5 ms·

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!)
    - SailingSperm 5y ago
      The thing also with the vaccines and ivermectin possibly causing an issue for big phrama vaccines is that - The COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson have all received an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA. EUAs may be granted only during a public health emergency *and when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.* If ivermectin was found to be safe and effective and got FDA approval itself, the vaccines of Pfizer, Moderna and J&J would need to get full approval - meaning longer and more rigorous clinical trial and safety testing. (not that they haven't gone through a certain level of those things, just the bar is set lower with EUAs) p.s. Sounds like you talked to your doctor about supplementing VitD - but you're mistaken to say there aren't any downsides (especially for regular high doses of D) --- It can cause hypervitaminosis D which in turn causes hypercalcemia (a buildup of calcium in your blood). Just saying as it may be worth double checking :)
      - geofft 5y ago
        Isn't "adequate" the key word there, though? We do have an alternative that works in theory - if everyone wore an N95 (or knockoff, even!) mask at all times in public, indoors and outdoors, and if all restaurants did takeout only, the risk of transmission would be extraordinarily low. And it's not zero even with the vaccine. The vaccine does different things from masks, though. I think money-grubbing Big Pharma execs who were recently regulators on the other side of the revolving door would easily be able to argue that ivermectin (or vitamin D, or whatever), useful as it may be, is not an adequate alternative to the vaccine, just (as you put it) another facet in a multifaceted approach, and the vaccine still needs an EUA.
      - maxerickson 5y ago
        Ivermectin would have to go through similar approval to put treatment of Covid on the label, so no.
- injinj 5y ago
  > people who view science through obtuse political lenses It's not really that surprising. Prescribing Opioids like candy, outlandish prices for things like Insulin, bankrupting poor and uninsured for end of life treatments, covering up the gain of function research funded by the NIH, censoring all kinds of stuff, beginning with their President and probably a few of their friends. I'm sure some of those anti-vaxxers have friends who had COVID and came through it ok. And now, trust us, take this experimental vaccine without any backup plan in case it has adverse effects lasting a couple of weeks. Loss of work, maybe a hospital bed to pay for, etc. The vaccine would better tolerated with a national health care plan and letting people take Ivermectin if they want it. At the moment, CVS won't fill a Ivermectin prescription, even though it quite safe, but they will fill up your pain pills no problem. I do think that the vaccine is marvelous, but I'm not naive to the failings of our medical system.
ekianjo 5y ago
Is there any conflict of interest declared anywhere in that paper? Could not find any paragraph about this.
- bb88 5y ago
  Declaration of interest link right under the title.
native_samples 5y ago
Well, about that ... https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/ https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-hea... "Richard Smith was ... for many years the chair of the Cochrane Library Oversight Committee, and a member of the board of the UK Research Integrity Office." "Stephen Lock, my predecessor as editor of The BMJ, became worried about research fraud in the 1980s, but people thought his concerns eccentric. Research authorities insisted that fraud was rare, didn’t matter because science was self-correcting, and that no patients had suffered because of scientific fraud. All those reasons for not taking research fraud seriously have proved to be false, and, 40 years on from Lock’s concerns, we are realising that the problem is huge, the system encourages fraud, and we have no adequate way to respond. It may be time to move from assuming that research has been honestly conducted and reported to assuming it to be untrustworthy until there is some evidence to the contrary." So a former Chair of the Cochrane Library Oversight Committee thinks medical research is filled with fraud. How reliable can it be really?

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!)
  - SailingSperm 5y ago
    The thing also with the vaccines and ivermectin possibly causing an issue for big phrama vaccines is that - The COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson have all received an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA. EUAs may be granted only during a public health emergency *and when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.* If ivermectin was found to be safe and effective and got FDA approval itself, the vaccines of Pfizer, Moderna and J&J would need to get full approval - meaning longer and more rigorous clinical trial and safety testing. (not that they haven't gone through a certain level of those things, just the bar is set lower with EUAs) p.s. Sounds like you talked to your doctor about supplementing VitD - but you're mistaken to say there aren't any downsides (especially for regular high doses of D) --- It can cause hypervitaminosis D which in turn causes hypercalcemia (a buildup of calcium in your blood). Just saying as it may be worth double checking :)
    - geofft 5y ago
      Isn't "adequate" the key word there, though? We do have an alternative that works in theory - if everyone wore an N95 (or knockoff, even!) mask at all times in public, indoors and outdoors, and if all restaurants did takeout only, the risk of transmission would be extraordinarily low. And it's not zero even with the vaccine. The vaccine does different things from masks, though. I think money-grubbing Big Pharma execs who were recently regulators on the other side of the revolving door would easily be able to argue that ivermectin (or vitamin D, or whatever), useful as it may be, is not an adequate alternative to the vaccine, just (as you put it) another facet in a multifaceted approach, and the vaccine still needs an EUA.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      Ivermectin would have to go through similar approval to put treatment of Covid on the label, so no.
injinj 5y ago
> people who view science through obtuse political lenses It's not really that surprising. Prescribing Opioids like candy, outlandish prices for things like Insulin, bankrupting poor and uninsured for end of life treatments, covering up the gain of function research funded by the NIH, censoring all kinds of stuff, beginning with their President and probably a few of their friends. I'm sure some of those anti-vaxxers have friends who had COVID and came through it ok. And now, trust us, take this experimental vaccine without any backup plan in case it has adverse effects lasting a couple of weeks. Loss of work, maybe a hospital bed to pay for, etc. The vaccine would better tolerated with a national health care plan and letting people take Ivermectin if they want it. At the moment, CVS won't fill a Ivermectin prescription, even though it quite safe, but they will fill up your pain pills no problem. I do think that the vaccine is marvelous, but I'm not naive to the failings of our medical system.

ekianjo 5y ago

Is there any conflict of interest declared anywhere in that paper? Could not find any paragraph about this.

bb88 5y ago
Declaration of interest link right under the title.

native_samples 5y ago

Well, about that ... https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/ https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-hea... "Richard Smith was ... for many years the chair of the Cochrane Library Oversight Committee, and a member of the board of the UK Research Integrity Office." "Stephen Lock, my predecessor as editor of The BMJ, became worried about research fraud in the 1980s, but people thought his concerns eccentric. Research authorities insisted that fraud was rare, didn’t matter because science was self-correcting, and that no patients had suffered because of scientific fraud. All those reasons for not taking research fraud seriously have proved to be false, and, 40 years on from Lock’s concerns, we are realising that the problem is huge, the system encourages fraud, and we have no adequate way to respond. It may be time to move from assuming that research has been honestly conducted and reported to assuming it to be untrustworthy until there is some evidence to the contrary." So a former Chair of the Cochrane Library Oversight Committee thinks medical research is filled with fraud. How reliable can it be really?