The Ivermectin discussion

banie01 wrote: »

They aren't patenting Ivermectin though.
They are patenting a soluble variation of it for use as a delivery method.

If, and given the current state of the evidence it is a very conditional if.
Ivermectin is shown to be a more efficacious treatment than those currently used, it may be that this company will gain sales based upon the novelty of the "newly patented" formulation.

But I'm at a loss to see as to why a company would patent a new delivery vector, with those associated costs?
But not progress with an EUA application based on the trials to date?

It's almost as if, there's no quality data supporting a stance that the EUA is appropriate but that taking advantage of off label prescribing may present a sales opportunity.

You said what I said!

biko wrote: »

Slovakia are now going to use Ivermectin as a treatment so if it works for them then maybe EU will allow it.

I wouldn't mind taking a drug that has been used successfully for over 40 years.

The EU won't allow it anytime soon. The European Medicines Agency trotted out in the last few days that it's use hasn't been proven and aren't sponsoring a trial themselves.

Piollaire wrote: »

The EU won't allow it anytime soon. The European Medicines Agency trotted out in the last few days that it's use hasn't been proven and aren't sponsoring a trial themselves.

I don't see what the fuss is? It may or may not be of any help countering Covid-19 but its a well proven drug with fewer side effects than many that doctors prescribe everyday.

The Journal has a fact check on Ivermectin, concluding

"We rate the claim that ivermectin is an alternative to Covid-19 vaccines and could help to treat it UNPROVEN.2

https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-ivermectin-covid-19-5385782-Mar2021/

The Cali Colombia trial is a big setback. It's getting a lot of attention having being published by a prestigious journal in the US. Looking closer at it hasn't proven anything either way. The placebo group didn't go on to develop serious covid as expected so there wasn't anything to compare to the Ivermectin group. The placebo group could have been on Ivermectin before or during the study, or have been accidentally dosed by the study team which they admitted happened for a cohort. Without blood tests to confirm that the placebo group were Ivermectin free then this study is worthless. Publishing this paper has done huge damage.

Piollaire wrote: »

One of the two Nobel prize winning inventors of Ivermectin calling for it to be used as a treatment for Covid.

http://jja-contents.wdc-jp.com/pdf/JJA74/74-1-open/74-1_44-95.pdf.

Shame, shame, shame on Merck/MSD

Nah, the data or evidence has to satisfy the people who will recommend or approve it otherwise it brings regulatory systems into disrepute.

Carefree88 wrote: »

Poland are starting a trial with anti viral amantadyne soon, a doctor there is all over thre news who has treated 3,000 patients since this all began with no hospitalisations, he is blaming the government for all the unnecessary deaths as he believes early treatment with that antiviral would have saved many lives

...

Got a link?

Found one ... mentions 100 patients treated, not 3,000
https://polandin.com/51345947/health-ministry-commissions-clinical-trials-on-amantadine

Another:
This could be an interesting treatment ..... blood plasma .......

More than 3,000 ampoules of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin have been produced, which after the completion of the required quality tests, including product stability tests, will be submitted to clinical trials in four centres

https://emerging-europe.com/news/poland-has-a-medicine-for-covid-19/

It appears that Poland is not following the general trend and actually trying to find additional measures to treat Covid.

.

Some things that make you go hmmmmm in this
https://www.globalresearch.ca/vaccine-conundrum/5741279

To clarify this situation, a German study with 176 participants, published last week as a preprint, measured the age-dependent immune response to the Pfizer vaccine. Somewhat shockingly, the study found that one third of people over the age of 80 developed no neutralizing antibodies at all, and thus were potentially without seroprotection even after the second vaccination

You could add the Peruvian government officials to your list

Peru instituted the use of Ivermectin in May of 2020, after which deaths dropped ~tenfold. Then, shortly after the inauguration in NOV 2020 of President Sagasti, they recommended against the use of Ivermectin and the cases & deaths rose dramatically. Now Peru is following the mask/social distance protocol instead of the reintroduction of Ivermectin. The seasonal change might well have had an impact, but unlikely to be this dramatic!

This is not directly related to Ivermectin, but it addresses treatment for Covid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAHi3lX3oGM

I seem to remember not so long ago a poster, who subsequently possibly disappeared, claimed that South America's low Covid rate (at the time) was due to their use of Ivermection. How did that work out for them?

myfreespirit wrote: »

Hawthorn leaf, if you don't mind...
Next, we'll be told that strong tea works wonders for a Covid infection.
Must get on to the WHO immediately. They'll be delighted to know.

You can gey digitalis from the little purple Foxglove

Don't be chewing on it though : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4938686/

drunkmonkey wrote: »

My go to for all cold and flu symptom is Echinaforce, stops them in their tracks, very little studies on it for Covid-19, but it does seem to inactivate it, my doctors wife who's a pharmacist swears by it. I wouldn't rule out things right in front us that could help people with symptoms.

The observed virucidal activity of Echinaforce® was not restricted to common cold coronaviruses, as both SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoVs were inactivated at comparable concentrations. Finally, the causative agent of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 was also inactivated upon treatment with 50μg/ml Echinaforce®.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32907596/

That's an in vitro study. You'd probably get better results with bleach.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

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