The Ivermectin discussion

Wolf359f

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117693764#Comment_117693764

Was there not a study also in the US, Cincinnati where the author couldn't or wouldn't provide the data to back up the claims?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117693770#Comment_117693770

Yes, we get it, you're poster A and don't understand why the big meanies aren't just going and approving and producing your favourite medicine, gosh darn it.

Brussels Sprout

What does the Venn diagram of the people who believe that Ivermectin is a valid treatment for Covi-19 and the people who won't take the Covid-19 vaccine look like and why is it a circle?

PhoenixParker

No.

The anti vaxxers have latched on to ivermectin but, for instance, the NHS are also doing a major clinical trial on it at the moment.

fun loving criminal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117693296#Comment_117693296

He seems to be against vaccines, that's all what the Irish times report on.

is_that_so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117693764#Comment_117693764

There are issues with many of the studies, either through size or data. This is what the FDA, EMA, WHO, Merck and researchers not wedded to the claims about the drug say. They want more and better data through good quality clinical trials. It does not make it a mass conspiracy that they should suggest this. If is proven to be statistically useful it'll be good for everyone. Continuing this divisive approach makes it about egos and people wanting to be right. In the meantime pharma are working on actual anti-virals for COVID.

Piollaire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117694146#Comment_117694146

Look again, if you go down to the alternative therapeutics section it mentions that he is prescribing Ivermectin. His opinion on vaccines is really irrelevant as Ivermectin works regardless. Pro-vaxers are throwing out the baby with the bathwater - they can't disassociate the two treatments which are complementary rather than binary. This mental deficiency is illustrated by the venn diagram described above which shows an automatic bias against anyone in favour of Ivermectin. Nevermind that Ivermectin has been championed long before vaccines were available.

fun loving criminal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117694248#Comment_117694248

My bad. I read that report wrong. I came across an add half way through and I thought that was the end of the report.

Piollaire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117694223#Comment_117694223

Yes Pharma is working hard at making patented anti-virals or taking govt money to work on them. And pharma propagandists are working hard to back them up.

Flinty997

"...This mental deficiency..."

Nothing less likely to convince people than name calling.

is_that_so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117694273#Comment_117694273

Somewhere in this conversation is a far less extreme and biased position to this. I'm just reporting the state of play not judging it. Most people would be very happy if Invermectin is proven to have some benefit but the evidence to date shows we are not there yet.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117694288#Comment_117694288

I think it's never a good sign when people go to long lengths to distort the facts of something. Especially on a forum where people will be fact checking what is posted. If you do or often enough you'll be dismissed as a crank.

There lots of attention on this medicine. Hopefully some good will come out of.

PintOfView

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117694248#Comment_117694248

I'm interested to know why you are so convinced that Ivermectin works?

I searched and there don't seem to be any conclusive studies! There is a recent meta-analysis (analysis of multiple studies) that reported positive results for Ivermectin - https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214 - However one of the largest component studies, and one with most positive results, has since been discredited. See the following quote from the Guardian

"Because the Elgazzar study is so large, and so massively positive – showing a 90% reduction in mortality – it hugely skews the evidence in favour of ivermectin,” Meyerowitz-Katz said. “If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19. Indeed, if you get rid of just this research, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed".

(https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns)

I'd be happy to see an effective and cost effective treatment that reduced the severity and/or mortality of Covid. However it's not enough for someone to just believe it, it needs to be backed up by some evidence and reason for believing it!

Piollaire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117695401#Comment_117695401

Thanks for your post - you may be interested in the statement issued by the FLCCC and the BIRD group in response to the Guardian's article:

https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/546477291/joint-statement-of-the-flccc-alliance-and-bird-group-on-retraction-of-early-research-on-ivermectin

Specifically:

"Contrary to the voices quoted in the article, there is no scientific basis to state that the removal of one study from meta-analyses would ‘reverse results.’ Worryingly, this article’s insinuation is reported as if it is fact.

According to the most recent analyses by BIRD, excluding the Elgazzar data from the cited meta-analyses by Bryant and Hill does not change the conclusions of these reviews, with the findings still clearly favouring ivermectin for both prevention and treatment."

There is no one study above all study yet - with the possible exception of the Oxford PRINCIPLE trial which is in progress. The current weight of evidence is in favour of Ivermectin - from the variety of studies and reports of front line doctors. Certainly there is more than enough evidence for it's emergency use during a pandemic.

ligind

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117695575#Comment_117695575

This is where the case for ivermectin , thin as it was really came unstuck for me.

I do not know much about meta analysis etc but removing of one what appears to be one of the biggest and most positive trials from your meta analysis and it having little impact seems odd.

One of the guardian contributors has a Twitter thread contesting their response if you care to investigate.

Bigger question is how could they include such trial and still expect to be taken seriously .

Should make us wonder about the other trials included.

Some new analysis again going through the meta analysis on twitter today raising a lot questions.

jimmycrackcorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117695575#Comment_117695575

The Oxford trial will certainly be a gold standard trial, but it's not sufficient to suggest a weight of evidence from the "studies and reports of front line doctors". Where is the data on the toxicity effects for ivermectin at the higher does needed to have any effect on covid?

Piollaire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117695658#Comment_117695658

Covid is not treated with high strength Ivermectin. This is a myth that has been propagated since Monash University used high strength dosage for in-vitro tests early last year. The dosages being used around the world are pretty much in line with the dosages given to people suffering from parasitic infections. Ivermectin has a great decades long safety profile - there isn't a wave of people around the world falling sick and dying from taking it. It would be well reported if that was the case. You know what is killing and harming people - a treatable virus.

Piollaire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117695641#Comment_117695641

Sorry to have lost you lingind - thanks for the heads up on the twitter debate. It's a setback alright. If we didn't have to rely on developing countries to do the science on Ivermectin for the last year and a half we would be looking at a different picture now.

PintOfView

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117695575#Comment_117695575

Thanks for that link, which does address the Guardian article. One thing to note is that the press release is by proponents of Ivermectin (as is their right).

Looking at the study in more detail (https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214 - see the PDF linked on that page) here are some more observations (from a non-medic)

• The Elgazzar study (discredited) was the largest, at 400 patients, from 24 trials, with a grand total of 3,328 patients (see p6 of PDF)
• Time to Viral Clearance is given for 6 trials, and was shorter, sometimes significantly, in all (with Elgazzar study the best!!) (see p32)
• Duration of hospitalisation is given for 7 trials, and was reduced in all but 2 trials. The reduction was in the order of 1 to 2 days, except for Elgazzar, where the reduction was 12 days and 10 days for their two groups (200 ea group). (see p37)
• Mortality data is given for 11 trials - marginally worse for Ivermectin in 2 trials - marginally better in 3 trials - significantly better in the rest (with Elgazzar dramatically better at 2/200 dying in Ivermectin group, vs 24/200 in control group).
• The Elgazzar data contained 24 of a total of 93 deaths in the non-Ivermectin groups (38% of deaths!). I think the press release you link is probably correct in saying "there is no scientific basis to state that the removal of one study from meta-analyses would ‘reverse results’. However it seems fair to say that eliminating the Elgazzar data would dramatically change the picture. It might still show possible benefits from Ivermectin, but would be much less conclusive, and given the small trial sizes would seem to put us back in the relm of 'possibly beneficial, but more information required' (compare with the Pfizer trial which had 40,000 participants)!

Piollaire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117695872#Comment_117695872

Impressive stuff - I'm in the camp of likely beneficial, unlikely to be harmful, let's use it and see how we get on as we have no other pre-hospitalisation therapeutics.

ligind

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117695863#Comment_117695863

It doesn't bother you that they allowed such a poor trial into their meta analysis ?

It's more than a setback , when making extraordinary claims that may have serious impacts then I would would hope at least the underlying data would be vetted.

Have they withdrawn the previous meta analysis or published a new meta analysis without the suspect trial included ?

gmisk

Meanwhile in America...

https://twitter.com/williamlegate/status/1421964035822608388?s=19

Unicorn Milk Latte

So, big Pharma like Merck says Ivermectin is ineffective for treating Covid.

Conspiracists claim that they just want to prevent large scale treatments, because Ivermectin is cheap.

Because, you know, big Pharma is not at all business savvy, they would never consider raising the price of an effective drug that suddenly sees increased demand, or do something outrageous like rebranding a drug, to sell it at higher prices.

That being said: no harm in doing large scale studies that evaluate the effectiveness of Ivermectin. And Fentimans Curiosity Cola.

Unicorn Milk Latte

https://www.thedailybeast.com/demon-sperm-doctors-new-bogus-cure-has-covid-truthers-eating-horse-paste?ref=home

Quotes:

As human-approved ivermectin prescriptions have been harder to come by, enthusiasts have taken to raiding rural tractor supply stores in search of ivermectin horse paste (packed with “apple flavor!”) and weighed the benefits of taking ivermectin “sheep drench” and a noromectin “injection for swine and cattle.”

On one forum, a European ivermectin fan complained that he could only find the drug in quantities approved for pet parrots, leading to an expensive cost-per-dosage. On Facebook, an ivermectin-curious woman shared a picture of “sheep drench,” asking if the ovine de-louser would help fight COVID-19. 

Facebook at it again, with groups giving animal Ivermectin 'advice':

Posters ask questions not readily answered by the legitimate medical community, like what size dose of the phoney miracle drug to give an 8-year old recently diagnosed with COVID-19.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117699757#Comment_117699757

No. Not big pharma. The FDA, the organisation with the responsibility of protecting their citizens from snake oil.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117693770#Comment_117693770

And yet the UK is using off patent dexamethasone as a treatment, something this poster seems ignorant of. How about taking this crap to conspiracy theory forum where it belongs.

mcmoustache

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117695943#Comment_117695943

It'll be great if this stuff works but we do already have a means of avoiding hospitalisation almost entirely. I'd prefer not to need a hospital in the first place. Still, for those who can't take the vaccinations for medical reasons, this could be useful.

[Deleted User]

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-19-coronavirus-antidepressant-fluvoxamine-treatment

This seems very useful also.

Far too slow to recommend treatments to begin at home before/if needed for hospitalisation.

Dr. Pierre Corry recommends both.

is_that_so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117718301#Comment_117718301

Does he have data that is not his own? AFAIK nothing has been proven about this either in large scale trials. The celebrity Doc is great on bigging things up but not so hot on providing the data. His approach seems to be listen to me I'm an important doctor.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117718599#Comment_117718599

He's a doctor not a scientist.

He's maybe too close and too emotional about it all.

Meta analysis (study of studies) shows 62% reduction in deaths when Ivermectin used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j7am9kjMrk