The Ivermectin discussion

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.

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.

Not sure how you expect to convince anyone of your claim, when you base it on a retracted article.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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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)

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

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.