AppleMuncher wrote: » Thanks for your reply, I appreciate your interest. Some comments: Well, firstly the research you are referring to, as I understand it, the paper refers to in vitro research, right? I assume you are referring to the following: "The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro" Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.antiviral.2020.104787 So Ivermectin as an anti-viral used on human cell lines placed in a test tube, a very specific scenario. And yes, you are quite correct, to see the effects described in this paper you would have to give very large doses to humans, which would be an overdose. However, humans are not simple cell lines in test tubes, i.e. human biology is enormously complex and effects and doses used in vitro cannot always be transcribed or translated to humans. Also there is no suggestion that to see any positive effect one would have to treat with such large doses. They could have used other doses and generate a dose response curve if they wished, for example, thereby showing effects at lower doses. Also, the doses used were chosen, I assume, to give a reasonable chance of seeing a rapid effect in a laboratory environment, whereas treatment of humans may occur at much lower doses over several days, and treatment rounds (again you cannot simply equate cells in a test tube with a person battling covid-19, damage is caused not just by viral replication but also through many other well described mechanisms, cytokine storm etc.). So technically you are correct, if Ivermectin were dosed at the level used in this paper it would surely kill people. So a more pertinent question may be: "Does Ivermectin show any benefit as a treatment for Covid-19 (the illness or pathophysiology) that occurs in humans at reasonable doses? So one method to determine the dose need to see positive effects against a particular illness, COVID-19, for example, would be by conducting a double blind randomized placebo-controlled trial in humans (you often hear this referred to as "The Gold Standard"). For example, if you read the following paper: "Ivermectin as a potential treatment for mild to moderate COVID-19 – A double blind randomized placebo-controlled trial" Look at the section on dose used: "Intervention Patients in the intervention arm were given ivermectin 12 mg on day 1 and day 2 of admission. Patients in the placebo arm were given identical looking placebo tablets." Source: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.05.21249310v1 So an effect was seen at a dose not known to be toxic. Now an obvious criticism of this particular paper is that it is on a pre-print server and has not been peer reviewed, accepted for publication etc. etc. and I accept that, however there are numerous studies, PCT trials etc in the literature. Again the link here: https://ivmmeta.com Collates a lot of data from the ever increasing number of trials, it is not infallible, however a meta analysis shows convincing evidence of Ivermectin's effectiveness. Summary: •100% of the 42 studies to date report positive effects. Random effects meta-analysis for early treatment and pooled effects shows a reduction of 83%, RR 0.17 [0.11-0.28]. Prophylactic use shows a reduction of 89%, RR 0.11 [0.05-0.23]. Mortality results show 75% lower mortality, RR 0.25 [0.14-0.44] for all treatment delays, and 86% lower, RR 0.14 [0.03-0.62] for early treatment. •100% of the 21 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) report positive effects, with an estimated reduction of 70%, RR 0.30 [0.19-0.49]. •The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 42 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 4 trillion (p = 0.00000000000023).
Miike wrote: » The one study (preprint) you quoted in your long winded answer was a sample size of 112 where n=54 in the intervention arm. Are we going to ignore rigor? Imagine a world where vaccines were recommended based on a study of a total of 112 trial participants. The curated website you keep quoting I have my doubt about. If their quoted stats are accurate why aren't they publishing a peer reviewed systematic review or meta analysis? a large number of studies they curate and publish are highly criticized for their rigor. If you're going to blindly follow an academic curation, you need to be highly critical of their methodology.
Deeper Blue wrote: » Surely if Ivermectin was any good we'd have gotten data to confirm that by now? It was first mooted as a potential treatment at least 9 months ago at this stage.
Mike wrote: A certain cohort firmly believe this is some kind of "cover up by big pharma".
Johnboy1951 wrote: » So the only study you quoted is one carried out in a lab and using the equivalent of a toxic dose for humans. Are there any studies you can link to that are carried out in a manner acceptable for peer review, that have shown Ivermectin to be ineffective? In the absence of such a study or studies, the best we have at this time is a multitude of 'not so good' studies which all appear to show efficacy. Quite the conundrum.
Miike wrote: » The point I'm trying to highlight there Johnny, is that in terms of feasibility (which is typically decided in lab tests) the lab tests conducted show the antiviral activity is at very high, unsafe doses. There is quoted posological and pharmacodynamic data on Ivermectin within those studies and to go back to an earlier comment I made on this thread - I recommend listening to the podcast "This Week in Virology" episodes I listed, it's hosted by Vincent Racaniello who is a renowned expert in this field and his guests for this topic are highly esteemed. I certainly hope a high quality RCT shows Ivermectin is an effective treatment, it would be great. Doesn't necessarily mean I think it's a realistic expectation from the research that's been conducted to date. Look at how this bangwagonism worked out for hydroxychloroquin, azithromycin, chorloquin etc. I'm not saying we stop looking, I'm saying these need to be based on rigor.
Johnboy1951 wrote: » I too hope for a treatment, rather than a manipulation by mRNA as I fear that might have unwelcome consequences in the long term. On the matter of chorloquin/hydroxychloroquin I don't believe the final definitive result is yet in, particularly in combination with other substances. Whether the will is there to investigate more fully or not is the real question. Unless that will is there we could be in for a very long division of opinions on the efficacy of such substances.
Miike wrote: » Hydroxychorloquin was proven to be ineffective by both the Solidarity and RECOVERY trials. FDA and NIH TxG have both explicitly stated there is no treatment benefit and revoked the authorization.
Johnboy1951 wrote: » Going on failing memory ....... but as I recall there are a lot of questions around the dosages which were nowhere close to what those who claim to have positive results used, both in timing and amounts.
speckle wrote: » Eagle eye who brought Ivermectin onto our radsr originally has just posted this on the main thread.. tropical drug to be tested on critcal ill patients in Ireland as part of an international clinical trial..https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/tropical-drug-to-be-tested-on-critically-ill-patients-here-40140143.html
Timistry wrote: » Defies logic that a Pharma company would not pursue an API it produces if it was aware it had an efficiency against COVID19 or has the potential to have
Johnboy1951 wrote: » It was my understanding that Ivermectin was most effective as a prophylaxis and an early treatment, for Covid 19. Is this trial designed to measure that effect? Apparently not as it is being administered to critically ill patients, according to the linked page. Seems rather late in the progress to be administering Ivermectin. ....... maybe I misunderstood where it is most effective ....
Piollaire wrote: » Using Ivermectin as a hail mary treatment for those already on death's door is going to do the case for Ivermectin more harm than good.
Miike wrote: » I'm not being funny but is there more to that article behind the premium wall or is it just 60 words? I'd love to know more about this test Got it. Part of what seems to be a large multi-center trial. Heres hoping!
speckle wrote: » apologies miike... if I had realised it was behind a paywall.I would have added another link but last night when it first came out it wasnt paywalled.
Johnboy1951 wrote: » If I could get hold of Ivermectin I would be taking it now as a preventative.
Piollaire wrote: » Found the article up on twitter:https://twitter.com/Covid19Crusher/status/1366060019620454401/photo/1 Disappointing that the study is only focussing on critically ill patients. The real beauty of Ivermectin is its anti-viral ability which stops you from getting critically ill in the first place.
See19 wrote: » The evidence for using Ivermectin is being overlooked below, India has the largest Ivermectin usage in the world with the lowest Covid death rate. In early 2019 India was forecast to have the highest Covid deaths but due to Ivermectin has the lowest and no one has any other evidence to explain this. Covid Deaths for 1M Pop (Worldometer 14th Feb 2021) 1. UK = 1842 2. USA = 1,646 3. India = 114
