Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Ivermectin discussion

Options
1394042444548

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 360 ✭✭sekiro


    Where did the idea of using Ivermectin come from to begin with? It just seems like such an oddly specific drug that keeps on coming up in relation to a few different countries. It also seems like something the mainstream media, especially in the US, have pounced on quite aggressively.

    Honestly, if someone told me that they had been diagnosed with covi-19 and their doctor had prescribed Ivermectin as part of a treatment plan then I wouldn't really think much of it. Yet you see this media outrage and it's just too hysterical and sensationalist for what could basically be an "Ivermectin is not a miracle cure here though your doctor may prescribe it to help with treatment please don't try to source your own" headline and leave it like that.

    A thing that would worry me is the quite aggressive approach to any suggestion of treatment or prevention that isn't a vaccine from one of the main providers.

    At almost 2 years into the pandemic you would think that news and media outlets would be well on top of giving people advice on how to boost their immune system, how to keep yourself fit and healthy and how to reduce your risk of hospitalization and death if you happened to catch the disease. Imagine if we had been equally insistent on proper healthy diets and exercise etc as we had been on masks. After 2 years I think we could have probably saved a few lives if a few less people were obese or had vitamin deficiencies etc. We didn't really do any of that and anyone who wanted to maybe put some eggs in some other baskets instead of just going all in on vaccines was shot down pretty aggressively.



  • Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭PureIsle


    Making incorrect statements will never make them true.

    Repeating incorrect statements will not make them true either ...... regardless how often they are repeated.



  • Registered Users Posts: 857 ✭✭✭PintOfView


    That last statement you made I can agree with. However it intrigued me as to why you made the statement, so I looked at the link you posted a few posts back. Your link was to trialsitenews.com, and a pro-ivermectin article written by a Juan Quintero (trialsite news has Dr Pierre Kory among 9 people on its management team!).

    See below for a comparison between his graph, where he claims that India introduced a protocol of using Ivermectin as an early treatment. He's pointing to just before the Covid peak as the time of introduction of the protocol, and he's obviously trying to make it seem that there is a link between the protocol and subsequent decline in India's Covid case numbers.

    I've copied his graph, and also one for Ireland from Google, and show both below for comparison. Notice our peak had a much steeper decline than India, although we didn't use Ivermectin?

    Something else to bear in mind is that in Sep 2021 India discontinued recommending Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid. See India Today ("Ivermectin and HCQ were dropped from the clinical guidance after studies found that these drugs have little to no effect on Covid-related mortality or clinical recovery of the patient.") and Hindustan times ("The Indian Council of Medical Research and the Covid-19 National Task Force have dropped the usage of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) drugs from their revised "clinical guidance for management of adult Covid-19 patients".")




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Agreed on both counts.

    Now if at any point someone wants to show a statement I made that is incorrect - and show me how and why it is incorrect - I can have an actual conversation with them.

    Rather than someone merely mindlessly parroting irrelevant one liners at me like the contents of a fortune cookie.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I am not sure I know enough to answer the question on why people have emotionally become so invested in the drug itself or why it has been latched onto so deeply by a small cohort of vocal parrots who keep saying the same things over and over - no matter how roundly and completely those things have been rebutted.

    In fact it showed so little benefit in trials, that some trials were halted entirely mid way. Which happens often when a drug is showing no effect that conclusively. What is interesting is at least one trial halted would have been halted much earlier. But it was kept going a little longer for no other reason than the public's extreme interest in the drug!

    I would imagine a large part of the answer to your question is related to a 2012 study which did show the drug quite effective - in petri dishes - against viral replication in viruses similar to this pandemic. The findings did not replicate when moved to animals. Which is very common.

    However - this did not stop the authors of that paper replicating their results on Sars-CV2 replication. This is likely where public interest got kindled.

    After this there was a PREPRINT of a study in November 2020 claiming Ivermectin was "very effective" in addition to standard care (Research Square paper titled "The efficacy and safety of Ivermectin for treatment and prophylaxis of covid-19 pandemic") which was actually retracted due to ethical concerns about fraudulent research.

    But at this stage the damage had likely been done in terms of the media and public perception of the drug.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    So... Ivermectin can help you - if you are already infected with parasites before getting Covid and are getting treated with corticosteroids for Covid that would hugely increase the parasitic infestation in your body- a combination with Covid that could prove fatal.

    So Ivermectin kills parasites shocker - why the studies in sh1thole parts of the world where parasites are rife in drinking water etc it can help.

    But it's not going to help you in the West

    ---->

    https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/11/18/ivermectin-may-help-covid-19-patients-but-only-those-with-worms

    “This is coming,” crowed Andrew Hill, the lead author of an unreviewed meta-analysis looking at whether ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug, was helpful for treating covid-19. “Get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve it,” advised Dr Hill, a visiting fellow at the University of Liverpool.

    Such advocacy proved far too optimistic. One of the papers cited in the report was withdrawn because its data were fraudulent; the report itself was retracted as well. Two of the largest and most rigorous randomised controlled trials also found no evidence the drug was helpful. As a result, ivermectin has never become part of the standard of care for covid-19.

    Yet ivermectin’s advocates insist that there is solid science demonstrating the drug’s efficacy. One well-documented website lists and links to 65 different papers on the subject, many of which, on the surface, seem to support this claim. Could this many studies all be wrong? Recent analysis by Avi Bitterman, a dermatologist in New York, and Scott Alexander, a prominent blogger, suggests that the answer is nuanced. Ivermectin probably does help one subset of covid-19 patients: those who are also infected by the worms it was designed to fight.

    Wading through the papers whose methodologies appeared sound, Dr Bitterman noticed that the studies that looked best for ivermectin tended to cluster in regions with high rates of infections by strongyloides, a parasitic worm. Common in much of Africa, Asia and Latin America, strongyloides can cause, among other things, diarrhoea, fatigue and weight loss. However, they only pose a graver threat if their numbers grow out of control. Such “hyper-infection”, which is often fatal, becomes far more likely if a patient is receiving corticosteroids, which both suppress the immune system and appear to make female worms more fertile. And dexamethasone, a corticosteroid, is now a standard treatment for severe covid-19, because it prevents the immune system from going into overdrive and attacking the body’s own cells.

    Building on observations by David Boulware, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Dr Bitterman concluded that strongyloides may account for the conflicting results of studies about the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19. In trials conducted in countries where the parasites are common, many people could have both covid-19 and strongyloides infections. Covid-19 might already have weakened their bodies’ defences against the worms; treating the coronavirus with corticosteroids would let the parasites run wild.


    In the groups who received ivermectin during trials, the drug would keep strongyloides in check. But patients in control groups would be left at the worms’ mercy. This would make it look as if ivermectin were preventing deaths caused solely by covid-19, when in fact it was preventing those caused by the parasites or by a combination of the two infections. This mechanism would explain why most studies conducted in places where strongyloides are rare showed no benefit from taking ivermectin. “Ivermectin doesn’t treat covid,” Dr Bitterman wrote. “It treats parasites (shocker) that kill people when they get steroids that treat covid.” He concluded that “taking strongyloides endemic populations, putting them into a control group with corticosteroids is a death sentence”.

    In July 2020 a group of doctors argued in the Journal of the American Medical Association that it was “reasonable to consider presumptive treatment with ivermectin for moderate- to high-risk patients not previously tested or treated for strongyloides”, and said that the risk of infection by the worms in covid-19 patients should be “based on factors such as country of origin and long-term residence”. The World Health Organisation also recommends ivermectin in this context. However, most people in rich Western countries like America—where demand for ivermectin, driven by advocates on social media,—do not fit this description. At least when treating patients who have never been to countries with widespread strongyloides, the evidence suggests that mainstream doctors in such places are right to avoid prescribing ivermectin

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    Irish people also consume above average alcohol, turkey and chocolate and work less when we crushed the peak.

    So in some peoples eyes, alcohol, turkey and chocolate are better than Invermectin. Looked like a sharper drop.



  • Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭PureIsle


    Its use stemmed from those medical persons who were searching for a treatment that might help against the virus and the disease.

    Ivermectin has been tested over many years for 'off label' use, and found to have anti-viral and other properties.

    I guess because of this it looked like a likely candidate, and apparently found by many physicians around the world to be beneficial to their patients.

    It also seems now from multiple sources that the generally recommended levels of D3 in the blood are not sufficient to help with fighting this virus. Those recommended levels were set as a guide to help prevent rickets, which is now rarely seen in the Western world.

    The levels required in the case of this virus appears to be accepted as approx twice that basic/rickets level. If supplementing with D3 then it is advised to also supplement with K2 and Zinc.

    These greatly help the immune system deal with the viral 'invasion'.

    I completely agree that our public health services have failed miserably to advise people how to strengthen their immune system and get/stay healthy through diet, exercise and vitamin supplements. Their failure in this regard is nothing short of shameful.

    Instead of all the fear-mongering on the national airwaves which caused untold mental stress and harm, we should have been receiving positive advice on how to be healthy.

    You would have to ask our health service and politicians why this disturbing failure occurred.

    I doubt you would get a reasonable answer though!



  • Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭MilkyToast


    Scott Alexander wrote a long (looooooooooong) article about this a few weeks back: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Ever Wanted To Know

    It's what moved me from "Eh, maybe. Let's see." to "Yeah, probably not."

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S. Lewis



  • Registered Users Posts: 302 ✭✭Piollaire


    I was waiting to see what the PRINCIPLE trial came out with. The trial has taken so long that a parliamentary question was asked about when there would be results and no answer was given. The first update was not what I expected - the trial has been suspended the because they ran out of Ivermectin (I'm presuming that's what "temporary supply issues" means)

    https://www.principletrial.org/



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭MilkyToast


    Thanks. I follow Alexandros on Twitter but I barely log into it so I missed it. Wasn't aware he had a substack. I'll check it out.

    I did skim briefly and saw that he ragged on GideonMK, which I'm all for. If that dude's tweets are not paid for I'll eat my own leg.

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S. Lewis



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Pfizer's Paxlovid hugely effective

    Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) on Tuesday said its antiviral COVID-19 pill showed near 90% efficacy in preventing hospitalizations and deaths in high-risk patients, and recent lab data suggests the drug retains its effectiveness against the fast spreading Omicron variant of the coronavirus.

    The U.S. drugmaker last month said the oral medicine was around 89% effective in preventing hospitalizations or deaths when compared to placebo, based on interim results in around 1,200 people. Data from its final analysis of the trial disclosed on Tuesday includes an additional 1,000 people.

    Nobody in the trial who received the Pfizer treatment died, compared with 12 deaths among placebo recipients.

    https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizer-says-covid-19-pill-near-90-effective-final-analysis-2021-12-14/

    Will cost about $500 for a course but that is a no-brainer for the cost saving of having to hospitalise patients. 1 day in hospital probably, never mind in ICU.

    And for all the "Big Pharma" talk, Pfizer will allow generic drug companies to produce and sell it (Paxlovid ) cheaply outside wealthy countries - will save many lives that way. https://thethaiger.com/coronavirus/paxlovid-deal-allows-generics-of-covid-19-treatment-for-95-countries

    Will the Ivermectin kool-aid bois be happy or not tho that an actual anti-viral tablet that does work will be available cheaply where it's needed most to save lives or will they choose to stand and die on the hill of pointlessness?!



  • Registered Users Posts: 36,137 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I have had literally no time to read anything about it. Sounds like you have a whole comparative pharmacology going on! Enlighten me please. If it is just a rebrand and repatent that would be really interesting. But life simply has crippled my usual ability to track / follow this stuff since my last post here.



  • Registered Users Posts: 36,137 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    Same principal as ivermectin , except it targets one thing, not various things like ivermectin. Targets covid full stop. They should be playing up the ivermectin link to get those not wanting a vaccine to take it, not trying to say it's nothing like it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,708 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    It's a completely different pill and works completely different at the chemical level, you may as well be promoting taking an aspirin, after all, it's a pill as well.

    This whole IVN thing really exposes the shills and noncritical thinkers that exist. It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic.



  • Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭PureIsle


    If you want an assessment of the actions of IVM in relation to Sars2 and the Omicron variation watch this video

    https://odysee.com/@DrMobeenSyed:1/Ivermectin-and-omicron:e



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    seriously, this type of post is utter shitposting and is a feature of some on this thread.

    if you want to make a point - summarise and make a point - posting some link to a long video with no point made is complete rubbish.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭PureIsle


    At least I provided a link to detailed information from a reliable source about the subject at hand.


    I see nothing useful to anybody in your post.

    Maybe consider providing some information that would be useful to the reader instead of your complaints.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    you never seem to make a point but most posts are of the nature of ->

    "here's an interesting long video" or something with absolutely no summary or point about it

    the obvious assumption since you have done this so many times is that you actually haven't even gone through them yourself and that's why you can't make a summary or a point

    I make points in the context of having understood something so I can actually make a point about it!

    not even going to address the aspect of trying to pass off what is predominantly FLCCC shill horseshit as a "reliable source" 🤣🤣🤣

    

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭PureIsle


    It is quite obvious from where the horseshit is coming in this thread.

    Watch the video if you want to make some comment on its content, otherwise you have characterised your posts very well.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Didn't the author of the first main study that came to that conclusion recently admit the he was essentially bought off to change his findings?..He found it did have a significant positive effect. He changed the study thinking it would only delay the use of it by about 6 weeks..

    Here's something about it..

    https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/ivermectin-and-the-price-of-life/article_3e1a2e14-5c70-11ec-b6f4-2b146e98a0b5.html



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,028 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    That's an opinion piece by a renowned anti vaxxer and ivermectin pusher.

    Here's the author's own take on it.

    The ivermectin debate is over for anyone with a genuine interest in helping sick people. It is now firmly in the realm of cranks and right wing lunatics.



  • Registered Users Posts: 57 ✭✭ligind


    Hill was bought off by a donation announced in January 2020 to change his conclusion in 2021. That's seriously impressive wizardry .

    Hill retracted his meta analysis in July/August 2021 when it came to light some of the included studies were suspect/fraudulent.

    His second meta analysis with those studies removed showed no benefit for ivm.

    Post edited by ligind on


  • Registered Users Posts: 302 ✭✭Piollaire


    The supply issue of the PRINCIPLE trial supply is no longer mentioned on the website. What happened there, who knows?

    And they are on a break for new registrations until Jan 4th which indicates a lack of urgency in the work.



  • Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭PureIsle


    That is Hill covering his ass and complying with those who 'influenced' his paper.

    For anyone who cares to see it, there is video evidence of such influence where he says that the conclusions of the paper were written by an outside source.

    Part of the conversation is reproduced in that link ..... here it is in case you did not read it ....

    #########

    Andrew Hill admitted that his sponsors (UNITAID) pressured him to alter his conclusion. Hill explained, "I think I'm in a very sensitive position here."

    .......

    Dr. Lawrie demanded to know the identity of the unknown UNITAID author who changed Dr. Hill's conclusions, the person whose influence was to cause so many preventable deaths.

    "So who is it in UNITAID, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?"

    Hill answered, "Well, it’s just the people there. I don't..."

    Dr. Lawrie pressed Hill, "Could you please give me a name of someone in UNITAID I could speak to, so that I can share my evidence and hope to try and persuade them to understand it?

    Dr. Hill evaded, "Oh, I'll have to think about who to, to offer you with a name...But I mean this is very difficult because I'm, you know, I've got this role where I'm supposed to produce this paper and we're in a very difficult, delicate balance...Yeah, it’s a very strong lobby..."

    The conversation concludes with Dr. Hill promising to do everything in his power to get Ivermectin approved if she could give him six more weeks.

    Dr. Lawrie, "So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for?"

    Dr. Hill, "From my side. Okay...I think end of February, we will be there in six weeks."

    Dr. Tess Lawrie, "How many people die every day?"

    Dr. Andrew Hill, "Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day."

    Dr. Tess Lawrie, "Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks...Because at this rate, all other countries are getting Ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby."

    Dr. Andrew Hill, "My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum..."

    Post edited by PureIsle on


  • Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭PureIsle


    I expect they cannot because their two suppliers made public that they had no difficulty with supply.

    Something else is behind it, not a lack of supply.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 8,647 [Deleted User]




Advertisement