3 ms·
>A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies. This is the part of Merck's statement that really rubs me the wrong way, and suggests to me that
by twofornone 5y ago
>A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
This is the part of Merck's statement that really rubs me the wrong way, and suggests to me that this communication was released with an agenda. The implication is that one of our safest, 60+ year old medications is suddenly potentially dangerous, and this press release is all too convenient when you consider that Merck was working on newer and more profitable alternatives.
- kortex 5y agoThe dosing regime purported to be most effective against covid is way higher than the antiparasitic therapeutic window, so the safety history is not as applicable.
- twofornone 5y agoBased on a single in vitro study. In isolation such a study is good indication that in vivo dosing is impractical (though a 35x dose is still far under the ld50 for ivermectin[0]), but given that there are dozens of studies suggesting positive effect and the complexity of human/viral biology, the effective dose in vivo may be far lower than the in vitro study indicated. To be clear I'm not suggesting with certainty that ivermectin works, but I need a better explanation than "these 2 dozen+ studies are all low quality and/or use manipulated/fake data" before I'm willing to rule it out and jump on this bandwagon. 0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5835698/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5835698/ [see section titled Toxicology]