6 ms·

It's banned on YouTube because of multiple authoritative sources indicating it's not a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. Here is the FDA's stance: htt

by gmnash 5y ago

It's banned on YouTube because of multiple authoritative sources indicating it's not a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. Here is the FDA's stance: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul... Here is the European equivalent of the AMA advising against it's use: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-advises-against-use-ivermectin-prevention-treatment-covid-19-outside-randomised-clinical-trials https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-advises-against-use-iv... Here is an RCT in JAMA finding it ineffective: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389 And here is Merck, that sells Ivermectin, but whose vaccine didn’t make it through clinical trials, discouraging the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19: https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/ https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use... If Ivermectin worked on COVID-19, the manufacturer of Ivermectin that has made no money on vaccines for COVID-19 would probably be pushing it wouldn't they? There have been some studies that found it effective in vitro, but as noted in other comments, at several times the safe dosage in vivo.

reedjosh 5y ago
There's a large body of evidence in the opposite direction as well. I just pulled the following from Bret Weinstein's show notes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSWjl-JOIqs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSWjl-JOIqs British Ivermectin Recommendation Development group: https://bird-group.org https://bird-group.org The BIRD Recommendation on the Use of Ivermectin for Covid-19: Executive Summary: https://bird-group.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/bird-executive-summary-1.pdf https://bird-group.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/bird-execu... Carvallo et al 2020. Study of the efficacy and safety of topical ivermectin+ iota-carrageenan in the prophylaxis against COVID-19 in health personnel. J. Biomed. Res. Clin. Investig., 2. https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pdf https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pd... Cobos-Campos et al 2021.Potential use of ivermectin for the treatment and prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Efficacy of ivermectin for SARS-CoV-2. Clin Res Trials, 7: 1-5. https://www.readkong.com/page/potential-use-of-ivermectin-for-the-treatment-and-2189857 https://www.readkong.com/page/potential-use-of-ivermectin-fo... Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 93 studies, 55 peer reviewed, 56 with results comparing treatment and control groups: https://c19ivermectin.com https://c19ivermectin.com Karale et al 2021. A Meta-analysis of Mortality, Need for ICU admission, Use of Mechanical Ventilation and Adverse Effects with Ivermectin Use in COVID-19 Patients. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/05/04/2021.04.30.21256415.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/05/04/202... Kory et al 2021. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. American Journal of Therapeutics, 28(3): e299: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/ Nardelli et al 2021. Crying wolf in time of Corona: the strange case of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Is the fear of failure withholding potential life-saving treatment from clinical use?. Signa Vitae, 1: 2. https://oss.signavitae.com/mre-signavitae/article/20210508-344/pdf/3-4%20SV2021022602.pdf https://oss.signavitae.com/mre-signavitae/article/20210508-3... Yagisawa et al 2021. Global trends in clinical studies of ivermectin in COVID-19. The Japanese Journal of Antibiotics, 74: 1. https://www.psychoactif.org/forum/uploads/documents/161/74-1_44-95.pdf https://www.psychoactif.org/forum/uploads/documents/161/74-1...
- glenra 5y ago
  Nearly all of your links are broken. I think you copy-pasted the text of links that had been truncated with a "...", where the part prior to "..." is not sufficient to constitute a valid web address. For instance, the link for Carvallo et al 2010 should be this, which resolves: https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pdf https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pd... ..rather than this, which doesn't: https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/up https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/up
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    Thank you! I've fixed them.
- wrycoder 5y ago
  In addition, there is this summary: https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/ and https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/... Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified. Edit: There's a mountain of data here: https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/ Edit: Clip from that last link: •While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 27% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm. •Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Not doing so increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage.
throwkeep 5y ago
> If Ivermectin worked on COVID-19, the manufacturer of Ivermectin that has made no money on vaccines for COVID-19 would probably be pushing it wouldn't they? No, because it's out of patent. There's little profit to be made. Merck is instead pushing a new drug that they will have a monopoly on. "Merck Announces Supply Agreement with U.S. Government for Molnupiravir, an Investigational Oral Antiviral Candidate for Treatment of Mild to Moderate COVID-19" https://www.merck.com/news/merck-announces-supply-agreement-with-u-s-government-for-molnupiravir-an-investigational-oral-antiviral-candidate-for-treatment-of-mild-to-moderate-covid-19/ https://www.merck.com/news/merck-announces-supply-agreement-... Big pharma 101. As for Ivermectin effectiveness, it looks promising. There was an evidence based clinical review posted on Nature earlier this week: "As per data available on 16 May 2021, 100% of 36 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects (96% of all 55 studies). Of these, 26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation. Random effects meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported 79% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis respectively (RR 0.21 [0.11–0.37] and 0.15 [0.09–0.25]). The results were similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis: 81% and 87% (RR 0.19 [0.14–0.26] and 0.13 [0.07–0.25]), and after restriction to 29 peer-reviewed studies: 82% and 88% (RR 0.18 [0.11–0.31] and 0.12 [0.05–0.30]). Statistically significant improvements were seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively (RR 0.27 [0.18–0.41] and 0.17 [0.05–0.61]), and 93% of all 28 RCTs." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5
- reedjosh 5y ago
  You have to give credit where it's due. People were suspicious of big pharma cos prior to the miracle vaccine, but today they line up to defend them.
- _Wintermute 5y ago
  Dexamethasone is off patent, it's cheap and widely available, it's also the standard of care for covid-19 patients on respiratory support. What's the difference between dexamethasone and hydroxycholoroquine/ivermectin/next-consipracy-theory? It's been proven to work. There's no conspiracy, just pharmacology is hard, and people's random hunches typically don't work out.
andreilys 5y ago
If Ivermectin worked on COVID-19, the manufacturer of Ivermectin that has made no money on vaccines for COVID-19 would probably be pushing it wouldn't they? Surprise, Merck is now working on anti-viral drug whose profits would be eaten into by an off-patent drug (ivermectin) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-03-25/merck-mrk-molnupiravir-pill-could-change-the-fight-against-covid https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-03-25/merck-mrk...
lvs 5y ago
WHO statement: https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-adv...
- effie 5y ago
  WHO has very low credibility at this point.
  - lvs 5y ago
    I don't know what you're referring to, but I'm going to infer that either your information sources are poor and/or you are incredibly susceptible to the power of suggestion.
    - effie 5y ago
      Ask and it shall be given to you. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52088167 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52088167 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/who-investigator-admits-it-took-chinas-word-on-wuhan-lab-leak https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/who-investigator-adm...
      - lvs 5y ago
        I have no idea how this is relevant to guidance on an anthelminthic drug, but it seems you believe you have axes to grind, so I'll let you grind them alone.
        effie 5y ago
        It's examples of how WHO is unreliable on multiple fronts. Regarding ivermectin, this is documented here. https://ivmmeta.com/#who https://ivmmeta.com/#who
analyte123 5y ago
Actually the EMA link says that current evidence for ivermectin is insufficient and it cannot currently be recommended outside of trials. This not the same as claiming that it does not work or that it is hazardous, although many journalists can seemingly not tell the difference. The FDA’s advisory is mostly about people overdosing on veterinary ivermectin. They emphasize that overdose and medication interactions are possible, veterinary ivermectin is not a good substitute for human ivermectin, and that ivermectin is not an approved treatment for COVID-19. Again, even within the paradigm of blindly listening to authoritative sources, this is not an assertion that normal doses of ivermectin for off-label use are dangerous and should be prohibited for prescription, let alone an order for tech companies to censor the mere mention of it. When the FDA’s advisory came out, there were articles (eg [1]) referring to ivermectin-the-molecule as a “horse de-wormer” and drawing no distinction between animal and human use (and it has been proven safe and effective in humans, just not for COVID). The level of discourse around this feels like I am reading 90s drug war content. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/people-poisoning-themselves-by-using-horse-medication-for-covid-19-2021-2?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/people-poisoning-themselves-...
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  It seems it is you who is misrepresenting the ema link. Key quote: "Although ivermectin is generally well tolerated at doses authorised for other indications, side effects could increase with the much higher doses that would be needed to obtain concentrations of ivermectin in the lungs that are effective against the virus. Toxicity when ivermectin is used at higher than approved doses therefore cannot be excluded." IE, the dose needed for covid could quite possibly be harmful.
  - analyte123 5y ago
    Agreed on missing this facet of their advisory. However, the concentration of ivermectin in the early in vitro study was 35x higher than the plasma concentration reached for the approved ivermectin dose [1] whereas the doses used in ivermectin trials (https://ivmmeta.com https://ivmmeta.com) range from 1x to 10x the approved dose daily, with successful results as low as 4x approved dose (1x approved dose daily for 4 days)[2]. So whatever ivermectin is doing, it doesn’t seem to require the concentration that the initial in vitro study required. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32378737/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32378737/ [2] The approved dose is actually 200 mcg/kg. I used 12mg to correspond to a normal adult “approved dose” for these numbers.
AndrewBissell 5y ago
> And here is Merck, that sells Ivermectin, but whose vaccine didn’t make it through clinical trials, discouraging the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19: https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use... If Ivermectin worked on COVID-19, the manufacturer of Ivermectin that has made no money on vaccines for COVID-19 would probably be pushing it wouldn't they? You are misinformed. Merck has a particular formulation of Ivermectin that they sell but the vast majority of it is made off patent by other manufacturers for very little profit. If they had an exclusive patent on a drug that they could make any flimsy case for effectiveness against Covid I'm sure they would be pushing it, the way Gilead has with remdesivir.
rubatuga 5y ago
> Here is an RCT in JAMA finding it ineffective: For treating what? This study looked at trying to reduce mild COVID-19 symptoms. In fact, the current strongest evidence is for prophylaxis, as well as treating more severe cases. Also the study didn’t show that it was ineffective, it showed that it couldn’t disprove the null hypothesis. Please get your facts straight, before throwing a link to a overly specific RCT to prove your point.
- doesnotexist 5y ago
  State the null hypothesis
  - rubatuga 5y ago
    That ivermectin has no effect on COVID-19 symptoms or outcome
cblconfederate 5y ago
How can it be not safe since it s a very widely used antiparasitic

by gmnash 5y ago

reedjosh 5y ago

There's a large body of evidence in the opposite direction as well. I just pulled the following from Bret Weinstein's show notes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSWjl-JOIqs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSWjl-JOIqs British Ivermectin Recommendation Development group: https://bird-group.org https://bird-group.org The BIRD Recommendation on the Use of Ivermectin for Covid-19: Executive Summary: https://bird-group.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/bird-executive-summary-1.pdf https://bird-group.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/bird-execu... Carvallo et al 2020. Study of the efficacy and safety of topical ivermectin+ iota-carrageenan in the prophylaxis against COVID-19 in health personnel. J. Biomed. Res. Clin. Investig., 2. https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pdf https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pd... Cobos-Campos et al 2021.Potential use of ivermectin for the treatment and prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Efficacy of ivermectin for SARS-CoV-2. Clin Res Trials, 7: 1-5. https://www.readkong.com/page/potential-use-of-ivermectin-for-the-treatment-and-2189857 https://www.readkong.com/page/potential-use-of-ivermectin-fo... Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 93 studies, 55 peer reviewed, 56 with results comparing treatment and control groups: https://c19ivermectin.com https://c19ivermectin.com Karale et al 2021. A Meta-analysis of Mortality, Need for ICU admission, Use of Mechanical Ventilation and Adverse Effects with Ivermectin Use in COVID-19 Patients. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/05/04/2021.04.30.21256415.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/05/04/202... Kory et al 2021. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. American Journal of Therapeutics, 28(3): e299: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/ Nardelli et al 2021. Crying wolf in time of Corona: the strange case of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Is the fear of failure withholding potential life-saving treatment from clinical use?. Signa Vitae, 1: 2. https://oss.signavitae.com/mre-signavitae/article/20210508-344/pdf/3-4%20SV2021022602.pdf https://oss.signavitae.com/mre-signavitae/article/20210508-3... Yagisawa et al 2021. Global trends in clinical studies of ivermectin in COVID-19. The Japanese Journal of Antibiotics, 74: 1. https://www.psychoactif.org/forum/uploads/documents/161/74-1_44-95.pdf https://www.psychoactif.org/forum/uploads/documents/161/74-1...

glenra 5y ago
Nearly all of your links are broken. I think you copy-pasted the text of links that had been truncated with a "...", where the part prior to "..." is not sufficient to constitute a valid web address. For instance, the link for Carvallo et al 2010 should be this, which resolves: https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pdf https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pd... ..rather than this, which doesn't: https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/up https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/up
- reedjosh 5y ago
  Thank you! I've fixed them.
wrycoder 5y ago
In addition, there is this summary: https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/ and https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/... Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified. Edit: There's a mountain of data here: https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/ Edit: Clip from that last link: •While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 27% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm. •Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Not doing so increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage.

throwkeep 5y ago

> If Ivermectin worked on COVID-19, the manufacturer of Ivermectin that has made no money on vaccines for COVID-19 would probably be pushing it wouldn't they? No, because it's out of patent. There's little profit to be made. Merck is instead pushing a new drug that they will have a monopoly on. "Merck Announces Supply Agreement with U.S. Government for Molnupiravir, an Investigational Oral Antiviral Candidate for Treatment of Mild to Moderate COVID-19" https://www.merck.com/news/merck-announces-supply-agreement-with-u-s-government-for-molnupiravir-an-investigational-oral-antiviral-candidate-for-treatment-of-mild-to-moderate-covid-19/ https://www.merck.com/news/merck-announces-supply-agreement-... Big pharma 101. As for Ivermectin effectiveness, it looks promising. There was an evidence based clinical review posted on Nature earlier this week: "As per data available on 16 May 2021, 100% of 36 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects (96% of all 55 studies). Of these, 26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation. Random effects meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported 79% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis respectively (RR 0.21 [0.11–0.37] and 0.15 [0.09–0.25]). The results were similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis: 81% and 87% (RR 0.19 [0.14–0.26] and 0.13 [0.07–0.25]), and after restriction to 29 peer-reviewed studies: 82% and 88% (RR 0.18 [0.11–0.31] and 0.12 [0.05–0.30]). Statistically significant improvements were seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively (RR 0.27 [0.18–0.41] and 0.17 [0.05–0.61]), and 93% of all 28 RCTs." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5

reedjosh 5y ago
You have to give credit where it's due. People were suspicious of big pharma cos prior to the miracle vaccine, but today they line up to defend them.
_Wintermute 5y ago
Dexamethasone is off patent, it's cheap and widely available, it's also the standard of care for covid-19 patients on respiratory support. What's the difference between dexamethasone and hydroxycholoroquine/ivermectin/next-consipracy-theory? It's been proven to work. There's no conspiracy, just pharmacology is hard, and people's random hunches typically don't work out.

andreilys 5y ago

If Ivermectin worked on COVID-19, the manufacturer of Ivermectin that has made no money on vaccines for COVID-19 would probably be pushing it wouldn't they? Surprise, Merck is now working on anti-viral drug whose profits would be eaten into by an off-patent drug (ivermectin) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-03-25/merck-mrk-molnupiravir-pill-could-change-the-fight-against-covid https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-03-25/merck-mrk...

lvs 5y ago

WHO statement: https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-adv...

effie 5y ago
WHO has very low credibility at this point.
- lvs 5y ago
  I don't know what you're referring to, but I'm going to infer that either your information sources are poor and/or you are incredibly susceptible to the power of suggestion.
  - effie 5y ago
    Ask and it shall be given to you. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52088167 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52088167 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/who-investigator-admits-it-took-chinas-word-on-wuhan-lab-leak https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/who-investigator-adm...
    - lvs 5y ago
      I have no idea how this is relevant to guidance on an anthelminthic drug, but it seems you believe you have axes to grind, so I'll let you grind them alone.
      - effie 5y ago
        It's examples of how WHO is unreliable on multiple fronts. Regarding ivermectin, this is documented here. https://ivmmeta.com/#who https://ivmmeta.com/#who

analyte123 5y ago

Actually the EMA link says that current evidence for ivermectin is insufficient and it cannot currently be recommended outside of trials. This not the same as claiming that it does not work or that it is hazardous, although many journalists can seemingly not tell the difference. The FDA’s advisory is mostly about people overdosing on veterinary ivermectin. They emphasize that overdose and medication interactions are possible, veterinary ivermectin is not a good substitute for human ivermectin, and that ivermectin is not an approved treatment for COVID-19. Again, even within the paradigm of blindly listening to authoritative sources, this is not an assertion that normal doses of ivermectin for off-label use are dangerous and should be prohibited for prescription, let alone an order for tech companies to censor the mere mention of it. When the FDA’s advisory came out, there were articles (eg [1]) referring to ivermectin-the-molecule as a “horse de-wormer” and drawing no distinction between animal and human use (and it has been proven safe and effective in humans, just not for COVID). The level of discourse around this feels like I am reading 90s drug war content. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/people-poisoning-themselves-by-using-horse-medication-for-covid-19-2021-2?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/people-poisoning-themselves-...

joe_the_user 5y ago
It seems it is you who is misrepresenting the ema link. Key quote: "Although ivermectin is generally well tolerated at doses authorised for other indications, side effects could increase with the much higher doses that would be needed to obtain concentrations of ivermectin in the lungs that are effective against the virus. Toxicity when ivermectin is used at higher than approved doses therefore cannot be excluded." IE, the dose needed for covid could quite possibly be harmful.
- analyte123 5y ago
  Agreed on missing this facet of their advisory. However, the concentration of ivermectin in the early in vitro study was 35x higher than the plasma concentration reached for the approved ivermectin dose [1] whereas the doses used in ivermectin trials (https://ivmmeta.com https://ivmmeta.com) range from 1x to 10x the approved dose daily, with successful results as low as 4x approved dose (1x approved dose daily for 4 days)[2]. So whatever ivermectin is doing, it doesn’t seem to require the concentration that the initial in vitro study required. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32378737/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32378737/ [2] The approved dose is actually 200 mcg/kg. I used 12mg to correspond to a normal adult “approved dose” for these numbers.

AndrewBissell 5y ago

> And here is Merck, that sells Ivermectin, but whose vaccine didn’t make it through clinical trials, discouraging the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19: https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use... If Ivermectin worked on COVID-19, the manufacturer of Ivermectin that has made no money on vaccines for COVID-19 would probably be pushing it wouldn't they? You are misinformed. Merck has a particular formulation of Ivermectin that they sell but the vast majority of it is made off patent by other manufacturers for very little profit. If they had an exclusive patent on a drug that they could make any flimsy case for effectiveness against Covid I'm sure they would be pushing it, the way Gilead has with remdesivir.

rubatuga 5y ago

> Here is an RCT in JAMA finding it ineffective: For treating what? This study looked at trying to reduce mild COVID-19 symptoms. In fact, the current strongest evidence is for prophylaxis, as well as treating more severe cases. Also the study didn’t show that it was ineffective, it showed that it couldn’t disprove the null hypothesis. Please get your facts straight, before throwing a link to a overly specific RCT to prove your point.

doesnotexist 5y ago
State the null hypothesis
- rubatuga 5y ago
  That ivermectin has no effect on COVID-19 symptoms or outcome

cblconfederate 5y ago

How can it be not safe since it s a very widely used antiparasitic