The Ivermectin discussion

18-11-2021 6:45am

"One stops the disease if treated early"

I am still waiting for any studies showing such a claim is even remotely true though. Not just "coulds" and "maybes" but actual evidence this is what is what actually happens.

So far we are not getting this - and most people who I ask either cite a single study which showed benefits in a petri dish - or they cite a single country who did a lot of things at the same time - including distributing medicine packs which happened to include among other things Ivermectin - and simply declare that this is evidence.

Neither of those things are evidence for the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating or preventing Covid in Humans. So what is? Anything? Put my waiting to an end because as you say above - it would indeed be massively exciting if a drug that cheap and available were useful here. It would be exactly what the world wants and needs.

OTG · 18-11-2021 11:44am

It's a bit like Bert and Ernie. E "Hey Bert, why you got a banana sticking in your ear". B "To keep the Rhino's away". E "But there are no Rhino's around". B" Yeah it works great doesn't it"

This allegory can be adapted to fit all aspects of Covid response from Testing, to MRNA jabs, to anti Malaria Drugs in Sub Saharan Africa to Ivermectin use. It all depends on who is looking at the data and the result one requires.

Why not make Ivermectin as available as Banana's and we might just see a massive drop in the number of Covid hospitalisations just like Bananas are dealing with our Rhino problem. If anyone does carry out some research into Banana efficacy, please make sure to carry out the study prior to being trampled by a crash of Rhino as Banana efficacy works only in the early stages if infestation.

A Banana is 20c, Ivermectin is 6c, A Phizer shot is €18, and Anti Malaria is 50c?

18-11-2021 12:06pm

And doing none of the things that have not been shown to have any benefit costs 0C. So I am not sure a financial argument holds up there - even if it is only 6c.

But to answer your question more seriously - there is a reason why doctors ask you if you are on any "other" medication when they are about to prescribe one to you. It is because there are databases that store information on how some drugs have been found to combine badly with other drugs.

But that database is limited. It does not know every combination. Maybe drug X does not react with Y or Z individually. But if someone takes X Y and Z together suddenly there is an issue. And we might not know that yet.

So there is legitimate concern with the idea of just making some random drug widely available and heavily taken. It means there is a new drug out there "in the wild" interacting with every other drug out there. So for good reason we do not recommend people take any drug without a good basis for doing so.

So why arbitrarily take one drug which (currently) has no data supporting it's efficacy - and make it the next Banana? Why not some other drug? Why not all of them? Just throw any drug people have become interested in because of social media and stick them all "in the wild"?

The troubles do not end there. If you look at some of the drugs popular at the moment for Covid some of them could actually be positively harmful. In the concoction that Joe Rogan took for example was one drug that actively suppresses the immune system. Now in people with extreme immune reactions to Covid that is exactly what we would use such a drug for. But in most people having an entirely normal reaction to Covid - suppressing their immune system is the last thing we want to do.

So yea generally I think it is a bad idea to be simply firing drugs out there with a "it just might help you never know" kind of mentality. If a drug like Ivermectin which has shown no benefits in trials as a preventative or treatment for Covid comes along then personally I would recommend waiting until it does. And the fact is Ivermectin has shown no such benefits except in a Petri Dish. And what the people quoting that Petri Dish Study always seem to forget to mention is that the dosage required to even get that effect in the first place - is many 100s of times larger than anything available in human pill form.

OTG · 18-11-2021 12:34pm

https://c19ivermectin.com/

18-11-2021 1:03pm

I have dealt with and discussed many of the studies mentioned in that link multiple times before on this thread. I will not bore anyone with repeating myself! You can find all my posts on the thread.

If any one particular study on the link interests you and I have not covered it already let me know and I will look into it for you and tell you what I find.

OTG · 18-11-2021 1:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118185445#Comment_118185445

Thanks but I'll stick to my own critical analysis of thousands of other peoples work that is constantly being updated.

18-11-2021 1:13pm

Great. And if you do find any useful individual studies that actually do show positive effects here using useful methodologies rather than some of the very poor ones we have seen - please inform me of them!! I can not read everything myself. So it helps to have others who can keep me informed too.

And if I finally do find a positive study of that nature everyone on the thread can be assured I will post it instantly.

PureIsle · 18-11-2021 1:29pm

https://ivmmeta.com/

18-11-2021 2:04pm

Just like Ivermectin we have little or no mention of the importance of Vitamin D in preventing Covid. Why? money? incompetence?

Very disappointing that vaccines and lockdowns are seen as the only solutions.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/13/10/3596

18-11-2021 2:56pm

I have discussed Vitamin D at quite a lot of length on this thread I think. It's not really all that important at all for most people most of the time. Clearly actual severe deficiencies in it are an issue - and seemingly supplementing is recommended for Pregnant women. But in general most people most of the time will see little to no benefit from supplementing it or worrying about it.

That said though - in fairness this is a thread specifically about Ivermectin. So while the thread has derailed into the occasional discussion of Vitamin D - it probably is not the place to worry about a lack of it being mentioned. It is just not what the thread is for. Seemingly it has not registered as important enough to anyone to start it's own thread. If anything - were anyone to actually ask me which I realise they aren't - if someone asked me what they could best do to prepare for Covid I would be much less inclined to suggest Vitamin D as I would be to suggest checking they have a healthy body weight and are keeping themselves generally active and fit.

odyssey06 · 18-11-2021 2:57pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118185826#Comment_118185826

Hardly. Lots of trials looked into ivermectin and repurposing other existing meds steroids such as dexamethasone, anti depressants, anti virals, anti malarials...

We are seeing covid specific treatment meds being approved now.

If you mean specifically meds to prevent infection rather than treatment vitamin D has popped up a lot. But like with other respiratory viruses maybe theres no 'shield' for the general population ... indications that if you are vitamin d deficient the vitamins could help.

But there is also possibility people with low vitamin d have bad outcomes with covid not because of low vitamin d but because of the reasons they have low vitamin d.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d42859-021-00052-9

OTG · 18-11-2021 6:58pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118185826#Comment_118185826

"Regression suggested a theoretical point of zero mortality at approximately 50 ng/mL " Vitamin D3 is dirt cheap to manufacture too and the process is out of patent. Been taking 5000iu per day during winter for years (now on 15000 to 25000 depending on sunlight exposure), my understanding was it is the essential building block of your immune systems Macrophage (hunter killer white blood cell).

Boots on ground evidence can be seen by the lack of Covid deaths in the Homeless populations around the world.

Vitamin C too if taken regularly can reduce the viral load build up via the process of electron donation thus destroying the virus cell wall by zapping it.

is_that_so · 18-11-2021 7:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118185826#Comment_118185826

It's unproven and you could probably work up a study to say the same thing about a whole load of other ailments. Worldwide there are about 1bn people with Vitamin D deficiency anyway. There is a general Vitamin D is good for your immune system public health message and now a new programme to encourage parents to give their kids extra Vitamin D in winter.

CruelSummer · 18-11-2021 9:23pm

https://youtu.be/ufy2AweXRkc

Posted this video on the main thread but it was reported and deleted as apparently no mention of Ivermectin allowed as it’s not approved as yet. I’ve never really paid attention to this drug as thought it would be similar to the other false dawns like remdesivir and others.

However evidence presented in this video is compelling. Have we been sitting on a cheap, effective therapeutic for months? As Dr Campbell suggests that could have saved thousands of lives? Worse still is it appears from the data presented here that the Pfizer alternative isn’t as effective as Ivermectin…

astrofool · 18-11-2021 9:30pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118188175#Comment_118188175

There has been no data from any of the properly run Ivermectin trials that it's working as a prophylactic for SARS-COV2 or cure for COVID-19.

There has been lots of circumstantial data from badly run trials that hasn't stood up to repetition.

Pfizer drug and merck drug have passed trials and are in the approval phase or have been approved for emergency use.

Ivermectin hasn't even gone for a review yet.

odyssey06 · 18-11-2021 9:44pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118188175#Comment_118188175

The Pfizer treatment passed clinical trials.

Ivermectin failed as a treatment in a 1500 patient trial run by McMaster University. And in other trials that studied it as an isolated treatment.

Whatever it is it is not an effective treatment for covid. It would have been great if it had been but sometimes if it looks too good to be true it is.

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

OTG · 18-11-2021 10:01pm

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted

astrofool · 18-11-2021 10:08pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118188393#Comment_118188393

It seems a good blog, I especially like the idea of the lizardman's constant (I hazard that on boards it's -gt 4%), but I assume you read the conclusion which was "great for worms, not for much else" as it seems to go against your other posts.

Ivermectin doesn’t reduce mortality in COVID a significant amount (let’s say d > 0.3) in the absence of comorbid parasites: 85-90% confidence
Parasitic worms are a significant confounder in some ivermectin studies, such that they made them get a positive result even when honest and methodologically sound: 50% confidence
Fraud and data processing errors are of similar magnitude to p-hacking and methodological problems in explaining bad studies (95% confidence interval for fraud: between >1% and 5% as important as methodological problems; 95% confidence interval for data processing errors: between 5% and 100% as important)
Probably “Trust Science” is not the right way to reach proponents of pseudoscientific medicine: ???% confidence

CruelSummer · 18-11-2021 10:18pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118188295#Comment_118188295

Why are certain countries using it as a treatment such as India and Japan? Strange.

PeadarCo · 18-11-2021 10:27pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118188516#Comment_118188516

Because they are not using Ivermectin to treat Covid.

In India Ivermectin was given in conjunction with a number of other substances plus other other measures. Basically an example where paint was thrown at the wall in hope something sticks. There is no evidence that Ivermectin works when it comes to treating Covid. The Japan example has also been debunked in thread.

To repeat the company that's makes Ivermectin doesn't think it works despite the massive financial incentive it has to produce the drug. It would be relatively simple to expand and retool production lines and supply chains. Far cheaper, quicker and less risky than attempting to develop a new drug.

astrofool · 18-11-2021 10:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118188516#Comment_118188516

Which corner of the internet did you get that about Japan? That was an anti-vaxxer talking point a few weeks ago but has been debunked everywhere (do a quick search).

India is the same (from the times of India):

How ivermectin fails to work-Controversy behind the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19 (indiatimes.com)

Amazingly, not having worms improves the health of those who had worms so they have better outcomes when they don't have worms.

That post is a good indication of where you get your information from.

19-11-2021 9:35am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118187502#Comment_118187502

While it is true that it is an important element in the immune system... that fact alone should not motivate supplementation. There is no reason to think that adding more of it helps the immune system in any way.

As an analogy - A builder might say "The most important thing for me to build this house is bricks". The response to that should be to say "Have you enough bricks to do the job right now then?" not to run off shouting "Get this guy as many bricks as possible!". More bricks will not help him. In fact getting more bricks might positively hinder him.

Another analogy - If I told you how there is arsenic in your body and how and why it is important - would you suddenly feel compelled to add arsenic to your diet? I would hope not :)

Most people - most of the time - have more than enough Vitamin D and supplementation does nothing for them. Vitamin supplementation can in fact be harmful and damaging. If you are pregnant or a doctor finds positive reason to recommend you supplement it then go for it. Other than that though - it's pretty pointless.

It's even worse in the US than here in Ireland though. Over there there is no supplementation regulation. So there is no guarantee when buying a supplement of something like vitamin D that you are getting anywhere near (or even any at all in some cases.) of the vitamin you think you are. I genuinely do not know how this is regulated in Ireland actually. I would hope it is better than the US.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118187774#Comment_118187774

Unfortunately such studies can not even agree what level even qualifies as "deficient". Let alone what levels of "deficiency" actually qualify as having any actual effect. It reminds me a lot of the studies (coincidently financed by bottled water companies, go figure) which suggested the majority of children were dehydrated all the time. To achieve this result they used measures when evaluating urine that no sane person, let alone any actual paediatrician, would use when qualifying a child as dehydrated.

Germany is one of the countries where the doctors push Vitamin D supplementation on parents of young children. There seems to be very little evidence whatsoever that there is any point in them doing this.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118188175#Comment_118188175

I think I already dealt with that video at some length in the thread already. Or one of his like it. And I already dealt with his video on the report about Vitamin D too. The guy makes awful videos and seems to know very little about what he is talking about. And I do not say that as a throw away comment. I evaluated his VitD video at quite a lot of length and the deficiencies in his abilities to evaluate the VitD report he was reading were numerous and massive.

But by all means rather than me merely copy and pasting anything I wrote before - tell me which thing in the video - or which three things if you like - you found most "compelling" and I will go over them again.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118188516#Comment_118188516

It depends what they are using it for? It is a great and wonderful drug! When it is used for the things it has been shown to be useful for that is. I am sure 100s of 1000s of people have used it to great effect.

If you mean those countries are using it for covid however - that is indeed a good question. There is no reason for them to be doing it. Maybe they made a mistake. Maybe they were convinced by bad experts. Maybe it is just optics. Maybe they bent to the demands of the public who themselves where convinced of its efficacy (much like doctors bend to patients demands for anti biotics even when they have a virus and anti biotics would do nothing for them at all, and even harm them).

It is more depressing than that though. A recent study did a review of all medications on the prescription lists in - I think it was the UK - and found a huge % of them (the majority if memory serves) have little or poor evidence for their efficacy. So the question there too is - why the hell are we using them?

We should evaluate with extreme skepticism every drug. The fact some person or even some country is using that drug should never be taken as even a little evidence the drug is useful. Our own government had a truly awful report (which the guy in the video above praised of course) into Vitamin D making it sound like a wonder drug when in fact the evidence it is useful in most cases at all is at best scant and at worst truly awful.

At the end of the day - governments are not medical people. It is simply not what they are qualified for/in most of the time. What they actually are qualified for most of the time is of course another interesting question :)

CruelSummer · 19-11-2021 2:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118188558#Comment_118188558

Youre always trying to label fully vaccinated people as anti vaxx, and yet I still don’t know your own vaccination status.

PureIsle · 20-11-2021 2:57pm

Should I pay attention to random anonymous posters on the internet or to a group of highly qualified professionals like those here?

https://covid19criticalcare.com/

... and why?

ligind · 20-11-2021 3:29pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118196320#Comment_118196320

Does ivm meta qualify as an anonymous poster on the internet ?

Are you aware a paper based on the "highly qualified professionals" initial protocol was retracted recently ? , The second one they had retracted this year.

PureIsle · 20-11-2021 7:49pm

If it is such an injurious and ineffective substance why have the WHO sponsored its use and praised the results, but yet kept the name of the substance out of their text?

In another astonishing example of their incongruous and censorious policy, WHO has sponsored home covid treatment kits for the 240 million people living in the Indian province of Uttar Pradesh. The active treatment component in the kit is ivermectin and has been widely acknowledged to have been an important factor in virtually eradicating covid in that province. Yet despite heralding the success of this program on their official website, and listing all the other contents, they do not mention ivermectin at all, even though it is the only explanation of the massive drop in cases.

https://bird-group.org/who-can-you-trust-on-ivermectin/

PureIsle · 20-11-2021 8:04pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118196458#Comment_118196458

I guess you mean the ivmmeta.com site, which I have previously linked to? No is my answer.

The one that has this on its page ...

I am heartened to know you have seen this and are in full agreement.

odyssey06 · 20-11-2021 8:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118198126#Comment_118198126

Cos it is lies.

Find us where the WHO authorised the contents of this kit.

Also, what were the entire contents of the kit.

In fact the WHO issued an advisory alert against the use of Ivermectin as a Covid treatment.

Your posts should come with a health warning about fake news, they have such a distant relationship to the truth.

ligind · 20-11-2021 8:21pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118198234#Comment_118198234

I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree . I dont understand how an anonymous site carries such credibility with some .

The analysis shared by OTC earlier in the week should at the very least make people cautious about using that site as a source.

PureIsle · 20-11-2021 8:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118198287#Comment_118198287

If, instead of spouting nonsense you had the interest in getting information you would not be unaware of this.

Here is a link to the WHO page about this

https://www.who.int/india/news/feature-stories/detail/uttar-pradesh-going-the-last-mile-to-stop-covid-19

and just in case you have some difficulty in reading the pertinent part of the text I will even quote it for you

WHO, which supported Uttar Pradesh government in training and micro planning for the activity, now has field officers on the ground to monitor and share real-time feedback with the government for immediate corrective action to ensure quality. On the inaugural day, WHO field officers monitored over 2,000 government teams and visited at least 10,000 households. WHO will also support the Uttar Pradesh government on the compilation of the final reports.

Any further information on this you want get it yourself!

The Ivermectin discussion

Comments