The Ivermectin discussion

harrylittle

did the other medicines win the nobile prize , when did invermectin get droped from presciption listing ? why is the HSE manning the ports / sorting offices to block ivermentin .. while every narcotic drug known to man can be found in every town in ireland

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118430846#Comment_118430846

the what prize?

Nobile make great kitesurfing boards but don't do NOBEL prizes

(https://nobilekiteboarding.com/)

The scientist who discovered it won a Nobel prize - mainly because it improved the quality of many lives in third-world countries where they have a lot of river blindness disease

Basically it stopped a lot of toddlers in shithole countries from going blind

We don't have river blindness in Ireland

It's not needed in Ireland for humans except for a Rosacea cream.

(nd it doesn't do anything for Covid)

If you really want to get your hands on some go swallow a shot of Ivomec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118430593#Comment_118430593

That’s true now, it wasn’t clear for a year. Neither side is covered in glory.

charlie_says

https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching

Well well well.

Timing of this being published is uncanny.

Former Former Former

That study is absolutely laughable. It's so bad I actually don't know where to begin.

More absolute nonsense from, once again, the same small group of "researchers". Flavio Cadegani and - surprise surprise - Pierre Kory strike again.

Nonsense.

PureIsle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118516025#Comment_118516025

Well that really and truly debunked that study!

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118518161#Comment_118518161

If you actually read it, you won't need me or anyone else to debunk it for you. It's absolutely bananas.

Even the most hardline conspiracy theorists should be utterly embarrassed by that "study".

is_that_so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118431129#Comment_118431129

The problem is that those who are pro-Ivermectin did not set out to get more data to support their case, they just kept shouting about how right they were or indulged in conspiracy theories.

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118524136#Comment_118524136

With respect, I think it's a bit of a stretch to cast the "pro ivermectin" side as dumb conspiracy theorists and thickos and the "anti ivermectin" side as flawless truth-seekers or detached prognosticators in hindsight. There are emotional eejits and truth-seekers on both sides of the conversation, and there were plenty of people who saw ivermectin as an interesting prospect and were hopeful that the initial hypothesis of efficacy against Covid-19 would be born out.

It is undeniable (regardless of what you believe the motivation for it to have been) that there was something of a propaganda campaign against ivermectin during the mid stages of the pandemic, and reading through this thread you can see that many "anti ivermectin" people got their information solely from that campaign without doing a shred of additional research. "Horse paste" is a propaganda phrase that was transferred straight from the keyboards of propagandists into the minds of those who were predisposed to accept it. Some people still actually believe that there were gunshot wound victims backing up outside emergency departments in rural Oklahoma because so many people were quaffing enough livestock Ivermectin to land themselves in hospital; a story that remains as ludicrous on its face today as it was at the time it was reported.

So yeah. I don't think ivermectin is going to be proven effective against SARS2, but saying there was never any reason to think it was a possibility, or to suggest that anyone who was hopeful about the prospect or even kept an open mind about it stands in contrast to the infallible science angels on the other side, is some revisionist nonsense.

is_that_so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118526334#Comment_118526334

Those are your words and there are whole lot of words I never mentioned in my post. The drivers of it claimed that they were being prevented from getting it out it to people for a variety of somewhat dubious reasons, cheapness, Big Pharma blocking them, they knew better etc. Rightly so in my view given the lack of evidence of its efficacy with COVID. The answer to all of that was better data. Instead all we really saw was a carousel of studies quoting each other and once some of them proved to be weak, the case weakened considerably.

I am on the side of good trial data confirming one way or the other and like others who posted on this thread saw the merit of it being proved to be useful. But it never was and doubtful it will ever be now.

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118526406#Comment_118526406

Sorry, did you not mean to cast the anti-ivermectin side as detached data-seekers and the pro-ivermectin side as loony conspiracy theorists?

Because I'm not sure that it would be fair to say that I randomly interpreted that from your post rather than your post very strongly suggesting it.

is_that_so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118526580#Comment_118526580

No, not a bit, they have their own issues. However, I think their position has been more wide ranging from disappointment to outright opposition. Much of that conspiracy stuff sadly is true, a situation that would have been helped as I said by better trial data. TBH my view of them is irrelevant because they never came close to showing regulatory authorities that matter that it worked.

PureIsle

I don't understand this emphasis on peer reviewed RCDB studies during a pandemic.

If a substance has excellent safety profile, and been administered in some 3.5 billion doses, and it has a chance of working why would anyone be against its use under a doctor's care?

Then add all the studies showing various rates of efficacy, it must be even more compelling.

Certainly I see no reason at all to disallow its use for anything .... whether that be a sore toe or a virus. If it works all good. If not then use something else.

Doing so is definitely much better than doing nothing at all, which is what was done - nothing until sick enough to be hospitalised.

As for the studies .... some want studies to be carried out costing millions but for what?

There is no need to study safety. That has been well proved over the decades.

All is needed is efficacy ..... and there are multiple studies showing its efficacy, even if one might have some doubts about some of them.

To add to the list of studies that some dismiss out of hand here is another .... now peer reviewed

https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching

odyssey06

They ran the studies as a treatment using random controlled trials. It failed.

It wasnt tested at the doses cited for prevention on 3.5 billion people so that is nonsense. It has side effects, last thing someone battling covid is coping with those for a random medicine which doesnt actually do anything to treat covid.

Cos thats what Ivermectin is.

PureIsle

Last I heard Ivermectin is still in use in some 27 countries and those seem quite happy with its efficacy ..... else why continue to use it?

For those who made a huge deal about its use in Uttar Pradesh, and claimed it was all fake, here is a pic I came across today from that state. Apparently they continue to use it for their 230+million people.

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118537849#Comment_118537849

To add to the list of studies that some dismiss out of hand here is another .... now peer reviewed

but but but... that's the same study that was posted a couple of days ago. And it's still absolutely ridiculous. Honestly, just read it.

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118391638#Comment_118391638

That has just brightened up a quiet evening...lovely comment!!

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118538331#Comment_118538331

That looks completely legit. "Covid 19 Drug Kit".

Name of drugs in one language, doses in another.

No way did someone just get a baggy, stick some drugs and a crude print off in it.

What site did you say you saw it on? Would love to order a pallet.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118538331#Comment_118538331

List the 27 countries, when they were used as a covid treatment, and the source for it. A real source, not some pro-Ivermectin fake news factory.

Otherwise based on previous posts, you are either making it up or fallen for some fake news.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118537849#Comment_118537849

I genuinely have no idea why you are asking questions that have been answered (including by me) many times before.

For example you ask here why we would have an issue with a drug that has a "safety profile" that "has a chance of working" being used. I answered that more than once before. Including directly to you.

To repeat myself (again) however with points I have made to you and others multiple times already (which just makes a comedy out of you claiming we have dismissed you "out of hand" when your approach is to ignore response - then return days/weeks later throwing out the same already rebutted crap again):

1) There are 1000s of drugs with good safety profiles. Why arbitrarily pick one for no good reason and say "This is safe - lets use it"? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

2) You claim it "has a chance" of working. Based on what? What level of "chance"? None of the studies I have seen so far suggest it does anything whatsoever. And even when administered directly to the virus in vitro - the dosage required to have any effect at all is simply massive. Many 1000s of times larger than anything you'd get in any actual prescription.

3) Any drug has the potential to interact with any other. Even "natural" remedies which seem safe enough on their own can interact very badly with other drugs (Random example, look up St. Johns Wort used for treating, among other things, depression). The more drugs we have "in the wild" the more potential we have for negative interactions that cause actual genuine harm. So throwing a drug out there saying little more coherent than "Ah shure it seems safe and shure it might do something if you pray hard enough" is simply awful "thinking" (were I to laud it with the phrase "Thinking" at all).

4) The number of doses of a drug that has been administered is simply irrelevant on it's own. The question is what has it been administered FOR. Saying "It has been administered 3 billion times" is irrelevant if your argument is essentially "So lets administer it for this totally and entirely different other thing for no other reason than that".

5) You say "add all the studies showing efficacy". What studies exactly? I am sure I asked you before (maybe it was another user, apologies if it was) and was simply ignored.

6) You ask why countries would continue to use a drug if it does nothing. Again I wrote answers to this multiple times already in this thread. But this is not uncommon. Doctors for example know antibiotics do nothing against a virus yet they still prescribe them when demanded - despite their knowing that over use of anti biotics is one of the big disasters of modern medicine. And recent review of drugs perscribable in the UK showed an absolutely depressing number of drugs that are in common use - and a drain on the social medical system resources - for which we have no evidence they do anything at all. There is also optics to think of. If a government has a population that strongly demand a drug be used they can absolutely give in to pressure. But even if you ignore all of this (again) the simple fact remains that a groups willingness to use a drug is simply not evidence the drug is doing what is claimed. Every. Single. Government. On. The. Planet. Could decide to implement the drug tomorrow. That still would not be evidence. What you are doing here is - essentially - a variation of the "argumentum ad populum" fallacy. Go look it up. However what you are doing here is claiming there are "27 countries" implementing it's use. But you do not say what they are using it for. Because once again you are conflating it's use for what it has actually being shown to work for in those countries - with your wish to see it used for something else entirely for which there is no supporting evidence.

PureIsle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118539248#Comment_118539248

1. From where did you get 'arbitrarily'? Medical professionals determined its likelihood of being efficacious based in what is known about the substance and its actions in vivo. You are making things up.
2. Then you need to read a few more studies I guess, if you have not read any that show efficacy. Do you claim that in vitro is a true reflection of what will happen in vivo?
3. How does "its use under a doctor's care" have anything to do with this rubbish?
4. More nonsense ...... great use does provide the safety profile for that substance.
5. I am sure you are quite capable, should you wish, of finding studies showing efficacy of the drug. But you do not accept any of them because those studies do not come up to your expectations and are not properly funded by some pharma company.
6. Yet those countries use the substance and claim efficacy. If you dispute that you should take it up with them and have them deny efficacy. Until they do I will accept that they see efficacy in it use.

It all boils down to one thing ...... believe many many medical professionals worldwide who have used the drug on Covid patients or believe you.

An easy decision.

generic_throwaway

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118526334#Comment_118526334

Do you honestly think there was someone MORE in search of useful treatments than the frontline medics who saw patient after patient die in agony?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118541086#Comment_118541086

1. From where do I get arbitrary? I already explained where I get it in several parts of my post. There are any number of drugs with a good "safety profile". If we are going to pick one out of those 100s even 1000s and say "Sure what harm giving this to everyone for covid" then that is arbitrary unless a valid and coherent reason is given for doing so. Saying "It was given billions of times for something else" is not such a good reason.
2. "Go read more studies" is such a cop out from you here. If you feel there is a study I have not read and replied to by all means cite it directly and I will read it and consider it. The problem is I have done that multiple times with many studies already on this thread and you simply ignored it all. As for "In Vitro" my claims there are already made on this thread multiple times. Again yo u ignored my posts, even when they were direct replies to you. It is actually quite rare that "In Vitro" observations map onto the real world of complex human biology. "In Vitro" results give us clues as to what might be worth further study but little more. When you need absolutely massive quantities of a drug to observe even tiny effects - then you need some pretty damn good studies to back up the idea such a drug will be useful in actual situations.
3. What is rubbish? You can not just shout "Rubbish" at something as if that is a rebuttal. If something I said is "rubbish" by all means rebut it and explain the problem with my thinking. Just shouting rubbish at something and nothing else is cowardly and intellectually bankrupt. Please try harder.
4. Same as above. Shouting "Nonsense" does not make it so. You seem to want to rely on citing how many doses of this drug has been used in our world. Why do you think that is at all relevant here? Absolutely billions of doses of cough medicine have been used in our world too. It would be seriously weird for me to say "Lets start using cough medicine to treat anal hemorrhoids. Why? Well it's safe and billions of doses have been given!". That is pure bloody insanity thinking and you need to get hip to that. That billions of doses of Ivermectin have been given to treat thinks like a parasite causing river blindness - is absolutely zero evidence of any kind whatsoever that using it for covid will do any blood think at all. Not shure how often ya need that 'splained to ya.
5. Ah the old "I am psychic and know what you are thinking and why" move that the dishonest people use around here. No - if I reject a study I can explain exactly why I have rejected it. If I accept it I can explain exactly why I accepted it. But because you are not actually offering any studies that leaves you in a position to simply make up and pretend to know how and why I would reject them. This is an intensely dishonest rhetorical move by you. I repeat what I said above - in multiple posts to you - now. If you want me to look at a study then simply link me directly to it or name it and I will do so. If you want to use the old cop out move of "There is loads you just need to find them yourself" then you are on your own and no one here seems to be buying that dishonesty. Generally around boards forums no one buys that move. The "There is loads of evidence for my nonsense claims but you have go and find it because I can't be bothered" move is a well known one around here. You're insulting your own intellgience, not ours, by trying to pull it.
6. Which countries? And what are they claiming efficacy for? And on what basis? You do not want to be clear on those three very important questions when asked. You usually simply entirely ignore the people who ask in fact. You have ignored me when I asked before. You ignore Odyssey when he asked just above for example too. I know many countries claim efficacy for Ivermectin. They claim it is effacious in treating river blindness for example. But as I keep sxplaining to you thats irrelevant. What is relevant on this thread is only A) Which countries are using it for covid B) Which of those countries are claiming it is effacious against covid C) On what basis specifically are they making that claim? Can you answer those three questions at all? So far it seems this is a blatant and powerful "no" you can't. But I await in hope all the same.

Your "easy decision" is not a decision I would make. Its just another "argumentum ad populum". You should not believe me. You should not believe the professionals. You should evaluate the actual evidence.

Evidence you refuse to present when asked.

An easy decision indeed.

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118541134#Comment_118541134

Can you explain to me the thought process that lead you to ask this question?

generic_throwaway

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118541890#Comment_118541890

Here's the process:

1. Clowns claiming that Ivermectin cures COVID
2. Medics crying out for effective treatments
3. Medics, based on the evidence, reject Ivermectin as an effective treatment.

Does that simplify the process sufficiently?

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542199#Comment_118542199

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117897927#Comment_117897927

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/japans-kowa-says-ivermectin-effective-against-omicron-phase-iii-trial-2022-01-31/

The only important line in that link is:

"The company did not provide further details."

Until they do - they have just offered an opinion and nothing else.

If they have actual evidence to back up that opinion great! As we keep saying - a cheap drug that can be used as a treatment would be a wonderful thing. I suspect there is not a single doubter on the thread who would not like to be proven wrong on this! Me included!

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559775#Comment_118559775

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559775#Comment_118559775

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559775#Comment_118559775

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559775#Comment_118559775

The title states in a Phase 3 trial so that is quite a nugget of information.

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559743#Comment_118559743

That article says it shows antiviral activity in non clinical studies. We already knew that.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559822#Comment_118559822

It says that no where in the article though. That's information hidden in the URL which is itself quite a weird thing to do.

But as "former" says above - it is possibly not saying anything we do not know already!

So as I said: If they will not release details - then nothing to see here. Yet!