It appears to be a treatment for poor sleep in older people due to less melatonin being produced.
Children have 10 times the amount of adults.
I take 5mg most nights. I can't believe it's prescription only in Ireland.
Prescription only in parts of europe.
Not all of Europe. I get mine from France, delivers no problem. Crazy that it's prescription only.
Melatonin. Holy f**k.
Absolute nonsense. And the guys writing the article just happen to be in the business of selling "nutraceuticals".
Chancers exploiting the gullible. This is the Covid equivalent of getting an email from the Oil Minister of Nigeria asking for help in moving $20 million out of the country.
Meanwhile
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/gunshot-victims-horse-dewormer-ivermectin-oklahoma-hospitals-covid-1220608/amp/
I live in Spain and get mine here with no prescription either.
Maybe my information is wrong or out of date.
OK, do you mind me asking the name of your supplier?
From what I have read it is very safe.
Alot of studies on Ivermectin.
Good treatment potential.
You'd think that would be definitive, yet it turns out that almost every study on that list has issues, it's 30 tweets long, so grab a cup of tea.
Personally I would trust over 30 peer reviewed studies over someones tweets refuting them especially someone who has "trust me" written on their t-shirt.
And just digging in a little bit to the website hosting the studies itself and it looks like there's a whole web of misinformation and crackpot remedies behind it.
I think that's a big part of the problem, it looks slick and the data looks believable (especially if that's already the narrative you're following), but it all falls apart at the slightest scrutiny, you can't polish a turd.
Baricitinib study looks interesting, it's a hospital treatment post infection rather than prophylaxis (uses used for arthritis and can weaken the immune system).
This Twitter feed is a perfect example of what I mentioned earlier - 'flooding the zone with sh*t' as a disinformation tactic.
The Twitter feed brings up lots of alleged Covid treatments in quick order: Aspirin, Niclosamide, Melatonin, Ivermectin, Vitamin D, Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, along with claims that masks are useless, paranoia about information suppression (while posting this very 'information' on flipping Twitter..), all your familiar conspiracy BS.
It also mentions scientific studies, to give itself an air of legitimacy and competence, while deliberately misrepresenting the content of the same studies.
Good to know that you can see that these peer reviewed studies only look believable but really fall apart under scrutiny by you.
Personally I will go with what the professionals think. The professionals whose job it is to peer review studies. The professionals who peer reviewed these studies and seen that they do not fall apart under scrutiny by professionals.
a) That website is part of a disinformation ring of various treatments and conspiracies, no professionals involved
b) The person who was checking all the studies is an epidemiologist, which is exactly the type of professional you want to review those studies
But sure, if you want to go ahead and analyse and show where it's wrong, be our guest.
a) I was not talking about the website. I was talking about 39 peer reviewed studies and yes the people who peer reviewed these studies are professionals. These are the professionals I would trust over you.
b) Yes an epidemiologist tweeting his analysis with 'trust me' written on his t-shirt. A professional checking these studies would not be doing it by tweeting. It would be like having the studies peer reviewed and then tweeted rather than published in medical journals.
I do not have the ability to analyse the studies. But the professionals who peer reviewed them do. I'll go with the professionals on this one
You've lost me, most of the studies linked aren't full trials or aren't proclaiming the efficacy of Invermectin, the person who collated them took small parts of data from each one to try and support the narrative they're trying to push, I doubt the authors know they're being used this way.
You can claim to be lost and then analyse these studies yourself and come to these conclusions.
Again I will go with the professionals who have analysed these studies and go with their conclusions.
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx
Interesting...
Another potential outpatient treatment.
Also meanwhile...someone is lying and it seems rolling stone is spreading misinformation. I'm sure this correction will gain widespread coverage, right?
Although Dr. Jason McElyea is not an employee of NHS Sequoyah, he is affiliated with a medical staffing group that provides coverage for our emergency room.
With that said, Dr. McElyea has not worked at our Sallisaw location in over 2 months.
NHS Sequoyah has not treated any patients due to complications related to taking ivermectin. This includes not treating any patients for ivermectin overdose.
All patients who have visited our emergency room have received medical attention as appropriate. Our hospital has not had to turn away any patients seeking emergency care.
We want to reassure our community that our staff is working hard to provide quality healthcare to all patients. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this issue and as always, we value our community’s support.
https://nhssequoyah.com/
I don't understand why people are actively dismissing the advice of medical professionals. Like, why are you going out of your way to find any evidence, no matter how ropey, to use to dismiss people who's entire career is built on studying and advising on this kind of thing?
Without the requisite regulatory approval there is a very strong risk of quackery and these people need to go from claiming to proving. More papers, interviews, YouTube videos or just shouting will not do that.
The guy who invented the "MMR vaccine causes autism" lie was a medical doctor. Too many people were blinded by that to see through it.
If what they're saying doesn't make sense and isn't backed up by evidence, then it doesn't matter what their qualifications are.
There is no reliable evidence that ivermectin works in Covid. What we're seeing now is more and more claims being made on the back of bad science and anecdotal evidence, we have yet to see a well designed study prove any effect.
The doctors pushing it are hopelessly compromised. The most vocal, Pierre Kory, is a full blown conspiracy theorist and absolute crank.
One key goal of creating all this noise and the paranoia talk of suppressed information is to distract from obvious, common sense questions.
When you use Ivermectin as a dewormer, the chemical mechanisms that make it effective as a dewormer are known in detail, and well documented.
When it comes to the use of Ivermectin as an antiviral for SARS-COV-2, there are not even basic ideas of how it is supposed to work on a chemical level, much less any studies that provide detail of the exact mechanisms.
Ivermectin has since been confirmed to inhibit IN nuclear import and HIV-1 replication (Wagstaff et al., 2012). Other actions of ivermectin have been reported (Mastrangelo et al., 2012), but ivermectin has been shown to inhibit nuclear import of host (eg. (Kosyna et al., 2015; van der Watt et al., 2016)) and viral proteins, including simian virus SV40 large tumour antigen (T-ag) and dengue virus (DENV) non-structural protein 5 (Wagstaff et al., 2012, Wagstaff et al., 2011). Importantly, it has been demonstrated to limit infection by RNA viruses such as DENV 1-4 (Tay et al., 2013), West Nile Virus (Yang et al., 2020), Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) (Lundberg et al., 2013) and influenza (Gotz et al., 2016)
Like I said, lots and lots of noise, to distract from asking basic questions of how it is supposed to be effective with SARS-COV-2.
Bringing up effectiveness for a fundamentally different virus that is transmitted via insect bites is not relevant - except when the goal is to create a distraction.
The fact that all of your links are not leading to the studies you mention, but to just one that describes - as brought up 100 times before - that Ivermectin inhibits SARS-COV-2 viral replication in vitro - when used in doses 100x as high as safe in human use, without explaining the chemical mechanism of how it can work as antiviral in humans, makes my point.
This is just a list of things Ivermectin is claimed to have some effect on and none of them are COVID. An article I'd missed from March, which makes some salient points, doing proper clinical trials being chief among them.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/cc5c49cbcd8338fb80f9b4941d6b358e.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5e81cc38282c589b98d886b9006d058d.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eaabbaf8a16773590ee22dd6c15f1d68.svg)
