7 ms·

Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted fo

Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud). YouTube's policy specifically bans mention of Ivermectin as a possible treatment. Combined with the safety profile and cost of Ivermectin, I'd have thought that it'd at least be worth a try in an emergency - the worst possible case being that it doesn't work (unless you have idiots taking horse-size doses). Compared with the quality of data surrounding remdesivir, molnupiravir etc, there seems to be a significant bias towards novelty (and therefore $$$). Similarly, it's been known for decades that vitamin D deficiency increases susceptibility to respiratory diseases, and most people in Europe/North America are deficient in winter. Why not hand it out? Worst case, it doesn't work.

gzer0 5y ago
> Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud). No, this is false. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous [1]. [1] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...
- bananapear 5y ago
  I don't think anyone is suggesting that humans should take the animal version.
  - javagram 5y ago
    There are plenty of Facebook and YouTube guides about taking animal ivermectin as a replacement for human-rated medicine. That said hopefully here on HN we can agree that is a dumb idea.
    - cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
      If the government were stupid and tyrranical enough to ban Human Azithromycin, and you came down with bacterial bronchitis, would you just die or would you go to the local feed store and buy some animal grade azithromycin?
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        Ivermectin hasn't been banned in humans, though. The situation is more akin to a few doctors deciding to prescribe azithromycin to schizophrenia patients without much evidence of efficacy, for which they'd be rightly at risk of trouble with their medical licenses.
        cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
        I used Azithromycin for a reason, because until Covid Brand Viral Pneumonia came along, Azithromycin was considered a standard part of the treatment protocol for viral pneumonia just in case. And because of this study, which I suggest reading carefully. [0]. (And it's funny, that the surgisphere study that showed that HCQ didn't work was published straight away, even though the data was fraudulent? And a similar one that showed that ACE inhibitors didn't work too? They both got published in the Lancet straight away, and noone has any questions about _why_ that was done.) [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33465426/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33465426/
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        "Give antibiotics for pneumonia" and "give antiparisitics for pneumonia" are slightly different scenarios, yes?
        cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
        Well, as was pointed out elsewhere on this thread, 1) earlier this decade ivermectin was being studied for antiviral properties. 2) Azithromycin's use as a covid treatment seems to be controversial, even though a couple years ago it would have been considered a standard treatment for _viral_ pneumonia to combat the _possibility_ of bacterial infection.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  It’s dangerous in the sense that there is no careful control like in medicine for humans, and it has not been approved for humans. Obviously the fda would say this is the approved, safe medicine, so this other stuff is not approved and safe. The fact is that as far as the fda knows, they don’t know anything about if it’s safe or unsafe so they call it unsafe. > the FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization They must have a subscription to Rolling Stone. But they have of course carefully chosen their wording. This could mean there were two people hospitalized that took ivermectin and got symptoms the hospital thought were due to that. But it turned out to be something else. Just like the cdc, they have received ‘increased numbers of reports of side effects’. Wow, who would have thought if a 100 times more people take a drug, that would result in increased reports of side effects. The generic side effects that are also a side effect of placebo, like headaches and nausea.
msbarnett 5y ago
> Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud). There are a number of low-quality (low numbers, methodological issue) studies with varying results. The primary "evidence" that got people excited about Ivermectin was a meta-analysis of these studies, but the meta-analysis itself pointed out that the largest amount of data and strongest evidence in their dataset came from one very large study – the study that was later withdrawn for having faked its data. Since then, there's been no real compelling evidence at all that Ivermectin has any real impact beyond placebo. > Compared with the quality of data surrounding remdesivir, molnupiravir etc, there seems to be a significant bias towards novelty (and therefore $$$). There's a bias towards using treatments for which: 1) there is a reasonable expectation, based on understood science, that the treatment should impact the course of the virus (preferably) and 2) there is some non-fraudulent, non-obscure and tiny dataset, indicating an effect. The lack of strong data in support of Ivermectin is coupled with the fact that there's no particular reason to expect Ivermectin should have any impact on any particular virus. > Similarly, it's been known for decades that vitamin D deficiency increases susceptibility to respiratory diseases, and most people in Europe/North America are deficient in winter. Why not hand it out? Worst case, it doesn't work. This is mistaking correlation with causation. We know that many people who suffer serious respiratory illnesses, and who die from COVID-19, have low vitamin D levels. This is not believed to imply that low vitamin D levels cause death from COVID-19; rather it's simply the natural outcome of many old people having low vitamin D levels and age being a significant factor in COVID-19 deaths. People who die of old age also have low vitamin D levels; would you argue we should hand out vitamin D in an attempt to cure aging? The idea that because these things are relatively safe we might as well just do them seems, in whole, silly. Sugar pills and crystals have a great safety profile too, but we don't expect physicians to use those on the theory of "well there's no real downside" either. Science, not superstition, is the goal here.
- nradov 5y ago
  Apparently you haven't kept up on current research. Multiple studies have shown that vitamin D has prevention and treatment benefits. There's more going on than just a correlation with age. https://vitamin-d-covid.shotwell.ca/ https://vitamin-d-covid.shotwell.ca/

gzer0 5y ago

> Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud). No, this is false. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous [1]. [1] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...

bananapear 5y ago
I don't think anyone is suggesting that humans should take the animal version.
- javagram 5y ago
  There are plenty of Facebook and YouTube guides about taking animal ivermectin as a replacement for human-rated medicine. That said hopefully here on HN we can agree that is a dumb idea.
  - cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
    If the government were stupid and tyrranical enough to ban Human Azithromycin, and you came down with bacterial bronchitis, would you just die or would you go to the local feed store and buy some animal grade azithromycin?
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      Ivermectin hasn't been banned in humans, though. The situation is more akin to a few doctors deciding to prescribe azithromycin to schizophrenia patients without much evidence of efficacy, for which they'd be rightly at risk of trouble with their medical licenses.
      - cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
        I used Azithromycin for a reason, because until Covid Brand Viral Pneumonia came along, Azithromycin was considered a standard part of the treatment protocol for viral pneumonia just in case. And because of this study, which I suggest reading carefully. [0]. (And it's funny, that the surgisphere study that showed that HCQ didn't work was published straight away, even though the data was fraudulent? And a similar one that showed that ACE inhibitors didn't work too? They both got published in the Lancet straight away, and noone has any questions about _why_ that was done.) [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33465426/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33465426/
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        "Give antibiotics for pneumonia" and "give antiparisitics for pneumonia" are slightly different scenarios, yes?
        cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
        Well, as was pointed out elsewhere on this thread, 1) earlier this decade ivermectin was being studied for antiviral properties. 2) Azithromycin's use as a covid treatment seems to be controversial, even though a couple years ago it would have been considered a standard treatment for _viral_ pneumonia to combat the _possibility_ of bacterial infection.
tinus_hn 5y ago
It’s dangerous in the sense that there is no careful control like in medicine for humans, and it has not been approved for humans. Obviously the fda would say this is the approved, safe medicine, so this other stuff is not approved and safe. The fact is that as far as the fda knows, they don’t know anything about if it’s safe or unsafe so they call it unsafe. > the FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization They must have a subscription to Rolling Stone. But they have of course carefully chosen their wording. This could mean there were two people hospitalized that took ivermectin and got symptoms the hospital thought were due to that. But it turned out to be something else. Just like the cdc, they have received ‘increased numbers of reports of side effects’. Wow, who would have thought if a 100 times more people take a drug, that would result in increased reports of side effects. The generic side effects that are also a side effect of placebo, like headaches and nausea.

msbarnett 5y ago

> Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud). There are a number of low-quality (low numbers, methodological issue) studies with varying results. The primary "evidence" that got people excited about Ivermectin was a meta-analysis of these studies, but the meta-analysis itself pointed out that the largest amount of data and strongest evidence in their dataset came from one very large study – the study that was later withdrawn for having faked its data. Since then, there's been no real compelling evidence at all that Ivermectin has any real impact beyond placebo. > Compared with the quality of data surrounding remdesivir, molnupiravir etc, there seems to be a significant bias towards novelty (and therefore $$$). There's a bias towards using treatments for which: 1) there is a reasonable expectation, based on understood science, that the treatment should impact the course of the virus (preferably) and 2) there is some non-fraudulent, non-obscure and tiny dataset, indicating an effect. The lack of strong data in support of Ivermectin is coupled with the fact that there's no particular reason to expect Ivermectin should have any impact on any particular virus. > Similarly, it's been known for decades that vitamin D deficiency increases susceptibility to respiratory diseases, and most people in Europe/North America are deficient in winter. Why not hand it out? Worst case, it doesn't work. This is mistaking correlation with causation. We know that many people who suffer serious respiratory illnesses, and who die from COVID-19, have low vitamin D levels. This is not believed to imply that low vitamin D levels cause death from COVID-19; rather it's simply the natural outcome of many old people having low vitamin D levels and age being a significant factor in COVID-19 deaths. People who die of old age also have low vitamin D levels; would you argue we should hand out vitamin D in an attempt to cure aging? The idea that because these things are relatively safe we might as well just do them seems, in whole, silly. Sugar pills and crystals have a great safety profile too, but we don't expect physicians to use those on the theory of "well there's no real downside" either. Science, not superstition, is the goal here.

nradov 5y ago
Apparently you haven't kept up on current research. Multiple studies have shown that vitamin D has prevention and treatment benefits. There's more going on than just a correlation with age. https://vitamin-d-covid.shotwell.ca/ https://vitamin-d-covid.shotwell.ca/