5 ms·

A new Ivermectin randomized, placebo-controlled trial..fails to show any benefit

42 points by r721 4y ago

LinuxBender 4y ago
Regardless of trial outcome I would not personally even give that stuff to horses. There are much safer ways to get FEC scores down in livestock, starting with diatomaceous earth mixed in with their food every day. As for viral mitigation I think we all know that getting healthier is the best step in the right direction. Out of curiosity has anyone here spent any of the last 3 years getting healthier?
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  it's a miracle drug for scabies
  - LinuxBender 4y ago
    How does Ivermectin compare in efficacy and side-effects vs. wormwood, black walnut, tea tree oil, oregano oil and cloves?
    - Vecr 4y ago
      I don't know anything about those other compounds (or almost nothing), but apparently Ivermectin is a really good drug against river blindness in humans. I've heard you can take a single dose per year and be protected. It's a really small dose compared to what would need to be tested for protection against progression to severe COVID-19, and I'm pretty sure the side effects are very minimal.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  > Out of curiosity has anyone here spent any of the last 3 years getting healthier? I'm running a 5k 2 out of 3 days now and lost about 15#. Quitting my job really helped give me the bandwidth for building new habits.
yieldcrv 4y ago
They keep testing the wrong thing: It helped people with tapeworms. They didn't know they had tapeworms. They would never know they had tapeworms. They have a symbiotic relationship with tapeworms until their immune system is distracted with something else, such as Covid, then the tapeworm becomes a hostile host unchecked. Ivermectin treatment subdued the tapeworm and the immune system was not distracted anymore, avoiding death during severe covid. If nobody does the study that way, then there won't be anything to cite. Here's your extremely probable hypothesis. Good luck finding the people with tapeworms given the state of US healthcare.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  I find this highly likely the reason (making truth, again, much more nuanced than it seems). Also it's disturbing to look up the statistics and realize that a surprising percentage of the US has undiagnosed parasites. It changes depending on definition used but it's quite substantial... https://www.vice.com/en/article/a3m88j/millions-of-americans-have-a-parasite-and-dont-realize-it https://www.vice.com/en/article/a3m88j/millions-of-americans... It doesn't even need to be tapeworm. There are a ton of parasites that can be reactivated...
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    Its really dismaying to me that this is "political". It distracts the credentialed people and respected institutions from considering this hypothesis. All the studies are reactionary like "I told you so!" while testing the wrong thing and exacerbating why this is political at all. Its simple geography. Suburban and rural areas are living in greater squalor than anyone would care to admit. Hence the tapeworms. The people in those areas are not considered or serviced well by Democrats and happen to be Republican. The people there made an incorrect conclusion due to a correlation, the people elsewhere called them dumb and eventually did study after study on the incorrect conclusion just to say "you're dumb". The causation in those areas are not considered or well serviced.
    - gjsman-1000 4y ago
gjsman-1000 4y ago
You know... at this point, it would probably be better in my opinion to give anti-vaxxers an "informed consent" waiver, and then let them do whatever the heck they want. At least they wouldn't be able to claim "they won't let us take this drug, therefore..."
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  That is all they want, to not be forced.
  - throwaway5959 4y ago
    Who was forcing them? Their workplace? The same workplace that makes them piss in a cup to work there?
- genocidicbunny 4y ago
  As long as they have to make it immediately and publicly known that they signed the waiver so I can avoid being near them; And as long as they can't sign that waiver for children. I don't want to force anyone who doesn't or cannot give consent to suffer.
LatteLazy 4y ago
[flagged]
fabian2k 4y ago
I still find it sad that a huge amount of effort was put into testing two drugs based on bad initial data. Both Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin simply were never as promising as some people claimed, but both pretty much hijacked the entire pipeline of drug trials for COVID based on their popularity and political factors. This was maybe more extreme with Hydroxychloroquine, but there it also affected other trials as people were hesitant to offer them without it based on it's undeserved reputation. Of course some trials on both were reasonable and useful to do, but if you divert that many resources based on not very promising initial data you are likely hurting efforts to study other, more promising leads.
eshack94 4y ago
Wish we could finally stop throwing money at research on this and instead explore more promising alternatives.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Vecr 4y ago
I'm not sure why this links to Eric Topol, he's not exactly the best person to analyze this sort of study, due to his (even very recent) track record. How about someone like Daniel Griffin, who has experience running this sort of study?

42 points by r721 4y ago

Regardless of trial outcome I would not personally even give that stuff to horses. There are much safer ways to get FEC scores down in livestock, starting with diatomaceous earth mixed in with their food every day. As for viral mitigation I think we all know that getting healthier is the best step in the right direction. Out of curiosity has anyone here spent any of the last 3 years getting healthier?

readthenotes1 4y ago
it's a miracle drug for scabies
- LinuxBender 4y ago
  How does Ivermectin compare in efficacy and side-effects vs. wormwood, black walnut, tea tree oil, oregano oil and cloves?
  - Vecr 4y ago
    I don't know anything about those other compounds (or almost nothing), but apparently Ivermectin is a really good drug against river blindness in humans. I've heard you can take a single dose per year and be protected. It's a really small dose compared to what would need to be tested for protection against progression to severe COVID-19, and I'm pretty sure the side effects are very minimal.
lamontcg 4y ago
> Out of curiosity has anyone here spent any of the last 3 years getting healthier? I'm running a 5k 2 out of 3 days now and lost about 15#. Quitting my job really helped give me the bandwidth for building new habits.

yieldcrv 4y ago

They keep testing the wrong thing: It helped people with tapeworms. They didn't know they had tapeworms. They would never know they had tapeworms. They have a symbiotic relationship with tapeworms until their immune system is distracted with something else, such as Covid, then the tapeworm becomes a hostile host unchecked. Ivermectin treatment subdued the tapeworm and the immune system was not distracted anymore, avoiding death during severe covid. If nobody does the study that way, then there won't be anything to cite. Here's your extremely probable hypothesis. Good luck finding the people with tapeworms given the state of US healthcare.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
I find this highly likely the reason (making truth, again, much more nuanced than it seems). Also it's disturbing to look up the statistics and realize that a surprising percentage of the US has undiagnosed parasites. It changes depending on definition used but it's quite substantial... https://www.vice.com/en/article/a3m88j/millions-of-americans-have-a-parasite-and-dont-realize-it https://www.vice.com/en/article/a3m88j/millions-of-americans... It doesn't even need to be tapeworm. There are a ton of parasites that can be reactivated...
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  Its really dismaying to me that this is "political". It distracts the credentialed people and respected institutions from considering this hypothesis. All the studies are reactionary like "I told you so!" while testing the wrong thing and exacerbating why this is political at all. Its simple geography. Suburban and rural areas are living in greater squalor than anyone would care to admit. Hence the tapeworms. The people in those areas are not considered or serviced well by Democrats and happen to be Republican. The people there made an incorrect conclusion due to a correlation, the people elsewhere called them dumb and eventually did study after study on the incorrect conclusion just to say "you're dumb". The causation in those areas are not considered or well serviced.
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago

gjsman-1000 4y ago

You know... at this point, it would probably be better in my opinion to give anti-vaxxers an "informed consent" waiver, and then let them do whatever the heck they want. At least they wouldn't be able to claim "they won't let us take this drug, therefore..."

readthenotes1 4y ago
That is all they want, to not be forced.
- throwaway5959 4y ago
  Who was forcing them? Their workplace? The same workplace that makes them piss in a cup to work there?
genocidicbunny 4y ago
As long as they have to make it immediately and publicly known that they signed the waiver so I can avoid being near them; And as long as they can't sign that waiver for children. I don't want to force anyone who doesn't or cannot give consent to suffer.

LatteLazy 4y ago

[flagged]

fabian2k 4y ago

I still find it sad that a huge amount of effort was put into testing two drugs based on bad initial data. Both Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin simply were never as promising as some people claimed, but both pretty much hijacked the entire pipeline of drug trials for COVID based on their popularity and political factors. This was maybe more extreme with Hydroxychloroquine, but there it also affected other trials as people were hesitant to offer them without it based on it's undeserved reputation. Of course some trials on both were reasonable and useful to do, but if you divert that many resources based on not very promising initial data you are likely hurting efforts to study other, more promising leads.

eshack94 4y ago

Wish we could finally stop throwing money at research on this and instead explore more promising alternatives.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Vecr 4y ago

I'm not sure why this links to Eric Topol, he's not exactly the best person to analyze this sort of study, due to his (even very recent) track record. How about someone like Daniel Griffin, who has experience running this sort of study?