11 ms·
Ivermectin for the Treatment of Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- verdverm 5y agoMeta study, most selected studies administered a single or few doses, none over 5 days. The doctors reporting success are using it for longer. Consider most anti virals are taken for 10+ days
- eganist 5y agono.
- stewartbutler 5y agoThis idiocy is killing people. Stop peddling it. Get the vaccine.
- refurb 5y agoGet both?
- bayesian_horse 5y agoIvermectin has a lot more side effects and no proven effect on Covid-19. So no, don't take it for this reason. It gets worse when people use the doses intended for horses and cows.
- vibrato2 5y agoCitation needed for “more side effects” this is a Nobel prize winning drug which has a markedly safe profile. Not like the vaccines which fda admits have no long term data available.
- bayesian_horse 5y agoJust google Ivermectin. There is no shortage of information. No sane honest person can portray that list of side effects as less than those seen with the vaccine. There is no such thing as a "safe" medication, it's always a risk-benefit analysis and dose-dependency. It is complete insane bullshit to believe those vaccines might somehow exhibit "long term" side effects that have eluded the whole world for more than six months after hundreds of millions of applications. No vaccine has ever done that, not even those who didn't make it through clinical trials.
- fcurts 5y agoThe insanity is to be more afraid of unknown risks of vaccination than known risks of infection and the risk of relying on unproven treatments that are harmful or ineffective.
- deodorel 5y agoActually there was that flu vaccine that triggered narcolepsy very rarely in young people after 12 - 24 months. But this is the only example i heard of.
- bayesian_horse 5y agoYes, but very rarely, and the cost/benefit analysis would still be positive, as compared to the virus that virtually everyone will eventually get. Also that particular virus also caused narcolepsy, rarely, by a similar immunological mechanism.
- refurb 5y agoIf you stated that 2nd paragraph at an FDA meeting you’d be laughed out of the room. Voixx was pulled from the market 5 years after approval when they finally determined it caused heart attacks. It took a lot of work to figure that out. There a multiple examples of fatal or severe side effects popping up years later. And every single one said “weve never seen it before” or “there is no scientific reason it should do that”. The landscape is littered with drugs where people waved their hands and said “there is no way this drug is harmful” and that we’re subsequently found to be so. Not saying people shouldn’t get vaccinated, I did. But your claim is ridiculous.
- rdevsrex 5y agoOh antivax has many more causes than just ivermectin. Many religious fundamentalists think it's the mark of the beast, and anti-goverment people are against it for reasons that have nothing to do with ivermectin, or just the fact that the vaccine companies are shielded from immunity.
- verdverm 5y agoHow do you jump from open mindedness about anti viral treatments to not getting the vaccine? I don't get where the anti-anti-viral for treatment comes from. We know the vaccine is not 100% effective. Why are you against also having medicines for when people get sick?
- drcongo 5y agoMedicines for when people get sick are great. Everybody loves those. However this medicine doesn't work for this sickness, as has been shown here, in this very study. How do you jump from a scientific study telling you something doesn't work, to "open mindedness about anti viral treatments"? Ivermectin is ley-lines and crystals for the 21st century.
- vibrato2 5y agoExcept ivermectin won the 2015 Nobel prize in medicine. The minute crystals win the Nobel prize in medicine, let me know. I’ll buy a nice stock.
- drcongo 5y agoNot for treating COVID-19 though. You're obviously unaware, but the 19 in COVID-19 is the year it was first discovered. The 2015 Nobel prize happened in 2015, again, the clue is in the name.
- vibrato2 5y agoYou compared it to crystals, which are not recognized by the scientific community for anything. As you can see from my posted study, there is a lot of evidence that ivermectin is efficacious against covid, and some that it isn’t. I suspect those are similar to the now retracted study denigrating Hydroxychloroquine
- verdverm 5y agoThis study did not use ivermectin like a normal antiviral dosage, I don't think it's conclusive. You can't take one meta study and make claims that it doesn't work. What happened to the randomized controlled trials argument?
- kevingadd 5y agoWhat is the reasonable test process you're suggesting to verify the effectiveness of the drug against COVID? What is your basis for believing the drug will work if only given "longer" despite showing zero effect in the existing tests?
- verdverm 5y agoRandomized controlled trial, just like every other drug. They are in fact being done currently. I put low weight on this study because I've only been prescribed anti viral treatments that last 10 or 14 days of pills. How do you claim zero effect while there is conflicting reports? Is only "the other team" capable of fraudulent claims and studies?
- nielsbot 5y agoFine, I'll bite. Which doctors, and which studies are showing this result? I spent time reading about Ivermectin and the most reliable info I could find is from the NIH and WHO and neither recommends it for COVID-19: - 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... - https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/ https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/ant... They seem to have reviewed many Ivermectin studies and found all of them low quality and/or insufficiently controlled. Edit: grammar, formatting
- remontoire 5y agoDo you remember what this used to say? https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...
- bayesian_horse 5y agoThe "root" of the Ivermectin craziness seems to be a study that found an effect against the virus in vitro, probably in cell cultures. Not sure about the details. Everything else is anecdotal. Quite a few Covid-19 patients do survive, and when doctors prescribe it, they are not doing randomized controlled trials, so they can easily fool themselves and others into thinking Ivermectin works.
- verdverm 5y ago
- bayesian_horse 5y agoThose doctors are not conducting controlled trials. Also, to treat someone for 10+ days it would be useful to have them survive the first five days, right?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rolph 5y agohttps://science.slashdot.org/story/21/07/17/1010228/influential-ivermectin-study-accused-of-totally-faked-data?sdsrc=rel https://science.slashdot.org/story/21/07/17/1010228/influent...
- nradov 5y agoThat retracted pre-print article wasn't included in this meta analysis.
- bayesian_horse 5y agoWho could have guessed?
- natch 5y agoIvermectin is out of patent protection so whether it is effective or not (I don’t know, and won’t believe everything I read including replies here), there is huge PR machinery geared up against it from companies that stand to profit from newer, patented, alternatives.
- andreskytt 5y agoYou assert “there is” but do you have any concrete facts? Also, why wouldn’t there be an equally huge PR machinery from the insurance companies fighting for it as, by definition, they stand to loose as much from the use of alternatives?
- tbrownaw 5y agoUm, insurance companies aren't going to care how expensive the thing being insured against is. Their individual customers might, but the basic idea of insurance is more about averaging costs out to be more predictable. They shouldn't have any exposure to general price levels, just to how variable things are.
- 8eye 5y agomarijuana then definitely beats out ivermectin. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210314/Cannabis-compound-inhibits-SARS-CoV-2-replication-in-human-lung-cells.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210314/Cannabis-compound...
- vibrato2 5y agoOn the other hand, this meta study found 20 mechanisms of action by ivermectin against covid and general efficacy as treatment. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8203399/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8203399/
- mduerksen 5y agoYet another meta study. I'm interested in this big, randomized clinical study, alas not yet concluded: https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investigated-as-a-possible-treatment-for-covid-19-in-oxford2019s-principle-trial https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investi...
- bb88 5y agoI'm not. The vaccines are effective.
- yokaze 5y agoIt's not one or the other. Vaccines work great, but the prevention is not 100% effective. It seems now doubtful, that we can achieve herd immunity, so we still need something to treat people for which the vaccine doesn't work. I wouldn't hold my breath on ivermectin though either.
- nradov 5y agoThe NIH has also prioritized ivermectin for another big, randomized clinical study. This research takes time. People need to be a little patient and not jump to conclusions. https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initiatives/activ/covid-19-therapeutics-prioritized-testing-clinical-trials https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initi... For now there are a mix of smaller studies, some of which show no benefit and others which show a significant benefit. Most of those studies had different treatment protocols so the results aren't directly comparable. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/6/989 https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/6/989
- rdevsrex 5y agoSo I only read the abstract, but sounds to me like this study only tested the efficacy in treatment, not prevention. And all of the hub-hub I've heard is around prevention. I wish this paper would have considered that angle too.
- maga 5y agoThe way these online memes turn into social issues forcing even reasonable people to pay attention is one of scarier things I've witnessed.
- natch 5y agoJoe Rogan (who has COVID right now btw, for what it’s worth, but not part of the point here) had on his show an ICU specialist who has developed some of the key protocols for treating COVID including with the use of Ivermectin: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7uVXKgE6eLJKMXkETwcw0D?si=pADbNMXKRCKQyXe2fA-s8Q&dl_branch=1 https://open.spotify.com/episode/7uVXKgE6eLJKMXkETwcw0D?si=p... If you do open the podcast, know that it is very possible in Spotify to skip forward 15 seconds at a time to get past the many ads at the beginning. Also on the show was evolutionary biologist Brett Weinstein. Long story short, the guests suggest that some of the (allegedly compromised by money) authoritative medical bodies have been captured, and have helped industry by cherry picking studies to highlight the low quality ones, while the high quality studies and, more importantly, country wide actual results in practice in several large countries, they are downplaying. Again this is done by authorities who, it is claimed, may have a vested (direct or indirect) interest in suppressing a low cost drug that is bad for business. The episode also covers the remarkable censorship around this. They also mention that US hospitals are prescribing Remdesivir (sp?) even though the WHO does not recommend it. According to the doctor on the podcast Remdesivir costs $3,000 a dose.
- b0sk 5y agoStop the tin-foil hat nonsense. Joe Rogan is not an expert. He refused the vaccine. There is no one out to get you. Hundreds of anti-vax, pro-horse-dewormer patients are dying due to COVID.
- natch 5y agoJoe Rogan is (indeed) a self-professed moron, an assessment I agree with. However, setting that aside, please bear with me here, he does sometimes have very intelligent and well informed people on his show. I think that is the case with this particular episode. It would behoove you or anyone to keep an open mind.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 5y ago
- rich_sasha 5y agoAh but which hand was used to administer Ivermectin: left or right? It only works when administered with the left hand. Most people are right-handed and do not follow the protocol. Yet another substandard publication by the self-serving academic/Big Pharma cabal.
- natch 5y agoBTW the whole “horse medicine” angle on this is a dramatization. Ampicillin is also a horse medicine, if you buy it from a veterinary supply house. Both medicines are also for humans, if obtained through the right channels. The scientists who developed Ivermectin were given the Nobel prize for it. For humans. The point here is not to say that proves it works for COVID. The point is just to note that calling it “horse medicine” is hyperbolic.
- senectus1 5y agoJust wait till they wrap their minds around this chemical killer, Dihydrogen Monoxide. https://www.dhmo.org/facts.html https://www.dhmo.org/facts.html It kills more than covid every year!
- eesmith 5y agoWhile you meant it as a joke, your link comments that H2O "is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths" each year. This low-balls the actual numbers. Worldwide, about 300K people die of drowning - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/drowning-deaths-by-age-group?country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/drowning-deaths-by-age-gr... . "Exposure (heat and cold)" is another ~50K - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-number-of-deaths-by-cause?country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-number-of-deaths-b... . By comparison: "As of Jun 10, 1,884,146 people have died of COVID-19 in 2021, compared with the 1,880,510 in 2020." - https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/06/global-covid-deaths-2021-have-topped-all-last-years https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/06/global-c... COVID kills at least 5x more than water in the last two years. And those numbers are from only 1/2-way through 2021.
- fcurts 5y agoIt's called "horse medicine" when people take Ivermectin tablets intended/dosed for horses.
- dekhn 5y agono, it's called horse medicine when people want to imply the people taking it are stupid.
- bb88 5y agoFTA: Conclusions Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19.
- andreskytt 5y agoI’m quite frankly shocked by the quality of discussion here. The HN community could do so much better. There’s unsubstantiated claims on all sides, downvoted comments galore etc. If this is what the geekier than average and probably more literate than average community ends up looking like in the context, no wonder all sorts of conspiracy theories run wild.
- bigbazza78 5y agoBecause this site is full of absolute moron basement dwellers masquerading as "intelligent". The very definition of the "ackshually" crowd.