The Ivermectin discussion

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

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

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 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 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!

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 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 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.

Good debate on the merits of Ivermectin

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

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.

I've been following Ivermectin closely since September.
Particularly as a potential prophylactic but also looking at the research on late stage treatment.

Dismissing ivermectin on the basis of one statement from Merck is as idiotic as the ivermectin fanboys out there who are advocating it for everything and anything.

There is a lot of research pointing strongly to ivermectin working effectively against Covid.
The problem is that none of the research is particularly well done and a lot of it is small in scale.

Speaking only of prophylactic use, the number of studies and the strenght of the results point overwhelming to ivermectin being an effective prophylactic against Covid-19. Some examples (but by no means all):

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04422561?term=NCT04422561&draw=2&rank=1
Contacts of Covid-19 patients were given Ivermectin, a control group weren't.
58.4% of the control group developed Covid-19 symptoms, 7.4% of the IVM group did.


https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v1
Group V stick to personal protective equipment (PPE) plus Ivermectin 400mcg / kg to be repeated after one week, and Group VI stick to PPE only and both groups V&VI were followed for two weeks. Group V and VI are each 100 patient and Healthcare worker contacts of Covid-19 patients. Results: Ivermectin had significantly reduced the incidence of infection in health care and household contacts up to 2% compared to 10% in non ivermectin group

https://www.medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1608654017_1007.pdf
A total of 229 health personnel were recruited for this study; 98 within the control (PPE alone) group and 131 received IVECAR treatment in addition to their wearing of PPE
Results: None of the health personnel treated with IVERCAR tested positive for CoVid19 during the 14 day treatment period. Furthermore none returned positive swabs in the 3 weeks´post completion of their initial treatment. Eleven health personnel (11.1%) in the comparator PPE group yielded positive swabs.

You can look for more studies here - https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=Covid19&term=ivermectin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=&Search=Search

Over and over again, the same results are coming back from different researchers teams on different continents. I've been looking since September and there has yet to be a study that comes back pointing the other way. None of the studies is the gold standard, double blind RCT, but it's very very hard to see how these results are being obtained unless ivermectin is having a positive impact on Covid-19 as a prophylactic.

Ivermectin has been prescribed to billions of people worldwide. It's use profile includes use as a prophylactic for river blindness.
As a prophylactic for contacts of Covid patients, it would be prescribed to generally healthy adults at doses which have been prescribed for decades without adverse health effects. It's cheap and there's enough evidence to say that it's not worsening covid-19 for people who take it as a prophylactic, and more than likely it has a significant beneficial effect.


For prophylactic use in Covid contacts, it's at the point of being a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.

Leinster90 wrote: »

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.

myfreespirit wrote: »

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.

See 1/8 on this page, as well as all the other information.
If you want some more then that can be supplied also.
But that is easily found with a search.

https://c19ivermectin.com/

is_that_so wrote: »

Yeah, but none of that makes it approved, which is where it sits.

Approved in Slovakia ......

https://trialsitenews.com/slovakia-becomes-the-first-eu-nation-to-formally-approve-ivermectin-for-both-prophylaxis-and-treatment-for-covid-19-patients/

is_that_so wrote: »

And yet not by any main regulatory authority. That suggests that what's been delivered in studies to date is not good enough for the EMA or FDA.

Which, as has already been posted, is due to no government or other body funding a large 'acceptable' trial.

The use of a 'novel' gene therapy by injection could get emergency approval, without any long term study not only of efficacy but also safety.

Yet, ivermectin, which has been used some 3.5 yo 4 billion times worldwide over some 40(?) years, without any adverse effects or deaths attributed to it, cannot get approval from these bodies because their specific trial method has not been funded.

It is high time some semblence of sense was brought to this emergency.
First do no harm ...... near enough guaranteed with correct doses of ivermectin.
Then administer it and see if it helps ....... which according to all reports from those who have administed it, is also a near certainty.

Why let people get very sick and maybe die when a safe treatment is available?

Maybe someone has an answer to that!

Oh yes ...... the cost ...... miniscule when compared to rolling out the 'vaccine'.

I just hope they have Joe Cooney on the advertisement.

is_that_so wrote: »

It's used for one purpose by a lot of people, but not for this proposed new one. Dexamethasone is also cheap and has been shown to work in a proper clinical trial. Invermectin has clearly not passed muster on that count. A lot of "studies" seem to be "my patients got better". I agree we need more to fight this, vaccines included but they must satisfy an acceptable level of evidence. It doesn't look like that has happened yet here.

In the absence of funding for an 'approved' trial, how do you think things should progress?
Let people die because of lack of funding, or accept the toality of the various small trial reports as a good indication of efficacy ...... at least enough to give attending medical professionals the choice of using the medication or not.?

Personally I would prefer to save peoples' lives ......... what about you?

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

In the absence of funding for an 'approved' trial, how do you think things should progress?
Let people die because of lack of funding, or accept the toality of the various small trial reports as a good indication of efficacy ...... at least enough to give attending medical professionals the choice of using the medication or not.?

Personally I would prefer to save peoples' lives ......... what about you?

is_that_so wrote: »

Why do you imagine is there is an absence of funding? Other treatments are being funded.

Answer the two questions I asked you or do not bother quoting me and attempting to divert.

I am not going to play.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Answer the two questions I asked you or do not bother quoting me and attempting to divert.

I am not going to play.

I've linked to a pilot study above. Having things tested with suitable protocols and approved as a result is the appropriate way to do it. That may happen with invermectin, it may not.

PhoenixParker wrote: »

It's been widely reported.

https://trialsitenews.com/oxfords-principle-trial-bringing-ivermectin-directly-into-the-developed-world-in-the-battle-against-covid-19-2/

There have been dozens of trials. I listed some of them above.
They're needed to fine tune dose but there's very little doubt it works.

But we are not there yet. Interesting to see the phrase "high-quality trial" in there. Good if it works out well.

Here's the FDA position on it for completeness.

https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/faq-covid-19-and-ivermectin-intended-animals