Why could explain Ivermectin effectiveness pharmacologically?
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
441–450 of 644 posts
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#442Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ivermectin is a cheap drug, Mercer (who produces ivermectin) is trying to produce their own covid19 drug. Further, if there are viable alternative treatments we shouldn’t be using a vaccine still in phase 2/3 trials that haven’t even been tested on animals... the entire emergency use authorization is only allowed if there aren’t safe alternatives. Ivermectin is generally safe to take, and a known drug with known risk…
A treatment isn't an alternative to vaccination. Millions of people have been vaccinated so we know it's safe, while tons of people have died from covid so we know it's not safe.
> Millions of people have been vaccinated so we know it's safe
In those millions we are missing the number of people that get seriously harmed, and killed due to getting the vaccine. So we do not know it is 100% safe, we only know that it is mostly safe, which is not good enough to be cheery and happy about it.
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#443Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Here is an RCT in JAMA finding it ineffective: For treating what? This study looked at trying to reduce mild COVID-19 symptoms. In fact, the current strongest evidence is for prophylaxis, as well as treating more severe cases. Also the study didn’t show that it was ineffective, it showed that it couldn’t disprove the null hypothesis. Please get your facts straight, before throwing a link to a overly specific RCT to…
State the null hypothesis
That ivermectin has no effect on COVID-19 symptoms or outcome
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#444Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, that is not the only way. You have side effects. And you have the fact that the vaccine is still in test phase. What are the long term side effects, we don't know. And unless they are obvious we will never know, because vaccine are like a religion too many. You don't question a religion.
You're indirectly admitting that I'm right. The anti vaccine crowd is desperate for a non vaccine cure, because the vaccine is so incredibly effective their beliefs fall apart otherwise
We can believe the vaccine works but that the risk is too great to take it because it's so new. And for the record, I think the alternatives are also too risky.
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#445Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it has been explored, trialed, and experimented with quite significantly. The results show that there might be something there, but it’s not a miracle cure. The conspiracy angles are coming from those who have been misled into thinking it has been more successful than it really has been, which leads to confusion about why it’s not being used everywhere.
With 0.38 risk ratio, it may well be that it should be used everywhere (except for patients already advanced enough to need mechanical ventilation, as mentioned). I don't have a reference for this but I recently read it was basically used on every tested-positive case with symptoms in Mexico City, with significantly improved results.
How do you calculate the risk ratio?
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#446Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many people pushing Ivermectin have a vested interest in proving the vaccines are unnecessary. What is their vested interest in a generic, cheap, decades old, off patent drug? Vested interests tend to be in new, patented treatments. That's where big pharma profit is. So let's try a rephrase: Many people pushing patented treatments have a vested interest in proving off patent alternatives are unnecessary. For exampl…
Being proven right. That’s the anti-vac crowd’s dearest interest.
In my case that is far from the case. The implications of an effective treatment such as ivermectin are huge in that
a) Covid passports go away
b) Deaths and illnesses due to covid get reduced greatly
c) It puts a spotlight on why these treatments have not had government sponsored clinical trials considering the ramifications. Incompetence in our governments in regards to these kinds of situations should not be tolerated. For example in Canada the province of BC allowed a trial to commence in may of this year and yet has not started. almost 2 years after the start of this thing? ivermectin has proven safe over the 40 years its been in use and if we try similar doses (which is the recommended for covid) there is all gain and no loss to test even as small trials. I would have certainly taken it since I had severe effects from covid.
d) We don't have to have a phase 3 vaccine trial be a public trial where normally that is phase 4
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#447Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not really contradictory. Lots of covid treatments have been discovered in hospital settings by doctors trying desperately to find something to help their patients.
And those were later validated by evidence from clinical trials. Until clinical trials involving significant numbers of patients are available, there is not evidence according to the standards of medical science. That's the contradiction.
It would be nice to make a list of things that appeared to work in hospitals and then failed randomized trials.
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#448Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#449[deleted]
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#450Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed on missing this facet of their advisory. However, the concentration of ivermectin in the early in vitro study was 35x higher than the plasma concentration reached for the approved ivermectin dose [1] whereas the doses used in ivermectin trials ( https://ivmmeta.com ) range from 1x to 10x the approved dose daily, with successful results as low as 4x approved dose (1x approved dose daily for 4 days)[2]. So whate…
You've gone from "no, the EMA didn't really to object" to "here's why their objection is wrong". See how that works? The thing about Covid is that it isn't "super deadly". It has about a 1% fatality rate. That's terrible for society as a whole when the disease is also extremely infectious. But it means that "I took X and recovered from Covid" isn't the most amazing thing. "So whatever ivermectin is doing, it doesn’t…
This part of their objection was based on an assumption that doesn’t seem to be as bad as they thought. The trials are controlled to varying degrees of quality.