7 ms·

Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

43 points by bb88 5y ago

mikeyouse 5y ago
Two family members are physicians.. they've seen just an astounding number of people sick with Covid who picked up some horse dewormer at the local Tractor Supply Co. to "treat" or "prevent" their illness. It obviously didn't work for them since they ended up in the hospital... these are very commonly the same people who won't get vaccines since they're unproven. Worms in the brain actually might be a decent diagnosis.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  Yesterday in a local paper they featured a front-page story about some dipshit who won't get vaccinated, refuses to wear a mask, and is covered in tattoos from his jaw to his ankles. The rate of severe reactions to tattooing (amputations and whatnot) is 2 in 10000.
  - seattle_spring 5y ago
    Citation needed for that tattoo stat. I'd believe 1 in 5k have a minor infection; I seriously doubt that many are getting amputations or related.
    - tzs 5y ago
      It appears he may have the rate right for severe reactions, but has too narrow a definition of "severe". See "Severe Adverse Events Related to Tattooing: An Retrospective Analysis of 11 Years", Indian J Dermatol. 2012 Nov-Dec; 57(6): 439–443 [1]. > The incidence of severe adverse medical reactions has been estimated as 0.02%. Infectious and non-infectious severe reactions have been observed. The consequences were medical drug therapies and surgery. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3519250/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3519250/
MilnerRoute 5y ago
The paper's actual headline is different than the one on the submitted link. (And I'm not sure it accurately reflects the last line of this paper.) "Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials."
- MilnerRoute 5y ago
  Another quote from this paper: "Ivermectin showed no evidence of an effect on increasing or decreasing mortality at 28 days, the most important outcome during this pandemic, neither in inpatients (two studies), outpatients (two studies), or the preventive setting (one study). The certainty for this finding was very low. The same accounts for clinical worsening up to 28 days in an inpatient setting and up to 14 days in an outpatient setting."
  - NomeChomsky 5y ago
    They chose 14 studies of more than 50 available. Their method for screening studies looks biased towards finding an inconclusive result. Bear in mind that 'bias' with regard to ivermectin is less likely to come from doctors than it is pharma companies. Doctors stand to gain nothing from the efficacy of ivermectin since it's a generic drug on the market since 1987. Pharma companies have a lot to lose if it's proven effective. To control for bias one ought to look at larger sample sizes. And each time that happens there's a significant result.
    - geofft 5y ago
      Assuming it works, you have to take ivermectin constantly, and the pro-ivermectin studies generally only say that it reduces mortality / severe outcomes, not thy it significantly prevents infection or transmission. So if the world goes the ivermectin route, there's still a lot of value in the vaccines, and until the virus is eradicated we have to keep taking ivermectin. This is an obvious financial win to any slightly competent evil pharmaceutical - e.g., make some small chemical variant of ivermectin, patent it, and p-hack a bit. Or just manufacture the generic and sell lots of it; plenty of companies have a good business selling aspirin, which literally grows on trees. I'm not buying the "big pharma is trying to censor it" angle. Also, like any conspiracy theory, it requires a whole lot of people to be perfectly loyal and silent. If ivermectin is actually effective, some pharma exec with family in a part of the world with poor vaccine access is going to push for it.
NomeChomsky 5y ago
Other studies, with a larger sample of studies, found a moderate certainty of effect even when controlling for a study which later removed. https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/... Another study from Queen Mary University also found certainty of effect https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353195913_Bayesian_Meta_Analysis_of_Ivermectin_Effectiveness_in_Treating_Covid-19_Disease https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353195913_Bayesian_... Study in Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Medicine shows certainty of effect. https://www.apjtm.org/article.asp?issn=1995-7645;year=2021;volume=14;issue=6;spage=266;epage=273;aulast=Shakhsi https://www.apjtm.org/article.asp?issn=1995-7645;year=2021;v... I could go on. To really understand what is happening in relation to Ivermectin I can highly recommend Ben Goldacres book Bad Pharma..it shows in detail exactly what we are seeing happen with ivermectin. There is a significant financial interest in having ivermectin perceived as ineffective. Firstly, if it works it makes the emergency use authorisation for the vaccines look quite precarious. Secondly, and probably more likely, there are novel therapies being developed for Covid right now. Nasal sprays. Anti virals. They are patented. Ivermectin is not - it's post patent and can be manufacured by multiple companies. Merck who manufacture ivermectin themselves have a new anti viral they hope to bring to market. If ivermectin - a $3 treatment - proves to be effective then the emergency use Authorization for novel Covid therapies goes out the window. When we are looking at meta analysis that take about 20% of the available studies and conclude 'inconclusive' we should be mindful that there's a massive financial interest for this. Science works. But like everything else, if you influence how science is funded you influence the results it finds. The cat is out of the bag on ivermectin. Its already being used in india (where I am) and where the second wave was brought under control without vaccines. There was just 5% vaccine penetration at the peak of second wave but ivermectin started to get administered at that time in delhi. You'll hear more about the mega doses of horse paste. Its in super high concentration since....it's for horses. In the UK it's not even imported in tablet 12mg form. Hence the stupid situation in which people desperately try to get it via vets and the dosage is way out. At 12mg doses it's very well tolerated. I should know since I use it india the moment I feel I have any symptoms. 18 months and so far so good. I am just one person of course but I know many many others who have been prescribed it when they got sick and they then recovered. Science works but financial interests influence what does and does not publish.
thedream 5y ago
Something that IS conclusive[1]: a myriad of documented cases of physical harm, caused by vaccines, inflicted on humans that have no legal recourse to hold their Modern Mengeles accountable. [1] https://vaers.hhs.gov/ https://vaers.hhs.gov/
- aetherspawn 5y ago
  I’m not anti vax, I always cash my free flu vax coupons, but last year the flu vax put me out for 3 weeks and I had bronchitis for 6 months. Nearly all of my professional contacts also got sick from it. I wonder if they put the interns on the flu vax whilst everyone else was working on COVID.
  - thedream 5y ago
    A commercial product incapacitated you for 3 weeks and made you sick for another 6 months -- and the manufacturers are immune from all liability. May be time to rethink your priorities.
SailingSperm 5y ago
For some balance -- [1]excerpts from abstract " Background: Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials." " Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally. " [1] https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/... -- Referenced in below article https://www.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-scientist-says-covid-19-could-be-treated-for-under-1day-675612 https://www.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-scientist-says-... --Also related https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-ivermectin-covid-19-coronavirus-masks-anti-science-11627482393 https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-ivermectin-covid-19-coronav... ( bypass paywall -- https://twitter.com/westmeeteast/status/1420470317005352964 https://twitter.com/westmeeteast/status/1420470317005352964 )
- peter422 5y ago
  At least one of the studies included in the above analysis was discovered to very likely be fraudulent. The authors say it didn't change the overall finding but it certainly takes away my confidence in their ability to discern a well designed study from a fraudulent one. And as we all know in CS: garbage in, garbage out Details: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w
- stonogo 5y ago
  The American Journal of Therapeutics paper you linked includes falsified data from a since-retracted paper. It is also the only literature review that indicated Ivermectin does anything at all against COVID-19. If you remove the falsified data, you will see that the drug no longer seems effective.
  - NomeChomsky 5y ago
    Not true. The removed study was just one of 50. The study already had a control for bias attached to it. Even if the study is removed the effect remains certain. The hit job on that study was also coordinated. The study was done by an Egyptian doctor in the middle of a pandemic. An actual doctor on the front line trying to save lives. They way he has been sullied in the name of protecting the financial interests of pharma companies is shameful.
bississippi 5y ago
I posted this previously but HN moderated my personal story. —> Story of how I came close to losing my life and how Ivermectin saved me. Ivermectin just saved my life. I woke up with thick mucous and blood that I couldn’t extricate or cough up and called my doctor and the hospital. They threw up their hands and said there is nothing we can do, monitor your saturation levels and let us know if you feel faint. And within 8 hours I could not walk or talk, my wife called the hospital and they said I need to be brought into ER. A friend of ours who was taking prophylactic treatment with Ivermectin brought in his medication and begged us not to go ER and wait for 6 more hours. I was put in touch with one of FLCCC doctors who immediately asked me to take Ivermectin and prescribed a steroid to ease my respiratory issue. 6 hours has passed, the symptoms started to stabilize and reverse. I was able to talk, walk and drink. Within 10 hours my saturation levels turned around. I still continued the protocol for the next 2 days, I was out of the woods with barely a sore throat. Continued the protocol and even the sore throat was gone. I am as good as new. My PCP is dumbfounded and refuses to acknowledge the work of ivermectin.
- stevespang 5y ago
  . . . I was put in touch with one of FLCCC doctors who immediately asked me to take Ivermectin and prescribed a steroid to ease my respiratory issue. 6 hours has passed, the symptoms started to stabilize and reverse.
- peter422 5y ago
  Are steroids not known to be an actually effective treatment for Covid? Are you just trolling?
  - bississippi 5y ago
    I’m not trolling. Woke up scared to DEATH ! 3 weeks ago to date. blood and mucus in the sink and back of throat. I only had one steroid. All of the treatment was primarily Ivermectin. I am unbelievably lucky to be alive.
    - bississippi 5y ago
honksillet 5y ago
For those not in the medical field, Cochrane does high quality literature reviews and is a reliable source.
- cyanydeez 5y ago
  for those who keep repeating some strange conspiracy theory, explain how this drug would be more successful than a vaccine that absolutely is effective and is available prior to anyone getting any trace of covid. sure, theres a lack of vaccines in undeveloped country and this coukd be a stop gap, but so could vitamin D. Theres no reality where i take ivermictin today and 6 months from now im protected. most vaccines for mostm people, that is the routine and normal expectations. its a medical curiousity and so is vitamin D, but this false idea that its going to some how displace vaccines is antivaxx wishfulfillment. wake up, antivax is a viral meme bourne by ignorant and transmissible by people who view science through obtuse political lenses and no drug will penetrate that viscious type of stupidity because its spreas by super spreaders like russia, american theology and republican monied interest. the real viral threat is the meme and ivermictan wont stop that either. people arnt antimask because theres a vaccine.
  - SailingSperm 5y ago
    Wide spread use of an effective prophylactic would help a lot in reducing case numbers and spread. This is about using a multifaceted approach to get covid under control. Wearing a mask or socially distancing today wont protect you in 6months either in a direct sense, but doing those things can assist in reducing the prevalence of the virus which does decrease your likelihood of contracting it.
    - geofft 5y ago
      Yes, but if the proposal is "everyone takes ivermectin and they get the vaccine when vaccines are available locally," that's strictly more profitable for pharma companies than "everyone gets the vaccine when vaccines are available." There's no reason for Big Pharma to suppress that, if it worked. (Speaking of vitamin D, I personally did exactly that with vitamin D + vaccine. My doctor told me a few years back I was low on vitamin D and should supplement anyway, and the vague evidence that it maybe helps against covid was enough for me to decide to take it regularly at a high dose, because there aren't really any downsides besides getting through my bottle faster. But I also got the vaccine!)
powera 5y ago
I've done my own "literature review" [ https://www.notion.so/The-Cure-for-COVID-19-e052c9d829d34bc49eb6a2e1d2ad8e63 https://www.notion.so/The-Cure-for-COVID-19-e052c9d829d34bc4... ], and "Inconclusive" is correct. It's astonishing that after 18 months of COVID and 12 months of rumors this type of question is unanswered. So we have one band of Twitterati saying it is the "Crime of the Century" that Ivermectin is not being used, and another band saying you'd have to be an idiot to take horse pills, and neither group cares what the scientific research actually is. Hopefully the Oxford study will finally give some conclusive data.
- NomeChomsky 5y ago
  The Oxford study is using patients so far down the viral infection it has most certainly been designed to fail. All the evidence suggests ivermectin works best when used early, and Oxford plan to use it on late stage patients. Funny that - given that Oxford are being funded by the pharma companies to make the vaccine and novel therapies. Never bite the hand that feeds you and all. I don't know why we are expected to wait for a study from Oxford when it has already been written off by the actual doctors saving lives because of strange doses and late stage patients. There are already 50+ studies. Nation states are already using ivermectin.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    You are commenting on a thread about a Cochrane meta-review of the available studies that concludes that there is no conclusive evidence that ivermectin works. They know about the studies; that's the point. They don't show what you want them to.
- rafaelm 5y ago
  Whatever the results of the Oxford study, the goalposts will be moved to fit the conspiracy theories. Especially since Oxford is involved in one of the vaccines...
bississippi 5y ago
I posted several times how Ivermectin saved my life. The mods at HN have immediately removed by comment as soon as I posted it. Goes to show they are being told to extinguish any sign of dissent over Covid treatment. Scary
- sorethescore 5y ago
  You do understand that a single anecdote is neither compelling nor conclusive. Many people recover from covid naturally. That's why we do science so that we don't have to take the word of random people on the internet
- rafaelm 5y ago
  I know two people that died from covid early this year even though they were taking ivermectin. Anecdotal, I know...
- dang 5y ago
  That's not how we roll, so it must have been something else. Edit: it sounds like you're talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27992387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27992387. Mods didn't touch that comment. It was killed by software, most likely because you've been breaking the site guideline that asks people not to create new accounts for every few posts they make. Speaking of which, would you please stop? We ban accounts that do that. You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=community%20identity%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
stevespang 5y ago
Believe in actual board certified American & European doctors who have no financial interest in such a cheap and widely used drug, doctors who are specialists in their fields and widely published - - who have been treating their patients with Ivermectin among other items in their protocol and reporting VERY REAL RESULTS: https://covid19criticalcare.com/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/ Big Pharma is PAYING teams to spread false information to create doubt because Ivermectin undercuts their profits - - - their I.V.drugs only administered in hospitals cost $$$THOUSANDS of dollars - - - It's all about the money and the GREED, always has been.
throwawaybchr 5y ago
Ivermectin is interesting because the in vivo indications seem to suggest that to replicate the same result in humans, the dose would need to be pretty high. High doses of Ivermectin are likely harmful. Regulators assume people will take high doses, so they use a sleight of hand and issue a blanket notice about effectiveness and safety, under the assumption that people will take horse-strength doses. Safe prophylactic doses should probably be studied, but instead studies like the Oxford one are being done at the critical stage. It's a strange form of gaslighting where it is like pretending to mishear what is being suggested and then acting on that misrepresentation, as if to disprove what was actually said. The actual claim is never addressed nor studied. Practicing doctors continue to prescribe it in India and elsewhere.

43 points by bb88 5y ago

Two family members are physicians.. they've seen just an astounding number of people sick with Covid who picked up some horse dewormer at the local Tractor Supply Co. to "treat" or "prevent" their illness. It obviously didn't work for them since they ended up in the hospital... these are very commonly the same people who won't get vaccines since they're unproven. Worms in the brain actually might be a decent diagnosis.

jeffbee 5y ago
Yesterday in a local paper they featured a front-page story about some dipshit who won't get vaccinated, refuses to wear a mask, and is covered in tattoos from his jaw to his ankles. The rate of severe reactions to tattooing (amputations and whatnot) is 2 in 10000.
- seattle_spring 5y ago
  Citation needed for that tattoo stat. I'd believe 1 in 5k have a minor infection; I seriously doubt that many are getting amputations or related.
  - tzs 5y ago
    It appears he may have the rate right for severe reactions, but has too narrow a definition of "severe". See "Severe Adverse Events Related to Tattooing: An Retrospective Analysis of 11 Years", Indian J Dermatol. 2012 Nov-Dec; 57(6): 439–443 [1]. > The incidence of severe adverse medical reactions has been estimated as 0.02%. Infectious and non-infectious severe reactions have been observed. The consequences were medical drug therapies and surgery. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3519250/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3519250/

MilnerRoute 5y ago

The paper's actual headline is different than the one on the submitted link. (And I'm not sure it accurately reflects the last line of this paper.) "Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials."

MilnerRoute 5y ago
Another quote from this paper: "Ivermectin showed no evidence of an effect on increasing or decreasing mortality at 28 days, the most important outcome during this pandemic, neither in inpatients (two studies), outpatients (two studies), or the preventive setting (one study). The certainty for this finding was very low. The same accounts for clinical worsening up to 28 days in an inpatient setting and up to 14 days in an outpatient setting."
- NomeChomsky 5y ago
  They chose 14 studies of more than 50 available. Their method for screening studies looks biased towards finding an inconclusive result. Bear in mind that 'bias' with regard to ivermectin is less likely to come from doctors than it is pharma companies. Doctors stand to gain nothing from the efficacy of ivermectin since it's a generic drug on the market since 1987. Pharma companies have a lot to lose if it's proven effective. To control for bias one ought to look at larger sample sizes. And each time that happens there's a significant result.
  - geofft 5y ago
    Assuming it works, you have to take ivermectin constantly, and the pro-ivermectin studies generally only say that it reduces mortality / severe outcomes, not thy it significantly prevents infection or transmission. So if the world goes the ivermectin route, there's still a lot of value in the vaccines, and until the virus is eradicated we have to keep taking ivermectin. This is an obvious financial win to any slightly competent evil pharmaceutical - e.g., make some small chemical variant of ivermectin, patent it, and p-hack a bit. Or just manufacture the generic and sell lots of it; plenty of companies have a good business selling aspirin, which literally grows on trees. I'm not buying the "big pharma is trying to censor it" angle. Also, like any conspiracy theory, it requires a whole lot of people to be perfectly loyal and silent. If ivermectin is actually effective, some pharma exec with family in a part of the world with poor vaccine access is going to push for it.

NomeChomsky 5y ago

Other studies, with a larger sample of studies, found a moderate certainty of effect even when controlling for a study which later removed. https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/... Another study from Queen Mary University also found certainty of effect https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353195913_Bayesian_Meta_Analysis_of_Ivermectin_Effectiveness_in_Treating_Covid-19_Disease https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353195913_Bayesian_... Study in Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Medicine shows certainty of effect. https://www.apjtm.org/article.asp?issn=1995-7645;year=2021;volume=14;issue=6;spage=266;epage=273;aulast=Shakhsi https://www.apjtm.org/article.asp?issn=1995-7645;year=2021;v... I could go on. To really understand what is happening in relation to Ivermectin I can highly recommend Ben Goldacres book Bad Pharma..it shows in detail exactly what we are seeing happen with ivermectin. There is a significant financial interest in having ivermectin perceived as ineffective. Firstly, if it works it makes the emergency use authorisation for the vaccines look quite precarious. Secondly, and probably more likely, there are novel therapies being developed for Covid right now. Nasal sprays. Anti virals. They are patented. Ivermectin is not - it's post patent and can be manufacured by multiple companies. Merck who manufacture ivermectin themselves have a new anti viral they hope to bring to market. If ivermectin - a $3 treatment - proves to be effective then the emergency use Authorization for novel Covid therapies goes out the window. When we are looking at meta analysis that take about 20% of the available studies and conclude 'inconclusive' we should be mindful that there's a massive financial interest for this. Science works. But like everything else, if you influence how science is funded you influence the results it finds. The cat is out of the bag on ivermectin. Its already being used in india (where I am) and where the second wave was brought under control without vaccines. There was just 5% vaccine penetration at the peak of second wave but ivermectin started to get administered at that time in delhi. You'll hear more about the mega doses of horse paste. Its in super high concentration since....it's for horses. In the UK it's not even imported in tablet 12mg form. Hence the stupid situation in which people desperately try to get it via vets and the dosage is way out. At 12mg doses it's very well tolerated. I should know since I use it india the moment I feel I have any symptoms. 18 months and so far so good. I am just one person of course but I know many many others who have been prescribed it when they got sick and they then recovered. Science works but financial interests influence what does and does not publish.

thedream 5y ago

Something that IS conclusive[1]: a myriad of documented cases of physical harm, caused by vaccines, inflicted on humans that have no legal recourse to hold their Modern Mengeles accountable. [1] https://vaers.hhs.gov/ https://vaers.hhs.gov/

aetherspawn 5y ago
I’m not anti vax, I always cash my free flu vax coupons, but last year the flu vax put me out for 3 weeks and I had bronchitis for 6 months. Nearly all of my professional contacts also got sick from it. I wonder if they put the interns on the flu vax whilst everyone else was working on COVID.
- thedream 5y ago
  A commercial product incapacitated you for 3 weeks and made you sick for another 6 months -- and the manufacturers are immune from all liability. May be time to rethink your priorities.

SailingSperm 5y ago

For some balance -- [1]excerpts from abstract " Background: Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials." " Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally. " [1] https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/... -- Referenced in below article https://www.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-scientist-says-covid-19-could-be-treated-for-under-1day-675612 https://www.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-scientist-says-... --Also related https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-ivermectin-covid-19-coronavirus-masks-anti-science-11627482393 https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-ivermectin-covid-19-coronav... ( bypass paywall -- https://twitter.com/westmeeteast/status/1420470317005352964 https://twitter.com/westmeeteast/status/1420470317005352964 )

peter422 5y ago
At least one of the studies included in the above analysis was discovered to very likely be fraudulent. The authors say it didn't change the overall finding but it certainly takes away my confidence in their ability to discern a well designed study from a fraudulent one. And as we all know in CS: garbage in, garbage out Details: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w
stonogo 5y ago
The American Journal of Therapeutics paper you linked includes falsified data from a since-retracted paper. It is also the only literature review that indicated Ivermectin does anything at all against COVID-19. If you remove the falsified data, you will see that the drug no longer seems effective.
- NomeChomsky 5y ago
  Not true. The removed study was just one of 50. The study already had a control for bias attached to it. Even if the study is removed the effect remains certain. The hit job on that study was also coordinated. The study was done by an Egyptian doctor in the middle of a pandemic. An actual doctor on the front line trying to save lives. They way he has been sullied in the name of protecting the financial interests of pharma companies is shameful.

bississippi 5y ago

I posted this previously but HN moderated my personal story. —> Story of how I came close to losing my life and how Ivermectin saved me. Ivermectin just saved my life. I woke up with thick mucous and blood that I couldn’t extricate or cough up and called my doctor and the hospital. They threw up their hands and said there is nothing we can do, monitor your saturation levels and let us know if you feel faint. And within 8 hours I could not walk or talk, my wife called the hospital and they said I need to be brought into ER. A friend of ours who was taking prophylactic treatment with Ivermectin brought in his medication and begged us not to go ER and wait for 6 more hours. I was put in touch with one of FLCCC doctors who immediately asked me to take Ivermectin and prescribed a steroid to ease my respiratory issue. 6 hours has passed, the symptoms started to stabilize and reverse. I was able to talk, walk and drink. Within 10 hours my saturation levels turned around. I still continued the protocol for the next 2 days, I was out of the woods with barely a sore throat. Continued the protocol and even the sore throat was gone. I am as good as new. My PCP is dumbfounded and refuses to acknowledge the work of ivermectin.

stevespang 5y ago
. . . I was put in touch with one of FLCCC doctors who immediately asked me to take Ivermectin and prescribed a steroid to ease my respiratory issue. 6 hours has passed, the symptoms started to stabilize and reverse.
peter422 5y ago
Are steroids not known to be an actually effective treatment for Covid? Are you just trolling?
- bississippi 5y ago
  I’m not trolling. Woke up scared to DEATH ! 3 weeks ago to date. blood and mucus in the sink and back of throat. I only had one steroid. All of the treatment was primarily Ivermectin. I am unbelievably lucky to be alive.
  - bississippi 5y ago

honksillet 5y ago

For those not in the medical field, Cochrane does high quality literature reviews and is a reliable source.

cyanydeez 5y ago
for those who keep repeating some strange conspiracy theory, explain how this drug would be more successful than a vaccine that absolutely is effective and is available prior to anyone getting any trace of covid. sure, theres a lack of vaccines in undeveloped country and this coukd be a stop gap, but so could vitamin D. Theres no reality where i take ivermictin today and 6 months from now im protected. most vaccines for mostm people, that is the routine and normal expectations. its a medical curiousity and so is vitamin D, but this false idea that its going to some how displace vaccines is antivaxx wishfulfillment. wake up, antivax is a viral meme bourne by ignorant and transmissible by people who view science through obtuse political lenses and no drug will penetrate that viscious type of stupidity because its spreas by super spreaders like russia, american theology and republican monied interest. the real viral threat is the meme and ivermictan wont stop that either. people arnt antimask because theres a vaccine.
- SailingSperm 5y ago
  Wide spread use of an effective prophylactic would help a lot in reducing case numbers and spread. This is about using a multifaceted approach to get covid under control. Wearing a mask or socially distancing today wont protect you in 6months either in a direct sense, but doing those things can assist in reducing the prevalence of the virus which does decrease your likelihood of contracting it.
  - geofft 5y ago
    Yes, but if the proposal is "everyone takes ivermectin and they get the vaccine when vaccines are available locally," that's strictly more profitable for pharma companies than "everyone gets the vaccine when vaccines are available." There's no reason for Big Pharma to suppress that, if it worked. (Speaking of vitamin D, I personally did exactly that with vitamin D + vaccine. My doctor told me a few years back I was low on vitamin D and should supplement anyway, and the vague evidence that it maybe helps against covid was enough for me to decide to take it regularly at a high dose, because there aren't really any downsides besides getting through my bottle faster. But I also got the vaccine!)

powera 5y ago

I've done my own "literature review" [ https://www.notion.so/The-Cure-for-COVID-19-e052c9d829d34bc49eb6a2e1d2ad8e63 https://www.notion.so/The-Cure-for-COVID-19-e052c9d829d34bc4... ], and "Inconclusive" is correct. It's astonishing that after 18 months of COVID and 12 months of rumors this type of question is unanswered. So we have one band of Twitterati saying it is the "Crime of the Century" that Ivermectin is not being used, and another band saying you'd have to be an idiot to take horse pills, and neither group cares what the scientific research actually is. Hopefully the Oxford study will finally give some conclusive data.

NomeChomsky 5y ago
The Oxford study is using patients so far down the viral infection it has most certainly been designed to fail. All the evidence suggests ivermectin works best when used early, and Oxford plan to use it on late stage patients. Funny that - given that Oxford are being funded by the pharma companies to make the vaccine and novel therapies. Never bite the hand that feeds you and all. I don't know why we are expected to wait for a study from Oxford when it has already been written off by the actual doctors saving lives because of strange doses and late stage patients. There are already 50+ studies. Nation states are already using ivermectin.
- tptacek 5y ago
  You are commenting on a thread about a Cochrane meta-review of the available studies that concludes that there is no conclusive evidence that ivermectin works. They know about the studies; that's the point. They don't show what you want them to.
rafaelm 5y ago
Whatever the results of the Oxford study, the goalposts will be moved to fit the conspiracy theories. Especially since Oxford is involved in one of the vaccines...

bississippi 5y ago

I posted several times how Ivermectin saved my life. The mods at HN have immediately removed by comment as soon as I posted it. Goes to show they are being told to extinguish any sign of dissent over Covid treatment. Scary

sorethescore 5y ago
You do understand that a single anecdote is neither compelling nor conclusive. Many people recover from covid naturally. That's why we do science so that we don't have to take the word of random people on the internet
rafaelm 5y ago
I know two people that died from covid early this year even though they were taking ivermectin. Anecdotal, I know...
dang 5y ago
That's not how we roll, so it must have been something else. Edit: it sounds like you're talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27992387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27992387. Mods didn't touch that comment. It was killed by software, most likely because you've been breaking the site guideline that asks people not to create new accounts for every few posts they make. Speaking of which, would you please stop? We ban accounts that do that. You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=community%20identity%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

stevespang 5y ago

Believe in actual board certified American & European doctors who have no financial interest in such a cheap and widely used drug, doctors who are specialists in their fields and widely published - - who have been treating their patients with Ivermectin among other items in their protocol and reporting VERY REAL RESULTS: https://covid19criticalcare.com/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/ Big Pharma is PAYING teams to spread false information to create doubt because Ivermectin undercuts their profits - - - their I.V.drugs only administered in hospitals cost $$$THOUSANDS of dollars - - - It's all about the money and the GREED, always has been.

throwawaybchr 5y ago

Ivermectin is interesting because the in vivo indications seem to suggest that to replicate the same result in humans, the dose would need to be pretty high. High doses of Ivermectin are likely harmful. Regulators assume people will take high doses, so they use a sleight of hand and issue a blanket notice about effectiveness and safety, under the assumption that people will take horse-strength doses. Safe prophylactic doses should probably be studied, but instead studies like the Oxford one are being done at the critical stage. It's a strange form of gaslighting where it is like pretending to mishear what is being suggested and then acting on that misrepresentation, as if to disprove what was actually said. The actual claim is never addressed nor studied. Practicing doctors continue to prescribe it in India and elsewhere.