Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)

The Ivermectin discussion

145791048

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,195 ✭✭✭ lucernarian


    Beasty wrote: »
    A number of posts deleted

    Do not post hearsay, or indeed any unproven "potential" remedies/treatments
    May I ask why my post about Ivermectin as a potential therapeutic was deleted? Is that not the topic of this thread?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,386 ✭✭✭ Wolf359f


    May I ask why my post about Ivermectin as a potential therapeutic was deleted? Is that not the topic of this thread?

    Trump - Bleach - Nuff Said!


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,195 ✭✭✭ lucernarian


    Wolf359f wrote: »
    Trump - Bleach - Nuff Said!
    Yeah, if only I wrote about bleach and such ****e like that :D

    I thought the topic was Ivermectin and apparently discussing the subject of the thread gets your posts deleted :/


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,386 ✭✭✭ Wolf359f


    Yeah, if only I wrote about bleach and such ****e like that :D

    I thought the topic was Ivermectin and apparently discussing the subject of the thread gets your posts deleted :/

    If you're saying it's a cure or treatment for Covid, without any medical background or without approved trials, then yes, it's no different than Trump.
    It's harsh, but the mods have to protect users and the public.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,195 ✭✭✭ lucernarian


    Wolf359f wrote: »
    If you're saying it's a cure or treatment for Covid, without any medical background or without approved trials, then yes, it's no different than Trump.
    It's harsh, but the mods have to protect users and the public.
    I'm only interested in whether it's a potential treatment. The problem is there's some evidence to suggest it works, and other reviews which don't give that evidence much credibility. What's the point of this thread if I can't post about the literal topic of this thread?

    Edit: unless the mods have a relevant background in the subject, why act on posts that are literally about the subject? I mean I'm happy to be proven wrong on something, it's how we make sense of the various findings. And with vaccination as the ultimate solution, it'll become a moot point. But I don't come to boards to troll or make grandiose claims, I literally wanted to discuss the evidence


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 35,028 ✭✭✭✭ LuckyLloyd


    What are people exposed to online that makes them come on here spamming this stuff for posts at a time? Ivermectin is for treatment of parasites in animals and two very specific worms in humans. The FDA are very clearly warning it is not to be used by humans as a cure for Covid 19 as no safety trials have been performed to establish tolerable dosing regimes, never mind clinical trials to determine efficacy against the disease.

    And yet we have people coming in saying it is a hidden treatment “approved by the WHO”. What are people reading / listening to?


  • Registered Users Posts: 250 ✭✭ myfreespirit


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    What are people exposed to online that makes them come on here spamming this stuff for posts at a time? Ivermectin is for treatment of parasites in animals and two very specific worms in humans. The FDA are very clearly warning it is not to be used by humans as a cure for Covid 19 as no safety trials have been performed to establish tolerable dosing regimes, never mind clinical trials to determine efficacy against the disease.

    And yet we have people coming in saying it is a hidden treatment “approved by the WHO”. What are people reading / listening to?

    +1 to this.
    Unless and until properly run and peer-reviewed clinical trials are conducted to demonstrate efficacy of Ivermectin in the treatment of Covid-19, then everything else is simply ignorant uninformed opinion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ PhoenixParker


    https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Ivermectin&cond=Covid19&recrs=e&age_v=&gndr=&type=&rslt=&Search=Apply

    Read the trials for yourselves. Suggest focusing on the results when it's used as a prophylactic as those are the most convincing.

    This provides a run down of the trials & their results:

    https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf

    I've said it before and I'll say it again.

    Ivermectin is widely used as a prophylactic for non covid reasons. Billions of doses worldwide have been administered with minimal medical supervision. It's a safe drug and while we aren't familiar with it in the West it's used on a scale not dissimilar to paracetamol or aspirin.

    For prophylactic treatment we're talking about administering it to healthy adults.
    There may be no gold standard copper fastened & gold plated studies to say it works but there are dozens of half decent ones that strongly suggest it does.

    It's cheap, available, safe and probably works. Where is the downside?


  • Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭ harrylittle


    +1 to this.
    Unless and until properly run and peer-reviewed clinical trials are conducted to demonstrate efficacy of Ivermectin in the treatment of Covid-19, then everything else is simply ignorant uninformed opinion.

    And who is going run those trails...certainly not big pharma ..the last thing they want is a cheap effect drug .. far more money to be made in vaccines


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,771 ✭✭✭ plodder


    We already have highly effective 'prophylaxis' with one or two doses of vaccines. What are people suggesting here? That everyone takes small doses of this unproven medication for the rest of their lives? That would be insane.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭ PhoenixParker


    That if someone is a contact of a covid case they're given one dose or a short course of ivermectin asap. This is likely to reduce their chance of testing positive as a result.

    There are still nearly 3 million adults in this country who have yet to get a vaccine and 400 or so cases a day.
    Aside from that there are billions around the world who are months if not years away from a vaccine.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,374 ✭✭✭ The Continental Op


    plodder wrote: »
    We already have highly effective 'prophylaxis' with one or two doses of vaccines. What are people suggesting here? That everyone takes small doses of this unproven medication for the rest of their lives? That would be insane.

    It is well proven just not enough proof of its effects for Covid.

    Wake me up when it's all over.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,386 ✭✭✭ Wolf359f


    And who is going run those trails...certainly not big pharma ..the last thing they want is a cheap effect drug .. far more money to be made in vaccines
    Not all big pharma companies are involved in vaccines.
    There's still a market for an effective and proven treatment. Pandemic is far from over. Maybe big pharma know there's **** all evidence it works, so why would they waste their money.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,205 Mod ✭✭✭✭ hmmm


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    What are people exposed to online that makes them come on here spamming this stuff for posts at a time? Ivermectin is for treatment of parasites in animals and two very specific worms in humans. The FDA are very clearly warning it is not to be used by humans as a cure for Covid 19 as no safety trials have been performed to establish tolerable dosing regimes, never mind clinical trials to determine efficacy against the disease.

    And yet we have people coming in saying it is a hidden treatment “approved by the WHO”. What are people reading / listening to?
    From what I can see Ivermectin was initially promoted by the same accounts who promoted Hydroxychloroquine back in the day. If I remember rightly the intention of the Hydroxy promoters, who were mostly tied to conservative interests in the US who wanted to downplay the pandemic, was to give the public the idea that there was a cure and therefore the pandemic could be ignored.

    Once that was throughly debunked, they've moved on to Ivermectin as the miracle cure, and even better this time they can claim that the "cure" is not available because it is being actively suppressed by governments/big pharma/insertwhoeveryoulikehere.

    All these things get amplified by Russian & Chinese misinformation bots who like to see arguments started in Western countries, and they'll happily play both sides in order to try and play up internal conflict. The snowball effect means that this gets picked up by ordinary people, and for whatever reason (hearing it from trusted friends, conspiratorial thoughts being triggered, a need to feel they are better informed) they then get on board the train and feel they need to spread the word.

    If you look at a history of disinformation you'll see very quickly that this was effectively a weapon, and it emerged out of Cold War attempts to overthrow governments on both sides of the iron curtain. The same people who would have been involved in this have refined their tactics, and the use of social media has amplified their ability to use these weapons.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,465 ✭✭✭✭ drunkmonkey


    hmmm you need to look at the guidelines for early intervention issued on the 22nd of April in India, those products you mention are all recommend now due to updated guidance. The WHO had put India under pressure to stop using them and now says they should only be used as part of a clinical trial. India has went out on its own and ignored them after discontinuing Ivermectin in early November and restating it's use in April.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭ Johnboy1951


    hmmm wrote: »
    From what I can see Ivermectin was initially promoted by the same accounts who promoted Hydroxychloroquine back in the day. If I remember rightly the intention of the Hydroxy promoters, who were mostly tied to conservative interests in the US who wanted to downplay the pandemic, was to give the public the idea that there was a cure and therefore the pandemic could be ignored.

    Once that was throughly debunked, they've moved on to Ivermectin as the miracle cure, and even better this time they can claim that the "cure" is not available because it is being actively suppressed by governments/big pharma/insertwhoeveryoulikehere.

    All these things get amplified by Russian & Chinese misinformation bots who like to see arguments started in Western countries, and they'll happily play both sides in order to try and play up internal conflict. The snowball effect means that this gets picked up by ordinary people, and for whatever reason (hearing it from trusted friends, conspiratorial thoughts being triggered, a need to feel they are better informed) they then get on board the train and feel they need to spread the word.

    If you look at a history of disinformation you'll see very quickly that this was effectively a weapon, and it emerged out of Cold War attempts to overthrow governments on both sides of the iron curtain. The same people who would have been involved in this have refined their tactics, and the use of social media has amplified their ability to use these weapons.


    There was no -cure- claimed, but definitely an efficacious treatment claim.

    BTW I would point out that I have not seen a proper independent double blind study of treatment, as recommended by those who use such treatments, which debunks those treatments, for hydroxycloroquine or Ivermectin.
    Yes there are reports of the results of using those in very weird ways (super high dosage etc) but none using the full treatments which are claimed to be efficacious.

    If you have links to such studies which 'debunk' those claims, I would appreciate your posting them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 35,028 ✭✭✭✭ LuckyLloyd


    The burden of proof doesn’t fall on the other side.

    And “proof” of safety and efficacy isn’t the random small sample hospital level studies cited above.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,672 ✭✭✭✭ Lumen


    If you have links to such studies which 'debunk' those claims, I would appreciate your posting them.

    That's not how medical science works, obviously


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,465 ✭✭✭✭ drunkmonkey


    Bajaj Healthcare soars on launching Ivermectin tablets for COVID-19 treatment
    By Capital Market | Last Updated at May 06 2021 13:16 IST

    Bajaj Healthcare (BHL) jumped 6.32% to Rs 624 after the company announced the launch of an anti-parasitic Ivermectin tablets, under the brand name Ivejaj, now widely used in control & treatment for COVID-19.

    BHL has received approval from India's drug regulator, to manufacture and market "Ivejaj" the oral Ivermectin approved medication in India for the treatment of COVID-19 from 6 May 2021.

    https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-cm/bajaj-healthcare-soars-on-launching-ivermectin-tablets-for-covid-19-treatment-121050600564_1.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,674 ✭✭✭ xhomelezz


    Bajaj Healthcare soars on launching Ivermectin tablets for COVID-19 treatment
    By Capital Market | Last Updated at May 06 2021 13:16 IST

    Bajaj Healthcare (BHL) jumped 6.32% to Rs 624 after the company announced the launch of an anti-parasitic Ivermectin tablets, under the brand name Ivejaj, now widely used in control & treatment for COVID-19.

    BHL has received approval from India's drug regulator, to manufacture and market "Ivejaj" the oral Ivermectin approved medication in India for the treatment of COVID-19 from 6 May 2021.

    https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-cm/bajaj-healthcare-soars-on-launching-ivermectin-tablets-for-covid-19-treatment-121050600564_1.html

    Still not a word, if it works or not.. But for sure you can enjoy worm free life.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Great podcast here with Dr Pierre Kory from the Critical Care Alliance on the benefits of Ivermectin in relation to Covid - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn_b4NRTB6k

    Plenty more info here on Ivermectin as a tool to end Covid - https://covid19criticalcare.com/


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,251 ✭✭✭ speckle


    India


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,891 ✭✭✭ Smee_Again


    Jack_K wrote: »
    Great podcast here with Dr Pierre Kory from the Critical Care Alliance on the benefits of Ivermectin in relation to Covid - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn_b4NRTB6k

    Plenty more info here on Ivermectin as a tool to end Covid - https://covid19criticalcare.com/

    When was the Critical Care Alliance set up and who is involved in it?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    When was the Critical Care Alliance set up and who is involved in it?

    A list of the physicians involved are here https://covid19criticalcare.com/about/the-flccc-physicians/
    With info on their backgrounds here https://covid19criticalcare.com/about/flccc-alliance-contributions-to-the-field-of-medicine/

    They were set up during early Covid.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,891 ✭✭✭ Smee_Again


    Jack_K wrote: »
    A list of the physicians involved are here https://covid19criticalcare.com/about/the-flccc-physicians/
    With info on their backgrounds here https://covid19criticalcare.com/about/flccc-alliance-contributions-to-the-field-of-medicine/

    They were set up during early Covid.

    And they're not having much luck pushing their mininformation, which is good.
    The editors of Frontiers in Pharmacology have taken down an article about the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin in COVID-19 patients. The paper, which was written by members of an organization called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), had been provisionally accepted and posted in abstract form by the journal in January, but was ultimately rejected this Monday (March 1). The editors determined that it contained unsubstantiated claims and violated the journal’s editorial policies.
    During review of the article in what the journal refers to as “the provisional acceptance phase,” Fenter says in the statement, members of Frontiers’s research integrity team identified “a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance, and at times, without the use of control groups.”

    The statement continues: “Further, the authors promoted their own specific ivermectin-based treatment which is inappropriate for a review article and against our editorial policies. In our view, this paper does not offer an objective nor balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19.”

    The part in bold (mine) is interesting because these doctors have argued its unethical to give placebos to patients, so basically we just have to take their word that it works.

    That's not really how it works.

    Also Kory resigned from one position because he was calling for patients to be treated with steroids and again didn't have the data to back the efficacy of this treatment, seems to be a regular occurrence with him.

    LINK


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,251 ✭✭✭ speckle


    All of the above post is a bit out of date ..that website have posted a newer link with a fuller account of the events at the journal.

    Moot point anyhow it has now been peer reviewed and passed a second time and now is published

    https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx

    People might want to look at Goa on top of Uttar Pradesh and their use of ivermectin and a drop in cases and the Indian Bar association are taking a case against the WHO regarding disinformation and suppression of Ivermectin...

    https://trialsitenews.com/indian-bar-association-serves-legal-notice-upon-dr-soumya-swaminathan-the-chief-scientist-who/


    Does anyone know how the trial of Ivermectin is getting on in the two Irish hospitals..surely it has started by now? If I remember correctly it is only for serious patients not mild or for use as a prophylactic.. rooting for it and anyone on it as we do need treatments asap as vaxs dont work for absolutely for everyone or the minority with previous adverse reactions etc. People always seem to forget these groups.

    Anyhow if interested in following to see what happens one way or the other...probably will have news of the results first here..

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Covid19Critical


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭ Johnboy1951


    Dr. John is getting insistent also - asking for official comment on Ivermectin .....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJSUKDng_Ww


  • Registered Users Posts: 302 ✭✭ Piollaire


    I'm about to get vaccinated and am now going to stop taking Ivermectin as a prophylaxis which I had to acquire illegitimately.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,140 ✭✭✭✭ is_that_so


    Dr. John is getting insistent also - asking for official comment on Ivermectin .....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJSUKDng_Ww
    Dr John is a dead, very cool, musician! This is a YouTube pundit who seems to imagine we should listen to them because they have a title. If tests show it may be a worthwhile addition vis a vis other tools we'll hear about it. TBH there is so much other research and development happening that is probably unlikely to be the case.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭ Johnboy1951


    Favorable outcome on viral load and culture viability using Ivermectin in early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19 – A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1

    Full study text
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1.full.pdf
    In conclusion, our study strongly supports the notion that ivermectin has anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity.

    and finally a video which helps us understand the content and the implications of the study results ...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV2H6_0i4f0

    Of course if such a treatment were to be accepted, then the 'vaccines' would have to be withdrawn from their 'emergency use' (USA) because it is not permitted to approve emergency use where there is an alternative treatment for a disease.

    That would surely upset a number of pharma companies and their associates.


Advertisement