The study, published last Jan. 15 in the journal Cureus, involved more than 220,000 residents of Itajai city in the southern Brazilian state of Santa Catarina. All of them were offered ivermectin between July and December 2020 as part of a citywide prophylaxis program against COVID-19.
About 3.7 percent of Itajai residents who caught COVID-19 during the study period were taking ivermectin. This was considerably less than the number of people (6.6 percent) who contracted it and were not taking ivermectin.
The study also found that when used as a prophylactic, ivermectin caused a 90 percent reduction in COVID-19 deaths among Itajai's population. It also found that ivermectin reduced COVID-19 infections by 44 percent in those who took it as a preventive medication.
Study co-author and endocrinologist Dr. Flavio Cadegiani told Epoch Times in an email that ivermectin "must be considered as an option, particularly during [COVID-19] outbreaks." He and the other authors backed this up in their study, citing ivermectin's "well established long-term safety profile with rare adverse effects."
"We recommend that ivermectin be considered as a preventive strategy, in particular for those at a higher risk of complications from COVID-19 or contracting the illness," they wrote.
Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) President Dr. Pierre Kory lauded the findings of the Cureus study. "What they found was astonishing. [The results] should convince any naysayer," he said during an appearance on Epoch Times' "American Thought Leaders." Incidentally, Cadegiani is also a founding member of FLCCC alongside Kory. (Related: New study on Ivermectin 'should convince any naysayer': Dr. Pierre Kory.)
According to Cadegiani, he and his colleagues also plan to publish further findings about COVID-19 hospitalization rates. These would be based on the study involving Itajai residents, he added.
However, the paper by Cadegiani and his co-authors was not without criticism. One tweet by Australian epidemiology graduate student Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz dubbed the study as "flawed," alleging that the confounding factors such as occupation and risk factors were "pretty inadequate given the purpose."
Katz further described the study by Cadegiani and others as "a fairly simple example of observational research that you'd do on routine medical data."
The Brazilian endocrinologist called the criticism unfounded, saying that researchers controlled "all relevant factors" in their study. "The inability [of critics] to focus on the data provided by the study itself is proof of the [extremely] high quality of the study. To us, this is the best observational study on COVID-19 to date, with a power almost equivalent to a huge randomized clinical trial," said Cadegiani.
Kory had a different opinion on criticism about the study. He argued that the lack of media reports on the Brazilian study, despite being peer-reviewed, highlights how mainstream media outlets and scientists ignore developments that go against the narrative.
"You would think this would lead major headlines everywhere – and yet, nothing. And this is not new, the censorship of this highly effective science and evidence around repurposed drugs. The censoring of it, it's not new. It's just getting more and more absurd, and it has to stop," he said.
The FLCCC president also took aim at government agencies continuing to turn a blind eye on ivermectin despite its effectiveness. India, Brazil and other countries have used ivermectin to address COVID-19, but U.S. authorities advise against its use for the sickness – to the point of actively suppressing it. "It's about the pharmaceutical industry's capture of our agencies and how our policies are all directed at suppressing and avoiding use of repurposed drugs," said Kory.
Watch the video of Brazilian otolaryngologist Dr. Clarice Saba sharing how ivermectin helped some of her patients with COVID-19.
This video is from the Signposts channel on Brighteon.com.
IvermectinScience.com has more studies about ivermectin's effectiveness against COVID-19.