6 ms·

BPOM (Indonesian FDA) Approves Ivermectin as Covid-19 Therapeutic Drug

24 points by shaicoleman 5y ago

powera 5y ago
I would be more convinced by this if BPOM hadn't approved azithromycin as well; there are far more severe risks in over-using antibiotics, and the available evidence suggests that azithromycin doesn't actually work to treat Covid.
tboyd47 5y ago
There are (right now) over 30 randomized, controlled trials on Ivermectin showing its effectiveness for COVID-19. To the people still insisting that it's misinformation: how many countries will need to adopt it before you concede that the FDA and WHO seem to be wrong about this? I honestly want to know.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- prezjordan 5y ago
  To me it's acceptable to both wait for trials to prove the drug is effective, while also continuing to criticize very public figures for peddling it as a miracle drug (a) far before they have evidence to back it up and (b) while we have a widely-available vaccine in my country (US) that people are refusing to take.
  - tboyd47 5y ago
    So, 10 countries? 50 countries? There are already 32 randomized, controlled trials showing a positive effect from the drug. How many more of those would be enough for you? And how many randomized, controlled trials currently exist for the vaccines?
    - incrudible 5y ago
      > There are already 32 randomized, controlled trials showing a positive effect from the drug. These are low-quality studies with few participants, they don't add up to one high-quality study. For all I know, there could be 32 studies that show a negative effect, you just don't mention them. If we then did a meta-analysis, we might find that they cancel each other out. Despite the lack of high-quality studies, Ivermectin is already in widespread use in many countries. If Ivermectin was truly a miraculous drug against COVID, shouldn't we be able to observe that in the field? (Do we?)
      - tboyd47 5y ago
        You're right that the studies have low sample sizes, but they aren't "low-quality." They're randomized, controlled trials in peer-reviewed journals. And the consistent replication does mean something. If you have 32 RCTs showing negative or even no effect, I'd love to see them. Dr. Pierre Kory claimed that we did observe this in Mexico [0] (skip to 59 minutes). I don't know how to cross-check what he said because I don't speak Spanish, but it's one of many data points in favor of ivermectin. I think we should let doctors make the decision to prescribe it or not, and the culture of censorship around this is insane. He also talks about India and Brazil. --- [0]: https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/COVID-Ivermectin-and-the-Crime-of-the-Century-DarkHorse-Podcast-with-Pierre-Kory-Bret-Weinstein:f https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/COVID-Ivermectin-and-the...
        incrudible 5y ago
        > You're right that the studies have low sample sizes, but they aren't "low-quality." They're randomized, controlled trials in peer-reviewed journals. RCT is just a method, it doesn't automatically make the data high-quality. Peer review can't make the data any better either. With all these studies, the confidence intervals are huge or the group sizes are poorly balanced or the sample size is tiny or the effect is not that big. I'm looking at these studies: https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpall https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpall > If you have 32 RCTs showing negative or even neutral effects, I'd love to see them. I don't, but I also didn't look. You also have to consider publication bias. Studies where the null hypothesis holds are far less likely to be published: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3442991/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3442991/ > Dr. Pierre Kory claimed that we did observe this in Mexico He's talking about a "precipitous drop". I don't see it in the data. Compare the "daily deaths" for Mexico (yay Ivermectin) to the US (nay Ivermection). They're virtually the same. > I think we should let doctors make the decision to prescribe it or not, and the culture of censorship around this is insane. I'm torn on this one. It's easy for doctors to fool themselves, which is why we need solid data. At the same time, if you don't have solid data, clinical experience is better than nothing. I do recognize many problems in regards to information distribution and tribalist science, but that doesn't make me any less skeptical of Ivermectin.
  - cinquemb 5y ago
    There are people refusing to take covid-19 vaccines in Indonesia, who have taken vaccines in the past, who are more willing to have a treatment that has been on the market for decades than one that hasn't (at least until long term studies have been made) and are glad they don't have to pay into the big pharma racket that most people in the country can't really afford. Source: US citizen living in Indonesia.
    - tboyd47 5y ago
      Interesting. Why do you think they are refusing the COVID-19 vaccine given that they have been vaccinated before?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - cinquemb 5y ago
        Can only really speak for the conversations I had with people I know, who have access, and those that aren't willing to take it have varying reasons: - dont want to pay for it - sinovac is most widely available and the optics of "causing" the problem and providing the solution don't sit well with them - dont really care, cant be bothered - they want to wait for a couple more years when longer studies come out about any side effects - already caught it and feel natural immunity is sufficient - no one wants to take responsibility for any adverse events that may happen (employers are passing out documents they want employees to sign, before giving them free vaccines) and that scares them more since they haven't done anything like that with things like dengue, tb, hpv, etc…
- cpncrunch 5y ago
  Where are you finding this? I took a quick look and found two negative rcts and a systematic review saying it is ineffective.
  - sayhong_ 5y ago
    The National University of Singapore did a study too. https://www.nuhs.edu.sg/sites/nuhs/NUHS%20Assets/News%20Documents/NUHS%20Corp/Media%20Releases/2021/Oral-hydrochloroquine-and-povidone-iodine-throat-spray-can-reduce-spread-of-covid-19-in-high-transmission-settings.pdf https://www.nuhs.edu.sg/sites/nuhs/NUHS%20Assets/News%20Docu...
  - tboyd47 5y ago
    https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/
    - cpncrunch 5y ago
      That's not exactly a reliable source. I see somewhat conflicting results in the meta-analyses. It looks like there may be a 50% reduction in mortality, but the evidence certainty is low. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=ivermectin+covid+mortality+rct&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=iver...
      - tboyd47 5y ago
        The website is just a summary of peer-reviewed studies.
yehosef 5y ago
You see, drugs that are effective have to make Pharm a lot of money (refer to Aduhelm). Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug that isn't going to make Pharm a lot of money, so it's not effective. The problem with these discussions of effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis is that people misunderstand who we're optimizing for - Pharm or the public.
- infamouscow 5y ago
  The vaccine manufacturers are also some of the biggest advertisers in media. Does anyone really believe the media companies are going to report anything that paints Pfizer in a negative light?
  - acdha 5y ago
    One look at the Aducanumab coverage is sufficient to show that journalists have no problem reporting negative news about big companies. Ivermectin isn’t getting positive coverage because there isn’t good evidence that it works. Contrast with the cheap steroids which uncontroversially became a standard treatment because the science showed efficacy.
- eynsham 5y ago
  This seems needlessly conspiratorial. Dexamethasone’s utility in treating Covid-19 was found by a top-notch RCT (Recovery). It is also quite cheap. ‘Pharm’ (presumably you mean scientists sceptical of ivermectin) made no noise about that.
  - yehosef 5y ago
    If it seems conspiratorial does that mean it's not true?
  - yehosef 5y ago
    Doctors are refusing to use Ivermectin because they can get in trouble with the medical boards for prescribing an unapproved covid treatment. https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2021/06/16/clinic-raided-for-offering-ivermectin-to-covid-19-patients/ https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2021/06/16... https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/92415 https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9241... Who's running the disinformation campaign?

24 points by shaicoleman 5y ago

I would be more convinced by this if BPOM hadn't approved azithromycin as well; there are far more severe risks in over-using antibiotics, and the available evidence suggests that azithromycin doesn't actually work to treat Covid.

tboyd47 5y ago

There are (right now) over 30 randomized, controlled trials on Ivermectin showing its effectiveness for COVID-19. To the people still insisting that it's misinformation: how many countries will need to adopt it before you concede that the FDA and WHO seem to be wrong about this? I honestly want to know.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
prezjordan 5y ago
To me it's acceptable to both wait for trials to prove the drug is effective, while also continuing to criticize very public figures for peddling it as a miracle drug (a) far before they have evidence to back it up and (b) while we have a widely-available vaccine in my country (US) that people are refusing to take.
- tboyd47 5y ago
  So, 10 countries? 50 countries? There are already 32 randomized, controlled trials showing a positive effect from the drug. How many more of those would be enough for you? And how many randomized, controlled trials currently exist for the vaccines?
  - incrudible 5y ago
    > There are already 32 randomized, controlled trials showing a positive effect from the drug. These are low-quality studies with few participants, they don't add up to one high-quality study. For all I know, there could be 32 studies that show a negative effect, you just don't mention them. If we then did a meta-analysis, we might find that they cancel each other out. Despite the lack of high-quality studies, Ivermectin is already in widespread use in many countries. If Ivermectin was truly a miraculous drug against COVID, shouldn't we be able to observe that in the field? (Do we?)
    - tboyd47 5y ago
      You're right that the studies have low sample sizes, but they aren't "low-quality." They're randomized, controlled trials in peer-reviewed journals. And the consistent replication does mean something. If you have 32 RCTs showing negative or even no effect, I'd love to see them. Dr. Pierre Kory claimed that we did observe this in Mexico [0] (skip to 59 minutes). I don't know how to cross-check what he said because I don't speak Spanish, but it's one of many data points in favor of ivermectin. I think we should let doctors make the decision to prescribe it or not, and the culture of censorship around this is insane. He also talks about India and Brazil. --- [0]: https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/COVID-Ivermectin-and-the-Crime-of-the-Century-DarkHorse-Podcast-with-Pierre-Kory-Bret-Weinstein:f https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/COVID-Ivermectin-and-the...
      - incrudible 5y ago
        > You're right that the studies have low sample sizes, but they aren't "low-quality." They're randomized, controlled trials in peer-reviewed journals. RCT is just a method, it doesn't automatically make the data high-quality. Peer review can't make the data any better either. With all these studies, the confidence intervals are huge or the group sizes are poorly balanced or the sample size is tiny or the effect is not that big. I'm looking at these studies: https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpall https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpall > If you have 32 RCTs showing negative or even neutral effects, I'd love to see them. I don't, but I also didn't look. You also have to consider publication bias. Studies where the null hypothesis holds are far less likely to be published: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3442991/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3442991/ > Dr. Pierre Kory claimed that we did observe this in Mexico He's talking about a "precipitous drop". I don't see it in the data. Compare the "daily deaths" for Mexico (yay Ivermectin) to the US (nay Ivermection). They're virtually the same. > I think we should let doctors make the decision to prescribe it or not, and the culture of censorship around this is insane. I'm torn on this one. It's easy for doctors to fool themselves, which is why we need solid data. At the same time, if you don't have solid data, clinical experience is better than nothing. I do recognize many problems in regards to information distribution and tribalist science, but that doesn't make me any less skeptical of Ivermectin.
- cinquemb 5y ago
  There are people refusing to take covid-19 vaccines in Indonesia, who have taken vaccines in the past, who are more willing to have a treatment that has been on the market for decades than one that hasn't (at least until long term studies have been made) and are glad they don't have to pay into the big pharma racket that most people in the country can't really afford. Source: US citizen living in Indonesia.
  - tboyd47 5y ago
    Interesting. Why do you think they are refusing the COVID-19 vaccine given that they have been vaccinated before?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - cinquemb 5y ago
      Can only really speak for the conversations I had with people I know, who have access, and those that aren't willing to take it have varying reasons: - dont want to pay for it - sinovac is most widely available and the optics of "causing" the problem and providing the solution don't sit well with them - dont really care, cant be bothered - they want to wait for a couple more years when longer studies come out about any side effects - already caught it and feel natural immunity is sufficient - no one wants to take responsibility for any adverse events that may happen (employers are passing out documents they want employees to sign, before giving them free vaccines) and that scares them more since they haven't done anything like that with things like dengue, tb, hpv, etc…
cpncrunch 5y ago
Where are you finding this? I took a quick look and found two negative rcts and a systematic review saying it is ineffective.
- sayhong_ 5y ago
  The National University of Singapore did a study too. https://www.nuhs.edu.sg/sites/nuhs/NUHS%20Assets/News%20Documents/NUHS%20Corp/Media%20Releases/2021/Oral-hydrochloroquine-and-povidone-iodine-throat-spray-can-reduce-spread-of-covid-19-in-high-transmission-settings.pdf https://www.nuhs.edu.sg/sites/nuhs/NUHS%20Assets/News%20Docu...
- tboyd47 5y ago
  https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/
  - cpncrunch 5y ago
    That's not exactly a reliable source. I see somewhat conflicting results in the meta-analyses. It looks like there may be a 50% reduction in mortality, but the evidence certainty is low. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=ivermectin+covid+mortality+rct&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=iver...
    - tboyd47 5y ago
      The website is just a summary of peer-reviewed studies.

yehosef 5y ago

You see, drugs that are effective have to make Pharm a lot of money (refer to Aduhelm). Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug that isn't going to make Pharm a lot of money, so it's not effective. The problem with these discussions of effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis is that people misunderstand who we're optimizing for - Pharm or the public.

infamouscow 5y ago
The vaccine manufacturers are also some of the biggest advertisers in media. Does anyone really believe the media companies are going to report anything that paints Pfizer in a negative light?
- acdha 5y ago
  One look at the Aducanumab coverage is sufficient to show that journalists have no problem reporting negative news about big companies. Ivermectin isn’t getting positive coverage because there isn’t good evidence that it works. Contrast with the cheap steroids which uncontroversially became a standard treatment because the science showed efficacy.
eynsham 5y ago
This seems needlessly conspiratorial. Dexamethasone’s utility in treating Covid-19 was found by a top-notch RCT (Recovery). It is also quite cheap. ‘Pharm’ (presumably you mean scientists sceptical of ivermectin) made no noise about that.
- yehosef 5y ago
  If it seems conspiratorial does that mean it's not true?
- yehosef 5y ago
  Doctors are refusing to use Ivermectin because they can get in trouble with the medical boards for prescribing an unapproved covid treatment. https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2021/06/16/clinic-raided-for-offering-ivermectin-to-covid-19-patients/ https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2021/06/16... https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/92415 https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9241... Who's running the disinformation campaign?