The Ivermectin discussion

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.

astrofool · 25-10-2021 3:46pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118070748#Comment_118070748

The patent running out also means that anyone can produce it yet for next to nothing and make easy money. but that hasn't happened yet for whatever reason.

If a company got it trialed and then approved they get 6 month exclusivity on selling (depending on the country) yet again, no big or small company has decided to do that.

PureIsle · 25-10-2021 8:02pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118071025#Comment_118071025

First of all there are companies manufacturing IVM else why you think it is in plentiful supply?

Second, the cost of running a trial such as would be accepted by most, is huge, and the profits from a drug out of patent, with many competitors also producing it, does not warrant that kind of spend.

So it is not about only making money on production of the drug, it is about making sufficient money to do the required trials, and apparently the figures/profits do not support any company doing such a trial.

astrofool · 25-10-2021 8:12pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118071918#Comment_118071918

The money spent on developing a new drug and putting it through for approval is far more. Hell, the cost of re-doing the trials that were run with proper controls and oversight would be minimal (which begs the question why they weren't run to those standards in the first place...)

Any company could easily make bank from the costs of approval with 6 month exclusivity on a proven medicine that treats a pandemic cause.

PureIsle · 25-10-2021 8:27pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118070595#Comment_118070595

IVM has long since been used as part of a group of drugs administered to counteract the effects of the Sars-2 virus, by those who promote such treatment. It is not about IVM alone and never was, except by some weird and wonderful random anti-vaxxer types.

As far as I am aware those who promote such treatments are also pro-vaccination, the 'treatment' being regarded as part of what is/should be available to combat the development of Covid.

Regarding the WHO ...... do you honestly think that the scheme carried out so successfully in Uttar Pradesh has been promoted by the WHO for use in other countries?

Of course for them to do so would be to acknowledge that infections and illness could be dealt with by general treatment, minimal vaccination and the isolation of the infected.

The WHO have promoted no treatment but have promoted the isolation of the healthy as well as general mass vaccination during this pandemic. None of which correlates with what they were so successfully involved with in Uttar Pradesh.

25-10-2021 8:50pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118072020#Comment_118072020

Utter Pradash - no actual proof of anything that would stand up anywhere - mere supposed causal anecdotal and dubious.

fact is that Ivermectin hasn't shown efficacy in any properly conducted trial with a significant number of participants

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/no-evidence-suggests-a-causal-link-between-ivermectin-recommendation-and-the-decline-of-covid-19-cases-in-the-indian-state-of-uttar-pradesh/

25-10-2021 8:59pm

This trial with 15,000 participants going since June looks at repurposed drugs, including Ivermectin

Will be interesting when they start posting results

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885530

PureIsle · 25-10-2021 11:34pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118072133#Comment_118072133

"Estimated Study Completion Date : March 2023"

Another 18 months before it ends and then the results have to be collated and a report finalised.

So it will be a time yet before they start posting results it seems.

is_that_so · 26-10-2021 8:26am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118072020#Comment_118072020

You do seem completely convinced by Ivermectin but by linking to scattered potential evidence that it does work suggests that you also exhibit a very high level of confirmation bias, to the point I suspect that most of your arguments are starting to turn to a conspiracy theory. You also seem convinced that there is a magic bullet out there, when the last 18 months clearly indicate that there isn't. We don't really know much about how some of these people who advocate Ivermectin figured it out and their proof is wrapped up in a collection of protocols that includes other drugs.

People are not necessarily against Ivermectin but there is an increasing body of real evidence that it just doesn't work and that people have played very fast and loose with any data that claims to support it. Even if current trials do report some positive benefit that will still play against it. It's now also up against the competition of new antiviral drugs which do work.

All told its race is run and I’ve said before on this thread if the strident supporters of the drug had put their efforts into doing proper trials over the last 18 months then maybe we would have better evidence or maybe we would have found final confirmation that it doesn't actually work that well.

26-10-2021 8:28am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118072020#Comment_118072020

Really nothing you wrote here is a reply to anything I wrote. Despite you addressing it to my post. For example your first paragraph discusses Anti Vaxxers. Your second paragraph discussed Pro Vaxxers. Nothing I wrote to you as a reply to your post had anything whatsoever to do with Vaccination. So why you bring this up with me is seriously unclear.

Second - I am not interested at all in how long a drug has been used for X or Y. I am only interested if there is data showing that the drug is actually efficacious where it is used - or not. Referring to historical use is less than relevant even when discussing the thing it is actually being used for. But discussing it's historical use for one virus - when discussing an entirely new virus is even less relevant. Especially when the new virus is "novel". Even if a given drug shows efficacy against one virus - that is in fact zero evidence it will be efficacious against the next.

Regarding your "do you honestly think" question - I tend to tell people what I honestly think. So if I have not told you I think something - then asking me if I "honestly think it" is really nothing but straw man and putting words in my mouth. Why would you ask me if I honestly think something I patently and demonstrably never once said? Between this and your diatribe about anti and pro vaxxers I am unclear if you even read my post at all at this point.

So I will simply repeat what I did say. Again. Maybe you will read it this time: You claimed this drug "where it has been done properly shows it is the most effective method known at present." but you have shown absolutely zero evidence for that statement. You have not - I repeat - even shown evidence that you understand what it even means to have study of a drug "done properly". So it is entirely unclear what you want the WHO to "acknowledge" here - or what form you think that acknowlegement would even take were it to be made.

I see nothing to acknowledge except what I already clearly and openly acknowledged - which is that when one region deals with a pandemic significantly better than other regions - then the reasons for this are worthy of study. From the link you provided there is literally nothing else to say or acknowledge.

But this thread is not about that. This thread is solely and specifically about Ivermectin isn't it? Or did you not bother to read the thread title and topic along with not really bothering to read my post? By all means discuss isolation protocols. A great topic. But not what this thread is about except to point out that stringent identification and isolation protocols make your link - and the questions you asked about your own link - an issue regarding attempt to identify ivermectic as a useful drug in this context.

The thing is - alas - that there is currently zero evidence especially in the link you provided that I replied to - that this drug specifically has any beneficial effects for this virus. Either in prevention of catching it - treatment of those who have caught it - or prevention of the infected from transmitting it. Which I suspect is why you are doing a gish gallop of irrelevant off topic tangents.

Which is all a pity. An off patent cheap and easy to mass manufacture drug would be a wonderful thing to discover for this pandemic. I would be front of the line promoting it if there was any reason to do so.

There. Simply. Isn't.

Yet!

26-10-2021 10:21am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118072793#Comment_118072793

I imagine that some results will be released before then

Like with the "Together Trial" which showed in interim results that Ivermectin showed no efficacy

showed that the antiparasitic drug ivermectin—you’ve heard about that one, right?—doesn’t help at all. 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.

https://www.wired.com/story/better-data-on-ivermectin-is-finally-on-its-way/

The Ivermectin discussion

Comments