Ivermectin: balance of evidence shows no benefit against Covid-19

[Lucas Buck]

link
Valid comments. I also highlight a certain portion.

Consider an environment where X amount is available for research. We have two competing groups. Obviously group A and B could compete honorably, or not. Let's take this a step further. What if group A has a "secret weapon", knows how to use/abuse other tools. Or that this knowledge was abused previously? Or the actual environment or tools are contaminated?

People like Katherine Stovel and others are doing some interesting work in this field.

https://soc.washington.edu/research/projects-and-grants/echo-chambers-science-impact-academic-recommender-systems-disseminatio

The Influence of Changing Marginals on Measures of Inequality in Scholarly Citations: Evidence of Bias and a Resampling Correction | Sociological Science

Lanu Kim, Christopher Adolph, Jevin D. West, Katherine Stovel Sociological Science August 10, 2020 10.15195/v7.a13 Abstract Scholars have debated whether changes in digital environments have led to greater concentration or dispersal of scientific citations, but this debate has paid little...

sociologicalscience.com

Something to chew on.

Good to see that the work of social scientist being applauded for once on this forum.
But is it a suprise that they're looking into a form of inequality

I see that there's other recent studies looking into how the changing landscape is affecting citations in research publications. With additional reasons being put forward for citation inequality

The rise in citation concentration has coincided with a general inclination toward more collaboration. While increasing collaboration and full-count publication rates go hand in hand for the top 1% most cited, ordinary scientists are engaging in more and larger collaborations over time, but publishing slightly less. Moreover, fractionalized publication rates are generally on the decline, but the top 1% most cited have seen larger increases in coauthored papers and smaller relative decreases in fractional-count publication rates than scientists in the lower percentiles of the citation distribution. Taken together, these trends have enabled the top 1% to extend its share of fractional- and full-count publications and citations. Further analysis shows that top-cited scientists increasingly reside in high-ranking universities in western Europe and Australasia, while the United States has seen a slight decline in elite concentration. Our findings align with recent evidence suggesting intensified international competition and widening author-level disparities in science. link

 

[Geoff.D]

Don't mention Ivermectin; it'll upset the vaccine rollout - BizNews.com

Ivermectin is seen as a repeat of hydroxychloroquine and not to be taken seriously. Belief in it, worthy only of derision.

www.biznews.com

A good article. Merck only makes 5% of the world's supply. They gifted the IVM patent when they could not make any money from it. For comparison Merck at the time could only make a few cents from each IVM dose. It was a completely unprofitable drug for them. The Covid drugs however go for thousands of Dollars per treatment. IVM is the perfect drug you would want to patent for the pandemic.

To summarise, if IVM was officially endorsed for treating Covid all the emergency use authorisation for vaccines and other drugs will fall away as no unapproved drug can be used on emergency or compassionate grounds outside of limited trials while an adequate approved treatment exists. There's a lot of self interest here. It could take years for any drug or vaccine to be approved.

MSM, Facebook, Twitter, Google, governments and big pharma have a LOT to answer to and it's up to us as the public to demand answers. There are at least 3 million deaths that could have been prevented and deserve recognition and people could have lived normal lives.

Thanks for reposting this one. I have been itching to do it but the first time I did it somehow just disappeared. I was uncertain as to why so I just left it. I could have messed it up, but I decided that maybe I should just leave it be. Sooner or later someone else would post a link.

The article is full of information and just about wipes out all the rubbish we have seen debated on this thread.

Here is just one of the crucial items the "herd" loves to hammer on - a demand of "proof" of its safety.

The original safety trials done on IVM were undertaken by Merck. If you try and search for it it is almost impossible to find. I have a copy of their original trial results. It took hours and hours of digging and in the end, I had to go to a library to find it in a book. Only then was I able to trace it on the Internet.
The Internet never forgets, but it can be very very well hidden from casual search.

This is good enough as a summary however (from the article above):

Ivermectin has powerful anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties. Its safety is documented at doses twenty times the normal. Only 19 deaths are known and side-affects are generally mild and short. As a comparison, approximately 450 US citizens die from paracetamol every year.

20 x 200 µg/kg = 4 000 µg/kg
20 x 100 µg/kg = 2 000 µg/kg

Now consider that some researchers suggest that 1200 µg/kg as being enough to almost eliminate the virus from someone in 48 hours, where are the safety concerns?

 

[JangoFett]

Thanks for reposting this one. I have been itching to do it but the first time I did it somehow just disappeared. I was uncertain as to why so I just left it. I could have messed it up, but I decided that maybe I should just leave it be. Sooner or later someone else would post a link.

The article is full of information and just about wipes out all the rubbish we have seen debated on this thread.

Here is just one of the crucial items the "herd" loves to hammer on - a demand of "proof" of its safety.

The original safety trials done on IVM were undertaken by Merck. If you try and search for it it is almost impossible to find. I have a copy of their original trial results. It took hours and hours of digging and in the end, I had to go to a library to find it in a book. Only then was I able to trace it on the Internet.
The Internet never forgets, but it can be very very well hidden from casual search.

This is good enough as a summary however:



20 x 200 µg/kg = 4 000 µg/kg
20 x 100 µg/kg = 2 000 µg/kg

Now consider that some researchers suggest that 1200 µg/kg as being enough to almost eliminate the virus from someone in 48 hours, where are the safety concerns?

Did you try with a search engine other than Google? Also thanks for finding this information, I was wondering about the toxicity at above prescribed doses.

 

[Geoff.D]

Did you try with a search engine other than Google? Also thanks for finding this information, I was wondering about the toxicity at above prescribed doses.

I think you are the one that helped me with that.

 

[Swa]

Thanks for reposting this one. I have been itching to do it but the first time I did it somehow just disappeared. I was uncertain as to why so I just left it. I could have messed it up, but I decided that maybe I should just leave it be. Sooner or later someone else would post a link.

The article is full of information and just about wipes out all the rubbish we have seen debated on this thread.

Wasn't aware it's been posted. Or you mean you tried to but it failed? In any case...

Here is just one of the crucial items the "herd" loves to hammer on - a demand of "proof" of its safety.

The original safety trials done on IVM were undertaken by Merck. If you try and search for it it is almost impossible to find. I have a copy of their original trial results. It took hours and hours of digging and in the end, I had to go to a library to find it in a book. Only then was I able to trace it on the Internet.
The Internet never forgets, but it can be very very well hidden from casual search.

This is good enough as a summary however:



20 x 200 µg/kg = 4 000 µg/kg
20 x 100 µg/kg = 2 000 µg/kg

Now consider that some researchers suggest that 1200 µg/kg as being enough to almost eliminate the virus from someone in 48 hours, where are the safety concerns?

I don't know if this is what you refer to but in 2002 Merck did an extended safety trial and found IVM to be safe and well tolerated at doses as high as 20x the standard FDA approved dose. So quite perplexing they now claim it's dangerous at standard doses. From the articles by Buka's own "expert" it would take 35x the standard dose to achieve the same 5µg whatever in vitro concentration. However this does not take into account that examination of cow lung tissue shows a concentration of 2-3x the plasma concentration which may even be higher in humans. It does appears that ~1200µg/kg could be the correct dose.

Most side effects are harmless rashes or things like temporary vision problems that start resolving as soon as treatment is suspended. One article I came up on dealing with concentrations even had a tremendous amount of side effects or ipikonders in the placebo group. Now keep in mind that this is a drug people unsuccessfully try to commit suicide with. They take the whole packet and then literally nothing happens.

If we go by the research at standard doses IVM is at least 80% effective as a prophylaxis or when exposed and 60% for moderate to severe disease. Now I wonder if Buka is standing at death's door with nothing to lose if he'd still think that a drug with a better safety profile than Panado at high doses should not be given in whatever quantity in needed.

 

[Swa]

(PDF) Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Escalating High Doses of Ivermectin in Healthy Adult Subjects

PDF | Safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin, administered in higher and/or more frequent doses than currently approved... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

Might be this one. Again more people experiencing adverse reactions in the placebo group. Similar to most studies on IVM.

 

[Geoff.D]

Wasn't aware it's been posted. Or you mean you tried to but it failed? In any case...


I don't know if this is what you refer to but in 2002 Merck did an extended safety trial and found IVM to be safe and well tolerated at doses as high as 20x the standard FDA approved dose. So quite perplexing they now claim it's dangerous at standard doses. From the articles by Buka's own "expert" it would take 35x the standard dose to achieve the same 5µg whatever in vitro concentration. However this does not take into account that examination of cow lung tissue shows a concentration of 2-3x the plasma concentration which may even be higher in humans. It does appears that ~1200µg/kg could be the correct dose.

Most side effects are harmless rashes or things like temporary vision problems that start resolving as soon as treatment is suspended. One article I came up on dealing with concentrations even had a tremendous amount of side effects or ipikonders in the placebo group. Now keep in mind that this is a drug people unsuccessfully try to commit suicide with. They take the whole packet and then literally nothing happens.

If we go by the research at standard doses IVM is at least 80% effective as a prophylaxis or when exposed and 60% for moderate to severe disease. Now I wonder if Buka is standing at death's door with nothing to lose if he'd still think that a drug with a better safety profile than Panado at high doses should not be given in whatever quantity in needed.

Ja my post and link failed.

 

[Geoff.D]

(PDF) Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Escalating High Doses of Ivermectin in Healthy Adult Subjects

PDF | Safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin, administered in higher and/or more frequent doses than currently approved... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

Might be this one. Again more people experiencing adverse reactions in the placebo group. Similar to most studies on IVM.

No it is not the 2002 trials, but a trial done before that. But again those 2002 trials confirmed much of the original results.

 

[Howdy]

Good to see that the work of social scientist being applauded for once on this forum.
But is it a suprise that they're looking into a form of inequality

I see that there's other recent studies looking into how the changing landscape is affecting citations in research publications. With additional reasons being put forward for citation inequality

It can be used for good or bad. Unpopular evidence is easily burried, no matter how proven and valid.

 

[pouroverguy]

"'I have not seen a single vaccinated person in Covid-19 high care ward' - Groote Schuur doctor | News24" https://www.news24.com/news24/south...-high-care-ward-groote-schuur-doctor-20210805

 

[JohnStarr]

"'I have not seen a single vaccinated person in Covid-19 high care ward' - Groote Schuur doctor | News24" https://www.news24.com/news24/south...-high-care-ward-groote-schuur-doctor-20210805

Please don't bring logic to a public forum. This is going to be slated as anecdotal, and then the doctor slated as knowing nothing.

 

[nazmo]

"'I have not seen a single vaccinated person in Covid-19 high care ward' - Groote Schuur doctor | News24" https://www.news24.com/news24/south...-high-care-ward-groote-schuur-doctor-20210805

Post is irrelevant. contains actual statements by a doctor at a public hospital in south africa who has no agenda or reason to lie, thats been working hard with their doctor/nurse counterparts for over a year under terrible strain.

Rather find some obscure article or meme as evidence. Seems to be more impactful

 

[Geoff.D]

It can be used for good or bad. Unpopular evidence is easily burried, no matter how proven and valid.

Ja just look at the numbers of people incarcerated for crimes they never committed for more examples.

 

[Geoff.D]

"'I have not seen a single vaccinated person in Covid-19 high care ward' - Groote Schuur doctor | News24" https://www.news24.com/news24/south...-high-care-ward-groote-schuur-doctor-20210805

Deflection, deflection,deflection.
Got your back to the wall have you?
Create a thread and argue all you like about the vaccines we don't mind.

 

[Geoff.D]

Post is irrelevant. contains actual statements by a doctor at a public hospital in south africa who has no agenda or reason to lie, thats been working hard with their doctor/nurse counterparts for over a year under terrible strain.

Rather find some obscure article or meme as evidence. Seems to be more impactful

Exactly, completely factual and relevant to a debate about vaccines. Except of course, we have a very very low penetration of vaccinated persons so far.
No the purpose is to continue the campaign to villify IVM.

 

[nazmo]

Exactly, completely factual and relevant to a debate about vaccines. Except of course, we have a very very low penetration of vaccinated persons so far.
No the purpose is to continue the campaign to villify IVM.

"I can tell you for sure that during the last few weeks… [in] my Covid high care ward, I have not seen a single person there who has been vaccinated. Sadly, the same cannot be said for patients who had been taking Ivermectin."

 

[JohnStarr]

Exactly, completely factual and relevant to a debate about vaccines. Except of course, we have a very very low penetration of vaccinated persons so far.
No the purpose is to continue the campaign to villify IVM.

Seriously dude...I mean WTAF? Doctors, proper doctors, and not enthusiasts, are giving you the low-down literally at Ground Zero. And they've been dealing with this daily since this pandemic started. Yet it's not enough. You're going so far as to vilify (correct spelling) a qualified doctor who is giving you the facts as he has seen them first hand.

Doctors bad! Everything else good. If they don't subscribe to what you want, then they're not to be trusted and they've got an objective working against the 3 of you here. I mean: "First do no harm" and all.

But continue to vilify, mock and otherwise work against our medical professionals. Go do it in person and let's see how it works out.

 

[JohnStarr]

Deflection, deflection,deflection.
Got your back to the wall have you?
Create a thread and argue all you like about the vaccines we don't mind.

You're clearly an anti-vaxxer...

 

[pouroverguy]

Deflection, deflection,deflection.
Got your back to the wall have you?
Create a thread and argue all you like about the vaccines we don't mind.

Just a valid post from a senior professor of Infectious Diseases at Groote Schuur where he mentions Ivermectin in the article. Completely relevant.

And I don't have my back to any wall. I want Ivermectin to work. Truly. I've spent enough time with enough patients sick of this terrible disease to want a cure. I sincerely hope that in a few months Cochrane will come out and say that the evidence now shows that Ivermectin actually does work. Until then, I'll remain skeptical.

 

[semaphore]

You're clearly an anti-vaxxer...

He's not an anti-vaxxer, as he has helped others get the vaccine. He's just extremely critical of research that doesn't align with his views, which is fine, but there comes a point where he can't be right about all papers against ivermectin.