Is Ivermectin used in Covid treatment protocols?
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
91–100 of 644 posts
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#92It's banned on YouTube because of multiple authoritative sources indicating it's not a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. Here is the FDA's stance: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul... Here is the European equivalent of the AMA advising against it's use: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-advises-against-use-iv... Here is an RCT in JAMA finding it ineffective: https://jamanetwork…
> If Ivermectin worked on COVID-19, the manufacturer of Ivermectin that has made no money on vaccines for COVID-19 would probably be pushing it wouldn't they?
No, because it's out of patent. There's little profit to be made. Merck is instead pushing a new drug that they will have a monopoly on.
"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-...
Big pharma 101.
As for Ivermectin effectiveness, it looks promising. There was an evidence based clinical review posted on Nature earlier this week:
"As per data available on 16 May 2021, 100% of 36 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects (96% of all 55 studies). Of these, 26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation. Random effects meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported 79% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis respectively (RR 0.21 [0.11–0.37] and 0.15 [0.09–0.25]). The results were similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis: 81% and 87% (RR 0.19 [0.14–0.26] and 0.13 [0.07–0.25]), and after restriction to 29 peer-reviewed studies: 82% and 88% (RR 0.18 [0.11–0.31] and 0.12 [0.05–0.30]). Statistically significant improvements were seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively (RR 0.27 [0.18–0.41] and 0.17 [0.05–0.61]), and 93% of all 28 RCTs."
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
People called the lab leak theory a conspiracy theory (because it was associated with Trump and “racism”). Now we have blue-chip liberal celebrities like Jon Stewart coming out in favor of the lab leak hypothesis.
Giving the benefit of the doubt (that new evidence is compelling), that still doesn't retroactively justify anything. The information available in the past is not affected by the informative available in the future. If we discover that Bush irrefutably orchestrated 9/11, that doesn't make the conspiracy theorists' rationales more rational. It feels natural to make that connection, but that's only in service of our si…
The problem is that the quality/quantity of evidence has not changed.
Plenty of folks have been drawing attention to the lab leak hypothesis way before it reached mainstream, and they were using the exact same arguments and facts that the mainstream is co-opting now.
The only difference is that Trump is out of office, so people are less afraid to associate with the idea that the Lab Leak Hypothesis is worth investigating
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
All I said was there was a disincentive and claimed it's being wrongly characterized as 'unsafe' by the company that brought it to market. Are either of those statements incorrect?
Yes. I believe it is factually incorrect that a treatment with the claimed efficacy numbers would have prevented an EUA, given the vaccines we got were both safe and more effective.
The vaccine is experimental and the full safety profile is still being discovered. The EUA specially requires that there is "no adequate, approved, and available alternatives". The conclusion: "large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin" suggests it may be a viable alternative to widescale deployment of a vaccine that did not go through the full approval process.
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Source for the EUA stuff? Source that HCQ and zinc are viable treatments? The problem isn't that some of these things might be viable, the problem is we don't know which of the literally hundreds of treatments are actually going to be viable when going through the proper testing and approval process. You can't just scream conspiracy when there much better explanations
>Source for the EUA stuff? https://www.fdanews.com/ext/resources/files/archives/e/Emerg... (PDF warning)(section III, the first list, point #4) >Source that HCQ and zinc are viable treatments? Dozens? Hundreds? of doctors speaking out, including videos posted to youtube, that they saw great effectiveness in the trial. The people promoting it weren't a bunch of nobodys, despite what the nightly news told you. There we…
>Do you have any evidence it's not effective?
Do you have any evidence snake oil isn't effective?
Burden of proof is on the people claiming a magic cure.
Anyway here are a couple of studies that show it's not effective.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.27122
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389
Here's a good take by someone that does research on new medicines.
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/07/iv...
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#96What is this thing with alt-right figures like Bret Weinstein (and others) promoting particular medicines / self-medication through theirs shows? It is weird and cult like - why not just stick to politics?
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#97I think the future is going to look back on this pandemic and be simply amazed that the public allowed social media companies to dictate to the world what scientists and the people could and could not discuss. Much in the same way we look at the 16th century with Galileo and the Catholic Church.
> 16th century with Galileo and the Catholic Church.
Killing science in the name of religion and beliefs is one thing, killing science in the name of science itself is quite another.
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#98What is this thing with alt-right figures like Bret Weinstein (and others) promoting particular medicines / self-medication through theirs shows? It is weird and cult like - why not just stick to politics?
[deleted]
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#99Also, and feel free to downvote...
> multiple authoritative sources
Gross!
Authority is the problem. We need to use our own minds. The very idea that an ad tech co is backing an amorphous group of authoritative governmental bodies is repugnant.
> And here is Merck, that sells Ivermectin
Ivermectin has been out of patent for years--so it is not particularly profitable anyway. The initial claim insinuates that Merck went against its own interest, but there was never much profit to be made from an old and proven safe drug that can be sold by generic manufactures.
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#100I heard about Ivermectin for the first time this week and was shocked how much it seemed that I had stepped into conspiracy theory land. There seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence over the last year that this repurposed drug is effective at treating Covid during a variety of stages (preventative, first positive test, ICU admittance, and even long haul). But since there hadn't been a randomized trial the dr…
You can't get EUA for the vaccines if there's a working treatment. The doctor who promoted Hydroxychloroquine and zinc treatment, Dr. Zelenko, is still banned from Twitter for spreading COVID disinformation. There's both actual conspiracies in this world, and well poisoning to damage the conversations. When you look at the amount of money these companies stand to make from producing billions of vaccinations, you shou…
Pfizer, a company that has contributed probably trillions of dollars to global GDP over the past 6 months, is massively underperforming the stock market when you compare pre-pandemic to now [1]. The stock price in theory should price in all the future cash flows from the vaccine. What is your basis that the pharma companies are making tons of money on these vaccines?
It isn't like the vaccines are pure profit. The pharma companies have to develop them, they have to produce them, they have to distribute them, and if they charge too much they get into massive political trouble. It seems like it is basically a giant marketing effort for pharma companies where everybody in the world is benefiting.
1: For example, from Feb 1st, 20 to today, Pfizer is up 10% and the Vanguard total stock index VTI is up 35%