3 ms·

No. " Ivermectin is currently not approved in the UK for the prophylaxis or treatment of COVID-19," [1] There are no good studies demonstrating the validity o

No. " Ivermectin is currently not approved in the UK for the prophylaxis or treatment of COVID-19," [1] There are no good studies demonstrating the validity of Ivermectin, and the Oxford study is not complete and there's no indication results are positive. Why are people so crazy about this drug? It doesn't look like it works, though there is some possibility it will, but we'll only know when the Oxford trial is complete. Given the knowledge we have today, it just isn't a therapy for COVID. [1] https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100202110/ https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100202110/

chris11 5y ago
> Why are people so crazy about this drug? It looks to be a combination of right wing political commentators and a fringe anti-vax group. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2021/08/30/no-ivermectin-cannot-treat-covid-19/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2021/08/30/no-iv... https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1431040456364810242 https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/14310404563648102...
- useragent86 5y ago
  It's disturbing how this topic is treated like a tribalistic team sport. Comments like yours seem to follow "Rules for Radicals"[0], such as rules 5 and, especially, 13: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage." "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." You practically invent your own enemies to knock down. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
  - tzs 5y ago
    Your reasoning would apply equally well to almost any acknowledgement that there are any differences at all between any two groups on any given subject.
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    You can apply your comment in a weaponized way. Experts say one thing. Another group says a different thing. When people say that the other group is not acting rationally, they respond with your post and claim that the experts are being mean. Ivermectin is only being treated like a tribalistic team sport by the people who aren't experts.
vixen99 5y ago
If 'good' is synonymous with double blind randomized studies then an awful lot of drugs used for decades don't meet that requirement. When you're anonymous it's better not to be too assertive on these questions. Aside from the DBR definition, are you able to authoritively review hundreds of studies on ivermectin?
timr 5y ago
> It doesn't look like it works, though there is some possibility it will, but we'll only know when the Oxford trial is complete. Given the knowledge we have today, it just isn't a therapy for COVID. There's a big trial ongoing, and the rest of the evidence is mixed. You can't say that "it doesn't look like it works"...we just don't know. I personally put the prior probability of any intervention working for any illness at a very low number, but too many people are eager to dismiss things -- or accept them -- before they've been tested. It's disturbing, and is mostly about politics. Many of the same people who dismiss Ivermectin for low-quality evidence eagerly seize upon any dubious shred of evidence for their favored interventions, and enact widespread mandates.
- jollybean 5y ago
  "and the rest of the evidence is mixed." That means it (probably) doesn't work. They've given Ivermectin to a lot of people by now - if it was a solution, then it would stand out. The Oxford trial will give us a better answer but I'm doubtful.
  - timr 5y ago
    No, it doesn't. That's a leap to a conclusion. Why not just stop doing that, and wait for the data?
    - jollybean 5y ago
      'Non results' from 'not good studies' are negative indicators - not 'neutral' indicators. That's they key thing to understand. If Ivermectin did work, it should show up, but it's not. We're doing the Oxford trial really because of some shady information and results, that could possibly indicate that there's some theraputic value. Not because people have high hopes. Here is Merk's statement: " It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified: No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; 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." While it would be good if the Oxford trials showed something, they probably won't.

chris11 5y ago

> Why are people so crazy about this drug? It looks to be a combination of right wing political commentators and a fringe anti-vax group. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2021/08/30/no-ivermectin-cannot-treat-covid-19/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2021/08/30/no-iv... https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1431040456364810242 https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/14310404563648102...

useragent86 5y ago
It's disturbing how this topic is treated like a tribalistic team sport. Comments like yours seem to follow "Rules for Radicals"[0], such as rules 5 and, especially, 13: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage." "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." You practically invent your own enemies to knock down. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
- tzs 5y ago
  Your reasoning would apply equally well to almost any acknowledgement that there are any differences at all between any two groups on any given subject.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  You can apply your comment in a weaponized way. Experts say one thing. Another group says a different thing. When people say that the other group is not acting rationally, they respond with your post and claim that the experts are being mean. Ivermectin is only being treated like a tribalistic team sport by the people who aren't experts.

vixen99 5y ago

If 'good' is synonymous with double blind randomized studies then an awful lot of drugs used for decades don't meet that requirement. When you're anonymous it's better not to be too assertive on these questions. Aside from the DBR definition, are you able to authoritively review hundreds of studies on ivermectin?

timr 5y ago

> It doesn't look like it works, though there is some possibility it will, but we'll only know when the Oxford trial is complete. Given the knowledge we have today, it just isn't a therapy for COVID. There's a big trial ongoing, and the rest of the evidence is mixed. You can't say that "it doesn't look like it works"...we just don't know. I personally put the prior probability of any intervention working for any illness at a very low number, but too many people are eager to dismiss things -- or accept them -- before they've been tested. It's disturbing, and is mostly about politics. Many of the same people who dismiss Ivermectin for low-quality evidence eagerly seize upon any dubious shred of evidence for their favored interventions, and enact widespread mandates.

jollybean 5y ago
"and the rest of the evidence is mixed." That means it (probably) doesn't work. They've given Ivermectin to a lot of people by now - if it was a solution, then it would stand out. The Oxford trial will give us a better answer but I'm doubtful.
- timr 5y ago
  No, it doesn't. That's a leap to a conclusion. Why not just stop doing that, and wait for the data?
  - jollybean 5y ago
    'Non results' from 'not good studies' are negative indicators - not 'neutral' indicators. That's they key thing to understand. If Ivermectin did work, it should show up, but it's not. We're doing the Oxford trial really because of some shady information and results, that could possibly indicate that there's some theraputic value. Not because people have high hopes. Here is Merk's statement: " It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified: No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; 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." While it would be good if the Oxford trials showed something, they probably won't.