4 ms·

For some balance -- [1]excerpts from abstract " Background: Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin,

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.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - peter422 5y ago
    A bunch of the ivermectin studies were paid for by pharma companies that make ivermectin. Do they have any financial interests? Also the vaccines are pretty cheap. Which do you think is cheaper, one $5 vaccine or multiple days of medical care? If the goal was maximizing money to a pharma company, you certainly don't want to prevent people from getting sick.
    - dv_dt 5y ago
      Wouldn’t one also perhaps analyze manufacturers of drugs may be given during a course of treating covid on a hospitalization? Ivermectin is a very very cheap drug, used in bulk with livestock for worming, and likely with low margins.
    - SailingSperm 5y ago
      I think you're coming to a strange conclusion in what you've said...Ivermectin is out of patent - far less money can be made from it. US pharmaceutical company Merck – one of the manufacturers of patent-free Ivermectin actively discourages use of ivermectin -- Also Merck signs $356M deal to supply US with experimental coronavirus drug. These are the financial interests you should be looking at. https://swprs.org/merck-claim-exposing-big-pharma-lobbyists/ https://swprs.org/merck-claim-exposing-big-pharma-lobbyists/ Vaccine prices have been increasing. https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/health/179865/pfizer-and-moderna-increase-price-of-coronavirus-vaccines-in-europe/ https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/health/1... Additionally, 'one $5 vaccine' is just wrong. There is already 3rd booster shots being administered in Israel with the pfizer vaccine as its effectiveness is diminished with the delta strain (and Epsilon..no doubt till Omega) ...The possibility of these vaccines being used similar to annual/bi annual flu booster shots is far from 0. Nor is your comparison a fair one...It isn't a split between use the vaccine or have everyone require days of medical care (that would of course cost more...Not necessarily to the benefit of pharma companies though) -- IF ivermectin was a effective (even just 5%) prophylactic OR treatment/therapy against severe covid symptoms (let alone possibly doing both of these things) that certainly would affect the profits of phara companies getting contracts and sales of their patented offerings.
MilnerRoute 5y ago
The Wall Street Journal actually published a follow-up to that "Also related" link, with the headline "Writers Missed Ivermectin Study Retraction (Subhed: "We have egg on our faces.") https://www.wsj.com/articles/egyptian-ivermectin-study-retracted-covid-11627527903 https://www.wsj.com/articles/egyptian-ivermectin-study-retra...
- SailingSperm 5y ago
  The link you provided still stands behind the main claim... - "We retract the part of our article that relied on the data from Dr. Elgazzar’s study. But the broader point stands: There’s strong evidence of ivermectin’s efficacy in treating Covid-19."
  - tptacek 5y ago
    The problem is that there isn't. A metastudy found that virtually the entire positive affect attributed to ivermectin derived from the Elgazzar study, which was fraudulent. Ivermectin doesn't work on COVID.

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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- peter422 5y ago
  A bunch of the ivermectin studies were paid for by pharma companies that make ivermectin. Do they have any financial interests? Also the vaccines are pretty cheap. Which do you think is cheaper, one $5 vaccine or multiple days of medical care? If the goal was maximizing money to a pharma company, you certainly don't want to prevent people from getting sick.
  - dv_dt 5y ago
    Wouldn’t one also perhaps analyze manufacturers of drugs may be given during a course of treating covid on a hospitalization? Ivermectin is a very very cheap drug, used in bulk with livestock for worming, and likely with low margins.
  - SailingSperm 5y ago
    I think you're coming to a strange conclusion in what you've said...Ivermectin is out of patent - far less money can be made from it. US pharmaceutical company Merck – one of the manufacturers of patent-free Ivermectin actively discourages use of ivermectin -- Also Merck signs $356M deal to supply US with experimental coronavirus drug. These are the financial interests you should be looking at. https://swprs.org/merck-claim-exposing-big-pharma-lobbyists/ https://swprs.org/merck-claim-exposing-big-pharma-lobbyists/ Vaccine prices have been increasing. https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/health/179865/pfizer-and-moderna-increase-price-of-coronavirus-vaccines-in-europe/ https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/health/1... Additionally, 'one $5 vaccine' is just wrong. There is already 3rd booster shots being administered in Israel with the pfizer vaccine as its effectiveness is diminished with the delta strain (and Epsilon..no doubt till Omega) ...The possibility of these vaccines being used similar to annual/bi annual flu booster shots is far from 0. Nor is your comparison a fair one...It isn't a split between use the vaccine or have everyone require days of medical care (that would of course cost more...Not necessarily to the benefit of pharma companies though) -- IF ivermectin was a effective (even just 5%) prophylactic OR treatment/therapy against severe covid symptoms (let alone possibly doing both of these things) that certainly would affect the profits of phara companies getting contracts and sales of their patented offerings.

MilnerRoute 5y ago

The Wall Street Journal actually published a follow-up to that "Also related" link, with the headline "Writers Missed Ivermectin Study Retraction (Subhed: "We have egg on our faces.") https://www.wsj.com/articles/egyptian-ivermectin-study-retracted-covid-11627527903 https://www.wsj.com/articles/egyptian-ivermectin-study-retra...

SailingSperm 5y ago
The link you provided still stands behind the main claim... - "We retract the part of our article that relied on the data from Dr. Elgazzar’s study. But the broader point stands: There’s strong evidence of ivermectin’s efficacy in treating Covid-19."
- tptacek 5y ago
  The problem is that there isn't. A metastudy found that virtually the entire positive affect attributed to ivermectin derived from the Elgazzar study, which was fraudulent. Ivermectin doesn't work on COVID.