If someone had told me 2 years ago that I would be sitting here in my home office writing about anti-viral drugs and pharmaceutical companies, I would have said, “Get outta here! That’s crazy talk!!” Yet here I am, spending my Sunday writing about just that. Well, seeing as we in our two hundredeth and something day of lockdowns in Victoria, Australia, I’ve literally little else to do so here it goes. But first, another disclaimer. I am nobody important. These are just my thoughts, my opinion and nothing that I may write constitutes medical advice of any kind. I am merely trying to present the facts as I have observed them.
The report puts the issue of Ivermectin safety to rest. Read conclusion page. In other words there is nothing to lose by taking it, but a lot to gain. https://www.medincell.com/ivermectin/
I just want to comment that in addition to the possible inhibition SARS-Cov-2 binding to the ACE2 receptor on the cell, Ivermectin may also function to block several inflammatory pathways in the cell once it has been infected. I'll post the link the article on this at the end of my comment.
Molnupiravir looks to be a protease inhibitor, blocking the cleaving of translated viral polypeptides into functional proteins required for SARS-CoV-2 to replicate successfully. I can see using them in conjunction to good effect for those infected. Prophylactic means to prevent infection are also out there, you just have to look for the articles, some of which data to 2010 and were looking as earlier Coronavirus.
Thank you for your comment. It is the same paper I linked to in the text but as I said, I don't pretend to understand all of it but I did my best. I have heard some doctors speaking of ivermectin's anti-inflammatory effects but I wasn't sure so didn't want to add in so thanks for the contribution.
A lot of shills and paid trolls here with the standard talking points. I will add one thing.
I have worked in the pharma industry and healthcare.
Anyone who believes that Pfizer or any of the other pharma companies is not wholly driven by profit motive is deluded. Curing or preventing illness is not their goal, it is an occasional by-product of their activities.
All Pharma companies are capable of the most egregious human rights violations and criminal behaviour in pursuit of $$$. The public and legal case evidence for this is overwhelming and not controversial. I trust these companies and their trials as much as I trust my government, that is to say, not at all. I have been inside, I have seen it and it is disheartening.
1: You can't believe press releases from Pfizer about anything. Everything they publish, incl their science must be viewed through the lens of Pfizer's profit motive.
2: Pfizers Covid19 trial is FULL of data and procedural problems which dwarf the tiny signals they claim prove efficacy. Read the published information if you're capable.
Just like the crazy conspiracy that a province in India that has no other choice , has a 97% effacy rate. But that's just a quarter of a billion Indians lying about it.
Not the same drug but having similar efficacy for the same condition only one is $700 per script and the other $10 per script 50 years history and safety even a Nobel prize. I'm really struggling to make a decision maybe if your intent was to save a life both could be prescribed given the mechanism differs no chance of OD and a more effective result like ibrufen and paracetamol.
Since viral replication is a 1000-step process, there are 1000 ways to "stop" or "slow" it. They are not all equal.
Ivermectin appears to interfere with a spectrum of steps in the process; including, possibly, the virus's access to RNA polymerase - however, I think that last one is speculative. I don't try to follow all the theory. Since ivermectin is a bacterial molecule, it might already resemble common bacterial molecules already in the microbiome of a lot of people, but not everyone, for all we know.
Molnupiravir seems to disable mRNA transcription in general - throughout the body. Like making your cells drunk, so they can't do the work that the virus needs them to - nor the work they need to, i.e. gene expression. It doesn't make any sense at all to me, but I've only been researching it since Friday.
Do you know what a p-value is? If you can't explain it, then go back to study statistics because I have read tons of these studies and I have, like most of the scientific community against the rogue use of this drug, not seen evidence that is it both SAFE and EFFECTIVE.
You can quote all the meta analysis you want, if you're not able to see that most of them are not statistically significant, then you're just being played by the nice looking charts that mean nothing.
It is marginally effective, and the vaccine gives you better protection, while the safety at high dosage has not been shown.
I am so tired of repeating the same FACTS: only 1 study that is statistically significant our of the dozens that are out there, uses DEATH as their metric. All others are either talking about improvement in resolving symptoms or are not statistically significant.
That one study shows the drug to be somewhat effective, but the safety data only covers 1/3 of the patients, and only focuses on liver damage. That's it. That's not a full safety study.
There are many clinical trials that have started, many that have finished too, of them, most don't have results. Why? Most likely because the trial was not conclusive.
So, when out of 80+ clinical trials, there is barely 1 or 2 that show promising results, you gotta wonder? Why are all these other studies not showing results?
You can't just cherry pick the best study and say this is the proof. It's like going to college for 4 years and picking you best grade ever and claim that's you GPA. That's BS.
FRANCINE ROSE THATS ALSO MY VIEW ON MERCKS ITS A HUGE CONSPIRACY WITH THE MEDIA AND SOCIAL MEDIA , IM STARTING TO FEEL HOPELESS OF ALL THE PEOPLE AROUND WHO JUST KEEP SILENT WHILE EVERY GOVT STEAL CORRUPTS MONEY , I FEEL LIKE IM ALONE IN THIS VIEW TIL I READ YOUR NOTES , THIS WORLD IS FULL OF IMPUNITY , I WANT TO BURST IN ANGER , HOW BIG BUSINESSES CAN SACRIFICE THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE FOR THEIR ADVANCEMENT FOR MONEY , CRUELNESS EVIL GREEDINESS OF GOVT MEDIA SOCIAL MEDIA AND BIG PHARMA PFIZER MERCKS ETC GOD CLEAN THEIR SOULS
for those who care to look at the data and understand it... go to the source and look at the real clinical data. You will find nothing impressive like the cherry-picked meta analysis all the anti-vax rave about.
I have looked at the studies. Did you know that when the standard deviation is larger than the median point, that means that the study is not statistically significant? Out of the 29 early treatment studies, 10 are statistically significant. Most of those that are statistically significant focus on the speed of relief of symptoms, only one looks at effect on death, and 3 on hospitalization. Relief of symptom as a metric for efficacy is very weak. That means it's focusing on somewhat healthy people who would just take a little longer to recover. Not on preventing death. The one that focuses on death used a dosage of 151mg 4days, which is way over the safety dosage recommended (200ug/kg, or 20mg for a ~200lb person), and there is no mention of safety data (i.e. it is effective AND SAFE?)
So, yeah meta-analysis are all the rage, showing fancy dumbed down graphics to educate the 'public', but if you don't know how to read them, you are easily misled into thinking this drug is a miracle. It is not.
Correct the studies done to date arent strong enough scientifically to prove that it is an effective and safe drug to treat this virus.
That is why it is currently being studied by two Unis I’m aware of - Monash Uni & Oxford Uni (PRINCIPLE trial)
Early lab trials were done and whilst effective at killing the virus in a petri dish it was felt that the amount that would need to be given was above what was considered safe.
On the contrary, data from the field is showing promising results from lower doses so these trials are continuing.
Why wasnt more funding given to research IVM as a re-purposed drug early than now...
“Although a few large and well-conducted clinical trials early in the pandemic could have provided much better information about ivermectin, the highly political and rapidly changing conditions have contributed to making funding, recruitment and implementation of such trials difficult.”
You had Covid, like about 242 millions people by now, most of which didn't take IVM. You recovered after 2 weeks, like about 237 millions people by now. 2 weeks is about the average recovery time, so explain to me how IVM helped here? Do you have a placebo pair who has the same environmental characteristics, medical history and who had covid at the same time, who took longer to recover or died, that you are so convinced that IVM helped?
"I took it and i'm fine now". Luckily medical research is not done this way.
Total bullshit. If you had spent 20 seconds on google, you would have been able to lookup the chemical composition of each of these drugs which is public information and realize they are totally different. Non sense.
Regardless of chemical composition, both are claimed to be effective against the covid-19 virus. Difference being, one is an old, re-purposed drug and one is a new one.
Do you even understand the chemistry of these things? Of 2 molecules with the same chemical composition, one can save your life while the other can be deadly, just because one branch is oriented differently. This is why drugs go through extensive clinical studies and testing. If the manufacturer tells you the data they have seen does not convince them that this drug is effective, I think you can believe them; they'd be the one making billions selling it. Why would they even spend $100's of millions developing a new drug if they had one that work right there on their hands? This is complete non-sense.
People who don't understand the intricacies of these clinical studies and results should just shut up instead of instigating false hope.
I'm sorry, but if you don't think that Merck have more to gain from a new drug, then one like ivermectin which is off patent and much cheaper then you don't know how business works.
Business usually works with a constraint of time to market, and pharma especially operates with huge R&D budgets, so, thank you but it is ludicrous to say they would have an incentive to spend precious mknths or even years and $100's of millions developping a new drug with no guarantees of it working, take time to get it approved, and bring it to market, because they 'might' make more money. 1 wish is better than 2 you will have it. This is the most ridiculous excuse i'be heard to explain Merck's behavior.
yes I am aware. I am also aware that the Indian government directive came about 10 days after their peak in cases of May 7th, which makes it very hard to explain why Ivermectin would have lowered cases if they were already on their way down. As far as deaths, if IVM was so effective at preventing deaths, how comes the death curve has not dropped sharply after the mandate? It dropped, but just as the cases curve did, not any faster than before...
So, first rule of statistics is: correlation is not causation. Easy mistake to make, but when there is no clear evidence of causation, you can't conclude it was the cause. Maybe the harsh lockdown measured that were imposed in India are much more likely to have caused the drop in cases and therefore deaths than the drug.
Dude, if the studies were showing effectiveness AND safety, I'm sure the WHO, the CDC, and the FDA, would be happy to fast track these things. The problem is, they are not.
You guys keep seeing flashing numbers in some random post by some food blogger, and you say 'it works!'.
You don't seem to have a freakin' clue how clinical studies work.
'Big pharma', 'follow the money'... Let's do that for a sec: where are the biggest manufacturers of generic meds like IVM? India. ummm... interesting. Wonder why the India gov is so keen to push this drug... Just saying your theories can go both ways.
actually, no. Merck gives Ivermectin away (to African countries). It's also made as a generic by at least 7 other pharmaceutical companies. They can't start charging people hundreds of dollars for a treatment that is almost free. That's the reason they won't pursue Ivermectin. Follow the money.
follow the money is the way conspiracy theorists explain things. Look at the data is how scientists explain things. Then look again if you don't understand it and it doesn't tell the story you want it to tell. Data is data. You can't pick and choose some data and ignore the other data you have at your disposal. Yes I agree some studies show IVM is effective, but not at a safe dosage. Where is the clinical study that shows IVM to be safe and effective? By the way the WHO and the CDC both never banned IVM, they both recommended that it be prescribed only as part of a clinical study. So where is that clinical study? With so many people wanting to take it, why isn't there a robust, well organized and rock solid clinical study about IVM?
Only 1 of the statistically significant meta-analysis focuses on death as the outcome, not relief of symptoms. Mix apples and orange and then throw the bad apples to the side when they don't look good, and you get what you're describing... Add a little 'follow the money' and here we are we have a nice story about how the authorities are hidding the truth and conspiring with the big bad pharma...
Maybe there is another explanation to the behavior of India and Mexico: when you don't have enough vaccines or resources to handle the pandemic, but some study that has since be retracted claims the miraculous effectiveness of some cheap drug, please your people and feed them the pill they want to take... Just politicians who want to save their career.
Good for you. Chances are if you had taken nothing, it would have dropped too, like for millions of others who got Covid and didn't take IVM. Correlation is not causation.
You took it, so tell us what dose did you take? I'm curious. Because the studies that show some sort of effectiveness were for 300ug/kg for 5 to 15 days or so. Considering you said somewhere else that you took 2 weeks to recover, that's like the other 98% of people who recovered. So, my wild guess is: IVM did nothing at all to help. It's all in your mind.
Again, not true: Ivermectin is not claimed by the manufacturer to be effective against Covid. They actually refuted that claim themselves. It is not approved and has not gone through clinical trial. Whatever others may claim, who have not done any clinical trial either, is not very relevant when the manufacturer is the one who must get approval for the drug.
You miss-read my comment, both are claimed by different sources to be effective. I did not say that Merck claimed ivermectin to be, quite the opposite in fact.
Hey Mr. Expert, what's your background that makes you an expert. The answer is simple, follow the money. Both India and Mexico shutdown the COVID-19 outbreaks using Ivermectin. It is one of the safest drugs prescribed on the planet with over 3 billion doses taken. The government doesn't want Ivermectin to undergo clinical randomized trials because it would impact the EUA for the vaccines (follow the money) and for this new drug. Do you work for Merck?
In this particular case, getting to the truth isn't so much a matter of following the money as much as following the chemical composition of the two drugs, and as Mre says, they're different enough that one can't claim ivermectin is equal to it.
Yes but if IVM had been studied by now, with high quality studies, there may not have been a need to come up with new drugs, especially ones that cost $700 per/script!
If 2 drugs accomplish the same thing (in this case, avoiding death), but one can have severe adverse effect and the other doesn't, which one do you take?
Hey Mr Expert yourself, I happen to have over 15y experience in designing molecular imaging equipment used by most of the pharma industry and to know a little bit about how drugs are discovered, tested and approved. IVM is safe in small doses on a 1-time basis, not at the high dosage that is beeing talked about for treating Covid and not on the long terms as some pretend it helps to prevent it. Sure the meta studies show 'some' improvement in the treatment of Covid, but none of them show you the flip side, that is the severe side effects that come with taking this type of drug at this dosage, things like cardiac arrest, or better yet destroying your guts... So you won't die from Covid, just from not being able to ingest any food and in horrible pain. Sounds fun. Gov that can't get enough vaccines doses are willing to take the chance, fine, but when you have the luxury of having the solution to the problem, for free, that's what should be used. Namely the vaccine is free, it is safe (much safer than IVM for sure), and it prevents death and hospitalization.
Then you're going to come back with the same old song the antivax sing all the time: but even with the vaccine you can get the virus. True, except you are 8x less likely to get it than if you are not vaccinated, and you have 20x higher chances of coming out alive. Look at the actual clinical studies on IVM: the results are modest at most. If you get a 10% or even 30% improvement of people's condition, shortening their recovery, is it really a solution? Your odds are way better with the vaccine. The odds of dying when not vaccinated are still way higher and IVM 'might' help save 1 out of 3 or 4. Great. The vaccine would have helped 90% of them.
If you're worried about the side effects of the vaccine as a reason for not getting it, you should be even more worried about the side effects of IVM. It is much worse. The vaccine is tested and approved. IVM is not.
it's not rocket science, it's basic statistics. Just take the time to go through the numbers and you'll see how obvious it is that the vaccine is the best option.
> If you're worried about the side effects of the vaccine as a reason for not getting it, you should be even more worried about the side effects of IVM. It is much worse. The vaccine is tested and approved. IVM is not.
It was at this point, that all of your validity went out the window. Ivermectin has been used safely in humans since 1981; roughly 40 more years than the covid vaccines.
Side effects, although uncommon, include fever, itching, and skin rash when taken by mouth, and red eyes, dry skin, and burning skin when used topically for head lice.
Ivermectin is considered relatively free of toxicity in standard doses (around 300 µg/kg). Based on the data drug safety sheet for ivermectin, side effects are uncommon.
200ug/kg is the max recommended dose, for 1 time. Maybe repeated a week or 2 later. Here we are talking 20-50mg or 200ug-50ug/kg DAILY for 5-15 days. That is the difference.
Its too bad that the FDA blocked the US studies to determine in IVM was effective against COVID. Glad that we got the India data as well as Mexico data that shows that it is. The problem with the VAX and FDA/NIH considered it the ONLY solution to COVID. Its been politicized unfortunately and honest debates in the US are long gone. The medical profession credibility has been damaged for decades.
FDA did not block anything. There are 80 clinical studies ongoing, 9 only with results that show a mixed bag of improvement and no effect. Improvement defined as reduction of time to heal is not considered 'improvement'. Improvement in terms of reducing death is very limited.
Honest debate in the scientific community is not long gone. It is very active in the contrary. It's not because the FDA and NIH campaigns against abuse of a drug that is unsafe at high dosage that the discourse is long gone. The scientific discourse happens through publication of studies and critique of the results. The fact that most studies out there are poorly implemented and results in unreliable conclusions, and that this is being criticized is a sign of a healthy scientific debate. Your opinion of the medical profession losing credibility is likely due to the fact that you are not part of it and/or don't understand ow scientific progress is made.
Science has never been a one and done thing; it is an ongoing process. I am all for using Ivermectin if it is proven effective in clinical studies. So far I don't see that. Clinical studies that were rigorous show poor results. The FDA and NIH are concerned about random people self-prescribing high doses of a drug that is dangerous at those dosages, and rightly so, considering the uptick in ICU admission for OD on IVM.
and yes, the vaccine is so far (until clinical studies agree and show otherwise) the only proven effective way to reduce hospitalization, death, and reduce the spread of the virus. Get with the facts.
Thanks for that… I had to dig to find the table you mention. It is listed under Remdesiver in the anti-virals approved and under investigation. I am guessing it is still in the ‘under investigation’ phase. So I guess the media can stop calling it a ‘horse-dewormer’ now??
Well, I went there--and read what you apparently did not read and they did not "approve" it at all. that they said was "There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.
I am for Ivermectin--and think it is probably really good. Just found al ocal doctor that will prescribe it for us (my family) and a pharmacy that will fill Ivermectin prescription if needed. I just don't like to report things that are not true--It would have been a great help to show a doctor or pharmacy the proof that it was approved by the NIH--but it would look foolish if you made a stand on that and it wasn't true.
But will they reveal on google the real chemical composition of course there are secret formula and google is no longer that reliable, they can manipulate what you can read
Did you know that the same exact molecule composition, with a branch oriented left-wise vs. the same branch oriented right-wise is the difference between a molecule that can cure you and a molecule that can kill you? Just think about this for one sec.
This is why there are clinical trial and strict manufacturing protocols...
The report puts the issue of Ivermectin safety to rest. Read conclusion page. In other words there is nothing to lose by taking it, but a lot to gain. https://www.medincell.com/ivermectin/
I just want to comment that in addition to the possible inhibition SARS-Cov-2 binding to the ACE2 receptor on the cell, Ivermectin may also function to block several inflammatory pathways in the cell once it has been infected. I'll post the link the article on this at the end of my comment.
Molnupiravir looks to be a protease inhibitor, blocking the cleaving of translated viral polypeptides into functional proteins required for SARS-CoV-2 to replicate successfully. I can see using them in conjunction to good effect for those infected. Prophylactic means to prevent infection are also out there, you just have to look for the articles, some of which data to 2010 and were looking as earlier Coronavirus.
Possible methods of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8203399/
Thank you for your comment. It is the same paper I linked to in the text but as I said, I don't pretend to understand all of it but I did my best. I have heard some doctors speaking of ivermectin's anti-inflammatory effects but I wasn't sure so didn't want to add in so thanks for the contribution.
A lot of shills and paid trolls here with the standard talking points. I will add one thing.
I have worked in the pharma industry and healthcare.
Anyone who believes that Pfizer or any of the other pharma companies is not wholly driven by profit motive is deluded. Curing or preventing illness is not their goal, it is an occasional by-product of their activities.
All Pharma companies are capable of the most egregious human rights violations and criminal behaviour in pursuit of $$$. The public and legal case evidence for this is overwhelming and not controversial. I trust these companies and their trials as much as I trust my government, that is to say, not at all. I have been inside, I have seen it and it is disheartening.
1: You can't believe press releases from Pfizer about anything. Everything they publish, incl their science must be viewed through the lens of Pfizer's profit motive.
2: Pfizers Covid19 trial is FULL of data and procedural problems which dwarf the tiny signals they claim prove efficacy. Read the published information if you're capable.
Just like the crazy conspiracy that a province in India that has no other choice , has a 97% effacy rate. But that's just a quarter of a billion Indians lying about it.
Not the same drug but having similar efficacy for the same condition only one is $700 per script and the other $10 per script 50 years history and safety even a Nobel prize. I'm really struggling to make a decision maybe if your intent was to save a life both could be prescribed given the mechanism differs no chance of OD and a more effective result like ibrufen and paracetamol.
Since viral replication is a 1000-step process, there are 1000 ways to "stop" or "slow" it. They are not all equal.
Ivermectin appears to interfere with a spectrum of steps in the process; including, possibly, the virus's access to RNA polymerase - however, I think that last one is speculative. I don't try to follow all the theory. Since ivermectin is a bacterial molecule, it might already resemble common bacterial molecules already in the microbiome of a lot of people, but not everyone, for all we know.
Molnupiravir seems to disable mRNA transcription in general - throughout the body. Like making your cells drunk, so they can't do the work that the virus needs them to - nor the work they need to, i.e. gene expression. It doesn't make any sense at all to me, but I've only been researching it since Friday.
They certainly can be called different drugs.
MRE the data is there you must be a bot & not a very smart one at that
I’ve read there studies. People are dying because the western government are not allowing a safe preventative treatment
Where do you get off with your condescending attitude that smells of complete and utter ignorance ? Oh wait your a pharma shill that’s right
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/05/i-dont-know-of-a-bigger-story-in-the-world-right-now-than-ivermectin-ny-times-best-selling-author.html?fbclid=IwAR31dxw5s20ZWOADS-EoGx_v4xe2_wsUJ4Rmzd1uQghpE0A_VFGIHTyRTJs
Do you know what a p-value is? If you can't explain it, then go back to study statistics because I have read tons of these studies and I have, like most of the scientific community against the rogue use of this drug, not seen evidence that is it both SAFE and EFFECTIVE.
You can quote all the meta analysis you want, if you're not able to see that most of them are not statistically significant, then you're just being played by the nice looking charts that mean nothing.
It is marginally effective, and the vaccine gives you better protection, while the safety at high dosage has not been shown.
I am so tired of repeating the same FACTS: only 1 study that is statistically significant our of the dozens that are out there, uses DEATH as their metric. All others are either talking about improvement in resolving symptoms or are not statistically significant.
That one study shows the drug to be somewhat effective, but the safety data only covers 1/3 of the patients, and only focuses on liver damage. That's it. That's not a full safety study.
There are many clinical trials that have started, many that have finished too, of them, most don't have results. Why? Most likely because the trial was not conclusive.
So, when out of 80+ clinical trials, there is barely 1 or 2 that show promising results, you gotta wonder? Why are all these other studies not showing results?
You can't just cherry pick the best study and say this is the proof. It's like going to college for 4 years and picking you best grade ever and claim that's you GPA. That's BS.
IverMercktin
Hahahaha!
Number 2 hit on DuckDuckGo search "molnupiravir vs ivermectin"
FRANCINE ROSE THATS ALSO MY VIEW ON MERCKS ITS A HUGE CONSPIRACY WITH THE MEDIA AND SOCIAL MEDIA , IM STARTING TO FEEL HOPELESS OF ALL THE PEOPLE AROUND WHO JUST KEEP SILENT WHILE EVERY GOVT STEAL CORRUPTS MONEY , I FEEL LIKE IM ALONE IN THIS VIEW TIL I READ YOUR NOTES , THIS WORLD IS FULL OF IMPUNITY , I WANT TO BURST IN ANGER , HOW BIG BUSINESSES CAN SACRIFICE THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE FOR THEIR ADVANCEMENT FOR MONEY , CRUELNESS EVIL GREEDINESS OF GOVT MEDIA SOCIAL MEDIA AND BIG PHARMA PFIZER MERCKS ETC GOD CLEAN THEIR SOULS
Just one of many - https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx
for those who care to look at the data and understand it... go to the source and look at the real clinical data. You will find nothing impressive like the cherry-picked meta analysis all the anti-vax rave about.
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=ivermectin&cond=COVID-19&recrs=e&age_v=&gndr=&type=&rslt=With&Search=Apply
lol @ 'cherry-picked'. Do your own research. https://ivmmeta.com/
I have looked at the studies. Did you know that when the standard deviation is larger than the median point, that means that the study is not statistically significant? Out of the 29 early treatment studies, 10 are statistically significant. Most of those that are statistically significant focus on the speed of relief of symptoms, only one looks at effect on death, and 3 on hospitalization. Relief of symptom as a metric for efficacy is very weak. That means it's focusing on somewhat healthy people who would just take a little longer to recover. Not on preventing death. The one that focuses on death used a dosage of 151mg 4days, which is way over the safety dosage recommended (200ug/kg, or 20mg for a ~200lb person), and there is no mention of safety data (i.e. it is effective AND SAFE?)
So, yeah meta-analysis are all the rage, showing fancy dumbed down graphics to educate the 'public', but if you don't know how to read them, you are easily misled into thinking this drug is a miracle. It is not.
We dont actually know 100% Ivm’s potential.
Correct the studies done to date arent strong enough scientifically to prove that it is an effective and safe drug to treat this virus.
That is why it is currently being studied by two Unis I’m aware of - Monash Uni & Oxford Uni (PRINCIPLE trial)
Early lab trials were done and whilst effective at killing the virus in a petri dish it was felt that the amount that would need to be given was above what was considered safe.
On the contrary, data from the field is showing promising results from lower doses so these trials are continuing.
Why wasnt more funding given to research IVM as a re-purposed drug early than now...
“Although a few large and well-conducted clinical trials early in the pandemic could have provided much better information about ivermectin, the highly political and rapidly changing conditions have contributed to making funding, recruitment and implementation of such trials difficult.”
https://www.ascot-trial.edu.au/blogs/news/oxford-is-trialling-ivermectin-the-path-to-this-point-has-been-rocky-why
Let’s wait and see 😊
wait and see, exactly.
You had Covid, like about 242 millions people by now, most of which didn't take IVM. You recovered after 2 weeks, like about 237 millions people by now. 2 weeks is about the average recovery time, so explain to me how IVM helped here? Do you have a placebo pair who has the same environmental characteristics, medical history and who had covid at the same time, who took longer to recover or died, that you are so convinced that IVM helped?
"I took it and i'm fine now". Luckily medical research is not done this way.
Total bullshit. If you had spent 20 seconds on google, you would have been able to lookup the chemical composition of each of these drugs which is public information and realize they are totally different. Non sense.
Regardless of chemical composition, both are claimed to be effective against the covid-19 virus. Difference being, one is an old, re-purposed drug and one is a new one.
Do you even understand the chemistry of these things? Of 2 molecules with the same chemical composition, one can save your life while the other can be deadly, just because one branch is oriented differently. This is why drugs go through extensive clinical studies and testing. If the manufacturer tells you the data they have seen does not convince them that this drug is effective, I think you can believe them; they'd be the one making billions selling it. Why would they even spend $100's of millions developing a new drug if they had one that work right there on their hands? This is complete non-sense.
People who don't understand the intricacies of these clinical studies and results should just shut up instead of instigating false hope.
I'm sorry, but if you don't think that Merck have more to gain from a new drug, then one like ivermectin which is off patent and much cheaper then you don't know how business works.
Business usually works with a constraint of time to market, and pharma especially operates with huge R&D budgets, so, thank you but it is ludicrous to say they would have an incentive to spend precious mknths or even years and $100's of millions developping a new drug with no guarantees of it working, take time to get it approved, and bring it to market, because they 'might' make more money. 1 wish is better than 2 you will have it. This is the most ridiculous excuse i'be heard to explain Merck's behavior.
Are you aware that one of the largest populated states in India - has claimed to have eliminated Covid deaths through providing Ivermectin (kits) to 220 million people there? Odd that it hasn't made big news. Odd that dozens of studies that show the effectiveness have been ignored. Follow the money....and be saddened for those who might have been saved. Google the covid infections after May. https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/05/11/indian-state-will-offer-ivermectin-to-entire-adult-population---even-as-who-warns-against-its-use-as-covid-19-treatment/?sh=1ef6eb6d6d9f
ITS NOT ODD ITS NEWS BLOCKAGE DONE THROUGH CONSPIRACIES OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND BIG PHARMA BUT THEY CANT STOP THE WORD OF MOUTH ITS POWERFUL
yes I am aware. I am also aware that the Indian government directive came about 10 days after their peak in cases of May 7th, which makes it very hard to explain why Ivermectin would have lowered cases if they were already on their way down. As far as deaths, if IVM was so effective at preventing deaths, how comes the death curve has not dropped sharply after the mandate? It dropped, but just as the cases curve did, not any faster than before...
So, first rule of statistics is: correlation is not causation. Easy mistake to make, but when there is no clear evidence of causation, you can't conclude it was the cause. Maybe the harsh lockdown measured that were imposed in India are much more likely to have caused the drop in cases and therefore deaths than the drug.
Dude, if the studies were showing effectiveness AND safety, I'm sure the WHO, the CDC, and the FDA, would be happy to fast track these things. The problem is, they are not.
You guys keep seeing flashing numbers in some random post by some food blogger, and you say 'it works!'.
You don't seem to have a freakin' clue how clinical studies work.
'Big pharma', 'follow the money'... Let's do that for a sec: where are the biggest manufacturers of generic meds like IVM? India. ummm... interesting. Wonder why the India gov is so keen to push this drug... Just saying your theories can go both ways.
actually, no. Merck gives Ivermectin away (to African countries). It's also made as a generic by at least 7 other pharmaceutical companies. They can't start charging people hundreds of dollars for a treatment that is almost free. That's the reason they won't pursue Ivermectin. Follow the money.
follow the money is the way conspiracy theorists explain things. Look at the data is how scientists explain things. Then look again if you don't understand it and it doesn't tell the story you want it to tell. Data is data. You can't pick and choose some data and ignore the other data you have at your disposal. Yes I agree some studies show IVM is effective, but not at a safe dosage. Where is the clinical study that shows IVM to be safe and effective? By the way the WHO and the CDC both never banned IVM, they both recommended that it be prescribed only as part of a clinical study. So where is that clinical study? With so many people wanting to take it, why isn't there a robust, well organized and rock solid clinical study about IVM?
Only 1 of the statistically significant meta-analysis focuses on death as the outcome, not relief of symptoms. Mix apples and orange and then throw the bad apples to the side when they don't look good, and you get what you're describing... Add a little 'follow the money' and here we are we have a nice story about how the authorities are hidding the truth and conspiring with the big bad pharma...
Maybe there is another explanation to the behavior of India and Mexico: when you don't have enough vaccines or resources to handle the pandemic, but some study that has since be retracted claims the miraculous effectiveness of some cheap drug, please your people and feed them the pill they want to take... Just politicians who want to save their career.
Clinical studies are being done. This article explains the rocky road of IVM to date...
don’t write it off just yet!
https://www.ascot-trial.edu.au/blogs/news/oxford-is-trialling-ivermectin-the-path-to-this-point-has-been-rocky-why
I got covid i took 6 days of ivermectin then my fever dropped
Good for you. Chances are if you had taken nothing, it would have dropped too, like for millions of others who got Covid and didn't take IVM. Correlation is not causation.
You took it, so tell us what dose did you take? I'm curious. Because the studies that show some sort of effectiveness were for 300ug/kg for 5 to 15 days or so. Considering you said somewhere else that you took 2 weeks to recover, that's like the other 98% of people who recovered. So, my wild guess is: IVM did nothing at all to help. It's all in your mind.
I do give a shit about data. I can read it. You don't seem like you can.
Explain statistical significance to me, please. Explain how you test the null hypothesis in a clinical trial, please.
Thank you.
It makes sense when you can't comprehend the complexity of drug discovery and clinical trials, yes.
Again, not true: Ivermectin is not claimed by the manufacturer to be effective against Covid. They actually refuted that claim themselves. It is not approved and has not gone through clinical trial. Whatever others may claim, who have not done any clinical trial either, is not very relevant when the manufacturer is the one who must get approval for the drug.
You miss-read my comment, both are claimed by different sources to be effective. I did not say that Merck claimed ivermectin to be, quite the opposite in fact.
Hey Mr. Expert, what's your background that makes you an expert. The answer is simple, follow the money. Both India and Mexico shutdown the COVID-19 outbreaks using Ivermectin. It is one of the safest drugs prescribed on the planet with over 3 billion doses taken. The government doesn't want Ivermectin to undergo clinical randomized trials because it would impact the EUA for the vaccines (follow the money) and for this new drug. Do you work for Merck?
In this particular case, getting to the truth isn't so much a matter of following the money as much as following the chemical composition of the two drugs, and as Mre says, they're different enough that one can't claim ivermectin is equal to it.
Yes but if IVM had been studied by now, with high quality studies, there may not have been a need to come up with new drugs, especially ones that cost $700 per/script!
If 2 drugs accomplish the same thing (in this case, avoiding death), but one can have severe adverse effect and the other doesn't, which one do you take?
Hey Mr Expert yourself, I happen to have over 15y experience in designing molecular imaging equipment used by most of the pharma industry and to know a little bit about how drugs are discovered, tested and approved. IVM is safe in small doses on a 1-time basis, not at the high dosage that is beeing talked about for treating Covid and not on the long terms as some pretend it helps to prevent it. Sure the meta studies show 'some' improvement in the treatment of Covid, but none of them show you the flip side, that is the severe side effects that come with taking this type of drug at this dosage, things like cardiac arrest, or better yet destroying your guts... So you won't die from Covid, just from not being able to ingest any food and in horrible pain. Sounds fun. Gov that can't get enough vaccines doses are willing to take the chance, fine, but when you have the luxury of having the solution to the problem, for free, that's what should be used. Namely the vaccine is free, it is safe (much safer than IVM for sure), and it prevents death and hospitalization.
Then you're going to come back with the same old song the antivax sing all the time: but even with the vaccine you can get the virus. True, except you are 8x less likely to get it than if you are not vaccinated, and you have 20x higher chances of coming out alive. Look at the actual clinical studies on IVM: the results are modest at most. If you get a 10% or even 30% improvement of people's condition, shortening their recovery, is it really a solution? Your odds are way better with the vaccine. The odds of dying when not vaccinated are still way higher and IVM 'might' help save 1 out of 3 or 4. Great. The vaccine would have helped 90% of them.
If you're worried about the side effects of the vaccine as a reason for not getting it, you should be even more worried about the side effects of IVM. It is much worse. The vaccine is tested and approved. IVM is not.
it's not rocket science, it's basic statistics. Just take the time to go through the numbers and you'll see how obvious it is that the vaccine is the best option.
> If you're worried about the side effects of the vaccine as a reason for not getting it, you should be even more worried about the side effects of IVM. It is much worse. The vaccine is tested and approved. IVM is not.
It was at this point, that all of your validity went out the window. Ivermectin has been used safely in humans since 1981; roughly 40 more years than the covid vaccines.
Side effects, although uncommon, include fever, itching, and skin rash when taken by mouth, and red eyes, dry skin, and burning skin when used topically for head lice.
Ivermectin is considered relatively free of toxicity in standard doses (around 300 µg/kg). Based on the data drug safety sheet for ivermectin, side effects are uncommon.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31960060/
Notice how the side effects of IVM don't include myo/pericarditus, or death. The same cannot be said about the covid vaccines.
200ug/kg is the max recommended dose, for 1 time. Maybe repeated a week or 2 later. Here we are talking 20-50mg or 200ug-50ug/kg DAILY for 5-15 days. That is the difference.
At small doses. Not the high doses repeated daily that are talked about to treat covod
Its too bad that the FDA blocked the US studies to determine in IVM was effective against COVID. Glad that we got the India data as well as Mexico data that shows that it is. The problem with the VAX and FDA/NIH considered it the ONLY solution to COVID. Its been politicized unfortunately and honest debates in the US are long gone. The medical profession credibility has been damaged for decades.
FDA did not block anything. There are 80 clinical studies ongoing, 9 only with results that show a mixed bag of improvement and no effect. Improvement defined as reduction of time to heal is not considered 'improvement'. Improvement in terms of reducing death is very limited.
Honest debate in the scientific community is not long gone. It is very active in the contrary. It's not because the FDA and NIH campaigns against abuse of a drug that is unsafe at high dosage that the discourse is long gone. The scientific discourse happens through publication of studies and critique of the results. The fact that most studies out there are poorly implemented and results in unreliable conclusions, and that this is being criticized is a sign of a healthy scientific debate. Your opinion of the medical profession losing credibility is likely due to the fact that you are not part of it and/or don't understand ow scientific progress is made.
Science has never been a one and done thing; it is an ongoing process. I am all for using Ivermectin if it is proven effective in clinical studies. So far I don't see that. Clinical studies that were rigorous show poor results. The FDA and NIH are concerned about random people self-prescribing high doses of a drug that is dangerous at those dosages, and rightly so, considering the uptick in ICU admission for OD on IVM.
and yes, the vaccine is so far (until clinical studies agree and show otherwise) the only proven effective way to reduce hospitalization, death, and reduce the spread of the virus. Get with the facts.
and you are? Please let us know what makes you such a credible source that knows everything but can't prove it...
Ivermectin has been approved as an antiviral for covid by the NIH since at least July.
Thanks for that… I had to dig to find the table you mention. It is listed under Remdesiver in the anti-virals approved and under investigation. I am guessing it is still in the ‘under investigation’ phase. So I guess the media can stop calling it a ‘horse-dewormer’ now??
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2e/
Oops, my bad. I thought I linked the table.
Well, I went there--and read what you apparently did not read and they did not "approve" it at all. that they said was "There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
I apologize for the snark. I thought that I linked the table (July 2021 update) in my original comment.
So you linked a page that was last updated Feb 2021 vs the table I linked that was updated July 2021...
Lol. Okay there, buddy.
No--that was "Drug Info"--but if you click on the tab beside it, it says "Clinical Data>" Last updated July 19th. https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/clinical-data/
And the table you clicked on says "Approved or under evaluation" Ivermectin is "under evaluation" not approved. https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2e/
I am for Ivermectin--and think it is probably really good. Just found al ocal doctor that will prescribe it for us (my family) and a pharmacy that will fill Ivermectin prescription if needed. I just don't like to report things that are not true--It would have been a great help to show a doctor or pharmacy the proof that it was approved by the NIH--but it would look foolish if you made a stand on that and it wasn't true.
But will they reveal on google the real chemical composition of course there are secret formula and google is no longer that reliable, they can manipulate what you can read
Did you know that the same exact molecule composition, with a branch oriented left-wise vs. the same branch oriented right-wise is the difference between a molecule that can cure you and a molecule that can kill you? Just think about this for one sec.
This is why there are clinical trial and strict manufacturing protocols...