BTW the whole “horse medicine”
angle on this is a dramatization. Ampicillin is also a horse medicine, if you buy it from a veterinary supply house. Both medicines are also for humans, if obtained through the right channels.
The scientists who developed Ivermectin were given the Nobel prize for it. For humans. The point here is not to say that proves it works for COVID. The point is just to note that calling it “horse medicine” is hyperbolic.
I’m quite frankly shocked by the quality of discussion here. The HN community could do so much better. There’s unsubstantiated claims on all sides, downvoted comments galore etc. If this is what the geekier than average and probably more literate than average community ends up looking like in the context, no wonder all sorts of conspiracy theories run wild.
The NIH has also prioritized ivermectin for another big, randomized clinical study. This research takes time. People need to be a little patient and not jump to conclusions.
For now there are a mix of smaller studies, some of which show no benefit and others which show a significant benefit. Most of those studies had different treatment protocols so the results aren't directly comparable.
Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19.
Ivermectin is out of patent protection so whether it is effective or not (I don’t know, and won’t believe everything I read including replies here), there is huge PR machinery geared up against it from companies that stand to profit from newer, patented, alternatives.
You assert “there is” but do you have any concrete facts? Also, why wouldn’t there be an equally huge PR machinery from the insurance companies fighting for it as, by definition, they stand to loose as much from the use of alternatives?
So I only read the abstract, but sounds to me like this study only tested the efficacy in treatment, not prevention. And all of the hub-hub I've heard is around prevention. I wish this paper would have considered that angle too.
Ah but which hand was used to administer Ivermectin: left or right? It only works when administered with the left hand. Most people are right-handed and do not follow the protocol.
Yet another substandard publication by the self-serving academic/Big Pharma cabal.
What is the reasonable test process you're suggesting to verify the effectiveness of the drug against COVID? What is your basis for believing the drug will work if only given "longer" despite showing zero effect in the existing tests?
Joe Rogan (who has COVID right now btw, for what it’s worth, but not part of the point here) had on his show an ICU specialist who has developed some of the key protocols for treating COVID including with the use of Ivermectin:
If you do open the podcast, know that it is very possible in Spotify to skip forward 15 seconds at a time to get past the many ads at the beginning.
Also on the show was evolutionary biologist Brett Weinstein. Long story short, the guests suggest that some of the (allegedly compromised by money) authoritative medical bodies have been captured, and have helped industry by cherry picking studies to highlight the low quality ones, while the high quality studies and, more importantly, country wide actual results in practice in several large countries, they are downplaying. Again this is done by authorities who, it is claimed, may have a vested (direct or indirect) interest in suppressing a low cost drug that is bad for business.
The episode also covers the remarkable censorship around this.
They also mention that US hospitals are prescribing Remdesivir (sp?) even though the WHO does not recommend it. According to the doctor on the podcast Remdesivir costs $3,000 a dose.
Stop the tin-foil hat nonsense. Joe Rogan is not an expert. He refused the vaccine. There is no one out to get you. Hundreds of anti-vax, pro-horse-dewormer patients are dying due to COVID.
[+] [-] natch|4 years ago|reply
The scientists who developed Ivermectin were given the Nobel prize for it. For humans. The point here is not to say that proves it works for COVID. The point is just to note that calling it “horse medicine” is hyperbolic.
[+] [-] fcurts|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] senectus1|4 years ago|reply
https://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
It kills more than covid every year!
[+] [-] andreskytt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigbazza78|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mduerksen|4 years ago|reply
I'm interested in this big, randomized clinical study, alas not yet concluded:
https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investi...
[+] [-] nradov|4 years ago|reply
https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initi...
For now there are a mix of smaller studies, some of which show no benefit and others which show a significant benefit. Most of those studies had different treatment protocols so the results aren't directly comparable.
https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/6/989
[+] [-] bb88|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bb88|4 years ago|reply
Conclusions
Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19.
[+] [-] vibrato2|4 years ago|reply
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8203399/
[+] [-] rolph|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nradov|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 8eye|4 years ago|reply
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210314/Cannabis-compound...
[+] [-] natch|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andreskytt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maga|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdevsrex|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bayesian_horse|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rich_sasha|4 years ago|reply
Yet another substandard publication by the self-serving academic/Big Pharma cabal.
[+] [-] verdverm|4 years ago|reply
The doctors reporting success are using it for longer. Consider most anti virals are taken for 10+ days
[+] [-] nielsbot|4 years ago|reply
I spent time reading about Ivermectin and the most reliable info I could find is from the NIH and WHO and neither recommends it for COVID-19:
- https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-adv...
- https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/ant...
They seem to have reviewed many Ivermectin studies and found all of them low quality and/or insufficiently controlled.
Edit: grammar, formatting
[+] [-] bayesian_horse|4 years ago|reply
Also, to treat someone for 10+ days it would be useful to have them survive the first five days, right?
[+] [-] kevingadd|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stewartbutler|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eganist|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] natch|4 years ago|reply
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7uVXKgE6eLJKMXkETwcw0D?si=p...
If you do open the podcast, know that it is very possible in Spotify to skip forward 15 seconds at a time to get past the many ads at the beginning.
Also on the show was evolutionary biologist Brett Weinstein. Long story short, the guests suggest that some of the (allegedly compromised by money) authoritative medical bodies have been captured, and have helped industry by cherry picking studies to highlight the low quality ones, while the high quality studies and, more importantly, country wide actual results in practice in several large countries, they are downplaying. Again this is done by authorities who, it is claimed, may have a vested (direct or indirect) interest in suppressing a low cost drug that is bad for business.
The episode also covers the remarkable censorship around this.
They also mention that US hospitals are prescribing Remdesivir (sp?) even though the WHO does not recommend it. According to the doctor on the podcast Remdesivir costs $3,000 a dose.
[+] [-] bb88|4 years ago|reply
Anecdotal evidence, but a powerful one to be sure.
[+] [-] dekhn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] b0sk|4 years ago|reply