I hope you remain well until overall vaccination rates near you reduce the disease burden and your very real likelihood of becoming ill if you have decided against use of any of the very well-studied, effective COVID-19 vaccinations.
Linda Baker says
PRGetson, I still disagree with you on Fauci. Regarding your entire response, time will tell who has the correct information. I was fooled in 2009, not again! I hope you stay well also.
Eva M. Smorzaniuk, M.D. says
My compliments to both PR Getson and Robert Parker, for information that is evidence based. Ms. Baker, you need to do some homework before writing letters that are not only inflammatory, but grossly incorrect.
Stephen Schaare says
Hi Everyone, The question is moot. Dr. Harris will win reelection with record setting numbers. Thank you Joseph Robinette Biden Jr..
Lyn banghart says
Unbelievable!
michael Estrella says
My doctor is from the U.S., not from Peru. He says “don’t take Ivermectic”. He also says “DON’T TAKE BLEACH EITHER!”. I’ll listen to my doctor, but thanks for the info….oh, and, what issue of Mad Magazine did that research article appear?
Mike Estrella
St. Michaels