The Ivermectin discussion

snowcat · 31-01-2022 4:08pm

They quote this double blind study with Kitasato in the article. Hopefully something good comes of it.

31-01-2022 4:19pm

They do? Where? Am I reading a different article maybe?

Which quote do you refer to?

generic_throwaway · 31-01-2022 4:34pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559743#Comment_118559743

If the weight of scientific evidence supports Ivermectin, that would be great. It does not, and it did not. Maybe it will in future?

But without scientific evidence of its clinical effectiveness, it would be grossly irresponsible to prescribe it. That is the situation with Ivermectin and every other medicine for every other disease. It's not clear why Trumpians have decided to politicise this one.

Japanese trading and pharmaceutical company Kowa Co Ltd (7807.T) said on Monday anti-parasite drug ivermectin showed an "antiviral effect" against Omicron and other variants of coronavirus in joint non-clinical research.

The company did not provide further details.

Unfortunate that this was non-clinical research. Also, I thought the whole point of the Ivermectin thing was that you can't trust big Pharma?

snowcat · 31-01-2022 6:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560445#Comment_118560445

https://rctportal.niph.go.jp/en/detail?trial_id=jRCT2031200120

The link is under the text 'The firm has been working with Kitasato University'

Some further info. Trial due to be completed in May 2022

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04703205

ligind · 31-01-2022 8:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559922#Comment_118559922

It appears that Reuters corrected the headline .

01-02-2022 8:10am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561020#Comment_118561020

Ah so a different link / article entirely then? No wonder I was not seeing the quote you were referring to :) You provided one link and when I commented on it you referred to the content of an entirely different study in an entirely different link you had not provided.

Difficult to follow what you are talking about if you do that.

So they enrolled people in a double blind clinical study. That's good. We need more of those. Until completion and publication though it still a case of "nothing to see here".

snowcat · 01-02-2022 8:17am

Just read the article on a computer not your phone. If you cannot follow the links in an article that's your problem. The second link I added after a quick Google. Your opinion of nothing to see here is tiresome and condescending. Let Reuters and other readers make up their own minds. There maybe nothing to see here and there might be. Again more information is needed but it is not up to you to dismiss an article as you don't have any information either.

01-02-2022 8:21am

I am on my computer. I don't use a phone for boards or articles.

Perhaps my last post sounded more critical than it was meant to. I was just pointing out why I was confused.

I just meant you provided one link yesterday. Reuters. Then you started talking about quotes and details that were not in that link. I was confused as to why I was not seeing it.

You then provided entirely new links - so it just became clear the point of confusion was simply that you were talking about the content of links you had not actually provided yet. Which is fine - but you can understand why this makes a conversation hard to follow, no?

It also did not help (not your fault) that it seems Reuters corrected their article title to be more accurate - but did not correct the URL to match.

There is nothing "condescending" about pointing out that a study that is not yet completed means there is nothing to see here yet. It is great a study is being done! But until it is done - there is not much else we can say about it, is there?

snowcat · 01-02-2022 8:40am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118563485#Comment_118563485

For the last time the other link is in the quoted Reuter article. I posted it separately for anyone who could not find it in the article. It was and is still there. Im out.

01-02-2022 8:44am

Which is great - and I thank you for that :)

But think about it - when you link to an article and it contains many sub links - you refer to something in the article - you can not expect anyone to follow every single sub link - and sub sub links - to find out what you might be referring to. It's simply polite when citing the content of an article to be clear exactly what link you are referring to.

There is no fight here - apologies if I came across as more critical than I intended. It was just a momentary break down in communication / confusion and you have clarified now. All good! Conversation wins again!

But anyway - studies are good. I like reading them. I look forward to the publication of this one - thanks for informing us about it. And lets talk again when the details come out! And as ever - here is hoping we find evidence (for the first time) that a cheap and widely available drug can become part of our arsenal in the future! Everyone wins if it can.

snowcat · 01-02-2022 8:51am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118563512#Comment_118563512

Actually yes i would expect someone to read the full article and links before making a written rebuke of it. Otherwise I agree with you.

01-02-2022 9:42am

I did not make a written rebuke :) I simply could not find your link saying what you said it did. You clarified. What's the issue? You're making more of this than needs be.

As I said - lets talk again when (if) the results are released.

PureIsle · 05-02-2022 7:12pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560508#Comment_118560508

"But without scientific evidence of its clinical effectiveness, it would be grossly irresponsible to prescribe it. That is the situation with Ivermectin and every other medicine for every other disease."

That is not the situation in all cases.

Medicines are prescribed off label every day by doctors who believe those medicines will help their patients, without that medicine going through clinical trials for the specific application that doctor is using it.

That is why we go to trained medical persons - so they can use their judgement from training and experience to prescribe medication that they (the doctor) believes will be beneficial.

This applies even more so in a pandemic situation. In previous pandemics doctors were encouraged to use medicines off label that were thought to help their patients. Even the good Dr. Fauci is quoted on this.

Yet the the use of the likes of Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquie etc were not only discouraged but severely deliberately hampered and banned in some locations during this pandemic.

It is also true that other advices such as mask wearing and lockdowns are the complete opposite to the advice provided in previous pandemics.

I have not read a satisfactory explanation for these massive changes in advice this time around.

is_that_so · 06-02-2022 11:05am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118587450#Comment_118587450

Yet the the use of the likes of Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquie etc were not only discouraged but severely deliberately hampered and banned in some locations during this pandemic.

That would be because they have not been shown to work and we do now have other options which have been shown to work - molnupiravir, remdesivir, anti-inflammatories such as dexamethasone, and antibody therapies.

"This time around" as compared to what?

Former Former Former · 06-02-2022 11:43am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118587450#Comment_118587450

This argument is utterly refuted by the fact that dexamethsone has been recommended by WHO for Covid for ages now. It's cheap, effective, and has been off patent for decades. That gets quietly ignored by your faction.

Hydroxychloroquine, seriously? Surely not even the looniest of conspiracy theorists are still talking about that?

Seriously, it is time to unplug from social media. You are going down a bad rabbit hole.

PureIsle · 07-02-2022 10:14pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118589628#Comment_118589628

"This time around" as compared to what?

That question is answered in what I wrote - previous pandemic/s.

Yes there are now other substances available, but not back when they were needed most - before vaccines.

On the other hand I doubt any efficacy from remdesivir which you list.

The data on that is even less encouraging than either HCQ or IVM.

is_that_so · 08-02-2022 8:58am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118597384#Comment_118597384

The last one like this was in 1918, so comparisons are a bit academic and the only other one worth noting is the 1968 flu outbreak, over 50 years ago. Remdesivir is not the brilliant solution originally imagined but it is part of a suite of approved treatments playing their part.

PureIsle · 15-02-2022 6:24pm

A nice synopsis of events surrounding Ivermectin April 2020 to March 2021

https://philharper.substack.com/p/ivermectin-and-a-very-powerful-lobby?r=homjh

and to round it all off here is yet another peer reviewed observational study on Ivermectin

https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/preventive-ivermectin-reduced-covid-mortality/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=6d68a076-fda5-4725-ac9e-58b0d499c706

Preventive Use of Ivermectin Reduced COVID Mortality by 90%, Study Found

Yet here and elsewhere we have people denying Ivermectin should have had a place in the treatment and prevention of Covid. 🙄

is_that_so · 15-02-2022 6:45pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118636111#Comment_118636111

There's more than an an act of desperation on seeking out more reviews of old information and that 2 week old Digger site is just rehashing all of it, with enough links to get you to 1,000 open tabs. Somehow in all of this you continually ignore that other posters would be on the side of Invermectin if it produced enough data to be approved for COVID. Dexamethasone got through with no problem because it was shown to work well, in proper trials.

As I've said many times new trials and data that support that will make the case far more than some random internet person writing a blog purporting to reveal something nobody else has spotted. That time is running out BTW as we now have about a dozen actual COVID treatments, including a fairly poorly performing antiviral with more on the way.

PureIsle · 15-02-2022 9:08pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118636226#Comment_118636226

.... and what you refuse to do is see the data that has been building for many years ..... including pre-Sars2 ..... as well as the actual results from those locations that have used it.

Apparently you failed to understand what a "synopsis of events surrounding Ivermectin April 2020 to March 2021" means. That does show that a rehash of events is warranted for some.

Of course you also ignored the peer reviewed observational study of how effective it has been.

You know, and apparently rely on the fact, that no pharma company is going to spend the millions of euros necessary on a trial that would satisfy your requirements for acceptance, for a substance that it would be impossible to recoup the expenditure on sales of that substance, due to its being out of patent protection.

In any case, the information posted is not to try to persuade you or anyone else, but to inform readers that there is more than one opinion, and data to back it up.

PureIsle · 15-02-2022 9:15pm

@is_that_so Maybe you could point me to the double blind, randomised controlled trials, using Dexamethasone for those who get Covid and are not hospitalise with Acute Respiratory Distress?

astrofool · 15-02-2022 10:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118637006#Comment_118637006

Srsly? There are lots of blind studies involving dexamethasone and corticosteroids, here's one, but you can look up others examining dosage or using inhalers, for the amount you go digging on Ivermectin, that's a pretty shocking question to have to ask:

Efficacy and safety of systematic corticosteroids among severe COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials | Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy (nature.com)

is_that_so · 16-02-2022 9:26am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118636976#Comment_118636976

You neither have to inform nor convince me. Data that persuades regulatory bodies that it should be approved for COVID will do that. I've been aware of the potential of this for two years, largely through some very aggressive promotion of it from people in my circle, often coupled with the ineffective hydroxychloroquinine and of course the attendant Big Pharma/FDA conspiracy. It's still a mystery to me that a bunch of US cardiologists are to the fore on this, even if the context of a divisive Trumpian presidency partly explains how that might be. As has been observed more than once it would not be medically responsible to approve a drug that has not been convincingly shown to work.

PureIsle · 16-02-2022 12:19pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118637338#Comment_118637338

Really?

Maybe you should read the question before jumping in blindly with a study that is not relevant to the question.

is_that_so · 16-02-2022 12:23pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118639858#Comment_118639858

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.22.20137273v1.full-text

That's the one, under the Recovery umbrella, that got it recommended. I will say that it's puzzling that you've never heard of this, it's been around for almost 2 years.

Here's the EMA commentary from September 2020.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-endorses-use-dexamethasone-covid-19-patients-oxygen-mechanical-ventilation

PureIsle · 16-02-2022 12:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118638885#Comment_118638885

As has been observed more than once it would not be medically responsible to approve a drug that has not been convincingly shown to work.

No one is seeking 'approval' for these substances for the treatment of Covid, as far as I am aware. All is being sought, is non-interference with practising doctors thus allowing them to use whatever medications they deem most appropriate for their patients' needs.

It has long been the practice in medicine for qualified medics to use drugs approved for one illness, in the treatment of others. In fact it has been encouraged.

Both Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are approved drugs.

Why would they be essentially banned for use in the treatment of Covid by qualified medical personnel?

Both of those have proven to be extremely safe when prescribed. So there is no known safety concern.

It has, until 'Covid times', been up to the individual doctors what they prescribe, based on their experience and training.

There must be some very very good reason for officials to interfere with a doctors practice.

Up to now no good reason (such as safety concerns) has been shown.

So, yes, I would take the word of highly qualified doctors (lots of doctors from all parts of the world not just 'Trumpian') who treat patients, over some bureaucrat.

As you mentioned pharma companies, it should be borne in mind that those producing these vaccines have very dirty histories and are not, based on past practices, to be trusted. They are currently making billions of dollars from the vaccines, in no small part due to the absence of 'allowed' (not necessarily 'approved') treatments.

is_that_so · 16-02-2022 12:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118640060#Comment_118640060

Both of those have proven to be extremely safe when prescribed. So there is no known safety concern.

By doctor treating their own patients. The regulatory authorities are not satisfied with the data so it has not been approved or recommended for COVID. It's not the first nor the last drug that will not be recommended. Anyway moving on here. You're welcome to continue to find more reasons why it's been apparently badly treated.

astrofool · 16-02-2022 1:25pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118639858#Comment_118639858

Elaborate, Dexamethasone has been through multiple successful trials using established methods including double blind trials.

Do you really want to set the bar at Dexamethasone trial levels for Ivermectin? Have you thought this through fully?

My feeling is that you're trying to separate a symptom of COVID (acute respiratory distress) away from treatment of COVID itself to try and claim something.

PureIsle · 16-02-2022 2:35pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118640235#Comment_118640235

I asked a question and you responded with a link that was not relevant to the question.

Simple. Read the question. Answer it or not, I don't really care, but providing links that do not answer the question is pointless.

Maybe you could point me to the double blind, randomised controlled trials, using Dexamethasone for those who get Covid and are not hospitalised with Acute Respiratory Distress?

PureIsle · 16-02-2022 2:43pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118640095#Comment_118640095

Again ..... this is not about approval or recommendation. It is about the effective banning from use of those drugs.

Without that 'effective banning' the drugs would be available for prescribing by doctors according to their own training and experience, just as other drugs are.

I have found no medical reason for this effective ban.

I would like to hear one, if available. Without a medical reason then people will look for other reasons why this might have occurred ...... but of course they will be labelled 'conspiracy theorists' for seeking reasons.

The Ivermectin discussion

Comments