FACT: baed on credible studies, Ivermectin…….
- Thread starter TripleWood
- Start date
Abstract
Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug. It is highly effective against many microorganisms including some viruses.In this comprehensive systematic review, antiviral effects of ivermectin are summarized including in vitro and in vivo studies over the past 50 years.
Several studies reported antiviral effects of ivermectin on RNA viruses such as Zika, dengue, yellow fever, West Nile, Hendra, Newcastle, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, chikungunya, Semliki Forest, Sindbis, Avian influenza A, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome, Human immunodeficiency virus type 1, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen - The Journal of Antibiotics
Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug. It is highly effective against many microorganisms including some viruses. In this comprehensive systematic review, antiviral effects of...
www.nature.com
TripleWood posted this OP on AUG 21. My reply is the only one since.
I posted today, and Stump posted about an hour later- now tell me again how Stump ignores my posts.
I rarely see your posts, psycho. I can only see them if it’s the last post. I hit posts on here that are bolded meaning the thread has been updated. I didn’t read your silly long post. I didn’t have that funny tweet to use when he first posted. I used it now. Now back to oblivion for you, psycho. Lol
LOL She didn’t say 100% and wasn’t even suggesting prophylactic use.
74% is pretty strong
It can be effective for those who can’t get do monoclonal. It’s proven.
74% is pretty strong
It can be effective for those who can’t get do monoclonal. It’s proven.
Last edited:
Ivermectin has been used safely in humans for 35 years.
and there are a WHOLE LOT MORE than 2 studies, no matter what Tweeter says. But leave it to you to cite a tweet over a research study.
ps- Ivermectin: Nobel Prize 2015
Ivermectin: an award-winning drug with expected antiviral activity against COVID-19
Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent with demonstrated antiviral activity against a number of DNA and RNA viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Despite this promise, the antiviral ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness - PubMed
Ivermectin, a US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-parasitic agent, was found to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in vitro. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to determine the rapidity of viral clearance and...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Last edited:
Is this recommendation for COVID or for parasites that are common to those origin countries?explain this, Stump
Still think Ivermectin is only for de-worming horses?
Ivermectin is used to treat River Blindness caused by parasitic worms, etc.
But that's not it's only use, just as Aspirin isn't just for headaches.
This recommendation is for parasites, but the purpose of the document is to dispel the massive amounts of misinformation being put out, leading folks to ignorantly believe that this drug that won it's discovers the Nobel Prize, is primarily a veterinary medicine used to treat horses and cows.
I'm not pushing Ivermectin per se, but I do want to see ANY and ALL viable COVID treatments be given appropriate consideration.
Lastly, have we ever repurposed a drug before? Have we had an effective drug, that we later found would help with other diseases and pathogens that it wasn't developed for???
Last edited:
ARTICLE FROM 1989:
COMMON MEDICINES MAY HAVE MULTIPLE USES
You may have several ``double duty'' drugs in your medicine cabinet, but drug companies often aren't allowed to tell you the multiple purposes of over-the-counter medications.<br> The federal Food and Drug Administration, in fact, limits the number of uses for which many of the drugs may be…
www.deseret.com
A good case in point is aspirin.
Recent studies conducted on some 22,071 male physicians showed that aspirin helped lower the risk of heart attacks by 47 percent in some men who had never previously suffered attacks, strokes or other serious illnesses.
Dennis White, president-elect of the Utah Pharmaceutical Association, said the reason aspirin works so well in some forms of cardiovascular treatment is because it makes the blood less likely to clot, actually thinning the blood.
Heart attacks usually occur when clots form in the coronary arteries, choking off the heart's own blood supply.
With this data in hand, aspirin manufacturers began hyping the tablets as the wonder drugs of the century. Sales increased 25 to 30 percent.
Then, the FDA stepped in. Aspirin manufacturers were told to keep the news about aspirin's possible effectiveness in preventing some heart attacks out of their ads.
The drug, they said, isn't without side effects.
"Because of the many uses and side effects of aspirin, it likely wouldn't be approved by the FDA today as an over-the-counter drug," Jensen said.
From a local ID doc who has done a lot of reading and studying about all things covid
“The thing all writers do best is find ways to avoid writing.”
Ivermectin
Well, I’ve stalled long enough. I’ve been asked a million times lately to render an opinion on ivermectin, and I’ve kept putting it off because a) there’s a lot to cover, and b) people hang on to their beliefs about ivermectin like they cling to their favorite college football team! But I’m going to dip my toe in, and I expect to stir some people up with this one!
What is ivermectin? Before earlier this year, my profession was probably the only field in medicine that ever used the drug with any regularity, although (as we have all heard) the veterinary community uses a ton of the stuff. It’s an antiparasitic drug, and in the US, we use it almost exclusively for a human parasitic worm called strongyloides, and we use it for scabies. It’s a GREAT drug for both. For animals, it’s a worming medicine, including heartworms in your dog. But for people in the US, there just aren’t that many indications for usage.
As with many drugs, there are data showing “in vitro” antiviral activity for ivermectin. This means that in a laboratory setup, the drug stops some viruses. Extrapolating in vitro data into real-world effectiveness, though, is fraught with danger. Dumping a drug into a culture system does not take into account anything about human metabolism, drug degradation, interactions between the pathogen and the host, drug absorption, or any of the thousand other processes that determine a drug’s actual effectiveness. It also doesn’t take into account any potential side effects of the drug. For instance, if you put a little bleach in a viral culture system, it’s going to kill the virus. But a bleach injection would be nutty.
So anyway, when we started looking around for treatments for COVID, we started pulling out drugs that have had some in vitro antiviral activity. This is how we got on the HCQ highway early in the pandemic, and we also briefly tried nelfinavir (a drug used for HIV) before determining that neither drug offered anything for COVID. Then came the ivermectin craze, and it just won’t let up!
Let me say that I think a psychologist could make their career off of studying people and their though processes over the past 18 months, but this really isn’t a COVID-specific problem. With all of medicine, there is always a subset of patients who think that they have found some secret to treating a disease that is better than established medical care, or that “mainstream medicine” is somehow suppressing the truth about treatments. We see this in cancer therapy all the time, and we especially see it in diseases for which treatment doesn’t exist or is not very effective. Unscrupulous hucksters have forever been preying on people who are medically desperate. I’ll never forget one poor man I took care of who had well-defined Lou Gehrig’s disease, and yet some quack had soaked him to the tune of about $200,000 over a year treating him for “chronic Lyme disease.” My point is not to say that those pushing ivermectin are doing so for personal profit, but rather to say that, in times of medical uncertainty, we’re all receptive to someone offering a treatment. And in this case, it’s a drug we already use safely, and it’s cheap! So it seems like an attractive alternative when we don’t have a whole lot else to offer, and people want to cling to that hope.
Back to the ivermectin question: does it work? The answer is that I don’t know. There are some small, flawed studies showing some level of benefit, but the higher-quality the study (that is, how well was the study designed, was it appropriately randomized, were there enough patients, was it done in multiple locations, was the blinding solid, were the outcomes robust and measurable, and all of the other details that separate good studies from bad ones), the less benefit is seen from ivermectin. One of my colleagues noted that the more studies you have to do to prove something works, the less likely it is that it actually DOES work.
I’ll just mention one tragically funny episode in the ivermectin legacy. Back in November, a study from Egypt appeared on a preprint server showing enormous benefit from ivermectin, with over a 90% reduction in death. For those of you not familiar with the nuance of the medical literature (excuse me for a minute while I put on a tweed jacket and get my pipe and speak in hushed, reverent tones), here’s what this means. When a study is completed, it is written up in a standard format (think about those lab reports you had to write in high school science class) and submitted to a journal for publication. The journal’s editors look at the report, and if they like it, they’ll accept it and then send it out for “peer review.” This means that the editors identify other experts in the field, not connected with the authors or the study, and ask them to review the article and provide feedback. This would include looking at the data and seeing if it makes sense, if the conclusions drawn by the authors were supported by the data, and sometimes asking the authors to beef up their supporting data. There can be a number of re-writes of the article, based on this constructive criticism, before it is published. The peer review process is key, because often the final article that gets published is very different from what was originally submitted, but it is also a whole lot cleaner and hopefully less biased.
Back in the dark ages before social media, articles never had an opportunity to get in circulation before they were peer-reviewed and published, and there really wasn’t much market for raw studies. The peer-review process was recognized as a key ingredient to the validity of status of a study. But with COVID especially, releasing data on Twitter and preprint servers have become de rigueur, and as a result, a lot of crap has made it into circulation. Specifically this study from Egypt with its large numbers and dramatic results. They put it up on a server without any peer review, and the ivermectin world ate it up. It was cited in numerous other articles and included in several meta-analyses showing benefit of ivermectin (for those wondering what a meta-analysis is, it is where the data from a bunch of different studies are analyzed collectively in hopes that the larger data set will be more valid. It’s the Rumpelstiltskin alchemy: take a bunch of straw and spin it into gold, and it usually produces results of…questionable validity). Then in July, an English grad student really dove into the paper, and he found that most, if not all, of the data were fabricated, and the language in the study had largely been plagiarized from other articles and run through a thesaurus program. To invoke a different fairy tale, it was the Emperor’s New Clothes all over!
Again, I’m not accusing the ivermectin truthers of fabricating all of the studies, but I AM saying that the literature supporting ivermectin use is very shaky. I’m also concerned because none of the normal trial processes have been undertaken for ivermectin, so we don’t even know what an appropriate dose would be. Ivermectin docs are giving much higher doses than are given for worm infections, with some reports coming out about patients suffering significant side effects. And then there’s the issue of people using Secretariat’s worming medicine instead of human preparations. Even the FLCCC docs (big proponents of ivermectin) say not to use animal preparations!
So should you take ivermectin? I wouldn’t ever prescribe it for COVID, though some of my colleagues whom I respect do. I just don’t think there is enough evidence for it. If you’re dying to take it, try to find an actual clinical trial and volunteer to be a part of trying to answer the question of whether or not it works. In the meantime, get your vaccine, and keep masking and distancing. We know those work, and you won’t end up trying to bite the postman!
“The thing all writers do best is find ways to avoid writing.”
Ivermectin
Well, I’ve stalled long enough. I’ve been asked a million times lately to render an opinion on ivermectin, and I’ve kept putting it off because a) there’s a lot to cover, and b) people hang on to their beliefs about ivermectin like they cling to their favorite college football team! But I’m going to dip my toe in, and I expect to stir some people up with this one!
What is ivermectin? Before earlier this year, my profession was probably the only field in medicine that ever used the drug with any regularity, although (as we have all heard) the veterinary community uses a ton of the stuff. It’s an antiparasitic drug, and in the US, we use it almost exclusively for a human parasitic worm called strongyloides, and we use it for scabies. It’s a GREAT drug for both. For animals, it’s a worming medicine, including heartworms in your dog. But for people in the US, there just aren’t that many indications for usage.
As with many drugs, there are data showing “in vitro” antiviral activity for ivermectin. This means that in a laboratory setup, the drug stops some viruses. Extrapolating in vitro data into real-world effectiveness, though, is fraught with danger. Dumping a drug into a culture system does not take into account anything about human metabolism, drug degradation, interactions between the pathogen and the host, drug absorption, or any of the thousand other processes that determine a drug’s actual effectiveness. It also doesn’t take into account any potential side effects of the drug. For instance, if you put a little bleach in a viral culture system, it’s going to kill the virus. But a bleach injection would be nutty.
So anyway, when we started looking around for treatments for COVID, we started pulling out drugs that have had some in vitro antiviral activity. This is how we got on the HCQ highway early in the pandemic, and we also briefly tried nelfinavir (a drug used for HIV) before determining that neither drug offered anything for COVID. Then came the ivermectin craze, and it just won’t let up!
Let me say that I think a psychologist could make their career off of studying people and their though processes over the past 18 months, but this really isn’t a COVID-specific problem. With all of medicine, there is always a subset of patients who think that they have found some secret to treating a disease that is better than established medical care, or that “mainstream medicine” is somehow suppressing the truth about treatments. We see this in cancer therapy all the time, and we especially see it in diseases for which treatment doesn’t exist or is not very effective. Unscrupulous hucksters have forever been preying on people who are medically desperate. I’ll never forget one poor man I took care of who had well-defined Lou Gehrig’s disease, and yet some quack had soaked him to the tune of about $200,000 over a year treating him for “chronic Lyme disease.” My point is not to say that those pushing ivermectin are doing so for personal profit, but rather to say that, in times of medical uncertainty, we’re all receptive to someone offering a treatment. And in this case, it’s a drug we already use safely, and it’s cheap! So it seems like an attractive alternative when we don’t have a whole lot else to offer, and people want to cling to that hope.
Back to the ivermectin question: does it work? The answer is that I don’t know. There are some small, flawed studies showing some level of benefit, but the higher-quality the study (that is, how well was the study designed, was it appropriately randomized, were there enough patients, was it done in multiple locations, was the blinding solid, were the outcomes robust and measurable, and all of the other details that separate good studies from bad ones), the less benefit is seen from ivermectin. One of my colleagues noted that the more studies you have to do to prove something works, the less likely it is that it actually DOES work.
I’ll just mention one tragically funny episode in the ivermectin legacy. Back in November, a study from Egypt appeared on a preprint server showing enormous benefit from ivermectin, with over a 90% reduction in death. For those of you not familiar with the nuance of the medical literature (excuse me for a minute while I put on a tweed jacket and get my pipe and speak in hushed, reverent tones), here’s what this means. When a study is completed, it is written up in a standard format (think about those lab reports you had to write in high school science class) and submitted to a journal for publication. The journal’s editors look at the report, and if they like it, they’ll accept it and then send it out for “peer review.” This means that the editors identify other experts in the field, not connected with the authors or the study, and ask them to review the article and provide feedback. This would include looking at the data and seeing if it makes sense, if the conclusions drawn by the authors were supported by the data, and sometimes asking the authors to beef up their supporting data. There can be a number of re-writes of the article, based on this constructive criticism, before it is published. The peer review process is key, because often the final article that gets published is very different from what was originally submitted, but it is also a whole lot cleaner and hopefully less biased.
Back in the dark ages before social media, articles never had an opportunity to get in circulation before they were peer-reviewed and published, and there really wasn’t much market for raw studies. The peer-review process was recognized as a key ingredient to the validity of status of a study. But with COVID especially, releasing data on Twitter and preprint servers have become de rigueur, and as a result, a lot of crap has made it into circulation. Specifically this study from Egypt with its large numbers and dramatic results. They put it up on a server without any peer review, and the ivermectin world ate it up. It was cited in numerous other articles and included in several meta-analyses showing benefit of ivermectin (for those wondering what a meta-analysis is, it is where the data from a bunch of different studies are analyzed collectively in hopes that the larger data set will be more valid. It’s the Rumpelstiltskin alchemy: take a bunch of straw and spin it into gold, and it usually produces results of…questionable validity). Then in July, an English grad student really dove into the paper, and he found that most, if not all, of the data were fabricated, and the language in the study had largely been plagiarized from other articles and run through a thesaurus program. To invoke a different fairy tale, it was the Emperor’s New Clothes all over!
Again, I’m not accusing the ivermectin truthers of fabricating all of the studies, but I AM saying that the literature supporting ivermectin use is very shaky. I’m also concerned because none of the normal trial processes have been undertaken for ivermectin, so we don’t even know what an appropriate dose would be. Ivermectin docs are giving much higher doses than are given for worm infections, with some reports coming out about patients suffering significant side effects. And then there’s the issue of people using Secretariat’s worming medicine instead of human preparations. Even the FLCCC docs (big proponents of ivermectin) say not to use animal preparations!
So should you take ivermectin? I wouldn’t ever prescribe it for COVID, though some of my colleagues whom I respect do. I just don’t think there is enough evidence for it. If you’re dying to take it, try to find an actual clinical trial and volunteer to be a part of trying to answer the question of whether or not it works. In the meantime, get your vaccine, and keep masking and distancing. We know those work, and you won’t end up trying to bite the postman!
The answer is that it improves the condition of some symptomatic patients ~75% of the time when used within the first 5 days.
It’s also not the #1 go to treatment but is an option for a certain subset of patients. Just like the vax, there’s not just one right answer. But to say “I don’t know” is ignoring a good amount of accurate information and growing amount of overwhelming evidence.
It’s also not the #1 go to treatment but is an option for a certain subset of patients. Just like the vax, there’s not just one right answer. But to say “I don’t know” is ignoring a good amount of accurate information and growing amount of overwhelming evidence.
Are there studies out there that have impressed you and aren't dubious in nature / pre-print / etc.?
Whenever I get in tangles with Ivermectin proponents, it's never real data ... it's anecdotal ("I know a guy that got better") or #joerogan.
I'm lost on how any Ivermectin "data" could be "overwhelming" in the face of current ground-truth vaccine data.
Not a vaccine replacement. It’s an effective form of treatment for some symptomatic patients. Particularly those who for whatever reason aren’t candidates for monoclonal antibody treatments.
AGAIN…. Not a vaccine replacement or prophylactic medicine. But not a viable treatment option to be dismissed either.
It can make somebody possibly feel better for a couple of days but so far it has done nothing to stop Covid in a person. I think we will have a few therapies for Covid but this won’t be one of them.
Back to the ivermectin question: does it work? The answer is that I don’t know.
So should you take ivermectin? I wouldn’t ever prescribe it for COVID, though some of my colleagues whom I respect do.
I’m also concerned because none of the normal trial processes have been undertaken for ivermectin, so we don’t even know what an appropriate dose would be. (normal processes for the vaccine weren't undertaken either)
In the meantime, get your vaccine, and keep masking and distancing. We know those work (No, we don't)
Sigh... I'm NOT here to advocate Ivermectin, as I certainly don't know if it definitely works, however we do know that it's a true miracle drug for all kinds of parasitic issues in humans. It won it's discoverers the Nobel prize.
The doctors in other parts of the world that prescribe it regularly, and who noticed that those taking it seemed to fare better fighting COVID, really could be on to something, or they could not, but regardless, I do know that the person who wrote the message you posted, isn't objective on the topic. His article is rife with little tricks and subtle things that are all negative towards Ivermectin and trying to position it as being ineffective. It's just sad that those types of tricks won't be picked up on by most folks who have set up sort of a partisan mindset with the whole pro-vaccine versus anti-vaxxers foolishness and mindset.
He couches it as if the Ivermectin movement started with someone doing a crapshoot in vitro test, as opposed doctors in other parts of the world who noticed that those already taking it fared better. Same deal with HCQ and the Jewish doctor in NYC who supposedly had great results. Anecdotally, I know a few folks including @griffna and my sister who are immunocompromised, who SEEMED to fare better when they battled COVID. When doctors who treat hundreds of folks with these things, and seem to notice a pattern/trend where they fare better, we really should proceed to the next step and take a fair, honest look to see if it could help us, instead of summarily dismissing them because we want to only promote the mRNA vaccines.
It may or may not work, but let's do real science, be honest, and take a good look at any and everything that is viable so that we can get through to the other side ASAP. Of course, let's educate idiots so that they don't go out and buy a horse version, but when I see all these sites with pictures of horses and cows, lying and acting as if it's only a veterinary medicine, it's truly sad. I see articles saying "ERs are overflowing with Ivermectin ODs" etc., and again, it's truly sad that folks can't see and grasp what is happening.
Back to the ivermectin question: does it work? The answer is that I don’t know.
So should you take ivermectin? I wouldn’t ever prescribe it for COVID, though some of my colleagues whom I respect do.
I’m also concerned because none of the normal trial processes have been undertaken for ivermectin, so we don’t even know what an appropriate dose would be. (normal processes for the vaccine weren't undertaken either)
In the meantime, get your vaccine, and keep masking and distancing. We know those work (No, we don't)
You caught some of the stuff I was talking about, that so many others typically miss.
1. The vaccine works. Any belief that it doesn't, at this point, is devoid of reality.
2. To suggest *any* comparison between the efforts and brain power behind the mRNA / COVID vaccines and Ivermectin is laughable.
The mRNA / COVID vaccine did move fast, but it was because it was an "all hands on deck" effort. The fact that the United States put men on the moon is not diminished because other countries haven't been able to do it. We were simply the only people group with the resources and fortitude to make it happen.
Same with this vaccine. You can argue that it hasn't been proven yet if I'll grow a third arm out of my head, but the evidence that the vaccine keeps people from being hospitalized and dying is irrefutable.
1) The vaccine does not protect against Covid. Vaccinated people still contract Covid. The vaccine allegedly alleviates severe symptoms. (I say allegedly because no one can say with certainty symptoms would be worse, or would have been worse, since no one can have AND not have the vaccine.
2) Ivermectin has been tested and available for use in humans for 35 years. The fact that the Coronavirus hasn't yet been isolated can attest to the enormous amount of "research" that has gone into Covid- a novel coronavirus that couldn't possibly have been fully tested, since "novel" indicates it's never existed before, and no long-term effects are possible to know. We do not even know the animal species the virus supposedly jumped from- we can only speculate it was a bat, but that foregoes the conclusion of many that it did not jump from an animal to a human.
In short, we don't know for a fact where it originated, how it originated, and if it were naturally occurring or lab created. We have not identified the species, and we have not isolated the virus. We do know that masks do not stop transmissions nor infections, we know outside contact is nearly non-existence, and we know double-vaccinated people can still contract Covid.
No, it has not been "proven". Proven would be 100% certainty, and you cannot predict with certainty the effect Covid will have on an individual, since all individuals react differently.
You can argue that it hasn't been proven yet if I'll grow a third arm out of my head
