In March 2020, an expert panel called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) was created and led by Professor Paul E. Marik, with the goal of continuously reviewing the rapidly emerging basic science, translational, and clinical data in order to gain insight into and to develop a treatment protocol for COVID-19. At the same time, many centers and groups employed a multitude of novel therapeutic agents empirically, and within clinical trials, often during inappropriate time points during this now well-described multi-phase disease. Either as a result of these frequent trial design failures, or due to the lack of their insufficient anti-viral or anti-inflammatory properties, nearly all trialed agents have proven ineffective in treating COVID-19 as of November 11, 2020. Based on a recent series of negative published therapeutic study results, in particular the SOLIDARITY trial, they now virtually eliminate any treatment role for remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, interferon, convalescent plasma, tocilizumab, and monoclonal antibody therapy. Despite this growing list of failed therapeutics in COVID-19, the FLCCC recently discovered that ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medicine, has highly potent real-world, anti-viral, and anti-inflammatory properties against SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. This conclusion is based on the increasing numbers of study results reporting effectiveness, not only within vitro and animal models, but also in numerous randomized and observational controlled clinical trials. Repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes have now been recorded when ivermectin is used not only as a prophylactic agent but also in mild, moderate, and even severe disease states. The review that follows of the existing evidence for ivermectin relies on “emerging” data in that, although compelling, only a minority of studies have been published in peer-reviewed publications with the majority of results compiled from manuscripts uploaded to medicine pre-print servers or posted on clinicaltrials.gov.

What does a clinician need to know about low-carbohydrate (LC) diets? This review examines and compares the safety and the effectiveness of a LC approach as an alternative to a low-fat (LF), high-carbohydrate diet, the current standard for weight loss and/or chronic disease prevention. In short-term and long-term comparison studies, ad libitum and isocaloric therapeutic diets with varying degrees of carbohydrate restriction perform as well as or better than comparable LF diets with regard to weight loss, lipid levels, glucose and insulin response, blood pressure, and other important cardiovascular risk markers in both normal subjects and those with metabolic and other health-related disorders. The metabolic, hormonal, and appetite signaling effects of carbohydrate reduction suggest an underlying scientific basis for considering it as an alternative approach to LF, high-carbohydrate recommendations in addressing overweight/obesity and chronic disease in America. It is time to embrace LC diets as a viable option to aid in reversing diabetes mellitus, risk factors for heart disease, and the epidemic of obesity.