The Ivermectin discussion

Johnboy1951

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Answer the two questions I asked you or do not bother quoting me and attempting to divert.

I am not going to play.

is_that_so wrote: »

I've linked to a pilot study above. Having things tested with suitable protocols and approved as a result is the appropriate way to do it. That may happen with invermectin, it may not.

So no answers.

OK.

Bye!

Johnboy1951

PhoenixParker wrote: »

There has been an absence of funding because it's an off patent medication and because everyone got burned by HCQ.

The UK are including it in one of their trials now. The principle trial I think. It's vulnerable 50+ year olds with a +ve test and mild symptoms.

There are 2 other big trials ongoing now too.

I have heard that the WHO are now involved with one of the trials in the UK.
They are expected to have results, sufficient to make a preliminary decision, next month hopefully.

Have you heard/read anything similar?

EDIT: https://www.livemint.com/science/health/oxford-university-plans-trials-of-wonder-drug-ivermectin-that-may-reduce-covid-deaths-11611553213905.html

latency89

Deleted User wrote: »

Ive a litre of this in the press....


Id chance it anyway,took worse previously

I've a few chubes of the paste, works great as a moisturiser for eczema

Piollaire

This is a classic example of a corporation putting its business interests above public health. Merck is known as MSD in Ireland and should be investigated for its suppression of ivermectin. Its executives should be brought before the Joint Committee on Health.

AppleMuncher

is_that_so wrote: »

He calls himself Doctor and talks medical topics but you really have to dig down into his biography to find he's a nurse. Would he be so authoritative if he was Nurse John? You should be going looking for ivermectin studies. There are lots of non-technical sources on that and other research.

The Chief science officer of the FDA is a nurse, does that mean we should ignore that organization?

AppleMuncher

odyssey06 wrote: »

Faster viral clearance potential but doesn't look like a magic bullet...

A 5-day course of ivermectin treatment showed faster SARS-CoV-2 virus clearance compared to the placebo arm (9 vs.13 days; P = 0.02).

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)32506-6/fulltext

With the greatest of respect, It doesn’t always make sense to just quote one study. Some studies are flawed, and you really have to dig into the details of each individual study, which takes time and a particular amount of expertise and practice. However, I thoroughly recommend it, it is amazing him much ‘bad’ research gets published. Have a look at the data collected here: https://c19ivermectin.com/

AppleMuncher

I take your point, but Merck are not the ultimate arbiter of scientific truth are they? (I don't mean that in the condescending tone that it sounds). They are a commercial entity with their own prerogatives, namely making money for shareholders etc And this is quite legitimate and I have no issue with it. Also, your logic is somewhat flawed vis. Merck's possible profits from Ivermectin;it is off patent so other Pharmaceutical companies (unlikely) and generic manufacturers (who are already churning it out in vast quantities) can make it and therefore profit off of it, this to the possible detriment of Merck. So why would Merck promote a generic medicine, especially if they are investing heavily in Patented treatments? Why would Merck rock the boat and annoy other companies who are heavily invested in producing vaccines? Lastly, vaccines are far more profitable long term as 100% of people require them, probably less than 5%-10% of the population would potentially even 'need' Ivermectin (although if use as a prophylactic this could rise significantly). In other words were Ivermectin approved as a treatment Merck would not be the primary beneficiary. if you genuinely want to learn more about actual Ivermectin studies, please see the following link: https://c19ivermectin.com

Read the results, read the papers, convince yourself that it has no effect. And absolutely feel free to criticize these findings, I don't simply accept any research paper that's published until I read it several times, think about how the potential confounding factors etc. Even then I'm cautious, however the effects sizes seen suggest it is a worthwhile treatment. Finally, arguments against it's use in humans are simply not true, as a quick google will attest. Thank you.

Miike

AppleMuncher wrote: »

I take your point, but Merck are not the ultimate arbiter of scientific truth are they? (I don't mean that in the condescending tone that it sounds). They are a commercial entity with their own prerogatives, namely making money for shareholders etc And this is quite legitimate and I have no issue with it. Also, your logic is somewhat flawed vis. Merck's possible profits from Ivermectin;it is off patent so other Pharmaceutical companies (unlikely) and generic manufacturers (who are already churning it out in vast quantities) can make it and therefore profit off of it, this to the possible detriment of Merck. So why would Merck promote a generic medicine, especially if they are investing heavily in Patented treatments? Why would Merck rock the boat and annoy other companies who are heavily invested in producing vaccines? Lastly, vaccines are far more profitable long term as 100% of people require them, probably less than 5%-10% of the population would potentially even 'need' Ivermectin (although if use as a prophylactic this could rise significantly). In other words were Ivermectin approved as a treatment Merck would not be the primary beneficiary. if you genuinely want to learn more about actual Ivermectin studies, please see the following link: https://c19ivermectin.com

Read the results, read the papers, convince yourself that it has no effect. And absolutely feel free to criticize these findings, I don't simply accept any research paper that's published until I read it several times, think about how the potential confounding factors etc. Even then I'm cautious, however the effects sizes seen suggest it is a worthwhile treatment. Finally, arguments against it's use in humans are simply not true, as a quick google will attest. Thank you.

And what comments do you have to make on the findings that for antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 is achieved at levels toxic to humans?

Hypochlorite based solutions will kill SARS-CoV-2 too, but sadly will also kill the host.

Johnboy1951

Miike wrote: »

And what comments do you have to make on the findings that for antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 is achieved at levels toxic to humans?

Hypochlorite based solutions will kill SARS-CoV-2 too, but sadly will also kill the host.

Could you link to those specific findings please, I would like to read it?

Miike

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Could you link to those specific findings please, I would like to read it?

Heres 2 I have bookmarked that touch on the subject, you can read the citations used to find studies advancing on their assertions.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13102818.2020.1775118


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7253113/

Caly et al.10 report a 5,000-fold reduction in SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels, compared with those in controls, after infected Vero/hSLAM cells were incubated for 48 hours with 5 μM ivermectin. The ivermectin IC50 for the virus was calculated at approximately 2.5 μM. These concentrations are the equivalent of 4,370 and 2,190 ng/mL, respectively, notably 50- to 100-fold the peak concentration (Cmax) achieved in plasma after the single dose of 200 μg/kg (14 mg in a 70-kg adult) commonly used for the control of onchocerchiasis.12 Pharmacokinetic studies in healthy volunteers have suggested that single doses up to 120 mg of ivermectin can be safe and well tolerated.13 However, even with this dose, which is 10-fold greater than those approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, the Cmax values reported were ∼250 ng/mL,13 one order of magnitude lower than effective in vitro concentrations against SARS-CoV-2.

AppleMuncher

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate your interest.

Some comments:
Well, firstly the research you are referring to, as I understand it, the paper refers to in vitro research, right?
I assume you are referring to the following:

"The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro"
Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.antiviral.2020.104787

So Ivermectin as an anti-viral used on human cell lines placed in a test tube, a very specific scenario. And yes, you are quite correct, to see the effects described in this paper you would have to give very large doses to humans, which would be an overdose. However, humans are not simple cell lines in test tubes, i.e. human biology is enormously complex and effects and doses used in vitro cannot always be transcribed or translated to humans. Also there is no suggestion that to see any positive effect one would have to treat with such large doses. They could have used other doses and generate a dose response curve if they wished, for example, thereby showing effects at lower doses.

Also, the doses used were chosen, I assume, to give a reasonable chance of seeing a rapid effect in a laboratory environment, whereas treatment of humans may occur at much lower doses over several days, and treatment rounds (again you cannot simply equate cells in a test tube with a person battling covid-19, damage is caused not just by viral replication but also through many other well described mechanisms, cytokine storm etc.). So technically you are correct, if Ivermectin were dosed at the level used in this paper it would surely kill people.

So a more pertinent question may be: "Does Ivermectin show any benefit as a treatment for Covid-19 (the illness or pathophysiology) that occurs in humans at reasonable doses?

So one method to determine the dose need to see positive effects against a particular illness, COVID-19, for example, would be by conducting a double blind randomized placebo-controlled trial in humans (you often hear this referred to as "The Gold Standard").

For example, if you read the following paper:
"Ivermectin as a potential treatment for mild to moderate COVID-19 – A double blind randomized placebo-controlled trial"

Look at the section on dose used:

"Intervention Patients in the intervention arm were given ivermectin 12 mg on day 1 and day 2 of admission. Patients in the placebo arm were given identical looking placebo tablets."

Source: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.05.21249310v1

So an effect was seen at a dose not known to be toxic.

Now an obvious criticism of this particular paper is that it is on a pre-print server and has not been peer reviewed, accepted for publication etc. etc. and I accept that, however there are numerous studies, PCT trials etc in the literature.

Again the link here: https://ivmmeta.com
Collates a lot of data from the ever increasing number of trials, it is not infallible, however a meta analysis shows convincing evidence of Ivermectin's effectiveness.

Summary:
•100% of the 42 studies to date report positive effects. Random effects meta-analysis for early treatment and pooled effects shows a reduction of 83%, RR 0.17 [0.11-0.28]. Prophylactic use shows a reduction of 89%, RR 0.11 [0.05-0.23]. Mortality results show 75% lower mortality, RR 0.25 [0.14-0.44] for all treatment delays, and 86% lower, RR 0.14 [0.03-0.62] for early treatment.

•100% of the 21 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) report positive effects, with an estimated reduction of 70%, RR 0.30 [0.19-0.49].

•The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 42 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 4 trillion (p = 0.00000000000023).

Miike

AppleMuncher wrote: »

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate your interest.

Some comments:
Well, firstly the research you are referring to, as I understand it, the paper refers to in vitro research, right?
I assume you are referring to the following:

"The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro"
Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.antiviral.2020.104787

So Ivermectin as an anti-viral used on human cell lines placed in a test tube, a very specific scenario. And yes, you are quite correct, to see the effects described in this paper you would have to give very large doses to humans, which would be an overdose. However, humans are not simple cell lines in test tubes, i.e. human biology is enormously complex and effects and doses used in vitro cannot always be transcribed or translated to humans. Also there is no suggestion that to see any positive effect one would have to treat with such large doses. They could have used other doses and generate a dose response curve if they wished, for example, thereby showing effects at lower doses.

Also, the doses used were chosen, I assume, to give a reasonable chance of seeing a rapid effect in a laboratory environment, whereas treatment of humans may occur at much lower doses over several days, and treatment rounds (again you cannot simply equate cells in a test tube with a person battling covid-19, damage is caused not just by viral replication but also through many other well described mechanisms, cytokine storm etc.). So technically you are correct, if Ivermectin were dosed at the level used in this paper it would surely kill people.

So a more pertinent question may be: "Does Ivermectin show any benefit as a treatment for Covid-19 (the illness or pathophysiology) that occurs in humans at reasonable doses?

So one method to determine the dose need to see positive effects against a particular illness, COVID-19, for example, would be by conducting a double blind randomized placebo-controlled trial in humans (you often hear this referred to as "The Gold Standard").

For example, if you read the following paper:
"Ivermectin as a potential treatment for mild to moderate COVID-19 – A double blind randomized placebo-controlled trial"

Look at the section on dose used:

"Intervention Patients in the intervention arm were given ivermectin 12 mg on day 1 and day 2 of admission. Patients in the placebo arm were given identical looking placebo tablets."

Source: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.05.21249310v1

So an effect was seen at a dose not known to be toxic.

Now an obvious criticism of this particular paper is that it is on a pre-print server and has not been peer reviewed, accepted for publication etc. etc. and I accept that, however there are numerous studies, PCT trials etc in the literature.

Again the link here: https://ivmmeta.com
Collates a lot of data from the ever increasing number of trials, it is not infallible, however a meta analysis shows convincing evidence of Ivermectin's effectiveness.

Summary:
•100% of the 42 studies to date report positive effects. Random effects meta-analysis for early treatment and pooled effects shows a reduction of 83%, RR 0.17 [0.11-0.28]. Prophylactic use shows a reduction of 89%, RR 0.11 [0.05-0.23]. Mortality results show 75% lower mortality, RR 0.25 [0.14-0.44] for all treatment delays, and 86% lower, RR 0.14 [0.03-0.62] for early treatment.

•100% of the 21 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) report positive effects, with an estimated reduction of 70%, RR 0.30 [0.19-0.49].

•The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 42 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 4 trillion (p = 0.00000000000023).

The one study (preprint) you quoted in your long winded answer was a sample size of 112 where n=54 in the intervention arm. Are we going to ignore rigor? Imagine a world where vaccines were recommended based on a study of a total of 112 trial participants.


The curated website you keep quoting I have my doubt about. If their quoted stats are accurate why aren't they publishing a peer reviewed systematic review or meta analysis? a large number of studies they curate and publish are highly criticized for their rigor. If you're going to blindly follow an academic curation, you need to be highly critical of their methodology.

Johnboy1951

So the only study you quoted is one carried out in a lab and using the equivalent of a toxic dose for humans.

Are there any studies you can link to that are carried out in a manner acceptable for peer review, that have shown Ivermectin to be ineffective?

In the absence of such a study or studies, the best we have at this time is a multitude of 'not so good' studies which all appear to show efficacy.

Quite the conundrum.

AppleMuncher

Miike wrote: »

The one study (preprint) you quoted in your long winded answer was a sample size of 112 where n=54 in the intervention arm. Are we going to ignore rigor? Imagine a world where vaccines were recommended based on a study of a total of 112 trial participants.


The curated website you keep quoting I have my doubt about. If their quoted stats are accurate why aren't they publishing a peer reviewed systematic review or meta analysis? a large number of studies they curate and publish are highly criticized for their rigor. If you're going to blindly follow an academic curation, you need to be highly critical of their methodology.

Thanks again for your comments. Great to know I’m long winded, I’m usually accused of being terse.

The one study I quoted? Did you look at the outcome of that trial, I.e decreased mortality? Do you deem it significant, important? Who decides? Me, you? Why don’t you publish a peer reviewed, systematic review? Why didn’t you refer to the papers from that site that were peer reviewed? Why don’t you learn some more about basic biology. Why is the sky blue? Who shot JFK? If we are going to have an unlimited Why? and What-if question session we will be here till doomsday. Have you read all the papers published on Ivermectin, numbers in the thousands BTW, because I certainly haven’t.

Incidentally, I have no regard for that website, either positive or negative. I’m merely highlighting it if you are interested in the studies. So I don’t rate it, depend on it, endorse it. Use it, ignore it I don’t care. It conveniently contains links to papers, that’s all.

I’m not endorsing that particular study, in fact I highlighted the fact that it has not been peer reviewed etc. I was using it as a counterpoint to your claim that Ivermectin is only effective at overdoses, so I don’t know what the **** your talking about.

Deeper Blue

Surely if Ivermectin was any good we'd have gotten data to confirm that by now? It was first mooted as a potential treatment at least 9 months ago at this stage.

Miike

Deeper Blue wrote: »

Surely if Ivermectin was any good we'd have gotten data to confirm that by now? It was first mooted as a potential treatment at least 9 months ago at this stage.

A certain cohort firmly believe this is some kind of "cover up by big pharma". When you engage in a civil discussion with those people, they throw the baby out with the water.

Johnboy1951

Deeper Blue wrote: »

Surely if Ivermectin was any good we'd have gotten data to confirm that by now? It was first mooted as a potential treatment at least 9 months ago at this stage.

There were no trials carried out as funding was not available, I believe.
I understand a properly funded trial is being (to be) carried out in the UK this year.
If this happens it wll be the first properly funded, double blind, randomised etc etc

Mike wrote:

A certain cohort firmly believe this is some kind of "cover up by big pharma".

I am not so sure about that cohort, but certainly there are those who will question the results of any trial funded by 'big pharma'.
That is hardly a surprising attitude for anyone to take.

The Continental Op

Why carry out a trail in the UK where there is no clearance for using Ivermectin when a trail could be carried out in Africa where Ivermectin has been prescribed for years?

Piollaire

Deeper Blue wrote: »

Surely if Ivermectin was any good we'd have gotten data to confirm that by now? It was first mooted as a potential treatment at least 9 months ago at this stage.

In an ideal world that would be true but you need to unplug yourself from the matrix where you think everyone is operating for the common good. Merck/MSD will eventually be outed for their sharp business practice.

speckle

Glad to see this thread still going...what some people forget is that at the top end vaccines are maybe 90/95 %ish potentialy effective but that still leaves 5%. of people they do not seem to work for..on top of the small cohort that cannot take one.. due to pregnancy/previous reaction/medicine protocols/age/or developing nations etc etc..should these people be forgotten about?
We still need to be looking at treatments and ivermectin may be one.

Miike

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So the only study you quoted is one carried out in a lab and using the equivalent of a toxic dose for humans.

Are there any studies you can link to that are carried out in a manner acceptable for peer review, that have shown Ivermectin to be ineffective?

In the absence of such a study or studies, the best we have at this time is a multitude of 'not so good' studies which all appear to show efficacy.

Quite the conundrum.

The point I'm trying to highlight there Johnny, is that in terms of feasibility (which is typically decided in lab tests) the lab tests conducted show the antiviral activity is at very high, unsafe doses. There is quoted posological and pharmacodynamic data on Ivermectin within those studies and to go back to an earlier comment I made on this thread - I recommend listening to the podcast "This Week in Virology" episodes I listed, it's hosted by Vincent Racaniello who is a renowned expert in this field and his guests for this topic are highly esteemed.


I certainly hope a high quality RCT shows Ivermectin is an effective treatment, it would be great. Doesn't necessarily mean I think it's a realistic expectation from the research that's been conducted to date. Look at how this bangwagonism worked out for hydroxychloroquin, azithromycin, chorloquin etc. I'm not saying we stop looking, I'm saying these need to be based on rigor.

Johnboy1951

Miike wrote: »

The point I'm trying to highlight there Johnny, is that in terms of feasibility (which is typically decided in lab tests) the lab tests conducted show the antiviral activity is at very high, unsafe doses. There is quoted posological and pharmacodynamic data on Ivermectin within those studies and to go back to an earlier comment I made on this thread - I recommend listening to the podcast "This Week in Virology" episodes I listed, it's hosted by Vincent Racaniello who is a renowned expert in this field and his guests for this topic are highly esteemed.


I certainly hope a high quality RCT shows Ivermectin is an effective treatment, it would be great. Doesn't necessarily mean I think it's a realistic expectation from the research that's been conducted to date. Look at how this bangwagonism worked out for hydroxychloroquin, azithromycin, chorloquin etc. I'm not saying we stop looking, I'm saying these need to be based on rigor.

I too hope for a treatment, rather than a manipulation by mRNA as I fear that might have unwelcome consequences in the long term.

On the matter of chorloquin/hydroxychloroquin I don't believe the final definitive result is yet in, particularly in combination with other substances.
Whether the will is there to investigate more fully or not is the real question.
Unless that will is there we could be in for a very long division of opinions on the efficacy of such substances.

Miike

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I too hope for a treatment, rather than a manipulation by mRNA as I fear that might have unwelcome consequences in the long term.

On the matter of chorloquin/hydroxychloroquin I don't believe the final definitive result is yet in, particularly in combination with other substances.
Whether the will is there to investigate more fully or not is the real question.
Unless that will is there we could be in for a very long division of opinions on the efficacy of such substances.

Hydroxychorloquin was proven to be ineffective by both the Solidarity and RECOVERY trials. FDA and NIH TxG have both explicitly stated there is no treatment benefit and revoked the authorization.

Johnboy1951

Miike wrote: »

Hydroxychorloquin was proven to be ineffective by both the Solidarity and RECOVERY trials. FDA and NIH TxG have both explicitly stated there is no treatment benefit and revoked the authorization.

Going on failing memory ....... but as I recall there are a lot of questions around the dosages which were nowhere close to what those who claim to have positive results used, both in timing and amounts.

Miike

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Going on failing memory ....... but as I recall there are a lot of questions around the dosages which were nowhere close to what those who claim to have positive results used, both in timing and amounts.

I don't remember off the top of my head regarding Solidarity but the RECOVERY Trial in protocol 6 tested recommended, below threshold and above threshold for hydroxychloroquin. Zero benefit but excess cardiac events detected in the treatment arm.

Timistry

Defies logic that a Pharma company would not pursue an API it produces if it was aware it had an efficiency against COVID19 or has the potential to have

speckle

Eagle eye who brought Ivermectin onto our radsr originally has just posted this on the main thread.. tropical drug to be tested on critcal ill patients in Ireland as part of an international clinical trial..

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/tropical-drug-to-be-tested-on-critically-ill-patients-here-40140143.html

Johnboy1951

speckle wrote: »

Eagle eye who brought Ivermectin onto our radsr originally has just posted this on the main thread.. tropical drug to be tested on critcal ill patients in Ireland as part of an international clinical trial..

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/tropical-drug-to-be-tested-on-critically-ill-patients-here-40140143.html

It was my understanding that Ivermectin was most effective as a prophylaxis and an early treatment, for Covid 19.

Is this trial designed to measure that effect?
Apparently not as it is being administered to critically ill patients, according to the linked page.

Seems rather late in the disease progress to be administering Ivermectin.

....... maybe I misunderstood where it is most effective ....

Piollaire

Timistry wrote: »

Defies logic that a Pharma company would not pursue an API it produces if it was aware it had an efficiency against COVID19 or has the potential to have

The main focus of a pharma company is to maximise shareholder value. It is quite logical for Merck/MSD to pursue therapeutics that are much more profitable than Ivermectin.

Piollaire

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It was my understanding that Ivermectin was most effective as a prophylaxis and an early treatment, for Covid 19.

Is this trial designed to measure that effect?
Apparently not as it is being administered to critically ill patients, according to the linked page.

Seems rather late in the progress to be administering Ivermectin.

....... maybe I misunderstood where it is most effective ....

Using Ivermectin as a hail mary treatment for those already on death's door is going to do the case for Ivermectin more harm than good.

Miike

speckle wrote: »

Eagle eye who brought Ivermectin onto our radsr originally has just posted this on the main thread.. tropical drug to be tested on critcal ill patients in Ireland as part of an international clinical trial..

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/tropical-drug-to-be-tested-on-critically-ill-patients-here-40140143.html

I'm not being funny but is there more to that article behind the premium wall or is it just 60 words? I'd love to know more about this test

Got it. Part of what seems to be a large multi-center trial. Heres hoping!

is_that_so

Piollaire wrote: »

Using Ivermectin as a hail mary treatment for those already on death's door is going to do the case for Ivermectin more harm than good.

From the Independent article it seems the trial's aim is to provide a definitive answer to clinicians.

speckle

Miike wrote: »

I'm not being funny but is there more to that article behind the premium wall or is it just 60 words? I'd love to know more about this test

Got it. Part of what seems to be a large multi-center trial. Heres hoping!

apologies miike... if I had realised it was behind a paywall.I would have added another link but last night when it first came out it wasnt paywalled.

Miike

speckle wrote: »

apologies miike... if I had realised it was behind a paywall.I would have added another link but last night when it first came out it wasnt paywalled.

Not your fault at all! Thanks for getting back to me

Piollaire

Found the article up on twitter:

https://twitter.com/Covid19Crusher/status/1366060019620454401/photo/1

Disappointing that the study is only focussing on critically ill patients. The real beauty of Ivermectin is its anti-viral ability which stops you from getting critically ill in the first place.

Johnboy1951

I have just watched a presentation by Dr. Paul Marik and found it well worth the time spent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY8QV7lnFFo

If I could get hold of Ivermectin I would be taking it now as a preventative.
Even if it does not help a great deal, it is highly unlikely to cause any harm, and is cheaper than chips.
A no brainer it seems.

Piollaire

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

If I could get hold of Ivermectin I would be taking it now as a preventative.

I agree.

Our only hope is that a large scale study will prove its efficacy. Merck/MSD have let us down badly and the European and national medicine agencies have failed us too.

Johnboy1951

Piollaire wrote: »

Found the article up on twitter:

https://twitter.com/Covid19Crusher/status/1366060019620454401/photo/1

Disappointing that the study is only focussing on critically ill patients. The real beauty of Ivermectin is its anti-viral ability which stops you from getting critically ill in the first place.

A trial set up to give results showing how ineffective the treatment is?

Sure seems like it .....

See19

The evidence for using Ivermectin is being overlooked below, India has the largest Ivermectin usage in the world with the lowest Covid death rate. In early 2019 India was forecast to have the highest Covid deaths but due to Ivermectin has the lowest and no one has any other evidence to explain this.

Covid Deaths for 1M Pop (Worldometer 14th Feb 2021)
1. UK = 1842
2. USA = 1,646
3. India = 114

Miike

See19 wrote: »

The evidence for using Ivermectin is being overlooked below, India has the largest Ivermectin usage in the world with the lowest Covid death rate. In early 2019 India was forecast to have the highest Covid deaths but due to Ivermectin has the lowest and no one has any other evidence to explain this.

Covid Deaths for 1M Pop (Worldometer 14th Feb 2021)
1. UK = 1842
2. USA = 1,646
3. India = 114

Insightful first post.

Have a look at Indias median age versus your quoted comparisons and how COVID deaths are being recorded (read as: they aren't). Also Ivermectin isn't in widespread use in India - Unless you've access to data the proves otherwise? I would love to see it

See19

Ireland needs a plan B and follow India’s and many other countries good example and stockpile very cheap Ivermectin and provide it on prescription to people who need it while waiting for vaccination. Tons of growing evidence for plan B as vaccines may not solve the problem this year.
Miike Check out data on : c19early.com and ivmmeta.com :-) I would like your feedback.

Ivermectin is 40 years old proven drug and a very low Cost & Risk Plan B ! Anyone else feel the same and its a no brainer? We don’t have time to delay playing politics with the Gov / Medical bureaucracy they need to be agile and just do it with a high volume of taxpayers demanding it.
The evidence for using Ivermectin is overwhelming as India reduced its Covid deaths by over 90%.
Covid Deaths for 1M Pop (Worldometer 14th Mar 2021)
1. UK = 1842
2. USA = 1,646
3. Ireland = 911
4. India = 114 (estimated forecast =2500) = 95% reduction

Miike

See19 wrote: »

Ireland needs a plan B and follow India’s and many other countries good example and stockpile very cheap Ivermectin and provide it on prescription to people who need it while waiting for vaccination. Tons of growing evidence for plan B as vaccines may not solve the problem this year.
Miike Check out data on : c19early.com and ivmmeta.com

Ivermectin is 40 years old and very low cost & Risk Plan B ! Anyone else feel the same and it a no brainer? We don’t have time to delay playing politics with the Gov / Medical bureaucracy.
The evidence for using Ivermectin is overwhelming as India reduced it Covid deaths by over 90%.
Covid Deaths for 1M Pop (Worldometer 14th Mar 2021)
1. UK = 1842
2. USA = 1,646
3. Ireland = 911
4. India = 114 (estimated forecast =2500) = 95% reduction

Indias ICMR doesn't recommend the use of Ivermectin. There is no data depicting widespread use of it India. What has you under the illusion that it is being used there?

See19

All studies combined (pooled effects, early, late, prophylaxis)
Medication Improvement Studies Authors Patients
Ivermectin 72% [64‑79%] 46 371 15,480

The data and direction is compelling - India is just one of many moving in the right direction.
In 6 months time we will be wondering why no one did anything if a new stronger variant emerges that evades all current vaccines.

banie01

See19 wrote: »

In early 2019 India was forecast to have the highest Covid deaths but due to Ivermectin has the lowest and no one has any other evidence to explain this.

Quite a crystal ball!
Whomever made the early 2019 prediction on the impact of a virus that didn't emerge until late 2019 should really start doing a line in horoscopes too.

Miike

See19 wrote: »

All studies combined (pooled effects, early, late, prophylaxis)
Medication Improvement Studies Authors Patients
Ivermectin 72% [64‑79%] 46 371 15,480

The data and direction is compelling - India is just one of many moving in the right direction.
In 6 month time we will be wondering why no one did anything if new variant appears the beats the all vaccines.

So you've just decided India is using it then? Right. I see where this is going.

See19

banie01 wrote: »

Quite a crystal ball!
Whomever made the early 2019 prediction on the impact of a virus that didn't emerge until late 2019 should really start doing a line in horoscopes too.

Glad you spotted that intentional typo "early 2020" :-), if that all you can find wrong with that post thats ok.

See19

Miike wrote: »

So you've just decided India is using it then? Right. I see where this is going.

That evidence drives the approach to the solution and is the evidence from many countries is it not?

ShineOn7

I haven't read this thread in a good while

Where are Ireland at with this treatment?

Piollaire

ShineOn7 wrote: »

I haven't read this thread in a good while

Where are Ireland at with this treatment?

Nowhere unfortunately.

Our medicines regulator - HPRA - only licences a medicine when a manufacturer submits it for approval. Merck(MSD) is not going to do it.

I saw a testimonial on Merck's website from an employee who contracted Covid. It's amazing how this company can allow its own employees and their families suffer when it has had an effective anti-viral ready to roll all this time.

ShineOn7

Piollaire wrote: »

Our medicines regulator - HPRA - only licences a medicine when a manufacturer submits it for approval. Merck(MSD) is not going to do it.

Why won't Merck submit it?