Ivermectin and Covid-19: SA drug regulator allows controlled, compassionate access

JohnStarr

Expert Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
4,148
are you kidding Geoff? thats DOUBLE the usual dose (150micrograms/kg used in humans). You prove a point - people like you, when confronted by actual evidence, still stick your developed bias. Its the same with conspiracy theories. wow.
Careful Mark, the guy's a first-class Google doctor douche who won't listen to reason. It's his Internet skills vs. any logic. Emotion vs. logic...only 1 wins. It isn't the latter.
He's styled himself as the regulator here and quotes sections of acts etc without ever studying or working in the medical field.
Called me out the other day again after I hadn't commented in a month on this forum (work, boredom trying to make morons like him understand how things work in reality, other forums etc) and when presented with the facts of what I'd always said, kept quiet.
 

Gordon_R

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
16,454

SeRpEnT

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
5,632
So this study was done on younger adults with low to mild Covid?
Why?! Surely the odds are high that such a population will get better no matter what - placebo or IVM, either way they will get better in the vast vast majority of cases.

I will wait until a study is done on older people with co-morbidities who has contracted bad cases of Covid.
I would also expect such a study to compare the viral loads of placebo vs IVM and not rely on self measurement of symptoms as a sign of improvement.
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,098
I will wait until a study is done on older people with co-morbidities who has contracted bad cases of Covid.
I would also expect such a study to compare the viral loads of placebo vs IVM and not rely on self measurement of symptoms as a sign of improvement.
I see the FLCCC on hearing of such a study being planned by Oxford university, wrote a letter implying use of a placebo control arm would be "unethical".


I would have thought like you they would be anxious to have a proper well powered, blinded, placebo controlled study? Or perhaps the thought of that is a little threatening?

Otherwise "viral load" is a complicated primary end point. Timing, methodology, etc can induce error. Further it may not be clinically relevant. If you have a lower viral load but still end up dying is that helpful? How about ICU admission, ICU length of stay, Ventilation rates, Death as primary end points?
 

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
51,853
So this study was done on younger adults with low to mild Covid?
Why?! Surely the odds are high that such a population will get better no matter what - placebo or IVM, either way they will get better in the vast vast majority of cases.
So what was the average age of the study group, and what us the average age of the population of columbia?
I will wait until a study is done on older people with co-morbidities who has contracted bad cases of Covid.
Which is probably the wise thing to do before contemplating the use of IVM as a treatment for covid
I would also expect such a study to compare the viral loads of placebo vs IVM and not rely on self measurement of symptoms as a sign of improvement.
Indeed.
Stringent evaluation standards need to be applied before considering IVM as a treatment for covid.
 

SeRpEnT

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
5,632
So what was the average age of the study group, and what us the average age of the population of columbia?

Which is probably the wise thing to do before contemplating the use of IVM as a treatment for covid

Indeed.
Stringent evaluation standards need to be applied before considering IVM as a treatment for covid.

Irrevelant? They should have targeted an older population before randomization. Why bother with the young crowd?
 

SeRpEnT

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
5,632
I see the FLCCC on hearing of such a study being planned by Oxford university, wrote a letter implying use of a placebo control arm would be "unethical".


I would have thought like you they would be anxious to have a proper well powered, blinded, placebo controlled study? Or perhaps the thought of that is a little threatening?

Otherwise "viral load" is a complicated primary end point. Timing, methodology, etc can induce error. Further it may not be clinically relevant. If you have a lower viral load but still end up dying is that helpful? How about ICU admission, ICU length of stay, Ventilation rates, Death as primary end points?

To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that IVM does not help? Zero to small differences in viral loads between IVM and placebo in a study would have gone far to dispel IVM as Covid treatment. Would have been costly yes but well worth it.
But doing a study on a youngish and relatively healthy crowd you were always going to (from day 1) be comparing statistical insignificant differences in the outcomes. I see in the secondary outcomes for instance 4 on IVM vs 7 on placebo had symptoms that worsened by 2 measurement points. And in escalation of care its also IVM leading in 4 vs 10 for placebo. Low numbers. Statistically insignificant yes. But viral load reduction comparisons would have been hard cold facts that would have been be hard to contest.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
19,598
Yup the study was deliberately setup and designed to prove the obvious in a group of people hardly expected to progress to a severe state with Covid 19.
Typical that our useless regulator would pounce on this rubbish to try and beef up their case.
 
Last edited:

Jake45

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
2,271
Personally I think there are some very serious conflict of interest issues with that Colombian Ivermectin study considering that several of the researchers were receiving grants and personal fees during the trial from several large pharmaceutical companies that are involved in Covid-19 vaccine research.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr López-Medina reported receiving grants from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen and personal fees from Sanofi Pasteur during the conduct of the study. Dr López reported receiving grants from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen and personal fees from Sanofi Pasteur during the conduct of the study. Dr Oñate reported receiving grants from Janssen and personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Gilead outside the submitted work. Dr Torres reported receiving nonfinancial support from Tecnoquímicas unrelated to this project during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
 
Last edited:

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
19,598
Personally I think there are some very serious conflict of interest issues with that Colombian Ivermectin study considering that several of the researchers were receiving grants and personal fees during the trial from several large pharmaceutical companies that are involved in Covid-19 vaccine research.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr López-Medina reported receiving grants from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen and personal fees from Sanofi Pasteur during the conduct of the study. Dr López reported receiving grants from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen and personal fees from Sanofi Pasteur during the conduct of the study. Dr Oñate reported receiving grants from Janssen and personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Gilead outside the submitted work. Dr Torres reported receiving nonfinancial support from Tecnoquímicas unrelated to this project during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
I did not even bother with looking at any affiliations --- The way the trial was setup and the so-called objectives already showed the built-in bias that existed.
Go and pick a dosage that is way lower than that already shown on other studies in the World as required to exhibit anti-viral properties and then say " You see, it does not work".

The normal dosages for treating parasites varies from 150 mcg/Kg to 400mcg/Kg depending on the type of parasites being treated.

Other papers have shown that a 100 fold increase is required so why fiddle around at 300mcg/Kg?
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,098
I did not even bother with looking at any affiliations --- The way the trial was setup and the so-called objectives already showed the built-in bias that existed.
Go and pick a dosage that is way lower than that already shown on other studies in the World as required to exhibit anti-viral properties and then say " You see, it does not work".

The normal dosages for treating parasites varies from 150 mcg/Kg to 400mcg/Kg depending on the type of parasites being treated.

Other papers have shown that a 100 fold increase is required so why fiddle around at 300mcg/Kg?
You Ivermectites, claim Ivermectin's safety profile by pointing to its safe use in treating parasites, but now propose a 100 fold increase in dosage to treat Covid-19.
Few people have personally treated an Ivermectin overdose - I have.
Geoff I know your feelings around ventilation, let me put it very bluntly - the quickest route to having a tube in your trachea and being dependent on a ventilator is a 100 fold overdose of the GABA receptor agonist known as Ivermectin.
 

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
51,853
Irrevelant? They should have targeted an older population before randomization. Why bother with the young crowd?
Irrelevant?
You cannot provide any age demographics but yet to claim whatever it may have been, to be irrelevant - essentially because you did not favour the outcome
 

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
51,853
Yup the study was deliberately setup and designed to prove the obvious in a group of people hardly expected to progress to a severe state with Covid 19.
Oy vey
Conspiracy 101

Let me ask you this.
If Merck felt their product had a good prospect of viability, do you not think they would be feverishly trying to tweak IVM with a view to prepping for clinical trials?
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
19,598
Oy vey
Conspiracy 101

Let me ask you this.
If Merck felt their product had a good prospect of viability, do you not think they would be feverishly trying to tweak IVM with a view to prepping for clinical trials?
Merck's patent expired years ago. They are not interested in it anymore except as a cash cow or an easy way to "donate" thousands of doses for use against parasitic infestations as part of their "social responsibility" profile.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,546
Merck's patent expired years ago.
They could tweak it and file a new patent like every other pharmaceutical company. Just changing how it is administered or formulated is enough. That's hardly a consideration though for commercialisation.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
19,598
They could tweak it and file a new patent like every other pharmaceutical company. Just changing how it is administered or formulated is enough. That's hardly a consideration though for commercialisation.
Merck chose not to. So, their concerns or opinions about IVM are no longer relevant to any discussion about it being repurposed for treating viral infections such as Covid 19.
 

RonSwanson

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
5,382
They could tweak it and file a new patent like every other pharmaceutical company. Just changing how it is administered or formulated is enough. That's hardly a consideration though for commercialisation.
Merck has abandoned their vaccine research and is focussing on post-COVID-19 treatment. Why would they be in any way interested in a drug that acts as a prophylaxis and early treatment? The success of Ivermectin is not good for them from a business perspective.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,546
Merck chose not to. So, their concerns or opinions about IVM are no longer relevant to any discussion about it being repurposed for treating viral infections such as Covid 19.
Actually that's rather dismissive. It's a valid concern to wonder why a pharmaceutical company would ignore such a revenue stream AND issue a strongly worded release regarding IVM when they simply could've just remained silent.
 
Top