Ivermectin: Yes, No or Maybe

[mtls2005]

It seems like this ivermectin craziness is part scam, part snake oil and part disinformation. Add in a confused, frightened segment of the public to whom conspiracy theories appeal and voila: ivermectineers are born as a cult. In this case there's a sucker born more often.

 

I fully support people's ability to self-prescribe medicines as they see fit. I'm not crazy that they then create a shortage of medicine needed to fight off parasites. Ya know, the Nobel Prize thing. Just keep your Kool Aid to yourself and stop trying to convert others to your crazy cult.

 

 

 

How 'America's Frontline Doctors' Sold Access to Bogus COVID-19 Treatments—and Left Patients in the Lurch

 

https://time.com/6092368/americas-frontline-doctors-covid-19-misinformation/

 

 

Fact check: Ivermectin is not a proven treatment for COVID-19

 

"Less than a hour after taking Ivermectin paste per my body weight I was mostly symptom free," reads an Aug. 8 testimonial on Facebook. "Was in bad shape until then!"

 

The post, which includes a photo of an apple-flavored paste for treating parasites in horses, only accumulated about 200 shares within three days. But similar posts touting ivermectin have been widely shared across platforms, and farm supply stores across the country are running low on anti-parasitics for horses, cows and pigs.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/08/13/fact-check-ivermectin-not-proven-covid-19-treatment/5566216001/

 

 

The shaky science behind ivermectin as a COVID-19 cure

 

Among the earliest research included a study published online in April last year that showed how high ivermectin doses prevented the replication of SARS-COV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, in test tubes. While the researchers didn’t test the drug for treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans or animals, the study made headlines and piqued the general public’s interest in ivermectin. The FDA quickly issued a warning against its use to cure COVID-19. Two letters sent to the journal’s editor expressed concerns about the high ivermectin dose used in the experiments.

 

Around the same time, a controversial paper which had not yet been peer reviewed and was later retracted entirely, claimed large reduction in mortality among COVID-19 patients given ivermectin. Although the study didn’t make the cut for publication in a scientific journal, it helped popularize ivermectin in Latin America.

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-shaky-science-behind-ivermectin-as-a-covid-19-cure

 

 

Ivermectin: Australian regulator bans drug as Covid treatment after sharp rise in prescriptions

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/10/australian-drug-regulator-bans-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-after-sharp-rise-in-prescriptions

 

 

 

Ivermectin poison control calls triple in Washington, despite multiple warnings against use for COVID treatment

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/ivermectin-poison-control-calls-triple-in-washington-despite-multiple-warnings-against-use-for-covid-19-treatment/

[JetsetBkk]

6 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The article claimed that treatment of the infected with Ivermectin stopped infections from spreading.

 

Treatment of the infected has nothing to do with new cases.

 

Let’s say you get a positive PCR test and get hospitalized. Whether or not you are given Ivermectin, you are not going to infect anyone else. Whether IVM reduces your hospital stay by a few days is irrelevant to the national infection rate.

I quite agree that no matter what treatment you take, you don't stop your ability to pass on the virus. Whether you are vaccinated or not, the viral load in your body is similar. (https://bit.ly/3BYNLKs), so being hospitalised keeps you out of the community and, hopefully, you don't pass on the virus.

 

Vaccination stops you suffering the effects of the virus but may also produce unwanted side effects such as Myocarditis and Pericarditis (https://bit.ly/3tz4EbR).

 

And what about people who have already had and recovered from the virus? There are many reports that say that those people are more protected from getting other variants than vaccinated people. (https://bit.ly/3k0sZ6Y) and should get exemption from vaccination (https://bit.ly/3l7K6mQ).

 

But, of course, there are also plenty of reports that say "but get the vaccine anyway". 

[placeholder]

Here is a very informative article on the state of research into the effectiveness of Ivermectin:

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22663127/ivermectin-covid-treatments-vaccines-evidence

It doesn't contain much good news for proponents. On the other hand, it does point out that characterizing Ivermectin as medicine for horses is extremely misleading, if not downright false. It has a long and extraordinary history as a treatment for debilitating parasite infections in humans.

[Danderman123]

On 9/11/2021 at 2:20 PM, JetsetBkk said:

I quite agree that no matter what treatment you take, you don't stop your ability to pass on the virus. Whether you are vaccinated or not, the viral load in your body is similar. (https://bit.ly/3BYNLKs), so being hospitalised keeps you out of the community and, hopefully, you don't pass on the virus.

 

Vaccination stops you suffering the effects of the virus but may also produce unwanted side effects such as Myocarditis and Pericarditis (https://bit.ly/3tz4EbR).

 

And what about people who have already had and recovered from the virus? There are many reports that say that those people are more protected from getting other variants than vaccinated people. (https://bit.ly/3k0sZ6Y) and should get exemption from vaccination (https://bit.ly/3l7K6mQ).

 

But, of course, there are also plenty of reports that say "but get the vaccine anyway". 

Your post is misleading.

 

The vaccine prevents infection in 80% or so vaccinated individuals. In that are case where someone has a breakthrough infection, then their viral load could be as high as a non-vaccinated person, but for a shorter time.

[Danderman123]

41 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Here is a very informative article on the state of research into the effectiveness of Ivermectin:

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22663127/ivermectin-covid-treatments-vaccines-evidence

It doesn't contain much good news for proponents. On the other hand, it does point out that characterizing Ivermectin as medicine for horses is extremely misleading, if not downright false. It has a long and extraordinary history as a treatment for debilitating parasite infections in humans.

The talk about Ivermectin for horses is because morons are using the horse variety to treat Covid.

[JetsetBkk]

3 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Your post is misleading.

 

The vaccine prevents infection in 80% or so vaccinated individuals. In that are case where someone has a breakthrough infection, then their viral load could be as high as a non-vaccinated person, but for a shorter time.

Thanks. I stand corrected.

[Danderman123]

A question for the ivermectin cultists: what is your opinion on hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for Covid?

[Danderman123]

Five Oregonians hospitalized due to misuse of ivermectin for COVID-19

 

The Oregon Poison Center  has managed 25 cases involving Oregonians intentionally misusing ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 between Aug. 1 and Sept. 14. Five of those cases involved hospitalization, and two people were so severely ill that they had to be admitted to an intensive care unit. 

[transam]

10 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Five Oregonians hospitalized due to misuse of ivermectin for COVID-19

 

The Oregon Poison Center  has managed 25 cases involving Oregonians intentionally misusing ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 between Aug. 1 and Sept. 14. Five of those cases involved hospitalization, and two people were so severely ill that they had to be admitted to an intensive care unit. 

......with the  trots....????

[Scott]

Post and replies to a post with an unapproved source has been removed.

 

[placeholder]

Here is another excellent article examining the alleged "meta-analysis" carried by anonymous parties who claim to be scientists. It's the motherlode for lots of ivermectin fans

 

The anonymous meta-analysis that’s convincing people to use ivermectin
What happens when you leave the analysis out of a meta-analysis?
If you've looked into the controversy regarding the use of ivermectin for treating COVID-19, chances are you've come across links to a site called c19ivermectin.com (or one of its many relatives) that claims to host a regularly updated aggregation of all the latest studies into a single meta-analysis of the effects of the drug. We here at Ars have been asked—by email, in the comments, and via our feedback form—to check out c19ivermectin.com, which purports to provide evidence ivermectin is an effective therapy...

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/the-anonymous-meta-analysis-thats-convincing-people-to-use-ivermectin/

[sezze]

I still think , why is this still a issue? Are people allowed to take Iver.. ? yes , but only for certain worms inside . OK , what is there for covid ? vaccination . Anything else might work or not , we dont know yet . What do you want to know more ? Vaccinations work , ivermectine , might work but i think chances are pretty small since we are fighting a virus and not a worm , not the same at all .

Get vaccinated , for viral disease , it is really the only way out .

[Jeffr2]

5 hours ago, sezze said:

I still think , why is this still a issue? Are people allowed to take Iver.. ? yes , but only for certain worms inside . OK , what is there for covid ? vaccination . Anything else might work or not , we dont know yet . What do you want to know more ? Vaccinations work , ivermectine , might work but i think chances are pretty small since we are fighting a virus and not a worm , not the same at all .

Get vaccinated , for viral disease , it is really the only way out .

Two big problems here. One is the fake news right wing media outlets are suggesting this drug as a covid medication. Kinda started with the nutter Rogan, but was also pushed by Tucker Carlson.

 

Second i because most doctors won't give prescriptions for this, many are going to places that sell the one given to animals. Which is a bit different.

 

Some not very smart people out there.

[Scott]

Viruses are never cured by medicine.  It really takes a vaccine to conquer a virus.  Even viruses aren't 100% effective.  Antivirals can be helpful, but they are not the silver bullet that many are looking for.  

 

It would be more effective if it were left to the scientists to do the studies about what medication is helpful, when it is helpful and what dosages work best.  I don't think the search for re-purposed drugs needs a politically-motivated cheer-leading squad. 

 

[JetsetBkk]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

I don't think the search for re-purposed drugs needs a politically-motivated cheer-leading squad. 

"Re-purposed drugs" can be very lucrative.

 

In the late 60's I worked at May and Baker, Dagenham, for 6 months as the "Industrial Training Period" part of my "thick sandwich" college course - 6 months college, 6 months work. Part of my job, first thing every day, was to go through the May and Baker chemical book which listed all the chemicals they held in their stores. I had to select the next 5 items from this very thick book, put varying amounts either by volume or weight into specific containers that were labelled with the various testing departments at May and Baker. These chemicals were then tested to see what effect they had on various animals. I don't recall exactly how many chemicals, what animals, or how much was used - it was a long time ago.

 

But the reason I had to do this was because May and Baker made a small fortune out of one chemical which they discovered acted as an anti-bacterial agent. I was told at the time that it was a pure fluke that they discovered this property and so that was the reason they were testing every single chemical in their stores.

 

According to Wikipedia, the drug (sulfanilamide) was used to cure Winston Churchill's pneumonia in 1942, and May and Baker had been testing chemicals since at least 1937. So maybe the book I was using was the same one another junior employee used 30 years previously.

 

So, be sceptical about Ivermectin if you want. I'll judge it by results. It's getting the accurate results that is the problem. 

 

[placeholder]

33 minutes ago, JetsetBkk said:

"Re-purposed drugs" can be very lucrative.

 

In the late 60's I worked at May and Baker, Dagenham, for 6 months as the "Industrial Training Period" part of my "thick sandwich" college course - 6 months college, 6 months work. Part of my job, first thing every day, was to go through the May and Baker chemical book which listed all the chemicals they held in their stores. I had to select the next 5 items from this very thick book, put varying amounts either by volume or weight into specific containers that were labelled with the various testing departments at May and Baker. These chemicals were then tested to see what effect they had on various animals. I don't recall exactly how many chemicals, what animals, or how much was used - it was a long time ago.

 

But the reason I had to do this was because May and Baker made a small fortune out of one chemical which they discovered acted as an anti-bacterial agent. I was told at the time that it was a pure fluke that they discovered this property and so that was the reason they were testing every single chemical in their stores.

 

According to Wikipedia, the drug (sulfanilamide) was used to cure Winston Churchill's pneumonia in 1942, and May and Baker had been testing chemicals since at least 1937. So maybe the book I was using was the same one another junior employee used 30 years previously.

 

So, be sceptical about Ivermectin if you want. I'll judge it by results. It's getting the accurate results that is the problem. 

 

So far, you've been offering very dubious evidence. Anyone with a reasonable degree of acquaintance with the issue should know that the Journal of International Therapeutics ultimately rejected the so called "meta -analysis" of Ivermectin studies even though it was nothing of the sort.

[Jeffr2]

3 hours ago, JetsetBkk said:

"Re-purposed drugs" can be very lucrative.

 

In the late 60's I worked at May and Baker, Dagenham, for 6 months as the "Industrial Training Period" part of my "thick sandwich" college course - 6 months college, 6 months work. Part of my job, first thing every day, was to go through the May and Baker chemical book which listed all the chemicals they held in their stores. I had to select the next 5 items from this very thick book, put varying amounts either by volume or weight into specific containers that were labelled with the various testing departments at May and Baker. These chemicals were then tested to see what effect they had on various animals. I don't recall exactly how many chemicals, what animals, or how much was used - it was a long time ago.

 

But the reason I had to do this was because May and Baker made a small fortune out of one chemical which they discovered acted as an anti-bacterial agent. I was told at the time that it was a pure fluke that they discovered this property and so that was the reason they were testing every single chemical in their stores.

 

According to Wikipedia, the drug (sulfanilamide) was used to cure Winston Churchill's pneumonia in 1942, and May and Baker had been testing chemicals since at least 1937. So maybe the book I was using was the same one another junior employee used 30 years previously.

 

So, be sceptical about Ivermectin if you want. I'll judge it by results. It's getting the accurate results that is the problem. 

 

Ummm...all credible scientists are sceptical about this drug. It's not getting accurate results and many are ending up in the hospital due to poisoning.

 

Time for this topic to be closed. It's doing no one any good.

[JetsetBkk]

17 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Ummm...all credible scientists are sceptical about this drug. It's not getting accurate results and many are ending up in the hospital due to poisoning.

 

Time for this topic to be closed. It's doing no one any good.

Ah! Cancel culture at its best.
 

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

So far, you've been offering very dubious evidence. Anyone with a reasonable degree of acquaintance with the issue should know that the Journal of International Therapeutics ultimately rejected the so called "meta -analysis" of Ivermectin studies even though it was nothing of the sort.

Are you referring to the "American Journal of Therapeutics" article? This one:

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx

 

Because, in the "Ivermectin, A Reanalysis of the Data" article, it states that the "summary point estimates were largely unaffected" after removing the results of the study by Elgazzar et al. This one:

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/10000/Ivermectin,_A_Reanalysis_of_the_Data.9.aspx

 

Maybe there's another "Journal of Therapeutics" and I'm looking at the wrong one.

 

[placeholder]

27 minutes ago, JetsetBkk said:

Ah! Cancel culture at its best.
 

Are you referring to the "American Journal of Therapeutics" article? This one:

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx

 

Because, in the "Ivermectin, A Reanalysis of the Data" article, it states that the "summary point estimates were largely unaffected" after removing the results of the study by Elgazzar et al. This one:

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/10000/Ivermectin,_A_Reanalysis_of_the_Data.9.aspx

 

Maybe there's another "Journal of Therapeutics" and I'm looking at the wrong one.

 

My mistake. Actually,  Actually, it was rejected by Frontiers in Pharmacology after being provisionally posted before ultimately being rejected.

 

"The FLCCC’s paper (also posted on the organization’s website) reviewed epidemiological and clinical evidence on ivermectin’s use in people infected with and exposed to SARS-CoV-2. In it, the authors argued that health agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) should update their recommendations to include the drug.After being contacted by The Scientist, the journal posted a statement from Frontiers’s chief executive editor, Frederick Fenter, saying that “Frontiers takes no position on the efficacy of ivermectin as a treatment of patients with COVID-19, however, we do take a very firm stance against unbalanced or unsupported scientific conclusions.”

During review of the article in what the journal refers to as “the provisional acceptance phase,” Fenter says in the statement, members of Frontiers’s research integrity team identified “a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance, and at times, without the use of control groups.”

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes-controversial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505

 

 

 

 

[HeijoshinCool]

On 9/5/2021 at 12:38 PM, Meat Pie 47 said:

Well doctors must be stupid I watched a program on TV where doctors commented about

Ivermectin and they all agreed "if you are a horse or pig take Ivermectin"

.

Pigs?

 

Then they should offer it at any of the many buffets in San Antonio, Texas.

[Scott]

Since this has degenerated into trolling and inflammatory remarks and since there is no new credible data on the matter, this is...

 

//CLOSED//