The Ivermectin discussion

PureIsle · 26-09-2021 12:45pm

While John Campbell does not produce great videos, for most of us he is worth watching to get details of published papers and links for further investigation.

This is particularly useful to those who are not sure what terms to search for, while avoiding 'fake' papers and other crud.

IMO he provides a valuable service to the inquisitive.

He provides links to everything he uses so one can access them and come to an informed opinion ..... which can, at times, be completely different to his.

01-10-2021 9:16pm

Covid antiviral pill can halve risk of hospitalisation

It's not Ivermectin but it's something that appears to work.

Will the Ivermectin fan-boys be happy though!?

Existing drug originally developed for flu cuts hospitalisation in 1/2

US drug-maker Merck said its results were so positive that outside monitors had asked to stop the trial early.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58764440

02-10-2021 11:31am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117965024#Comment_117965024

Good to hear we have a pill on its way that cuts risks of hospitalisations and deaths by nearly half. This new pill will ironically work in much the same way as ivermectin. Though ivermectin reportedly cuts deaths and hospitalisations by 87%. According to the press release Molnupiravir “inhibits the replication of multiple RNA viruses including SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19.” According to this paper in Nature on the mechanisms of action of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2 published in June 2021, (which I won’t pretend to totally understand), ivermectin apparently “inhibits and disrupts binding of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein at the ACE-2 receptors.” Please, correct me if I am wrong, but that sounds like pretty much the same thing to me. If ivermectin inhibits and disrupts the binding of the covid protein to the ACE-2 receptors, it’s going to make it rather difficult for the virus to make copies of itself.

SortingYouOut · 02-10-2021 11:40am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117966682#Comment_117966682

Will make a lot more money for them though.

odyssey06 · 02-10-2021 11:55am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117966682#Comment_117966682

The article you linked is RETRACTED.

And you fail to provide a source for your 87% claim.

So Id be betting this Merck pill is the real deal unlike Ivermectin.

02-10-2021 12:35pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117966711#Comment_117966711

That's really what is comes down to.

More to the point. Is this not blatant off label promotion?

Which with the fraud that usually has gone with it has historically been the reason for the vast proportion of criminal charges against pharmaceutical companies to date and the many Billions of criminal fines & settlements paid.

Sure what harm could come from cutting clinical trials early?

02-10-2021 12:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117966880#Comment_117966880

It was the actual US medicines regulator that asked for that so that emergency authorisation could be applied for so that actual lives could be saved.

But the trial was not completed early.

Also note that it's a phase three trial (300 to 3,000 people)

50% Reduction in hospitalisation is huge from a simple tablet.

It's not some Big Pharma conspiracy - simply that this works and Ivermectin hasn't shown evidence of working from credible studies

If Ivermectin had shown similar real results from credible trials I'd be delighted but it doesn't

Among the half of patients taking molnupiravir twice a day, 7.3 per cent were admitted to hospital over the course of 30 days. This compares with 14.1 per cent of the second group of patients who were given a placebo pill.

The drug also appeared to lower the risk of mortality by half, though the numbers are small and experts have cautioned against over-interpreting the data. There were no deaths among the molnupiravir group, while eight of those who received the placebo died from Covid.

Upon seeing the results, the US medicines regulator recommended stopping the phase three trial early to begin the process of applying for emergency authorisation.

“It exceeded what I thought the drug might be able to do in this clinical trial,” Dr Dean Li, vice-president of Merck research, said about the interim findings. “When you see a 50 per cent reduction in hospitalisation or death, that’s a substantial clinical impact.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/covid-pill-molnupiravir-antiviral-drug-b1931102.html

Meanwhile the Together study for Ivermectin

. In the Together trial, that drug, commonly used against things like river blindness and intestinal roundworms, didn’t keep anyone with Covid out of the hospital any better than a placebo.

Of 677 people with Covid who got 400 micrograms per kilogram of weight per day for three days, 86 ended up in the ER or hospital; of the 678 people who got a placebo, 95 went.

That’s not a significant difference, and Mills’ team dropped it from the study.

Of course, Vaccination is still the most effective, safest, cheapest, and easiest way to avoid getting sick.

whereas this is the sort of "quality" of the "positive" studies for Ivermectin that is cited a lot - the one from Argentina - very poor indeed - red flags all over - data inconsistencies, data not shared, hospitals listed as being in the trial adamantly state that they weren't involved etc etc

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ivermectin-covid-study-suspect-data

02-10-2021 6:18pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117966763#Comment_117966763

The article being retracted does not take away from my point about mechanisms of action. Ivermectin apparently “inhibits and disrupts binding of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein at the ACE-2 receptors.” As I said above correct me if I am wrong. I am no expert on this.

Link to my claim - https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx

Mercks pill might be the real deal thought at $700 for a course of treatment much more expensive than ivermectin.

One question if ivermectin does not work why then are the doctors who are openly using it not having their licences revoked?, getting fired? or getting arrested for causing harm to people. There are doctors openly using ivermectin in the US in different medical centres and hospitals. I do not understand that a doctor can prescribe a drug that we are told is not working and maybe dangerous and nothing happens.

odyssey06 · 02-10-2021 7:00pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117968280#Comment_117968280

Not sure how you expect to convince anyone of your claim, when you base it on a retracted article. Come back to us with some real studies.

Ivermectin does not reduce deaths by 87%. Utter nonsense. Again, come back to us with some real studies.

Every properly run large scale trial has found no basis for the use of Ivermectin. A trial with 1500 hospitalised patients in Brazil, stopped because of zero benefit from Ivermectin.

The FDA etc doesn't micro-manage doctors, and check what basis every prescription was issued for. Ivermectin is licensed for human use for a specific purpose and is safe in that dose. There has been court cases re: the use of Ivermectin as a therapy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/07/ivermectin-ohio-judge-reverses-court-order-covid-patient

Wait for the court cases where someone sues after getting complications from unlicensed doses and then we'll see doctors come to their sense. Medical boards don't tend to actively investigate doctors except in response to patient complaints, but this doctor is under investigation by the state medical board in Arkansas:

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/26/us/covid-ivermectin-arkansas-doctor/index.html

PeadarCo · 02-10-2021 9:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117968412#Comment_117968412

The other thing to remember is that courts rule on laws not science. From a scientific point of view courts the only impact courts have is on the legally allowed investigative methods and the how easy is it to spread scientific information. A classic example is of Galileo and how he lost a court case for writing a book that said the earth revolved around the sun(and yes I know I am simplifying things a bit). The courts decision didn't change the science. It might have made it harder to teach in certain places and obviously impacted Galileo personally but thats it. The sun didn't start suddenly revolving around the earth after Galileo lost his case. The same for Ivermectin you might find a court case that allows it to be used in Covid treatment but that won't have any impact on effectiveness of Ivermectin in reality.

03-10-2021 3:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117966966#Comment_117966966

Your US medicines regulators drug review budget being 75% funded by the Biopharmaceutical Industry sort of leaves me thinking who's interests do they serve. Was becoming a concern in the US before all this started.

Thanks for the links, but will be holding on to my stash of Ivermectin, had a repeat prescription for traveling, can't get it this last year or so.

PureIsle · 03-10-2021 4:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117968412#Comment_117968412

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/26/us/covid-ivermectin-arkansas-doctor/index.html

and it opens with more 'horse paste' nonsense.

No point in watching any further after that!

Former Former Former · 03-10-2021 9:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117970752#Comment_117970752

This gets thrown around all the time by conspiracy theorists. Like all conspiracy theories, it's just true enough that people can hear what they want to confirm their lunatic theory, but it's also complete bollocks if you think about it for more than 30 seconds...

If a regular business is funded by its clients, then it works to fulfil the client's needs otherwise it loses the business. However, for a drug regulator, they don't have to worry about the pharma industry being unhappy with their service. If a biopharma company doesn't like the decision EMA or FDA makes, then it's not like they can take their business elsewhere. They want to sell their meds, they have to go through the regulators.

And what's the alternative? Fund the regulators from taxation? Then you'd be moaning that pharma is making billions and the taxpayer is subsidising it.

Just spend more than 30 seconds thinking about things.

PhoenixParker · 04-10-2021 7:48am

That doctor is under investigation because of a complaint by a human rights group, he's effectively carrying out a medical experiment on prisoners which is all kinds of wrong and problematic, but not comparable to the typical patient complaint that would be under investigation for the reasons you're inferring.

If his result, nefariously obtained as it is, is really 531 cases with no deaths then it strongly suggests that ivermectin does warrant further more ethical examination.

(I'd also note, that human prescription ivermectin, which was used here, is prescribed to entire prison populations on a regular basis for scabies outbreaks. The actual medicine he prescribed is not in any way experrimental, what was wrong and problematic is the reason he did it)

Apothic_Red · 05-10-2021 1:34pm

Luke O'Neill was pretty good on this with PK on Monday.

The trial was stopped as it was considred unethical to keep the control group on the placebo such was the efficacy of the Molnupiravir.

Sounds fantastic.

PintOfView · 05-10-2021 7:49pm

Just read this https://www.businessinsider.com/brazil-tragic-ivermectin-for-covid-frenzy-warning-to-us-experts-2021-9?r=US&IR=T

Can someone explain why Brazil don't seem to be able to make Ivermectin work for them, despite whole towns getting it for free, etc? Here are some quotes from that article (published yesterday, 4th Oct 2021)

Antonio estimated about 70% of her ICU patients said during the country's deadly second wave (in late 2020 and early 2021) that they had taken ivermectin, and "I regret to say most of those patients have died," she said.

and

"People are tired of all the lies and the manipulation and the promotion of miracle cures that they realize don't work," Taschner said.

and

The Brazilian government has issued new protocols for COVID-19 treatment, which recommend against using ivermectin in hospitalized patients, because they say there isn't good evidence it does anything.

odyssey06 · 05-10-2021 7:56pm

Continued from the linked article... don't think this "kit Covid" containing Ivermectin in Brazil had been mentioned before:

Many Brazilians used to spend about $30 a head on what they called the "kit COVID." It was a mix of vitamins and other pills that President Jair Bolsonaro touted as early treatments for COVID-19, well before vaccines became widely available to prevent and minimize coronavirus infections. Among the "kit" drugs were the malaria pill hydroxychloroquine and the antiparasitic tablet ivermectin... But Brazilians quickly discovered — through heart-wrenching personal experience — the limits of treating COVID-19 with ivermectin. Brazil suffered some of its worst death rates yet in late 2020 and early 2021, even in heavily ivermectin-dosed areas, as the more transmissible P1, or Gamma, variant spread quickly across the country.

https://www.businessinsider.com/brazil-tragic-ivermectin-for-covid-frenzy-warning-to-us-experts-2021-9?r=US&IR=T

is_that_so · 07-10-2021 7:54am

The Ivermectin debate seems to be drawing to a close. Article here on issues with methodology. BBC also doing a very negative piece on it today.

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/ivermectin-debacle-exposes-flaws-in-meta-analysis-methodology/4014477.article

astrofool · 07-10-2021 9:58am

It's a pity from the early promise, but it's descended into anti-vax, grifty fakery.

At least there should be less people infected with worms afterwards.

superflyninja · 07-10-2021 10:15am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117972395#Comment_117972395

I dont have a horse in the Ivermectin race (hohohoho), Im fully vaccinated. You are right, the big pharma companies gotta go through the regulators to sell their medicines. But you don't think bribery or corruption is a possibility? Its quite easy to see why a tinfoil hat nut would be suspicious of the ALWAYS trustworthy big pharma. Whispers that a preexisting extremely cheap drug assist against covid???? Could it be?? Is it so outside the realms of possibility that the noble big pharma companies would not want this information to surface? Maybe if you spent 30 seconds thinking about this you might gain some insight into why the tinfoil hat brigade are stroking their beards about Ivermectin.

Im not saying Ivermectin does work btw, sounds like the scientific consensus says the opposite.

07-10-2021 10:33am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117986643#Comment_117986643

Methodology problems are certainly an issue across the entire drug subject. And certainly has been with Ivermectin (including retracted papers).

But there are other issues too. For example a complete lack of understanding of what a study even is saying.

The two most common examples of this I have personally experienced, including on this thread, are:

1) People supporting the use of Ivermectin jumping between studies studying it as a preventative of infection, and as a treatment after infection. They do not seem to know/care about whether a study they are shouting about is supporting one or the other. They just want to point to studies showing any positivity at all for the drug. If someone is defending it's use as a treatment and when asked for their reasoning they cite studies about it's use as a preventative (or vice versa) they likely have zero idea what they are talking about and may just be engaged in confirmation bias because they hope the drug works or their favourite podcaster or impeached orange president has lauded praise on it.

2) The studies I most commonly hear cited - including by Joe Rogan - are the "in vitro" studies. People do not seem to understand what that means. Firstly it means that the effect observed only occurred in a dish. With drugs it is much more common than not, that such effects are not later observed in mammal animal tests (including human mammalian animals). So an in vitro study is basically something that can only tell us "hmm that's interesting, lets look more" and literally nothing else. Secondly the dosages required to observe the effect in a dish are high. And I mean high. Sometimes 1000s or tens or 1000s times higher than anything you'd get in a pill. So why people think popping a pill has even the remotest chance of bearing out the results of an in vitro study is a mystery.

07-10-2021 2:24pm

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809

Increasingly looking like the Ivermectin hype train has become permanently derailed for anyone possessing a rational mind.

Campaigners for the drug point to a number of scientific studies and often claim this evidence is being ignored or covered up. But a review by a group of independent scientists has cast serious doubt on that body of research.

The BBC can reveal that more than a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud. None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness.

Dr Kyle Sheldrick, one of the group investigating the studies, said they had not found "a single clinical trial" claiming to show that ivermectin prevented Covid deaths that did not contain "either obvious signs of fabrication or errors so critical they invalidate the study".

Major problems included:

- The same patient data being used multiple times for supposedly different people

- Evidence that selection of patients for test groups was not random

- Numbers unlikely to occur naturally

- Percentages calculated incorrectly

- Local health bodies unaware of the studies

The scientists in the group - Dr Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, Dr James Heathers, Dr Nick Brown and Dr Sheldrick - each have a track record of exposing dodgy science. They've been working together remotely on an informal and voluntary basis during the pandemic.

odyssey06 · 07-10-2021 2:43pm

In some ways it's a pity, it would have been great - but it had all the hallmarks of a 'too good to be true' and really hid its light under a bushel whenever people looked into it properly...

astrofool · 07-10-2021 3:43pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117987140#Comment_117987140

There's really no "big" pharma aspect to Ivermectin, it's off patent and can be produced as a generic, all that needs to be done with it is have a trial, prove efficacy and submit it for approval (these aren't cheap processes, but nothing major), whoever submits for approval gets 6 months exclusivity (depending on the market) on sales of the product for that use. You could raise capital, fund a trial, get approval and make your money and more back if you believed in it enough, what the grifters are doing is ignoring the trial and approval piece and going straight to trying to make money from it then screaming when people cast doubt on it (as all grifters do).

astrofool · 07-10-2021 3:47pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117987239#Comment_117987239

Sodium hypochlorite has 100% effect even at relatively low doses in vitro for basically all virus and bacteria, it's crying out for a "low dosage" homeopathic product to be marketed :)

(Danger: Don’t Drink Miracle Mineral Solution or Similar Products | FDA)

08-10-2021 2:07am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117989020#Comment_117989020

Just wait till you see my in vitro arsenic tests on Covid Viruses - it is universally effective against all known flu viruses too! Therefore everyone will want my pills :)

superflyninja · 08-10-2021 9:29am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117988994#Comment_117988994

No big pharma with Ivermectin. But there is with the vaccines.

astrofool · 08-10-2021 9:36am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117991696#Comment_117991696

Moderna, the jenner institute and BioNTech were not big pharma, but that should be discussed on the vaccines thread.

PeadarCo · 08-10-2021 10:10am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117991696#Comment_117991696

What do you consider "big pharma" and why is it an issue? Just because a company is small doesn't mean it work practices are going to any better. A bigger company is going to receive far more attention and is potentially far more likely to get caught out. The other thing is if a bigger company is caught out it will receive far more attention. Especially compared to issues with a small company that doesn't make headline news.

Why does the size of a company have anything to do with the effectiveness of its product? In the case of Ivermectin most of people pushing it have been conspiracy theorists. Any time its been given to people like in India or Brazil it hasn't been because it was considered to be effective, more that governments were desperate and were trying anything they could.

What the Ivermectin debate shows is the importance of properly run scientific studies. It also shows how bad science can be used to deceive people by unscrupulous individuals.

08-10-2021 3:14pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117988515#Comment_117988515

Interesting to read Tess Lawrie's full email exchange with the BBC reporter Jack Goodman, not just the quotes in the article.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/BBC-story-Tesss-interview.pdf

08-10-2021 3:30pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117993660#Comment_117993660

what's so interesting ?

does it negate the findings of the team including by Dr. Kyle Sheldrick that have nothing to do with the BBC other than the BBC quoted the finding - it's widely reported elsewhere on other sites also........

does it?

no it doesn't

or is it just another whatabouterry tangent attempt to muddy the waters?

Like who gives an iota of any credence to some fruitcake loon Tess Lawrie who has been posting unsubstantiated bullsh1t about vaccines and nothing actually useful - only other loons do

Speaking of water, Ivermectin as a seriously considered drug to help in any way with respect to Covid is dead in the water.

more than a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud. None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness.

Dr Kyle Sheldrick, one of the group investigating the studies, said they had not found "a single clinical trial" claiming to show that ivermectin prevented Covid deaths that did not contain "either obvious signs of fabrication or errors so critical they invalidate the study".

PureIsle · 08-10-2021 7:44pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117993660#Comment_117993660

Thank you.

That was well worth reading.

08-10-2021 7:58pm

Here's Tess Lawrie's greatest hits

https://healthfeedback.org/authors/tess-lawrie/

and despite her unsupported claims for Ivermectin (she has gone on so long that she can't back down now) most especially on vaccines she doesn't seem to grasp that the yellow card monitoring system for vaccines in the UK is a monitoring system to track possible issues for further investigation to see if there could be problems. and they did for example find the risk of death about 1 in 500,000

she is trying to make a name saying that ALL reported events for investigation that were reported on the 30 plus million people vaccinated in the UK in the months after administration are due to vaccines.

Like seriously, stuff a small child would not claim.

What a moron.

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/yellow-card-scheme-for-adverse-events-does-not-suggest-any-new-side-effects-of-covid-19-vaccines-tess-lawrie/

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-effects-vaccine-idUSL1N2PG0CQ

09-10-2021 10:50pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117988515#Comment_117988515

Insightful response from John Campbell to the BBC article.

https://youtu.be/zy7c_FHiEac

10-10-2021 12:19am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117999176#Comment_117999176

so nurse Campbell who is a known massive Ivermectin shill, way too far down the line to back down now, and who has had the seriously discredited Tess Lawrie on his channel several times indeed, seems to have a big issue with the fact that a student is the first name on a meta-analysis (with several scientists and doctors).

not sure why full references aren't given as he claims (haven't verified) but I doubt that will be the case for long (legal?)

meanwhile I had a look at his often quoted meta analysis site and they are still using highly dubious studies such as this one (which was used by FLCCC extensively in their propaganda)

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ivermectin-covid-study-suspect-data

and also an early study since superseded by a later one not finding in Ivermectin's favour from Lopez-Medina discussed but NOT on the same site (the later one), in this NYT article

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/04/science/coronavirus-ivermectin-treatment.html

Large scale trials like the together trial have not shown any statistically significant results (August 2021)

In the Together trial, that drug, commonly used against things like river blindness and intestinal roundworms, didn’t keep anyone with Covid out of the hospital any better than a placebo.

Of 677 people with Covid who got 400 micrograms per kilogram of weight per day for three days, 86 ended up in the ER or hospital; of the 678 people who got a placebo, 95 went. That’s not a significant difference, and Mills’ team dropped it from the study.

PureIsle · 14-10-2021 12:24pm

Seems, according to some, that anyone who believes that IVM should be investigated properly is now a 'shill' for IVM.

What nonsense!

Former Former Former · 16-10-2021 9:24am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118018814#Comment_118018814

But it has been investigated properly and found not to work.

Any of the studies that showed effectiveness are hilariously flawed.

It's over

Goldengirl · 18-10-2021 1:44am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117991696#Comment_117991696

Wonder why ? Efficacy ?

Why are some who are against vaccines so prolific in their defence of a drug that has not had any reputable study prove its efficacy, or even that it it is safe to use in the quantities suggested ?

PureIsle · 20-10-2021 9:16am

I have concluded that IVM is useless against Sars2 infection and Covid but thankfully I have found a great replacement which I would like to share with you all ...

https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/horse%20aspirin.JPG?itok=xMSfqEoV

🤣 😂 🤣

21-10-2021 9:14pm

I see the National institutes of Health (NIH) in America has added Ivermectin to its webpage "Characteristics of Antiviral Agents That Are Approved or Under Evaluation for the Treatment of COVID-19"

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2e/

21-10-2021 11:57pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118055160#Comment_118055160

Page at top says ->

Last Updated: July 08, 2021

Slow news day?!

Lumen · 24-10-2021 5:11am

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/10/ivermectin-research-problems/620473/

Most problematic, the studies we are certain are unreliable happen to be the same ones that show ivermectin as most effective. In general, we’ve found that many of the inconclusive trials appear to have been adequately conducted. Those of reasonable size with spectacular results, implying the miraculous effects that have garnered so much public attention and digital notoriety, have not.

24-10-2021 5:55am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118055160#Comment_118055160

I think EB05 (monoclonal antibody being trialled by Edesa Biotech) are 2 to 3 weeks away from getting the final (adjusted down) enrollment figure for phase 3 trial from the FDA, which the company has continued enrolling for as part of a phase 2/3 trial.

Once this and others are approved IVM will be quietly forgotten about as a desperate "solution" at a desperate time.

https://irdirect.net/prviewer/release_only/id/4899749

PureIsle · 24-10-2021 5:45pm

Some data analysis graphs here that will interest some, but I expect cause a few others to post their usual stuff.

Anyway, here is the link for those who like to receive information from more than one source.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/epidemiologic-analyses-on-covid19-and-ivermectin/

PureIsle · 24-10-2021 6:19pm

Of course there will be deniers of treatment for Covid, but where it has been done properly shows it is the most effective method known at present.

This is a look at the time-line and effects of treatment where it has been instigated.

For those who wish to look it is littered with references.

So why does the WHO not acknowledge these results?

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout---part-v-the-secret-revealed/article_9a37d9a8-1fb2-11ec-a94b-47343582647b.html

PeadarCo · 25-10-2021 7:38am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118067793#Comment_118067793

The WHO doesn't acknowledge the results because Ivermectin doesn't work. Every credible/properly designed study shows the drug doesn't work when it comes to Covid. Merck the company that makes Ivermectin doesn't think it works.

Linking to debunked studies doesn't change that. https://www.businessinsider.com/brazil-tragic-ivermectin-for-covid-frenzy-warning-to-us-experts-2021-9?r=US&IR=T

This article linked earlier in the thread is a good example of how Ivermectin is ineffective. Even on this thread the best evidence you have for Ivermectin is one province in India that at best shows correlation and not causation. You also have a situation in Brazil that contradixts the India example. On top of that basically every reputable study, scientist and even the drug manufacturer doesn't think it works. Its very easy to see why Ivermectin is ignored.

The most effective treatment we have for Covid is a vaccine of which there are numerous different ones available. Aside from vaccines there are other drugs used to treat Covid that are effective and actually have hard evidence behind them unlike Ivermectin.

PureIsle · 25-10-2021 1:01pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118069575#Comment_118069575

Then please explain the results from Uttar Pradesh rather than just saying IVM does not work.

Something worked there so what was it? IVM in combination with other substances? A miraculous intervention from one of their deities? What?

25-10-2021 1:47pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118070440#Comment_118070440

Well have you considered reading your own link? Because it actually answers your own question.

For example your link talks about how government teams moved across 98k villages over five days with "an aggressive house-to-house test and treat program". Anyone who tested positive were "quickly isolated" and "advice on disease management".

Involved in this was a medicine kit with a cocktail of drugs. But it is unclear which - if any - of those drugs actually did anything useful. Including the Ivermectin. But not just Ivermectic. For example Vitamin D is a supplement that seems to give absolutely no benefit to the vast majority of people - the vast majority of the time. In fact aside from pregnant women and people with demonstrated diagnosed severe deficiencies of it - I have seen no reason to think anyone should be taking it. Supposed "Dr." Campbell the you tube guy seems to think it's also a wonder drug. He has offered no reason to think so yet.

But an aggressive process of testing and isolation and education is going to have more of an effect than any given drug. Prevention is better than cure as they say.

But you seem to want to paint this with a narrative of "denial". But there is nothing "denial" about the proper processes of epidemiology. The reason we do studies and then meta analysis is to try to isolate one single factor - normalise for everything else - and then see if the single factor shows signs of doing anything useful.

Implementing a whole program of testing and isolation - and a pack of random medicines - means there is too many factors in play to isolate one and say it is - or is not - doing anything useful at all. The data can not be used to support one drug. It also - to be clear - can not be used to diss one drug either. It's useless data basically.

It is also not clear what people think the drug is even doing. When engaging in testing a drug we are usually clear about whether we are testing it's ability to treat an infection - or prevent an infection. People trying to invent support for Ivermectin appear to jump between the two as if they are interchangeable. There are people on this very thread who made claims about one and then cites studies related to the other! That is how bad it gets sometimes.

So yes - it would be very interesting and useful to investigate and study closely what happened in any given region that appears to have dealt well with the pandemic! No one is pretending otherwise to my knowledge. But picking one single factor out of a multitude when they were all thrown "into the wild" with no controls or structures of study methodologies is - at best - random wishful thinking. So when you say you want "the WHO to acknowledge" this - it is entirely unclear what you want them to acknowledge precisely - and what exact form that acknowledgement would even take?

And when you say "but where it has been done properly shows it is the most effective method known at present." You have not shown where you think it has been done "properly" but even more important you have shown little evidence you even know what "doing it properly" would even entail or what it means.

PeadarCo · 25-10-2021 1:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118070440#Comment_118070440

If you read my post you'll see I did that. I supplied a real world example of the futility of prescribing Ivermectin to treat Covid. Correlation does not mean causation. In the link in my post it highlights the example of Brazil Ivermectin was used and it had no impact on Covid. Its a direct real world refutation of the use of Ivermectin to treat Covid. This combined with other studies indicates that the decline in India was caused by factors other than the use of Ivermectin. If Ivermectin was so effective it was have multiple real world examples. If you compare that to proven treatments such as vaccines there a huge amount of different studies, both clinical and real world that indicates their effectiveness against Covid.

Based on current scientific data using Ivermectin is pseudo science. At best if prescribed in a low enough dose its harmless. At worst it ends people up in hospital due to overdosing and or gives people a false sense of security meaning the don't take advantage of proven preventative measures such as vaccines or stop taking preventative measures such as mask wearing. Meaning a certain amount of these people will end up getting Covid and a percentage of them will die needlessly.

partyguinness · 25-10-2021 2:24pm

I had a medical rep with me last week saying something about the reason Merck are dissing Ivermectin is because the patent ran out in 1996 and so no money to be made. Apparently they are now pushing the new (patented) version. Can't recall the name she gave me. She repeated the line that Iverectin is basically great and used for deceades to cure all sorts of tropical diseases in Africa.

She mentioned that in India the are giving out the stuff big time in a pack together with an oximeter.

I have admit I wasnt listening too hard as she is an Anti Vax loon and life is one big conspiracy..can't be dealing with that..if only we were so clever...as a medical rep it is an interesting contrast.

The Ivermectin discussion

Comments

The trial was stopped as it was considred unethical to keep the control group on the placebo such was the efficacy of the Molnupiravir.