The Ivermectin discussion

wadacrack · 12-12-2020 10:18pm #1

This appears to have gone under the radar but Ivermectin treatment was associated with lower mortality during treatment of COVID-19 in studies. Very promising.

Video by John Campbell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWQtT7dHGE

Ivermectin treatment was associated with lower mortality during treatment of COVID-19

Away With The Fairies · 12-12-2020 10:23pm

Sounds promising but can Irish doctors prescribe ivermectin? Looking up the HPRA, there are two creams available with ivermectin. That's it. No other tablets or anything else with ivermectin. So it makes me think that ivermectin can't be used here for the treatment of covid.

Edit: to make my question clear, can doctors prescribe something that isn't available here? Yes it's a cream that is available but that's for skin issues.

The Continental Op · 12-12-2020 10:28pm

So good if you are a cow with gastro-intestinal roundworms, lungworms, adult liver fluke, eyeworms, warbles, mites and lice?

boggerman1 · 12-12-2020 10:34pm

The Continental Op wrote: »

So good if you are a cow with gastro-intestinal roundworms, lungworms, adult liver fluke, eyeworms, warbles, mites and lice?

Just make sure you adhere to the withdrawal periods for milk and meatðŸ˜‚ when using on humans.

odyssey06 · 12-12-2020 10:51pm

Faster viral clearance potential but doesn't look like a magic bullet...

A 5-day course of ivermectin treatment showed faster SARS-CoV-2 virus clearance compared to the placebo arm (9 vs.13 days; P = 0.02).

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)32506-6/fulltext

is_that_so · 13-12-2020 11:00am

Hmm, an unapproved, untrialled drug for COVID, being promoted by a Dr who is not a doctor. This is hydroxychloroquine territory all over again.

is_that_so · 13-12-2020 11:10am

odyssey06 wrote: »

Faster viral clearance potential but doesn't look like a magic bullet...

A 5-day course of ivermectin treatment showed faster SARS-CoV-2 virus clearance compared to the placebo arm (9 vs.13 days; P = 0.02).

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)32506-6/fulltext

From your link and the main problem with these claims.

Larger trials will be needed to confirm these preliminary findings.

Away With The Fairies · 13-12-2020 11:11am

is_that_so wrote: »

Hmm, an unapproved, untrialled drug for COVID, being promoted by a Dr who is not a doctor. This is hydroxychloroquine territory all over again.

Everything drug being used on covid patients have been unapproved and untrialled for covid because it's a new virus.

Do you watch any of his videos? He talks about studies and tests that have already taken place and does not give medical advice. So he's not using his PhD (doctor) like the way you think he is.

is_that_so · 13-12-2020 11:25am

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

Everything drug being used on covid patients have been unapproved and untrialled for covid because it's a new virus.

Do you watch any of his videos? He talks about studies and tests that have already taken place and does not give medical advice. So he's not using his PhD (doctor) like the way you think he is.

Not if I was tied down. That's really misrepresentation and we've had more than enough of that. The information is available readily if you look. Large scale clinical trials to tick boxes is what these drugs need to make sure they do what you think and that they are safe. This drug does not tick those boxes and should not be promoted as some are doing. They did the trials with hydroxychloroquine and it failed.

The Continental Op · 13-12-2020 11:37am

My bad earlier, I didn't realise Ivermectin was cleared for human use and how much good its done, link

Away With The Fairies · 13-12-2020 11:48am

is_that_so wrote: »

Not if I was tied down. That's really misrepresentation and we've had more than enough of that. The information is available readily if you look. Large scale clinical trials to tick boxes is what these drugs need to make sure they do what you think and that they are safe. This drug does not tick those boxes and should not be promoted as some are doing. They did the trials with hydroxychloroquine and it failed.

His videos are interesting and he explains things well. Alot people don't understand those types of reports. So what is so wrong with having a PhD doctor who thought nurses make a video on what's available? I wouldn't be going looking for ivermectin studies and covid myself because I don't know about it. Interesting to know what's being done.

is_that_so · 13-12-2020 12:45pm

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

His videos are interesting and he explains things well. Alot people don't understand those types of reports. So what is so wrong with having a PhD doctor who thought nurses make a video on what's available? I wouldn't be going looking for ivermectin studies and covid myself because I don't know about it. Interesting to know what's being done.

He calls himself Doctor and talks medical topics but you really have to dig down into his biography to find he's a nurse. Would he be so authoritative if he was Nurse John? You should be going looking for ivermectin studies. There are lots of non-technical sources on that and other research.

Away With The Fairies · 13-12-2020 1:10pm

is_that_so wrote: »

He calls himself Doctor and talks medical topics but you really have to dig down into his biography to find he's a nurse. Would he be so authoritative if he was Nurse John? You should be going looking for ivermectin studies. There are lots of non-technical sources on that and other research.

I think this was already talked about in the main covid thread. I think your issue is because of his PhD. Having a PhD means you can call yourself a doctor, so there's nothing wrong with that.

is_that_so · 13-12-2020 1:13pm

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

I think this was already talked about in the main covid thread. I think your issue is because of his PhD. Having a PhD means you can call yourself a doctor, so there's nothing wrong with that.

In experience yes there is a difference, it's also a knowledge and skills thing. PhDs are fine, just tell people what it's in!

Away With The Fairies · 13-12-2020 1:20pm

is_that_so wrote: »

In experience yes there is a difference, it's also a knowledge and skills thing. PhDs are fine, just tell people what it's in!

He doesn't boast about being a doctor in his videos. You're just getting confused because he has the doctor title.

Johnboy1951 · 23-12-2020 1:16pm

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

Everything drug being used on covid patients have been unapproved and untrialled for covid because it's a new virus.

Do you watch any of his videos? He talks about studies and tests that have already taken place and does not give medical advice. So he's not using his PhD (doctor) like the way you think he is.

is_that_so wrote: »

Not if I was tied down. That's really misrepresentation and we've had more than enough of that. The information is available readily if you look. Large scale clinical trials to tick boxes is what these drugs need to make sure they do what you think and that they are safe. This drug does not tick those boxes and should not be promoted as some are doing. They did the trials with hydroxychloroquine and it failed.

So of what value do you imagine your opinion could have on the contents of the video, you not having watched it, and absolutely refusing to watch it?

Hint: None!

antiskeptic · 23-12-2020 1:24pm

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

I think this was already talked about in the main covid thread. I think your issue is because of his PhD. Having a PhD means you can call yourself a doctor, so there's nothing wrong with that.

My dad, proud of his new ph.D in physics opted to have his 'doctor' title inserted in front of his name in the phone book.

Until we got sick of calls saying "Johnnies got a high temperature, come quickly!"

ðŸ˜€

Miike · 23-12-2020 1:41pm

Ivermectin did not 'go under the radar' and was one of the earlier drugs studied for its antiviral activity on SARS-CoV-2. Discussed in detail by Merck researchers on This Week in Virology (https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-599/) in April and again a few days ago.

Ultimately nothing has come to fruition from Ivermectin in the grand scheme but some latin-american countries jumped the gun with promoting it, to the dismay of the WHO.

Piollaire · 08-02-2021 3:47pm

Ivermectin was upgraded last month from a 'do not recommend' to a neutral one by the National Institutes of Health in the U.S. This allows doctors in the U.S. to make up their own minds on whether to prescribe it or not.

Miike · 08-02-2021 5:39pm

Piollaire wrote: »

Ivermectin was upgraded last month from a 'do not recommend' to a neutral one by the National Institutes of Health in the U.S. This allows doctors in the U.S. to make up their own minds on whether to prescribe it or not.

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

Piollaire · 08-02-2021 6:20pm

Miike wrote: »

A year into the pandemic and Merck have not funded any studies of their own into Ivermectin and are content with finding fault with the existing studies.

However, they did fund two vaccine attempts and also have two new therapeutics in the pipeline.

There is a lot more money in new patented drugs than repurposing existing generics.

Miike · 08-02-2021 6:28pm

Piollaire wrote: »

A year into the pandemic and Merck have not funded any studies of their own into Ivermectin and are content with finding fault with the existing studies.

However, they did fund two vaccine attempts and also have two new therapeutics in the pipeline.

There is a lot more money in new patented drugs than repurposing existing generics.

You really think Merck would shoot down one of their own drugs if they worked? It would drive the value of their company through the roof. Ivermectin has been studied since very early in the pandemic. A company would not shoot their own drug in the head if there was any hope it was effective.

tesla1989 · 08-02-2021 6:36pm

Miike wrote: »

You really think Merck would shoot down one of their own drugs if they worked? It would drive the value of their company through the roof. Ivermectin has been studied since very early in the pandemic. A company would not shoot their own drug in the head if there was any hope it was effective.

How would that look?

In 1987, the manufacturer of ivermectin – Merck & Co., Inc. – declared that it would donate ivermectin free of charge for as long as is needed. This unprecedented donation is administered through the Mectizan Donation Program, which works with ministries of health and other partners to distribute the drug.

Free of charge and then only sell themselves at a profit?

They can't take that donation back, hence can't make money on it

indy_man · 10-02-2021 10:22pm

Good debate on the merits of Ivermectin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaOk3cLSFtU&feature=youtu.be

[Deleted User] · 10-02-2021 10:50pm

Sigh, more misinformation, this forum is farcical

Statement from Merck, the manufacturers of Ivermectin

Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;

No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;

A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.

Just in case anyone missed those points, here they are again

No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

Sigh

Piollaire · 11-02-2021 12:28pm

You don't need to enlarge it for me to see that this for-profit company is nit-picking the small studies and is actively looking for a reason to dismiss Ivermectin. I think Merck is no longer the same company that charitably donated Ivermectin to fight river blindness.

Merck's statement is very misleading:

- 'no scientific basis' - the urgency of the pandemic has meant that studies have focused on whether Ivermectin works rather than why it works.

- 'no meaningful evidence' - they are implying by this that the studies have been too small. That's because Merck and government organisations have failed to fund large scale studies to investigate the positive findings of the studies done so far.

-'lack of safety data' - 3.7 billion doses of Ivermectin have been administered to date and Ivermectin is regarded as a safe drug. The kind of safety data Merck says is necessary for treatment of Covid can only be provided by long term studies which they are not doing.

Merck's PR department have provided a short statement to misdirect us with no report or named scientists to back it up.

Johnboy1951 · 11-02-2021 12:56pm

This looks to me to be significant ...... click image for full size

Leinster90 · 11-02-2021 1:21pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

This looks to me to be significant ...... click image for full size

Any 12 year old with a laptop could have made that graph. It is worthless until it is verified and reported by respectable media outlets. That means the BBC or the New York Times, not Alex Jones, Dolores Cahill or mickey-mouse websites.

[Deleted User] · 11-02-2021 1:36pm

Ivermectin will turn out to be a tool for Covid

There are more trials to be done but the data so far is very promising

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the US upgrading its status to allow for prescription is significant in itself, after presentation from the FLCCC.

“Ivermectin is one of the world’s safest, cheapest and most widely available drugs,” noted Dr. Kory, President of the FLCCC Alliance. “The studies we presented to the NIH revealed high levels of statistical significance showing large magnitude benefit in transmission rates, need for hospitalization, and death.”

https://www.newswise.com/coronavirus/nih-revises-treatment-guidelines-for-ivermectin-for-the-treatment-of-covid-19

https://www.ft.com/content/e7cb76fc-da98-4a31-9c1f-926c58349c84

it's no hydroxychloroquine

myfreespirit · 11-02-2021 1:37pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

This looks to me to be significant ...... click image for full size

On what basis do you believe this graph to be significant?

1. What is the provenance of this set of data?
2. Who has peer-reviewed the figures and who has published the data?
3. Does the source have a proven track record of scientific research in the field of epidemiology or closely related fields?

Otherwise, why is this graph significant?

If the answers to these questions are clear and demonstrate that the graph is reliable, then good. If not, the graph has no real significance.

Piollaire · 11-02-2021 1:54pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

This looks to me to be significant ...... click image for full size

Pathologist Chris Martenson discussed Chiapas last December and it is noteworthy. Go to 17:45

The Ivermectin discussion

Comments