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

lumeer

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,399
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?
The LD50 (dose that is lethal for 50% of the population) of ivermectin is 29,5 mg/kg body weight for mice, and 10 mg/kg for rats, see https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB00602.

The 100-fold dose increase that you are proposing would hence be in these LD50 ranges.

The 100-fold dose increase that you are referring to was used in vitro, not in actual humans.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,559
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.
We know what their plans are. That doesn't negate the argument I was RESPONDING to that purported the reason for Merck not being interested is because of an expired patent. To expand though I think you're also ignoring the fact that every pharma company have channels available for competing or complementary products.
 

JohnStarr

Expert Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
4,189
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.
You can't argue logic against emotions and someone with a degree in Google Medicine. It's just not possible. You could present all the facts, all the results of independent tests that say it could work but needs more testing done, and the actual manufacturer's response and someone like Geoff won't follow you or believe it.

People like that can't see the other side of the fence. It's simply a case of you not following their view, and your view be damned. Rather ignore...
 

RonSwanson

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
5,439
We know what their plans are. That doesn't negate the argument I was RESPONDING to that purported the reason for Merck not being interested is because of an expired patent. To expand though I think you're also ignoring the fact that every pharma company have channels available for competing or complementary products.
Sure, but it does not provide any response to mine. The patent expired 25 years ago, Merck decided to capitalise on goodwill at the time and did not forsee it to be such an effective viral inhibitor and treatment. 25 years later, they are kicking themselves for it. Profits above all.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,559
Sure, but it does not provide any response to mine. The patent expired 25 years ago, Merck decided to capitalise on goodwill at the time and did not forsee it to be such an effective viral inhibitor and treatment. 25 years later, they are kicking themselves for it. Profits above all.
Except all patents expire thus I'm not sure what you're trying to allude to. And I did respond, you stated it's not good for business and I stated that all pharma companies have competing products via channels available to them (ie. generics, other brands, subsidiaries).
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,103
Irrevelant? They should have targeted an older population before randomization. Why bother with the young crowd?
Irrelevant, maybe too you.
As a clinician its very relevant - young ( ? less than 50 ? ), no co - morbidities no need to consider Ivermectin.

Please remember why research is conducted - its generally not too score "points".
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,103
You can't argue logic against emotions and someone with a degree in Google Medicine. It's just not possible. You could present all the facts, all the results of independent tests that say it could work but needs more testing done, and the actual manufacturer's response and someone like Geoff won't follow you or believe it.

People like that can't see the other side of the fence. It's simply a case of you not following their view, and your view be damned. Rather ignore...
Here is the thing I am not even arguing logic, I am arguing personnel experience - cold hard laryngoscope in the left hand, ET tube in the right hand and patient who took 78X the recommended dose of Ivermectin. I think its time to write it up as a case study and add to the literature.
Instead Geoff posts a link to some info from the 90's but its an through piece of work - quite extensive.
I quote from the "Acute poisoning section"

9.3 Course, prognosis, cause of death
At high doses in humans and animals vomiting, tachycardia,
blood pressure fluctuation, CNS effects (somnolence, ataxia)
and visual disturbances (mydriasis) have been observed.
Higher doses may cause death due to respiratory depression.


Please folks I don't know if Ivermectin at the recommended dose does anything for Covid-19. I do know that an overdose is not nice.
 

JohnStarr

Expert Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
4,189
Here is the thing I am not even arguing logic, I am arguing personnel experience - cold hard laryngoscope in the left hand, ET tube in the right hand and patient who took 78X the recommended dose of Ivermectin. I think its time to write it up as a case study and add to the literature.
Instead Geoff posts a link to some info from the 90's but its an through piece of work - quite extensive.
I quote from the "Acute poisoning section"

9.3 Course, prognosis, cause of death
At high doses in humans and animals vomiting, tachycardia,
blood pressure fluctuation, CNS effects (somnolence, ataxia)
and visual disturbances (mydriasis) have been observed.
Higher doses may cause death due to respiratory depression.


Please folks I don't know if Ivermectin at the recommended dose does anything for Covid-19. I do know that an overdose is not nice.
So you're obviously in the medical field. BUT, because you're kind of going against him and his misguided, non-expert knowledge system, you're going to be in the wrong.
I gave up trying to take the middle ground (ie. more testing required, got no issues with the drug but it's an anti-parasitic and they want to treat a virus), and he harped on about lack of knowledge (My wife's a pharmacist so I can always ask her...apparently that wasn't good enough either) and going against the use of IVM. No matter how many times I said I wasn't, he kept on about me being against it.

I threw in the towel and stopped following this thread. Some interesting information being thrown out, but when a discussion is "captured" by a few people with little to no actual medical experience who shout everyone else down, it ceases to be informative.
 

SeRpEnT

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
5,639
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

Your comment was that the study population is reflective of the Columbian population with regards to age.
I responded that this is irrevalent. For the study to have any value it should have concentrated on the most as risk population and selected their random participants out of an older aged pool.
 

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
51,874
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.
It can be turned into a far bigger cash cow if viable for covid
 

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
51,874
Your comment was that the study population is reflective of the Columbian population with regards to age.
I responded that this is irrevalent. For the study to have any value it should have concentrated on the most as risk population and selected their random participants out of an older aged pool.
Read again.
That was Not my comment
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
19,670
The LD50 (dose that is lethal for 50% of the population) of ivermectin is 29,5 mg/kg body weight for mice, and 10 mg/kg for rats, see https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB00602.

The 100-fold dose increase that you are proposing would hence be in these LD50 ranges.

The 100-fold dose increase that you are referring to was used in vitro, not in actual humans.
Correct, but it indicates the scope available to researchers. The is plenty of headroom available before dosages become toxic in humans.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
19,670
Here is the thing I am not even arguing logic, I am arguing personnel experience - cold hard laryngoscope in the left hand, ET tube in the right hand and patient who took 78X the recommended dose of Ivermectin. I think its time to write it up as a case study and add to the literature.
Instead Geoff posts a link to some info from the 90's but its an through piece of work - quite extensive.
I quote from the "Acute poisoning section"

9.3 Course, prognosis, cause of death
At high doses in humans and animals vomiting, tachycardia,
blood pressure fluctuation, CNS effects (somnolence, ataxia)
and visual disturbances (mydriasis) have been observed.
Higher doses may cause death due to respiratory depression.


Please folks I don't know if Ivermectin at the recommended dose does anything for Covid-19. I do know that an overdose is not nice.
Well, there is very little new info available on IVM. So searching for research done into it's toxicity brings up old references.
In think you ate right, writing up your case would certainly be useful. At least you now know that 78 x overdose is dangerous.
So what was the actual dose he took? Mg/Kg?.
78 x does not convey much because we don't know your reference.
And BTW, I have never suggested that IVM is not toxic. Quite the opposite in fact as I have always said IVM should be prescribed by a doctor and that self medication is dangerous.
Your case proves the point.

As an aside I hope you will agree that ALL medication is ultimately toxic to life? The trick is to establish what that level is likely to be. Research into any drug is there purely to prove its effectiveness and to establish the lowest possible dosage required for achieving that efficacy but obviously staying below the toxic threshold.

My criticism of this study is that the researchers were overly cautious and hence succeeded in proving nothing anyone could not have deduced anyway.
 
Last edited:

lumeer

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,399
Correct, but it indicates the scope available to researchers. The is plenty of headroom available before dosages become toxic in humans.
What doses were used in the studies that concluded ivermectin was effective?
 

HS2000

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2020
Messages
261
Uhm yea, You guys might want to watch this.

*study is flawed and vaccine manufacturers are involved in study.

*They used young people with mild symptoms.

*Patients were sent home to take ivermectin & compliance is debatable.

Regardless of whether it works is irrelevant to me. At least do things the right way and with everything above board.

The regularity body also seems to be behaving in a dodgy manner.

 

lumeer

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,399
Uhm yea, You guys might want to watch this.

*study is flawed and vaccine manufacturers are involved in study.

*They used young people with mild symptoms.

*Patients were sent home to take ivermectin & compliance is debatable.

Regardless of whether it works is irrelevant to me. At least do things the right way and with everything above board.

The regularity body also seems to be behaving in a dodgy manner.

Were the studies that concluded a benefit to taking ivermectin better designed? If not, are you OK with those studies?
 

SeRpEnT

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
5,639
Uhm yea, You guys might want to watch this.

*study is flawed and vaccine manufacturers are involved in study.

*They used young people with mild symptoms.

*Patients were sent home to take ivermectin & compliance is debatable.

Regardless of whether it works is irrelevant to me. At least do things the right way and with everything above board.

The regularity body also seems to be behaving in a dodgy manner.

Yoh. She's passionate about this.
 

HS2000

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2020
Messages
261
Yoh. She's passionate about this.
As she should be.

I am ****ing tired of Drs that are p**sys

They are told how to think by these organisations and don't ****ing think for themselves.

They place their livelihood above ensuring the best outcome for a patient.

The oath means nothing to these type of Drs.

****ing leeches. I'm not a Pinata made of money.

Most of these Drs are in it for the wrong reasons.

They are in it for the holiday homes, Range Rovers etc.

They can go **** themselves.

Sorry, I needed to vent.

I see specialist regularly and I'm frankly tired of being treated like an ATM.

The medical system is ****ing broken.

I just need to show you my medical aid statements to show you how ****ed up things are.

I am on a comprehensive plan and you will be shocked by how little is covered & how many drs charge above medical aid fees.

Edit : This kinda reminds me of a thread here that made me angry but I never said anything.

A dad was excited his daughter got into medical school.

He asked which budget car would be the best option.

He goes on to buy a 450k Audi for a 19 year old student

Some people weren't happy and he went on to say "She will be earning 200k per month from her qualification".

Yea dude, from sick people like me that fund that lifestyle.

If you only knew how many times I swiped my credit card because these Drs don't ****ing claim from medical aid..

"Sir your medical aid will reimburse you".

Not the full amount and not all the time.

Sometimes it pisses me off how ****ed up things are.

I only encountered 1 decent Dr.

He had a conversation with me. Heard I lost my job due to covid and was kind enough to charge a lower consultation fee. I was very grateful.
 
Last edited:
Top