4 ms·

Guidelines ask you to refute content rather than accuse of shilling. If you have evidence of shilling you should email the mods instead. Guidelines also ask you

by oefrha 6y ago

Guidelines ask you to refute content rather than accuse of shilling. If you have evidence of shilling you should email the mods instead. Guidelines also ask you to not post the same comment twice. Disclosure: no dog in the fight and never heard of this drug before.

throwanem 6y ago
Ivermectin is an antiparasitic in wide human and veterinary use since the early 1980s. It is also fairly broadly studied, in no small part because it's one of the most effective drugs in its class. That it should double as a highly effective broad-spectrum antiviral is not impossible, quite, but anyone advancing the claim badly needs to explain why, over all the dozens of studies and millions of doses over multiple decades, no one has noticed this supposedly very obvious antiviral efficacy before now. The next person I see try to explain that will be the first.
- bbb2019 6y ago
  The discovery came years ago: "Dr Wagstaff made a previous breakthrough finding on Ivermectin in 2012 when she identified the drug and its antiviral activity with Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute’s Professor David Jans, also an author on this paper. Professor Jans and his team have been researching Ivermectin for more than 10 years with different viruses." https://www.monash.edu/discovery-institute/news-and-events/news/2020-articles/Lab-experiments-show-anti-parasitic-drug,-Ivermectin,-eliminates-SARS-CoV-2-in-cells-in-48-hours https://www.monash.edu/discovery-institute/news-and-events/n...
  - throwanem 6y ago
    Lots of things work in vitro, this apparently included. Arsenic probably would too. Cell culture is a very different environment from a living organism, so all this says about whether the same drug works the same way in vivo is that it's worth finding out. Despite the usual mild tendentiousness one finds in press releases from academia, the linked article says as much, repeatedly and in detail.
    - herenow2021 6y ago
      Are you going to discount the 52 human trials that show benefit? https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/ You can find source of articles by clicking on study name and source.
- argvargc 6y ago
  Correct dosage and a dependency on administering in conjunction with Zinc. This is well-established in controlled studies conducted over the past year. Look at the data from the many controlled human trials, it's conclusive. Suppressing it kills people.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    Where is that data? You seem very familiar with it. Why not link it? Why do all the links you do post point to random novel .coms with huge batches of totally unrelated studies that just happen to have "Covid-19" or "SARS-CoV-2" in the name, rather than to PubMed, BMJ, or any other more direct source? Why not detail the analysis that led to the conclusion you present? Why do you prefer to talk about your claims of censorship and suppression than talk about the science?
    - argvargc 6y ago
      Your statement about "huge batches of totally unrelated studies" is completely false. All studies on c19ivermectin.com are directly related to Ivermectin efficacy versus SAR-Cov-2, a small number relate to Ivermectins viral efficacy in general. Hot off the press (all peer-reviewed): Ivermectin SARS-Cov-2 binding: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13721-021-00299-2 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13721-021-00299-2 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.592908/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.5929... https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-020-01577-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-020-01577-x Ivermectin in humans, versus COVID-19: 768 outpatients, prospective trial vs control, significant improvement: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221001004 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197122... Infections - 0 of 788 treated, versus 237 of 407 in control group: https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pdf https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pd... Retrospective, 3099 infected patients treated, 1 death: https://www.longdom.org/open-access/the-use-of-compassionate-ivermectin-in-the-management-of-symptomatic-outpatients-and-hospitalized-patients-with-clinical.pdf https://www.longdom.org/open-access/the-use-of-compassionate... Examples of counter-studies against Ivermecitn or HCQ (similar profile and response) in journals you love: https://jamaletter.com/ https://jamaletter.com/ The infamous Lancet front-page retrospective observational study on HCQ which turned out to be based on zero verifiable data, despite passing Lancet's "peer-review". (Sorry no link, it's been retracted.)
- pw201 6y ago
  Certainly on Twitter, hyping ivermectin as the cure is also good Bayesian evidence that the speaker also believes a bunch of unevidenced or plain wrong things about Covid19.
  - BenjiWiebe 6y ago
    That's been my experience in the real world as well, which has the result of making me very skeptical of ivermectin.

by oefrha 6y ago

throwanem 6y ago

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic in wide human and veterinary use since the early 1980s. It is also fairly broadly studied, in no small part because it's one of the most effective drugs in its class. That it should double as a highly effective broad-spectrum antiviral is not impossible, quite, but anyone advancing the claim badly needs to explain why, over all the dozens of studies and millions of doses over multiple decades, no one has noticed this supposedly very obvious antiviral efficacy before now. The next person I see try to explain that will be the first.

bbb2019 6y ago
The discovery came years ago: "Dr Wagstaff made a previous breakthrough finding on Ivermectin in 2012 when she identified the drug and its antiviral activity with Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute’s Professor David Jans, also an author on this paper. Professor Jans and his team have been researching Ivermectin for more than 10 years with different viruses." https://www.monash.edu/discovery-institute/news-and-events/news/2020-articles/Lab-experiments-show-anti-parasitic-drug,-Ivermectin,-eliminates-SARS-CoV-2-in-cells-in-48-hours https://www.monash.edu/discovery-institute/news-and-events/n...
- throwanem 6y ago
  Lots of things work in vitro, this apparently included. Arsenic probably would too. Cell culture is a very different environment from a living organism, so all this says about whether the same drug works the same way in vivo is that it's worth finding out. Despite the usual mild tendentiousness one finds in press releases from academia, the linked article says as much, repeatedly and in detail.
  - herenow2021 6y ago
    Are you going to discount the 52 human trials that show benefit? https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/ You can find source of articles by clicking on study name and source.
argvargc 6y ago
Correct dosage and a dependency on administering in conjunction with Zinc. This is well-established in controlled studies conducted over the past year. Look at the data from the many controlled human trials, it's conclusive. Suppressing it kills people.
- throwanem 6y ago
  Where is that data? You seem very familiar with it. Why not link it? Why do all the links you do post point to random novel .coms with huge batches of totally unrelated studies that just happen to have "Covid-19" or "SARS-CoV-2" in the name, rather than to PubMed, BMJ, or any other more direct source? Why not detail the analysis that led to the conclusion you present? Why do you prefer to talk about your claims of censorship and suppression than talk about the science?
  - argvargc 6y ago
    Your statement about "huge batches of totally unrelated studies" is completely false. All studies on c19ivermectin.com are directly related to Ivermectin efficacy versus SAR-Cov-2, a small number relate to Ivermectins viral efficacy in general. Hot off the press (all peer-reviewed): Ivermectin SARS-Cov-2 binding: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13721-021-00299-2 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13721-021-00299-2 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.592908/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.5929... https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-020-01577-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-020-01577-x Ivermectin in humans, versus COVID-19: 768 outpatients, prospective trial vs control, significant improvement: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221001004 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197122... Infections - 0 of 788 treated, versus 237 of 407 in control group: https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pdf https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pd... Retrospective, 3099 infected patients treated, 1 death: https://www.longdom.org/open-access/the-use-of-compassionate-ivermectin-in-the-management-of-symptomatic-outpatients-and-hospitalized-patients-with-clinical.pdf https://www.longdom.org/open-access/the-use-of-compassionate... Examples of counter-studies against Ivermecitn or HCQ (similar profile and response) in journals you love: https://jamaletter.com/ https://jamaletter.com/ The infamous Lancet front-page retrospective observational study on HCQ which turned out to be based on zero verifiable data, despite passing Lancet's "peer-review". (Sorry no link, it's been retracted.)
pw201 6y ago
Certainly on Twitter, hyping ivermectin as the cure is also good Bayesian evidence that the speaker also believes a bunch of unevidenced or plain wrong things about Covid19.
- BenjiWiebe 6y ago
  That's been my experience in the real world as well, which has the result of making me very skeptical of ivermectin.