The Ivermectin discussion

PhoenixParker · 11-02-2021 2:56pm

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.

Piollaire · 11-02-2021 3:32pm

"Follow the money"

Merck signs $356 million deal with U.S. government for experimental COVID-19 therapy

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/merck-signs-3456-million-deal-with-us-government-for-experimental-covid-19-therapy-2020-12-23

Johnboy1951 · 11-02-2021 4:41pm

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 · 11-02-2021 5:05pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

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/

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

Johnboy1951 · 11-02-2021 5:20pm

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 · 11-02-2021 5:24pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

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/

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.

Johnboy1951 · 11-02-2021 5:35pm

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'.

latency89 · 11-02-2021 5:38pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

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/

Ignore that other eejit Johnboy, he has no interest in discussing ivermectin as a theraputic treatment, just looking for a reaction

Looking forward to see how Slovakia will get on, Poland are close to approving as well, doctors use that as off label in treatment with antibiotics.

PhilOssophy · 11-02-2021 5:38pm

I just hope they have Joe Cooney on the advertisement.

is_that_so · 11-02-2021 5:44pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

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'.

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.

Johnboy1951 · 11-02-2021 5:50pm

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?

is_that_so · 11-02-2021 5:51pm

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?

Why do you imagine there is an absence of funding?
Here's a pilot study which cautions it's too early to draw conclusions.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-01/bifg-act011421.php

Johnboy1951 · 11-02-2021 5:54pm

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.

PhoenixParker · 11-02-2021 5:56pm

There has been an absence of funding because it's an off patent medication and because everyone got burned by HCQ.

The UK are including it in one of their trials now. The principle trial I think. It's vulnerable 50+ year olds with a +ve test and mild symptoms.

There are 2 other big trials ongoing now too.

is_that_so · 11-02-2021 6:03pm

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.

is_that_so · 11-02-2021 6:04pm

PhoenixParker wrote: »

There has been an absence of funding because it's an off patent medication and because everyone got burned by HCQ.

The UK are including it in one of their trials now. The principle trial I think. It's vulnerable 50+ year olds with a +ve test and mild symptoms.

There are 2 other big trials ongoing now too.

Not sure that's the case, Recovery in the UK are testing aspirin! Trials are the right way to do it.

11-02-2021 6:04pm

Ive a litre of this in the press....

Id chance it anyway,took worse previously

PhoenixParker · 11-02-2021 6:10pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Not sure that's the case, Recovery in the UK are testing aspirin! Trials are the right way to do it.

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.

is_that_so · 11-02-2021 6:15pm

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

myfreespirit · 11-02-2021 6:18pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

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/

Nothing in that link answers any of the questions posed.
Juan Chamie appears to have published the graph from Mexico, but he has no credentials shown, his email address does not correspond to any scientific, public administration or academic body in Mexico.
Nor is any of the source data described as far as I can see.
Until otherwise corroborated, the graph and the cited data are of unknown significance and are not peer reviewed.

Johnboy1951 · 11-02-2021 6:19pm

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.

is_that_so wrote: »

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.

So no answers.

OK.

Bye!

Johnboy1951 · 11-02-2021 6:25pm

PhoenixParker wrote: »

There has been an absence of funding because it's an off patent medication and because everyone got burned by HCQ.

The UK are including it in one of their trials now. The principle trial I think. It's vulnerable 50+ year olds with a +ve test and mild symptoms.

There are 2 other big trials ongoing now too.

I have heard that the WHO are now involved with one of the trials in the UK.
They are expected to have results, sufficient to make a preliminary decision, next month hopefully.

Have you heard/read anything similar?

EDIT: https://www.livemint.com/science/health/oxford-university-plans-trials-of-wonder-drug-ivermectin-that-may-reduce-covid-deaths-11611553213905.html

latency89 · 11-02-2021 6:45pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Ive a litre of this in the press....

Id chance it anyway,took worse previously

I've a few chubes of the paste, works great as a moisturiser for eczema

Piollaire · 14-02-2021 1:18pm

This is a classic example of a corporation putting its business interests above public health. Merck is known as MSD in Ireland and should be investigated for its suppression of ivermectin. Its executives should be brought before the Joint Committee on Health.

AppleMuncher · 25-02-2021 10:43pm

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.

The Chief science officer of the FDA is a nurse, does that mean we should ignore that organization?

AppleMuncher · 25-02-2021 10:50pm

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

With the greatest of respect, It doesn’t always make sense to just quote one study. Some studies are flawed, and you really have to dig into the details of each individual study, which takes time and a particular amount of expertise and practice. However, I thoroughly recommend it, it is amazing him much ‘bad’ research gets published. Have a look at the data collected here: https://c19ivermectin.com/

AppleMuncher · 25-02-2021 11:29pm

I take your point, but Merck are not the ultimate arbiter of scientific truth are they? (I don't mean that in the condescending tone that it sounds). They are a commercial entity with their own prerogatives, namely making money for shareholders etc And this is quite legitimate and I have no issue with it. Also, your logic is somewhat flawed vis. Merck's possible profits from Ivermectin;it is off patent so other Pharmaceutical companies (unlikely) and generic manufacturers (who are already churning it out in vast quantities) can make it and therefore profit off of it, this to the possible detriment of Merck. So why would Merck promote a generic medicine, especially if they are investing heavily in Patented treatments? Why would Merck rock the boat and annoy other companies who are heavily invested in producing vaccines? Lastly, vaccines are far more profitable long term as 100% of people require them, probably less than 5%-10% of the population would potentially even 'need' Ivermectin (although if use as a prophylactic this could rise significantly). In other words were Ivermectin approved as a treatment Merck would not be the primary beneficiary. if you genuinely want to learn more about actual Ivermectin studies, please see the following link: https://c19ivermectin.com

Read the results, read the papers, convince yourself that it has no effect. And absolutely feel free to criticize these findings, I don't simply accept any research paper that's published until I read it several times, think about how the potential confounding factors etc. Even then I'm cautious, however the effects sizes seen suggest it is a worthwhile treatment. Finally, arguments against it's use in humans are simply not true, as a quick google will attest. Thank you.

Miike · 26-02-2021 12:39am

AppleMuncher wrote: »

I take your point, but Merck are not the ultimate arbiter of scientific truth are they? (I don't mean that in the condescending tone that it sounds). They are a commercial entity with their own prerogatives, namely making money for shareholders etc And this is quite legitimate and I have no issue with it. Also, your logic is somewhat flawed vis. Merck's possible profits from Ivermectin;it is off patent so other Pharmaceutical companies (unlikely) and generic manufacturers (who are already churning it out in vast quantities) can make it and therefore profit off of it, this to the possible detriment of Merck. So why would Merck promote a generic medicine, especially if they are investing heavily in Patented treatments? Why would Merck rock the boat and annoy other companies who are heavily invested in producing vaccines? Lastly, vaccines are far more profitable long term as 100% of people require them, probably less than 5%-10% of the population would potentially even 'need' Ivermectin (although if use as a prophylactic this could rise significantly). In other words were Ivermectin approved as a treatment Merck would not be the primary beneficiary. if you genuinely want to learn more about actual Ivermectin studies, please see the following link: https://c19ivermectin.com

Read the results, read the papers, convince yourself that it has no effect. And absolutely feel free to criticize these findings, I don't simply accept any research paper that's published until I read it several times, think about how the potential confounding factors etc. Even then I'm cautious, however the effects sizes seen suggest it is a worthwhile treatment. Finally, arguments against it's use in humans are simply not true, as a quick google will attest. Thank you.

And what comments do you have to make on the findings that for antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 is achieved at levels toxic to humans?

Hypochlorite based solutions will kill SARS-CoV-2 too, but sadly will also kill the host.

Johnboy1951 · 26-02-2021 12:52am

Miike wrote: »

And what comments do you have to make on the findings that for antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 is achieved at levels toxic to humans?

Hypochlorite based solutions will kill SARS-CoV-2 too, but sadly will also kill the host.

Could you link to those specific findings please, I would like to read it?

Miike · 26-02-2021 1:27am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Could you link to those specific findings please, I would like to read it?

Heres 2 I have bookmarked that touch on the subject, you can read the citations used to find studies advancing on their assertions.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13102818.2020.1775118

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7253113/

Caly et al.10 report a 5,000-fold reduction in SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels, compared with those in controls, after infected Vero/hSLAM cells were incubated for 48 hours with 5 μM ivermectin. The ivermectin IC50 for the virus was calculated at approximately 2.5 μM. These concentrations are the equivalent of 4,370 and 2,190 ng/mL, respectively, notably 50- to 100-fold the peak concentration (Cmax) achieved in plasma after the single dose of 200 μg/kg (14 mg in a 70-kg adult) commonly used for the control of onchocerchiasis.12 Pharmacokinetic studies in healthy volunteers have suggested that single doses up to 120 mg of ivermectin can be safe and well tolerated.13 However, even with this dose, which is 10-fold greater than those approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, the Cmax values reported were ∼250 ng/mL,13 one order of magnitude lower than effective in vitro concentrations against SARS-CoV-2.

The Ivermectin discussion

Comments