16 ms·

Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent Covid-19

37 points by _Microft 5y ago

hitpointdrew 5y ago
The governments of Japan and India disagree.
- ulfw 5y ago
  No they wouldn't. https://today.rtl.lu/news/fact-check/a/1783705.html https://today.rtl.lu/news/fact-check/a/1783705.html
browningstreet 5y ago
Also, Merck itself still doesn't recommend it, citing: "No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies." https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/ https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use... Cynically, you could say they should be motivated to support this trend, as it would be more $ for them. But that hasn't happened yet.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  Merck is going to receive money ($1.2 billion) from the government for an alternative treatment. There are generics of Ivermectin so even if it does work Merck would want to push their new drug instead of Ivermectin. If this was not related to covid nobody here would be trusting Merck due to this conflict of interest. https://www.merck.com/news/merck-announces-supply-agreement-with-u-s-government-for-molnupiravir-an-investigational-oral-antiviral-candidate-for-treatment-of-mild-to-moderate-covid-19/ https://www.merck.com/news/merck-announces-supply-agreement-...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kazinator 5y ago
Where did this cockamamie idea originate of using an antiparasitic product for a viral infection? The National Geographic has a summary here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-shaky-science-behind-ivermectin-as-a-covid-19-cure https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-shaky... Under "What triggered the ivermectin frenzy". Firefox Reader Mode vanquishes the nag dialog.
- jpadkins 5y ago
  pretty biased article. Didn't cite the many doctors who are using it in their treatment regimen, Japan Medical Association board member endorsement, or the population studies in India and Africa that show pretty compelling evidence. Also they didn't cover the early treatment vs. late stage when discussing the study results (ivermectin doesn't help people with high viral load already in the ICU, but apparently does help people who just got the virus). [edited to correct JMA board member, not health minister]
  - skuhn 5y ago
    The person in Japan who endorsed ivermectin is not a government minister. [1] If you're referring to the Elgazzar paper from Egypt (as the "population studies in [..] Africa"), then it has been withdrawn from pre-print distribution. [2] And, in general, the studies that have been performed are not sufficient to support ivermectin use among the general public at this time. [3] [1] https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252F9M48JR-1 https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-s... [3] https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/ivermectin-still-lacks-scientific-support-as-a-covid-19-drug-69049 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/ivermectin-still-...
    - jpadkins 5y ago
      Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Ozaki is on the JMA Board https://www.med.or.jp/english/about_JMA/trustees.html https://www.med.or.jp/english/about_JMA/trustees.html The population study I was referring to was this one: http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1657-95342020000400201 http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S... citation 3 is an opinion piece (opinion section of that magazine). And even as a persuasion piece, it still quotes Cochrane on the need for a serious study.
TheFreim 5y ago
> Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. In addition, some topical forms of ivermectin are approved to treat external parasites like head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea. I wish people would stop making the claim that it's "just a horse dewormer" when even the FDA says it has some uses in humans. Whether or not it is effective against COVID19 is a valid issue, but trying to portray the whole drug as something else just makes your opponents jump to conclusions when they find it does actually work in certain situations/diseases.
- p_l 5y ago
  The big problem is that the pills people are obtaining are "just a horse dewormer". The specification is different, the dosages are different, and the active ingredients differ (drug delivery is frighteningly complex area). Meanwhile people made enough run on ivermectin-based horse dewormer that people had trouble getting it for livestock.
  - jbotz 5y ago
    > the dosages are different, and the active ingredients differ Neither the dosages nor the active ingredients are different. Both for humans and for animals, the recommended dose of Ivermectin to treat parasites is 200 micrograms per kilogram of body weight. The "active ingredients" are Ivermectin, period. I have a bottle of injectable Ivermectin intended for cattle here, and it says it's pure Ivermectin in propylene glycol (typical carrier for injectables even for humans). I got it to treat Histomoniasis in our turkeys, which is btw an off-label use, because officially Ivermectin is not supposed to be effective against protozoa, but Histomoniasis is almost 100% fatal in turkeys and I haven't lost one since starting to give them Ivermectin as soon as I notice they have it. I've found that if I give them 600 micrograms/kg body weight every other day 3 times, they recover fully. What does this have to do with Covid? Only that a) Ivermectin works for some things other than those for which it's officially "blessed", b) at least in turkeys a much larger than normal dose doesn't seem to have any ill effects. As for the dose, I decided that it was probably safe for our turkeys because I read a paper where they gave that dosage to humans to combat malaria by making those humans lethally toxic to the mosquitos. The paper said the dose was "well tolerated". If they can do that to their human patients I can do it with my turkeys. I'm not planning to inject myself with my veterinary Ivermectin even if I did come down with Covid... because I agree that so far the evidence that it's helpful isn't very strong. But I also think that this article is quite laughable... basically it says "Why You shouldn't use Ivermectin to treat or prevent Covid: because, uh... because we haven't said it's OK to do so." Sorry CDC, but your credibility just isn't /that/ high. And going to a hospital for /anything/ is also really dangerous... almost certainly more so than a couple of doses of Ivermectin.
jjeaff 5y ago
There are some studies indicating that ivermectin may be helpful in treating covid. But those studies are small, not statistically strong, and not all necessarily trustworthy. There are a few larger, more mainstream studies that don't look too promising. But ivermectin is still a candidate and deserves further study (and there are larger studies underway). All that being said, this whole situation is basically an amplification of a problem that we already have in the US, which is the ability of pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to the public. Social media and right wing news outlets are basically giving medical treatment recommendations to the public and at best, this information is being delivered for the most part by fringe doctors without direct expertise in treating respiratory diseases and without any knowledge of the individuals they are mass suggesting receive this treatment. This talking directly to the public about Rx only treatment is what has led to people self medicating with the livestock version of the drug.
- jhallenworld 5y ago
  This Ivermectin study has all the same problems you mentioned: https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/articles/effects-of-ivermectin-therapy-on-the-sperm-functions-of-nigerian-onchocerciasis-patients.pdf https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/articles/effects-of-... But then I don't know why you would pick one bad study over another to make your decisions, so I say talk about it. I bring this up specifically because of fears about vaccines and sterility.
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  > But those studies are small, not statistically strong, and not all necessarily trustworthy. All of the Ivermectin studies are small?
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    Yes.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>which is the ability of pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to the public. Pharmaceutical companies are not advertising ivermectin directly to the public.. It's off-patent anyway, so there's no profit in it.
DebtDeflation 5y ago
It seems like just yesterday the people who are now pushing Ivermectin as the miracle cure were pushing Hydrochloroquine. You don't hear much about that from them any more. What happened?
- panny 5y ago
  HCQ is still considered effective for early treatment, but Ivermectin appears effective in later stages of treatment. You can read all the peer reviewed science for yourself at c19ivermectin.com and c19hcq.com A good infograph of the two are on the front pages if you cycle through the images, but I'll link them here, ivm: https://c19ivermectin.com/plot/ispae2.png https://c19ivermectin.com/plot/ispae2.png hcq: https://c19hcq.com/plot/spae2.png https://c19hcq.com/plot/spae2.png You can see that in early stage treatment HCQ is effective, but not as much in later stage treatments. Also, Ivermectin doesn't have side effects as strong as HCQ from what I understand.
logicalmonster 5y ago
Sick people trying the human doses of Ivermectin should be the easiest risk-management decision in the history of humanity. You have a drug that is safe in human doses, cheap, and reported to have a positive effect. You lose nothing by trying it and gaining more data.
- timmytokyo 5y ago
  If people are taking Ivermectin instead of a vaccine, then we as a society have a lot to lose. There is no clinically significant evidence that Ivermectin prevents COVID-19 or reduces its severity. Whereas there is abundant evidence that the vaccines do.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    Ivermectin use and vaccination are not mutually exclusive. Or are you suggesting that if anti-vaxxers were convinced to not use ivermectin, or otherwise prevented from using it, they'd be more likely to get the vaccine?
  - logicalmonster 5y ago
    * Short of using force, most people who are hesitant about the vaccines at this point are not going to rush to vaccinate anytime soon. A non-trivial portion of the population may never choose to get it. If there is some treatment that works, it basically starts to wind Covid down today. * Do I know if Ivermectin is effective? No, that's why I'd like sick people to have the option to try, to both attempt and save their lives, as well as gather more data. It's an easy decision. * There is evidence that leaky vaccines can drive mutations and cause worse problems. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vaccines-enhance-spread-of-deadlier-chicken-viruses https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vac...
    - jleyank 5y ago
      If they won’t take a rapidly developed vaccine, why would they take a rapidly developed treatment? By the time things are “safely tested”, they’ll either be dead from COVID or recovered from it. Long COVID would suck, though.
bob229 5y ago
It’s pretty unlikely that invermectin has any protective effect but also why would any listen to anything a government agency says when they lie repeatedly and transparently
Cycl0ps 5y ago
Would it be unethical to start dosing Ivermectin with the Pfizer vaccine? Sort of like hiding your dog's pills in a rolled up piece of ham. The anti-vaxxers get to think they pulled one over on "them" (whoever that may be this week) and I get to leave the country again. Everyone wins!
- drdeca 5y ago
  Yes, it would be. It would be quickly discovered, and justifiably reduce public trust in whatever organization made that decision, which would likely have more negative consequences down the line. Also, lies are bad.
habanany 5y ago
https://youtu.be/RAJrgCig3o8 https://youtu.be/RAJrgCig3o8
RobLach 5y ago
Why is anyone seriously talking about Ivermectin when the Moderna vaccine is 96%+ effective at preventing symptoms that require hospitalization, and 99%+ at preventing death? Covid-19 prevention and treatment is basically a solved problem. My limited understanding of other's reality suggests to me that people have connected deeply with a community (through identity poltics or... fun) that is no longer relevant in a post-covid world leading towards a mania where vaccines are somehow bad is the only thing that makes sense.
- off_sounder 5y ago
  I'm skeptical about the efficacy of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine over longer periods of time. I've still not heard a reasonable explanation about why this vaccine is expected to work long-term when the flu shot clearly does not. Especially since SARS-CoV-2 mutates faster than the flu virus. Can anyone give me an explanation of why vaccines are touted for fast-evolving viruses like the flu and SARS-CoV-2?
  - grepfru_it 5y ago
    > Especially since SARS-CoV-2 mutates faster than the flu virus. The SARS-cov-2 proofreading mechanism would like to have a word with your horribly inaccurate point
  - mikem170 5y ago
    >Especially since SARS-CoV-2 mutates faster than the flu virus. This doesn't jive with what I have heard, that SARS-CoV-2 mutates rather slowly, like other coronaviruses. And that the flu is completely different, having the ability to recombine parts, which is why we have a different strain every years, aka H1N1, H2N1, H2N2, etc. Every year they have to guess which one will be prevalent, therefore the yearly flu shots. SARS-CoV-2 has not mutated into a different strain (variants are not strains), and is not expected to. Immune system response for other coronaviruses has been observed to be long lasting (17 years for SARS-CoV-1).
  - kazinator 5y ago
    There cannot be a the vaccine; obviously, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will have to be updated. People will need boosters. > I've still not heard a reasonable explanation about why this vaccine is expected to work long-term when the flu shot clearly does not I don't think anyone in their right mind claims or believes such a thing, or believes that the health authorities are trying to convince them of such a thing. Depending on what we mean by "long term". > SARS-CoV-2 mutates faster than the flu virus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8137987/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8137987/ "Compared with other RNA viruses such as HIV and influenza virus, SARS-CoV-2 accumulates mutations much more slowly (15, 28)." So that would by why you can expect more mileage from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.
betwixthewires 5y ago
tl;dr don't do it because we said. I don't know how effective ivermectin is at treating covid, probably not as effective as people were hoping a couple of months ago if at all. But it has been used in humans for decades and is shown to be very safe when used in proper doses. So what's the problem? False sense of security maybe? I'd rather have a false sense of security than a heart condition. The vaccines appear to be effective. They appear to be generally safe, in an emergency situation. The side effect rate of these vaccines though would never be approved if this weren't an emergency situation, there is a real danger to them. So if people want to choose which risk they take I don't see a problem.
CryptoPunk 5y ago
A lot of jurisdictions are now using ivermectin as a COVID prophylaxis. Shouldn't we have data by now showing whether it's effective in that role? Can someone debunk this study for me: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7698683/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7698683/ ?

37 points by _Microft 5y ago

hitpointdrew 5y ago

The governments of Japan and India disagree.

ulfw 5y ago
No they wouldn't. https://today.rtl.lu/news/fact-check/a/1783705.html https://today.rtl.lu/news/fact-check/a/1783705.html

browningstreet 5y ago

Also, Merck itself still doesn't recommend it, citing: "No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies." https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/ https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use... Cynically, you could say they should be motivated to support this trend, as it would be more $ for them. But that hasn't happened yet.

_-david-_ 5y ago
Merck is going to receive money ($1.2 billion) from the government for an alternative treatment. There are generics of Ivermectin so even if it does work Merck would want to push their new drug instead of Ivermectin. If this was not related to covid nobody here would be trusting Merck due to this conflict of interest. https://www.merck.com/news/merck-announces-supply-agreement-with-u-s-government-for-molnupiravir-an-investigational-oral-antiviral-candidate-for-treatment-of-mild-to-moderate-covid-19/ https://www.merck.com/news/merck-announces-supply-agreement-...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kazinator 5y ago

Where did this cockamamie idea originate of using an antiparasitic product for a viral infection? The National Geographic has a summary here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-shaky-science-behind-ivermectin-as-a-covid-19-cure https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-shaky... Under "What triggered the ivermectin frenzy". Firefox Reader Mode vanquishes the nag dialog.

jpadkins 5y ago
pretty biased article. Didn't cite the many doctors who are using it in their treatment regimen, Japan Medical Association board member endorsement, or the population studies in India and Africa that show pretty compelling evidence. Also they didn't cover the early treatment vs. late stage when discussing the study results (ivermectin doesn't help people with high viral load already in the ICU, but apparently does help people who just got the virus). [edited to correct JMA board member, not health minister]
- skuhn 5y ago
  The person in Japan who endorsed ivermectin is not a government minister. [1] If you're referring to the Elgazzar paper from Egypt (as the "population studies in [..] Africa"), then it has been withdrawn from pre-print distribution. [2] And, in general, the studies that have been performed are not sufficient to support ivermectin use among the general public at this time. [3] [1] https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252F9M48JR-1 https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-s... [3] https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/ivermectin-still-lacks-scientific-support-as-a-covid-19-drug-69049 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/ivermectin-still-...
  - jpadkins 5y ago
    Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Ozaki is on the JMA Board https://www.med.or.jp/english/about_JMA/trustees.html https://www.med.or.jp/english/about_JMA/trustees.html The population study I was referring to was this one: http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1657-95342020000400201 http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S... citation 3 is an opinion piece (opinion section of that magazine). And even as a persuasion piece, it still quotes Cochrane on the need for a serious study.

TheFreim 5y ago

> Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. In addition, some topical forms of ivermectin are approved to treat external parasites like head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea. I wish people would stop making the claim that it's "just a horse dewormer" when even the FDA says it has some uses in humans. Whether or not it is effective against COVID19 is a valid issue, but trying to portray the whole drug as something else just makes your opponents jump to conclusions when they find it does actually work in certain situations/diseases.

p_l 5y ago
The big problem is that the pills people are obtaining are "just a horse dewormer". The specification is different, the dosages are different, and the active ingredients differ (drug delivery is frighteningly complex area). Meanwhile people made enough run on ivermectin-based horse dewormer that people had trouble getting it for livestock.
- jbotz 5y ago
  > the dosages are different, and the active ingredients differ Neither the dosages nor the active ingredients are different. Both for humans and for animals, the recommended dose of Ivermectin to treat parasites is 200 micrograms per kilogram of body weight. The "active ingredients" are Ivermectin, period. I have a bottle of injectable Ivermectin intended for cattle here, and it says it's pure Ivermectin in propylene glycol (typical carrier for injectables even for humans). I got it to treat Histomoniasis in our turkeys, which is btw an off-label use, because officially Ivermectin is not supposed to be effective against protozoa, but Histomoniasis is almost 100% fatal in turkeys and I haven't lost one since starting to give them Ivermectin as soon as I notice they have it. I've found that if I give them 600 micrograms/kg body weight every other day 3 times, they recover fully. What does this have to do with Covid? Only that a) Ivermectin works for some things other than those for which it's officially "blessed", b) at least in turkeys a much larger than normal dose doesn't seem to have any ill effects. As for the dose, I decided that it was probably safe for our turkeys because I read a paper where they gave that dosage to humans to combat malaria by making those humans lethally toxic to the mosquitos. The paper said the dose was "well tolerated". If they can do that to their human patients I can do it with my turkeys. I'm not planning to inject myself with my veterinary Ivermectin even if I did come down with Covid... because I agree that so far the evidence that it's helpful isn't very strong. But I also think that this article is quite laughable... basically it says "Why You shouldn't use Ivermectin to treat or prevent Covid: because, uh... because we haven't said it's OK to do so." Sorry CDC, but your credibility just isn't /that/ high. And going to a hospital for /anything/ is also really dangerous... almost certainly more so than a couple of doses of Ivermectin.

jjeaff 5y ago

There are some studies indicating that ivermectin may be helpful in treating covid. But those studies are small, not statistically strong, and not all necessarily trustworthy. There are a few larger, more mainstream studies that don't look too promising. But ivermectin is still a candidate and deserves further study (and there are larger studies underway). All that being said, this whole situation is basically an amplification of a problem that we already have in the US, which is the ability of pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to the public. Social media and right wing news outlets are basically giving medical treatment recommendations to the public and at best, this information is being delivered for the most part by fringe doctors without direct expertise in treating respiratory diseases and without any knowledge of the individuals they are mass suggesting receive this treatment. This talking directly to the public about Rx only treatment is what has led to people self medicating with the livestock version of the drug.

jhallenworld 5y ago
This Ivermectin study has all the same problems you mentioned: https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/articles/effects-of-ivermectin-therapy-on-the-sperm-functions-of-nigerian-onchocerciasis-patients.pdf https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/articles/effects-of-... But then I don't know why you would pick one bad study over another to make your decisions, so I say talk about it. I bring this up specifically because of fears about vaccines and sterility.
ErikVandeWater 5y ago
> But those studies are small, not statistically strong, and not all necessarily trustworthy. All of the Ivermectin studies are small?
- jjeaff 5y ago
  Yes.
CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>which is the ability of pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to the public. Pharmaceutical companies are not advertising ivermectin directly to the public.. It's off-patent anyway, so there's no profit in it.

DebtDeflation 5y ago

It seems like just yesterday the people who are now pushing Ivermectin as the miracle cure were pushing Hydrochloroquine. You don't hear much about that from them any more. What happened?

panny 5y ago
HCQ is still considered effective for early treatment, but Ivermectin appears effective in later stages of treatment. You can read all the peer reviewed science for yourself at c19ivermectin.com and c19hcq.com A good infograph of the two are on the front pages if you cycle through the images, but I'll link them here, ivm: https://c19ivermectin.com/plot/ispae2.png https://c19ivermectin.com/plot/ispae2.png hcq: https://c19hcq.com/plot/spae2.png https://c19hcq.com/plot/spae2.png You can see that in early stage treatment HCQ is effective, but not as much in later stage treatments. Also, Ivermectin doesn't have side effects as strong as HCQ from what I understand.

logicalmonster 5y ago

Sick people trying the human doses of Ivermectin should be the easiest risk-management decision in the history of humanity. You have a drug that is safe in human doses, cheap, and reported to have a positive effect. You lose nothing by trying it and gaining more data.

timmytokyo 5y ago
If people are taking Ivermectin instead of a vaccine, then we as a society have a lot to lose. There is no clinically significant evidence that Ivermectin prevents COVID-19 or reduces its severity. Whereas there is abundant evidence that the vaccines do.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  Ivermectin use and vaccination are not mutually exclusive. Or are you suggesting that if anti-vaxxers were convinced to not use ivermectin, or otherwise prevented from using it, they'd be more likely to get the vaccine?
- logicalmonster 5y ago
  * Short of using force, most people who are hesitant about the vaccines at this point are not going to rush to vaccinate anytime soon. A non-trivial portion of the population may never choose to get it. If there is some treatment that works, it basically starts to wind Covid down today. * Do I know if Ivermectin is effective? No, that's why I'd like sick people to have the option to try, to both attempt and save their lives, as well as gather more data. It's an easy decision. * There is evidence that leaky vaccines can drive mutations and cause worse problems. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vaccines-enhance-spread-of-deadlier-chicken-viruses https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vac...
  - jleyank 5y ago
    If they won’t take a rapidly developed vaccine, why would they take a rapidly developed treatment? By the time things are “safely tested”, they’ll either be dead from COVID or recovered from it. Long COVID would suck, though.

bob229 5y ago

It’s pretty unlikely that invermectin has any protective effect but also why would any listen to anything a government agency says when they lie repeatedly and transparently

Cycl0ps 5y ago

Would it be unethical to start dosing Ivermectin with the Pfizer vaccine? Sort of like hiding your dog's pills in a rolled up piece of ham. The anti-vaxxers get to think they pulled one over on "them" (whoever that may be this week) and I get to leave the country again. Everyone wins!

drdeca 5y ago
Yes, it would be. It would be quickly discovered, and justifiably reduce public trust in whatever organization made that decision, which would likely have more negative consequences down the line. Also, lies are bad.

habanany 5y ago

https://youtu.be/RAJrgCig3o8 https://youtu.be/RAJrgCig3o8

RobLach 5y ago

Why is anyone seriously talking about Ivermectin when the Moderna vaccine is 96%+ effective at preventing symptoms that require hospitalization, and 99%+ at preventing death? Covid-19 prevention and treatment is basically a solved problem. My limited understanding of other's reality suggests to me that people have connected deeply with a community (through identity poltics or... fun) that is no longer relevant in a post-covid world leading towards a mania where vaccines are somehow bad is the only thing that makes sense.

off_sounder 5y ago
I'm skeptical about the efficacy of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine over longer periods of time. I've still not heard a reasonable explanation about why this vaccine is expected to work long-term when the flu shot clearly does not. Especially since SARS-CoV-2 mutates faster than the flu virus. Can anyone give me an explanation of why vaccines are touted for fast-evolving viruses like the flu and SARS-CoV-2?
- grepfru_it 5y ago
  > Especially since SARS-CoV-2 mutates faster than the flu virus. The SARS-cov-2 proofreading mechanism would like to have a word with your horribly inaccurate point
- mikem170 5y ago
  >Especially since SARS-CoV-2 mutates faster than the flu virus. This doesn't jive with what I have heard, that SARS-CoV-2 mutates rather slowly, like other coronaviruses. And that the flu is completely different, having the ability to recombine parts, which is why we have a different strain every years, aka H1N1, H2N1, H2N2, etc. Every year they have to guess which one will be prevalent, therefore the yearly flu shots. SARS-CoV-2 has not mutated into a different strain (variants are not strains), and is not expected to. Immune system response for other coronaviruses has been observed to be long lasting (17 years for SARS-CoV-1).
- kazinator 5y ago
  There cannot be a the vaccine; obviously, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will have to be updated. People will need boosters. > I've still not heard a reasonable explanation about why this vaccine is expected to work long-term when the flu shot clearly does not I don't think anyone in their right mind claims or believes such a thing, or believes that the health authorities are trying to convince them of such a thing. Depending on what we mean by "long term". > SARS-CoV-2 mutates faster than the flu virus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8137987/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8137987/ "Compared with other RNA viruses such as HIV and influenza virus, SARS-CoV-2 accumulates mutations much more slowly (15, 28)." So that would by why you can expect more mileage from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

betwixthewires 5y ago

tl;dr don't do it because we said. I don't know how effective ivermectin is at treating covid, probably not as effective as people were hoping a couple of months ago if at all. But it has been used in humans for decades and is shown to be very safe when used in proper doses. So what's the problem? False sense of security maybe? I'd rather have a false sense of security than a heart condition. The vaccines appear to be effective. They appear to be generally safe, in an emergency situation. The side effect rate of these vaccines though would never be approved if this weren't an emergency situation, there is a real danger to them. So if people want to choose which risk they take I don't see a problem.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

A lot of jurisdictions are now using ivermectin as a COVID prophylaxis. Shouldn't we have data by now showing whether it's effective in that role? Can someone debunk this study for me: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7698683/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7698683/ ?