Ivermectin: Yes, No or Maybe

[mtls2005]

Other experts are chiming in...

 

"Woof, woof, bark, bark" said Dr. Spot.

 

 

Two words:  In Vitro

 

 

Amazed stuff like this is allowed here?

 

 

I mean I can pour gasline on a COVID sample, and set it on fire. Voila.

 

Please don't attempt this treatment at home on yourself.

 

 

[Time to grow]

Suit yourself! From my perspective, the evidence is compelling but I have no interest in selling it you or anyone else. As I said previously, Ivermectin looks to be a superior alternative to mRNA vaccines "for me" given what is known about mRNA vaccines.

 

I am not a scientist but these studies are supported by a known and trusted source, Chris Martenson.

• Cornell University - Johnson Graduate School of Management. Cornell University - Johnson Graduate School of Management. MBA Finance. 1997 - 1998.
• Duke University. PhD Pathology, sub-specialty of Neurotoxicology. 1990 - 1997.
• Lewis and Clark College. Lewis and Clark College. B.S.Biology 3.88. 1988 - 1990.

 

On a separate note; It may be of interest to others, another promising drug with preliminary results:

 

Monulparivir, the drug that "completely" stops the spread of coronavirus in 24 hours

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/361060

[mtls2005]

23 minutes ago, Time to grow said:

On a separate note; It may be of interest to others, another promising drug with preliminary results:

 

In ferrets.

 

(That's not in Latin, BTW.)

 

The experts detail that tests were carried out on ferrets and it was observed that they presented a reduction in the amount of viral particles. Then those ferrets were put with others that had not been treated. None of the ferrets in the second group became infected with COVID-19.

 

 

Is this forum about pets with COVID?

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Time to grow said:

I am not a scientist

 

Thank you for this disclosure.

 

 

 

[Time to grow]

9 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Is this forum about pets with COVID?

 

You may not find value in these studies, you may claim that the manufacturer's recommended dose is unsafe, you may claim that the studies don't exist, and when shown otherwise, you may attempt to discredit said studies.

 

All of which has been done without offering any qualifications yourself. I can only assume you are are not qualified to judge as you espouse. Your comments are simply obnoxious and do not support rational and civil conversation.

[mtls2005]

2 hours ago, Time to grow said:

I am not a scientist but these studies are supported by a known and trusted source, Chris Martenson.

 

This Chris Martenson....

 

Chris Martenson, PhD (Duke), MBA (Cornell) is an economic researcher and futurist specializing in energy and resource depletion, and co-founder of PeakProsperity.com (along with Adam Taggart).

 

https://www.peakprosperity.com/about/

 

The PhD in Neurotoxicology is OK, but he seems to have "gone off the reservation".

 

1 hour ago, Time to grow said:

All of which has been done without offering any qualifications yourself. I can only assume you are are not qualified to judge as you espouse.

 

Other than a highly sensitive BS detector, and a snake-oil skeptic, yes, I have no qualifications, nor did I say that I did.

 

We can all "judge" whatever we please.

 

 

1 hour ago, Time to grow said:

You may not find value in these studies, you may claim that the manufacturer's recommended dose is unsafe, you may claim that the studies don't exist, and when shown otherwise, you may attempt to discredit said studies.

 

Two words: Peer Reviewed.

 

 

 

From the classic film: "Save Ferrets"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Time to grow]

The meta analysis on Ivermectin cited above was released 3 days ago, peer review typically takes years. It would be wildly unreasonable to expect peer review in three days. If that is a deal breaker for you, fair enough.

[Bluetongue]

On 4/3/2020 at 9:11 PM, sherwood said:

I have used it on cattle for the past 17 years, a pour on so I have splashed plenty on myself over that time.

WHO knows. Sorry for the pun but nah, someone knows!

Found you

[partington]

14 hours ago, Time to grow said:

The meta analysis on Ivermectin cited above was released 3 days ago, peer review typically takes years. It would be wildly unreasonable to expect peer review in three days. If that is a deal breaker for you, fair enough.

I do not know where the meta analysis you quote comes from, or even if it is from a proper scientific journal whose publications are all peer reviewed - but a meta-analysis must also be subject to peer review, and if it isn't it can't be trusted.

 

Peer review doesn't take years. It is the standard practice for reviewing scientific papers.  It refers to the sending of a  submitted paper by the journal editor to at least two scientific experts in the field the paper is about, who act as referees to decide whether the paper is publishable.

 

Turn around time varies, but referees are encouraged to complete the analysis and written reports to the Editor within a few weeks.

 

They determine whether the experiments have been carried out technically correctly, whether the statistical analysis of the results has been performed correctly, whether the conclusions are warranted and whether the results are important enough to be worth publishing. 

 

The referees can ask for more experiments to be done, for example, or more subjects to be included. They can decide the study is so flawed it is not worth publishing.  

 

This is the process by which it is ensured as far as possible that a published work is reliable and scientifically trustworthy. Papers that are not peer reviewed DO NOT COUNT as reliable academic work, and, as you have seen from  the Nature article, can simply be withdrawn because they are completely wrong. You can't just trust anything you read because it sounds " scientific" or the person who says it has a degree in a science. 

 

I understand you have seized on this drug as something you desperately want to believe in, but desperately wanting to believe something does not make it true. Assertions don't count -scientific evidence does.

Edited December 7, 2020 by partington

[mtls2005]

3 hours ago, partington said:

but desperately wanting to believe something does not make it true.

 

Unless one has ruby slippers and clicks their heels three times.

 

Then it's back to Kansas to fall for some con-man selling Band uniforms and instruments.

 

 

 

 

[scorecard]

8 hours ago, partington said:

I do not know where the meta analysis you quote comes from, or even if it is from a proper scientific journal whose publications are all peer reviewed - but a meta-analysis must also be subject to peer review, and if it isn't it can't be trusted.

 

Peer review doesn't take years. It is the standard practice for reviewing scientific papers.  It refers to the sending of a  submitted paper by the journal editor to at least two scientific experts in the field the paper is about, who act as referees to decide whether the paper is publishable.

 

Turn around time varies, but referees are encouraged to complete the analysis and written reports to the Editor within a few weeks.

 

They determine whether the experiments have been carried out technically correctly, whether the statistical analysis of the results has been performed correctly, whether the conclusions are warranted and whether the results are important enough to be worth publishing. 

 

The referees can ask for more experiments to be done, for example, or more subjects to be included. They can decide the study is so flawed it is not worth publishing.  

 

This is the process by which it is ensured as far as possible that a published work is reliable and scientifically trustworthy. Papers that are not peer reviewed DO NOT COUNT as reliable academic work, and, as you have seen from  the Nature article, can simply be withdrawn because they are completely wrong. You can't just trust anything you read because it sounds " scientific" or the person who says it has a degree in a science. 

 

I understand you have seized on this drug as something you desperately want to believe in, but desperately wanting to believe something does not make it true. Assertions don't count -scientific evidence does.

Further, in many cases the profession specific journal involved would be keen to get a response so that they can add a 'completed' item to their next publication, all looking for prestige for their publication. 

 

Therefore they would select/approach peer reviewers who had a reputation for completing a proper/structured review and responding quickly.

 

I've been asked to complete reviews in the past, a few times it came with politely worded deadline for submission date, probably 30 to 60 days depending on the subject/research method/initial findings/literature reviews used, etc. 

[Time to grow]

For those naysayers falsely claiming to know better:

  

On 12/7/2020 at 1:21 AM, partington said:

taking doses shown to be safe in humans would have no effect on the virus, and to reach blood concentrations that would have an effect on the virus would require taking doses that have never been shown to be safe in humans, and that current knowledge suggests could begin to affect biochemical processes essential for health.

 

For those offering their own medical advice in the guise of unqualified warnings

 

On 12/7/2020 at 8:25 AM, mtls2005 said:

Please don't attempt this treatment at home on yourself.

 

And for those that cling to discrediting qualified sources at all cost, when all other arguments fail:

 

On 12/7/2020 at 12:31 PM, mtls2005 said:

The PhD in Neurotoxicology is OK, but he seems to have "gone off the reservation".

 

And even in spite of claims that I am "desperate" for Ivermectin. The attached link is a video of a US Senate hearing published yesterday of Pierre Kory, M.D., Associate Professor of Medicine at St. Luke's Aurora Medical Center, "A drug proving miraculous impact" "Based on mountains of data", "It obliterates the transmission of this virus"....

 

 

[Time to grow]

The peanut gallery suddenly got very quiet.

 

LOL, It takes a man to acknowledge he was wrong. Allow me to demonstrate; I was wrong. Peer review does not typically take years to finalize. Peer review typically takes months to finalize. It can happen in days and occasionally takes years.

 

Scorecard makes a good point;

 

On 12/8/2020 at 1:17 PM, scorecard said:

Therefore they would select/approach peer reviewers who had a reputation for completing a proper/structured review and responding quickly.

 

So this begs the question, why the delay of peer reviewed studies of such time sensitive and critical studies?

 

Some are speculating the reason Ivermectin data is being censored and peer review is not forthcoming is because the vaccines will not qualify for Emergency Use Authorization if there are any other effective treatments available to the public. If Ivermectin is shown to work then the convicted fraudulent drug companies will have to do extensive clinical trials to prove health, safety and efficacy. A process typically lasting years. Meanwhile, thousands are dying needlessly.

 

[internationalism]

On 12/6/2020 at 5:21 PM, Dario said:

No, I never found it. BUT: eight months on I don't think we have to worry so much in Thailand. We could always get a covid-19 insurance for 850 Baht a year.

I have this medicine, made by atlantic laboratoris bangkok. Expiry 07.2022. Lot number 200132. 
As it’s an expensive medicine it’s made in small batches once a year, so it won’t expire. Comes in boxes by 12 pills, 2 blisters by 6.
Since june, when thai post office re-opened, i am sending to relatives in europe. 
I have also cheaper veterinarian 10ml vials 10mg.  That can also be used for inhalation, nebulisation, nasal spray. 

Also chinese 7.5mg for vets, boxes 100. Made by yiweijunsu pian.  
ivermectin is also in an indian made Zentar Plus, contain iver 6mg and albendazol 400mg. Blisters by 1 pill. Difficult, but possible to get in thailand. India put bar on export in the spring. 
i have been taking iver as prophilactic since May, when i was able to get hold of it for a suspected infection with small symptoms 

Edited December 12, 2020 by internationalism

[Time to grow]

3 hours ago, internationalism said:

I have also cheaper veterinarian 10ml vials 10mg.

 

Not to be judgmental, sincerely curious, do you consider veterinary grade Ivermectin taken in the prescribed dose to be safe for humans?

[internationalism]

Yes, if necessary i would take it in the nebuliser, because for people are available only pills. I would take with me to hospital and ask doctor to administer in any way he deems the best. 
For myself and for my family i am sending chinese veterinary pills, because any fluid is not permitted by thai international post. Also glass vials are heavy, bulky and won’t get through borders. 
Thai pharmaceutical pills are too expensive for me, so keep them only as presents for friends, to be used in emergency, not for prophilactic with daily use 

Edited December 12, 2020 by internationalism

[Time to grow]

So, the first peer reviewed publication on any of the new vaccines is out:

 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext

 

Meanwhile, Ivermectin was discovered in 1975 and came into medical use in 1981. Some qualified individuals were demonstrating the effectiveness of Ivermectin with regards to Covid-19 as early as April, 2020. I am not a scientist but it strikes me as odd that the studies on Ivermectin have not yet been peer reviewed. Guess the referees must just be busy...

[Time to grow]

On 12/12/2020 at 8:55 PM, internationalism said:

Yes, if necessary

 

Interesting, Thank you for your perspective. 

 

I am attempting to get human grade Ivermectin just to have in the event that someone might need it but if that fails, and push comes to shove, I will be looking for alternatives as well.

[partington]

10 hours ago, Time to grow said:

So, the first peer reviewed publication on any of the new vaccines is out:

 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext

 

Meanwhile, Ivermectin was discovered in 1975 and came into medical use in 1981. Some qualified individuals were demonstrating the effectiveness of Ivermectin with regards to Covid-19 as early as April, 2020. I am not a scientist but it strikes me as odd that the studies on Ivermectin have not yet been peer reviewed. Guess the referees must just be busy...

 

I guess you mistakenly forgot the recently published peer-reviewed study on Ivermectin, submitted  to journal Plos One end of July, peer reviewed and accepted end of October, published online Nov 11th. 

 

This particular journal states the average time from submission to decision to accept or reject based on peer-reviews is 43 days. Like all papers they may be sent back to the authors for modifications if referees request it, and these modifications [sometimes just rewriting] can also delay acceptance.

 

 As the finding was that Ivermectin made no difference in these patients urgent publication was probably not considered.       

See below for abstract https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7657540/

 

'PLoS One   2020 Nov 11;15(11):e0242184.  doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242184.  eCollection 2020.

 

Lack of efficacy of standard doses of ivermectin in severe COVID-19 patients

Daniel Camprubí  1 , Alex Almuedo-Riera  1 , Helena Martí-Soler  1 , Alex Soriano  2 , Juan Carlos Hurtado  3 , Carme Subirà  1 , Berta Grau-Pujol  1 , Alejandro Krolewiecki  4 , Jose Muñoz  1

 

Abstract

Ivermectin has recently shown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 in-vitro ['In vitro' means in a dish of cells- my addition]. We retrospectively reviewed severe COVID-19 patients receiving standard doses of ivermectin and we compared clinical and microbiological outcomes with a similar group of patients not receiving ivermectin. No differences were found between groups. We recommend the evaluation of high-doses of ivermectin in randomized trials against SARS-CoV-2'

Edited December 14, 2020 by partington

[partington]

11 hours ago, Time to grow said:

I am not a scientist but it strikes me as odd that the studies on Ivermectin have not yet been peer reviewed. Guess the referees must just be busy...

 

Additionally as you are not a scientist you do need to be made aware that many online publications, and specifically the two I pointed out to you in an earlier post as non-peer reviewed, have not been delayed in peer review.

 

The sites they are posted on are not real academic journals and are not in the peer review business. They are just servers which simply allow researchers to upload papers without peer review, and before they have ever been submitted to any real academic journal for scrutiny by scientific referees. In effect they are simply a service which allows researchers to self-publish.

 

The papers on these sites may in fact never ever be submitted by the authors to a real academic journal. When they are submitted to such a journal, it is then that the peer review process starts. So the only delay in peer review for the papers I mentioned is caused by the authors themselves not sending the paper for publication to a peer-reviewing journal.

 

All scientific papers are published with the date at which they were sent to the journal, and the date at which they were accepted, so everyone who reads the papers always knows exactly how long the process took.

Edited December 14, 2020 by partington

[mtls2005]

On 12/10/2020 at 8:07 AM, Time to grow said:

The peanut gallery suddenly got very quiet.

 

Peanut allergy here.

 

Seriously, this one's dead, so it requires little additional response.

 

Of course the Fox News video of the Senate hearing is chaired by Ron Johnson. Shocker

 

I bet the mypillowguy, Mike Lindell's oleander extract is at least safe? OK, it's highly toxic, so scratch that "cure".

 

 

 

 

On 12/9/2020 at 6:56 AM, Time to grow said:

The attached link is a video of a US Senate hearing published yesterday of Pierre Kory, M.D., Associate Professor of Medicine at St. Luke's Aurora Medical Center, "A drug proving miraculous impact" "Based on mountains of data", "It obliterates the transmission of this virus"....

 

Miraculous? Mountains of data? Obliterates transmission? Hyperbole much?

 

No evidence ivermectin is a miracle drug against COVID-19

 

CLAIM: The antiparasitic drug ivermectin “has a miraculous effectiveness that obliterates” the transmission of COVID-19 and will prevent people from getting sick.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. There’s no evidence ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19.

THE FACTS: During a Senate hearing Tuesday, a group of doctors touted alternative COVID-19 treatments, including ivermectin and the anti-malaria medication hydroxychloroquine. Medical experts have cautioned against using either of those drugs to treat COVID-19. Studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine has no benefit against the coronavirus and can have serious side effects. No evidence has been shown to prove that ivermectin works against COVID-19.

 

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9768999400

 

 

 

 

 

On 12/10/2020 at 8:07 AM, Time to grow said:

Some are speculating the reason Ivermectin data is being censored and peer review is not forthcoming is because the vaccines will not qualify for Emergency Use Authorization if there are any other effective treatments available to the public. If Ivermectin is shown to work then the convicted fraudulent drug companies will have to do extensive clinical trials to prove health, safety and efficacy.

 

Ok, now you've moved on to the Conspiracy Theory.

 

"Some are speculating..." Some as in You?

 

 

Honestly I'm amazed these sorts of threads are allowed here.

 

 

Ivermectin:

 

This medication is used to treat certain parasitic roundworm infections. Curing parasitic infections helps to improve your quality of life. In people with weakened defense (immune) systems, curing roundworm infections can reduce the risk of developing a severe or life-threatening infection. Ivermectin belongs to a class of drugs known as antihelmintics. It works by paralyzing and killing parasites.

 

https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1122/ivermectin-oral/details

 

 

And sending Chinese veterinarian medicines to family and friends, is well, a bit crazy. SMDH.

 

 

 

 

[internationalism]

2 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

And sending Chinese veterinarian medicines to family and friends, is well, a bit crazy. SMDH.

On 2 occasions they were used by doctors at hospital. Together with several other medicines available at hand - tamiflu, chloroquine. They have worked, improvement within 2 days

[Time to grow]

5 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1122/ivermectin-oral/details

 

 

Two words, "Peer Reviewed" and this is not even a study. As you previously claimed nothing else matters.

[Time to grow]

6 hours ago, partington said:

Additionally as you are not a scientist you do need to be made aware

 

No, I think I have heard enough condescending lecturing from you. You have expended any credibility you might have once had.

 

Like it or not, the experts have spoken and you weren't one of them.

[onebir]

6 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

No evidence has been shown to prove that ivermectin works against COVID-19.

This is simply not true*. There's some evidence, eg at least two RCTs in non-peer-reviewed publications (the horror). It's not particularly good evidence. But given the safety profile & low cost of say a weekly dose of ivermectin, I'd have thought this would motivate a much larger scale investigation of its efficacy as a prophylactic. Rolling out rather hastily-developed vaccines doesn't seem like a  particularly good idea either?

 

*and if fact checking continues in this vein, it's never going to have much credibility. Unless perhaps conflicting evidence is totally suppressed....

[Time to grow]

1 hour ago, onebir said:

I'd have thought this would motivate a much larger scale investigation of its efficacy as a prophylactic.

 

It's coming, slowly but surely. Now that some of the experimental vaccines have already received Emergency Use Authorization.

 

[Time to grow]

Another discussion regarding some of the recent studies of Ivermectin as a treatment or prophylactic against Covid-19.

 

 

[Time to grow]

For those still in denial that Ivermectin is a viable and likely superior prophylactic to experimental vaccines.

 

 

[SymS]

On 12/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, internationalism said:

I have this medicine, made by atlantic laboratoris bangkok. Expiry 07.2022. Lot number 200132. 
As it’s an expensive medicine it’s made in small batches once a year, so it won’t expire. Comes in boxes by 12 pills, 2 blisters by 6.

It should not be expensive. India is providing COVID-19 home care kits for around 2 dollars with Ivermectin and other medicines.

https://twitter.com/JH39267256/status/1338140573098717186/photo/1

[internationalism]

1 hour ago, SymS said:

It should not be expensive. India is providing COVID-19 home care kits for around 2 dollars with Ivermectin and other medicines.

https://twitter.com/JH39267256/status/1338140573098717186/photo/1

Thailand is an importer of this medicine, probably from India. There are only 6 laboratories in the world able to make it.

India is not exporting now.

There are different doses, from 3 to 12mg, so different prices. Price depends also on size of packaging and size of order. Governments are able to buy cheap.

Treatment of covid might mean tens of pills. Prophylactic means several pills per weak, for months. I used to take daily, for many months. Will do it again same, because of the second wave coming to Bangkok. Costs do add up, if there are several people in the family, who are in a risk group.

 

[potters]

On 12/14/2020 at 9:36 AM, partington said:

 

Additionally as you are not a scientist you do need to be made aware that many online publications, and specifically the two I pointed out to you in an earlier post as non-peer reviewed, have not been delayed in peer review.

 

The sites they are posted on are not real academic journals and are not in the peer review business. They are just servers which simply allow researchers to upload papers without peer review, and before they have ever been submitted to any real academic journal for scrutiny by scientific referees. In effect they are simply a service which allows researchers to self-publish.

 

The papers on these sites may in fact never ever be submitted by the authors to a real academic journal. When they are submitted to such a journal, it is then that the peer review process starts. So the only delay in peer review for the papers I mentioned is caused by the authors themselves not sending the paper for publication to a peer-reviewing journal.

 

All scientific papers are published with the date at which they were sent to the journal, and the date at which they were accepted, so everyone who reads the papers always knows exactly how long the process took.

Are you a scientist?