The Ivermectin discussion

The article does not even mention if and how many were vaccinated. Which tests (PCR or antigen) were used to determin if they are ill. If and which other medications were used.

Experimenting on prison inmates is unethical.

New study that's a year old ?

As of 24 August 2021, Japan still does NOT allow Ivermectin to be used to treat or prevent COVID-19.

Author said they found it difficult to get it published without funding.

Preprint available since April .

OK, let's look at the facts.

The study is available here:

As the title says, it's about a Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Method - not about treating Covid with Ivermectin. Again, for health care workers.

The study began on June 29, 2020, and ended on July 26, 2020.

Meaning, before vaccines were available as a more effective pre-exposure prophylaxis method.

The 'Limitations' section seems to invalidate all actual findings in the study. Quote:

There was no RT-PCR test at the start or exit of this study, neither in the ivermectin group nor in the control group. There is the possibility that asymptomatic cases were not detected. 

That fact check page, which is just a technology website, isn't referring to what that video is discussing. Nobody said Japan has given it the greenlight, it's undergoing trial and that chairman of the med association has been pushed it into the public light. This was reported on Nikkei and other reputable sources in Japan.

That fact checking website is about as reliable as a random tweet anyway, it's just one person using their tech site.

How so?

Looked a bit more into this and for a generic drug, an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) would give you 180 days exclusivity which would be a major money spinner for any company if they could prove first that the drug was an effective treatment for Covid.

Generic Drugs

Under the Hatch-Waxman act, the first company to submit an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the FDA has the exclusive right to market the generic drug for 180 days. While this exclusivity period pales in comparison to the longer exclusivities enjoyed by branded drugs and biologics, the 180 days of exclusivity is significant in the world of generic drugs. One of the main advantages is that this period allows for the establishment of that first generic drug as the primary low-cost alternative to the branded drug and facilitates early adoption by hospitals and retail pharmacies.

This Nature article describes what I just mentioned in the Arstechnica summary: that Ivermectin has been used successfully in the poorest countries, for the purpose that it was created for - treating parasitic intestinal worms.

The article is from 2017, and has nothing to do with Covid. It states:

 Ivermectin is a broad-spectrum anti-parasitic agent, primarily deployed to combat parasitic worms in veterinary and human medicine.

Perhaps more than any other drug, ivermectin is a drug for the world’s poor. For most of this century, some 250 million people have been taking it annually to combat two of the world’s most devastating, disfiguring, debilitating and stigma-inducing diseases, Onchocerciasis and Lymphatic filariasis. Most of the recipients live in remote, rural, desperately under-resourced communities in developing countries and have virtually no access to even the most rudimentary of medical interventions.

Onchocerciasis and Lymphatic filariasis are caused by parasitic worms.

Ivermectin was a revelation. It had a broad spectrum of activity, was highly efficacious, acting robustly at low doses against a wide variety of nematode, insect and acarine parasites.

The African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control was created in 1995 to establish community-directed treatment with ivermectin to control Onchocerciasis as a public health problem in African nations that represented 80% of the global disease burden. For long the sole agent used in control efforts, ivermectin has been so successful that the goal has now switched from disease control to worldwide disease elimination.

It goes on about potential future use, that includes antiviral effects.

I think people fail to realize how relying on small trials cause anomalies. Take 2 participants, 1 takes a green tictac daily, one takes an orange one.

At some point in time, one may contact covid, at which point the other one proves a certain colour tictak is effective vs Covid.

Apologies for using the term 'study' instead of 'review article' for the piece about treating parasitic intestinal worms.

The 'review article' has nothing whatsoever to do with Covid.

Here's, again, the link you posted:

From the article:

The drug’s potential in human health was confirmed a few years later and it was registered in 1987 and immediately provided free of charge (branded as Mectizan)—‘as much as needed for as long as needed’—with the goal of helping to control Onchocerciasis (also known as River Blindness) among poverty-stricken populations throughout the tropics. 

This unprecedented compound has mainly been used in humans as an oral medication for treating filarial diseases but is also effective against other worm-related infections and diseases, plus several parasite-induced epidermal parasitic skin diseases, as well as insect infestations. It is approved for human use in several countries, ostensibly to treat Onchocerciasis,

So, looks like you posted a link to a Nature article that describes Ivermectin effectiveness in treating parasitic, intestinal worms, which cause illnesses such as Onchocerciasis (River Blindness), but either did not read the article, or did not understand what it is actually about.