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

[SlinkyMike]

Ja whatever you say...

It's a bit delusional to just continually deny accumulating evidence - just saying.

The rest is just noise

It isn't evidence though. It is an organised misinformation campaign. What's a bit delusional is to call it "evidence" when its provenance is highly suspect. Don't you care that your evidence is low quality? Probably not, it supports your narrative so it's done its work.

Let's just get all the bad actors out in the open quick: hands up if you for Ivermectin as a cure and also pro-vaccine.

No one? No surprise.

See, you DGAF about Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine - what you care about is defending your antivaxx/BIG PHARMA/global conspiracy narrative. When this fad dies another highly questionable study will be released, a few people will make cash off of the ads and the cycle begins anew. We have already been through one iteration Hydroxychloroquine-->Ivermectin and you learned nothing from that so there's no reason for this to stop. Facebook must be stopped because you lot are too thick to fend for yourselves in this information war.

 

[Geoff.D]

Hahahaha that's all you have? That foul-mouthed hit piece you call journalism.

Where's this "clear data" you talk of???? Swearing and calling people names is not clear data You talking complete trash.

You do know (which your trash writer clearly doesn't) that there is now evidence (do a google search for many studies) that IVM binds to the spike protein and that then prevents it from binding to the cell. If your idiot excuse for a journalist had bothered to do a little research he might have known this.

Here is one: The Binding mechanism of Ivermectin and levosalbutamol with spike protein of SARS-CoV-2

There is also evidence that when used for parasites IVM helps clear the lungs, that's why it is also beneficial for Covid.

That piece of research is by far the most relevant to this discussion yet. But, you have to:
1. Read it.
2. Go and study up a few rather intricate details about HACE2/ACE2 binding.
3. Learn about three different lab techniques
4. ........

Waaaay too much for the likes of the guys arguing against why IVM is/could be an effective anti-viral --- they won't even accept that IVM is an anti-viral.

The next step in that line of research would be to show what concentrations of IVM will be required to deal with a mild, moderate and severe infection of SARS-COV-2. Once someone tackles that task, there will be a chemically sound argument to base dosages on. And once those dosages are determined, taking into account the half-life of IVM in the human body, the correct prophylactic dosages will also be known.
Then those dosages could be compared with the known toxicity levels of IVM to determine if the dosages are in fact dangerous in any way. That will also determine for how long someone could use IVM as a preventative measure against Covid 19.

It is an excellent piece of research work. The science is easily reproducible by a separate team of researchers. In other words, the science is falsifiable.

 

[SoldierMan]

That piece of research is by far the most relevant to this discussion yet. But, you have to:
1. Read it.
2. Go and study up a few rather intricate details about HACE2/ACE2 binding.
3. Learn about three different lab techniques
4. ........

Waaaay too much for the likes of the guys arguing against why IVM is/could be an effective anti-viral --- they won't even accept that IVM is an anti-viral.

The next step in that line of research would be to show what concentrations of IVM will be required to deal with a mild, moderate and severe infection of SARS-COV-2. Once someone tackles that task, there will be a chemically sound argument to base dosages on. And once those dosages are determined, taking into account the half-life of IVM in the human body, the correct prophylactic dosages will also be known.
Then those dosages could be compared with the known toxicity levels of IVM to determine if the dosages are in fact dangerous in any way. That will also determine for how long someone could use IVM as a preventative measure against Covid 19.

It is an excellent piece of research work. The science is easily reproducible by a separate team of researchers. In other words, the science is falsifiable.

Agreed. Note how all the anti-Ivermectin crowd like @SlinkyMike is avoiding it like the plague.

You mean IVM could bind to the spike protein and so stop replication?

No no can't even touch that topic because that would mean..... that IVM could be effective against Covid.

Ignore ignore ignore.... hypocrisy from the supposed "let''s follow the science" crowd.

 

[CataclysmZA]

RETRACTED ARTICLE: The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article - The Journal of Antibiotics

www.nature.com

Not sure if this has been posted yet. This is a meta-analysis going back all the way to 2008 studies involving ivermectin.

It's a long read.

What it does, at the very least, is set out the ways in which ivermectin is claimed to have efficiency against the virus, and goes through each claim to see what is claimed and whether that makes sense.

 

[SlinkyMike]

That piece of research is by far the most relevant to this discussion yet. But, you have to:
1. Read it.
2. Go and study up a few rather intricate details about HACE2/ACE2 binding.
3. Learn about three different lab techniques
4. ........

Waaaay too much for the likes of the guys arguing against why IVM is/could be an effective anti-viral --- they won't even accept that IVM is an anti-viral.

The next step in that line of research would be to show what concentrations of IVM will be required to deal with a mild, moderate and severe infection of SARS-COV-2. Once someone tackles that task, there will be a chemically sound argument to base dosages on. And once those dosages are determined, taking into account the half-life of IVM in the human body, the correct prophylactic dosages will also be known.
Then those dosages could be compared with the known toxicity levels of IVM to determine if the dosages are in fact dangerous in any way. That will also determine for how long someone could use IVM as a preventative measure against Covid 19.

It is an excellent piece of research work. The science is easily reproducible by a separate team of researchers. In other words, the science is falsifiable.

So you agree then that there are insufficient data?

 

[Geoff.D]

RETRACTED ARTICLE: The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article - The Journal of Antibiotics

www.nature.com

Not sure if this has been posted yet. This is a meta-analysis going back all the way to 2008 studies involving ivermectin.

It's a long read.

What it does, at the very least, is set out the ways in which ivermectin is claimed to have efficiency against the virus, and goes through each claim to see what is claimed and whether that makes sense.

Has been posted before in one of the other IVM threads.

Really complicated to read. Again, if the detractors would only bother to dig, they will find plenty of evidence as to why a properly organised trial would be immensely useful. There is enough in-depth chemical analysis available on IVM to work on.

Just one example of the hypocrisy around can be found in this reference between IVM and Remdevisir.
Remdevisir has been formally trialled (in SA as well). A trial led by one to the usual big pharma suspects.

The above reference compares IVM to Remdevisir and just one of the properties where IVM is better than Remdevisir is extracted below.

Yet IVM does not get a proper big-pharma led trial and Remdevisir does?

The free binding energy of the spike protein (open) was higher in Ivermectin (−398.536 kJ/mol) than remdesivir
(−232.973 kJ/mol).

Now reading up on why free binding energy will quickly show why just this one single fact is very important makes one have to question the morals behind the resistance against IVM as a potential treatment for Covid 19.

 

[Swa]

Shows you don't have a paramedic qualification. Experience is required and has to be demonstrated to gain the certificate...

There is no evidence for IVM. Check the title of the thread...

The majority of scientists accept dark matter exists like they accept gravity exists. The majority of medical personnel do not accept IVM.

You're right I don't. You've already demonstrated you can't debate with me on technical subjects. So I hope I never have to be treated by you. Please tell us where you are. I promise I won't stalk you like Splinter does, I just want to avoid that place like the plague.

You also might need to relook that dark matter reference of yours.

This coming from someone who believes in talking snakes, insolent mules, men who walk on water, virgin births....

Don't play the insanity card too quickly

Another one. You're misusing one form of evidence to disprove another. And you don't think you're the insane one? It's at times like these I wish Techne was still here.

Not getting involved, but studies that show the effectiveness of IVM = good. Studies that show it is ineffective - WTF are those? They don't exist. They're not real.
That seems to be the blinkered look at things.

/Peace out!

We're not the ones with blinkers. There are some good studies supporting IVM but their sample sizes aren't very good. There are a few that doesn't but they mostly have bad methodology. The blinkered view is choosing to not look at the evidence on the whole.

So you agree then that there are insufficient data?

Only insufficient comprehension by some posters here.

 

[SoldierMan]

We're not the ones with blinkers. There are some good studies supporting IVM but their sample sizes aren't very good. There are a few that doesn't but they mostly have bad methodology. The blinkered view is choosing to not look at the evidence on the whole.

The numbers coming out of India speak for themselves. Really amazing results.

 

[Swa]

Really?

So all those studies are rubbish, all that data and info rubbish? And all the doctors etc involved who have referenced those studies separately, in multiple other sites, videos and sources are all rubbish?

Really?

You actually confirm my overall point for me.

But anyway, I've made my point, not going to get sucked into all the pointless nonsense happening here, the word psychotic definitely does apply.

They're beyond hope. See how they repeat the same predictable tripe as always. They've sided with big pharma that vaccines should be the primary and only means of eradicating as disease and won't look at other solutions. They insist that if you support IVM you also share this view of them and it's not enough to simply say that vaccines when proven safe can be used as one of the solutions where appropriate. If you don't share this radical pro-vax stance of them they label you an anti-vax conspiracy theorist like there can't be any objective middle ground in their world.

They also will label it a misinformation campaign thereby suggesting that all those scientifically involved with it are just pseudo scientists and frauds. In reality they aren't pro-science though. They are pro big pharma and the narrative and anti-science.

Hahahaha that's all you have? That foul-mouthed hit piece you call journalism.

Where's this "clear data" you talk of???? Swearing and calling people names is not clear data You talking complete trash.

You do know (which your trash writer clearly doesn't) that there is now evidence (do a google search for many studies) that IVM binds to the spike protein and that then prevents it from binding to the cell. If your idiot excuse for a journalist had bothered to do a little research he might have known this.

Here is one: The Binding mechanism of Ivermectin and levosalbutamol with spike protein of SARS-CoV-2

There is also evidence that when used for parasites IVM helps clear the lungs, that's why it is also beneficial for Covid.

So another possible treatment against Covid. Salbutamol is generally a well tolerated asthma treatment with a very high overdose threshold. Don't know about the levo- form but it doesn't appear to be dangerous in general.

 

[alanB]

It isn't evidence though. It is an organised misinformation campaign. What's a bit delusional is to call it "evidence" when its provenance is highly suspect. Don't you care that your evidence is low quality? Probably not, it supports your narrative so it's done its work.

Let's just get all the bad actors out in the open quick: hands up if you for Ivermectin as a cure and also pro-vaccine.

No one? No surprise.

See, you DGAF about Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine - what you care about is defending your antivaxx/BIG PHARMA/global conspiracy narrative. When this fad dies another highly questionable study will be released, a few people will make cash off of the ads and the cycle begins anew. We have already been through one iteration Hydroxychloroquine-->Ivermectin and you learned nothing from that so there's no reason for this to stop. Facebook must be stopped because you lot are too thick to fend for yourselves in this information war.

It's not MY evidence, it's just evidence, and quite a lot of it, from many different sources. You can browse through links to all the actual studies here https://c19ivermectin.com/

And there is more accumulating all the time.

	Studies	Prophylaxis	Early treatment	Late treatment	Patients	Authors
All studies	60	85% [75‑92%]	74% [57‑84%]	43% [26‑56%]	21,849	573
With exclusions	50	88% [75‑94%]	76% [66‑83%]	49% [28‑64%]	17,448	512
Peer-reviewed	38	88% [70‑95%]	75% [59‑84%]	42% [19‑58%]	11,464	401
Randomized Controlled Trials	30	84% [25‑96%]	67% [54‑76%]	29% [3‑48%]	5,217	357
Mortality results	23	96% [41‑100%]	64% [15‑85%]	58% [34‑73%]	10,808	235

The only misinformation I have noticed is journalists, politicians etc arguing against this drug for all they are worth, while a LOT of actual real doctors are trying to get the message out that this is a treatment they recommend. My doctor included. Perhaps you are just listening to the wrong people? What do journalists know about treating COVID?

You cannot simply wave all this away, simply because you don't like it, for some strange reason

This is good news, surely? There is a global crisis and we have a cheap, readily available treatment for that.

 

[CataclysmZA]

The numbers coming out of India speak for themselves. Really amazing results.

Again, they don't.

If we're going to argue semantics using flawed data reporting, then we have to nitpick that the India news doesn't help form the argument.

In the analysis I posted, it pointed out that one halfway decent study showed that the median recovery time for patients taking ivermectin was just over half a day earlier than patients taking other drugs. Both groups received oxygen and both groups received the standard leb of care.

Half a day for median recovery time, at around nine days, is not statistically significant and matches the expected recovery time for most people with a mild case of COVID-19.

In another paper that the analysis nitpicked on, and which is mentioned multiple times afterwards, the benefits of taking ivermectin as a prophylactic are slim to nonexistent. There are clear cases where it would be of help in treating severe illness, but studies looking into the prophylactic angle are not well run.

Also.

Given that most of the cases in India are not going to be going to hospital, and given the recovery time of most COVID patients being an average of two weeks from infection, the huge drop in new caseloads makes perfect sense.

If that news rag had any sense to also graph hospitalisation levels over that same period, you'd see the same pattern.

Our country's drop in average new cases dropped by an even larger amount, and we're not wholesale pumping ivermectin and remdesivir into people's mouths on the off-chance that it will help.

The adoption of ivermectin into the standard level of care needs better science and data behind it before it can be considered. As SAHPRA points out, there isn't enough to go on.

 

[Geoff.D]

It's not MY evidence, it's just evidence, and quite a lot of it, from many different sources. You can browse through links to all the actual studies here https://c19ivermectin.com/

And there is more accumulating all the time.

	Studies	Prophylaxis	Early treatment	Late treatment	Patients	Authors
All studies	60	85% [75‑92%]	74% [57‑84%]	43% [26‑56%]	21,849	573
With exclusions	50	88% [75‑94%]	76% [66‑83%]	49% [28‑64%]	17,448	512
Peer-reviewed	38	88% [70‑95%]	75% [59‑84%]	42% [19‑58%]	11,464	401
Randomized Controlled Trials	30	84% [25‑96%]	67% [54‑76%]	29% [3‑48%]	5,217	357
Mortality results	23	96% [41‑100%]	64% [15‑85%]	58% [34‑73%]	10,808	235

The only misinformation I have noticed is journalists, politicians etc arguing against this drug for all they are worth, while a LOT of actual real doctors are trying to get the message out that this is a treatment they recommend. My doctor included. Perhaps you are just listening to the wrong people? What do journalists know about treating COVID?

You cannot simply wave all this away, simply because you don't like it, for some strange reason

This is good news, surely? There is a global crisis and we have a cheap, readily available treatment for that.

Not for the "vaccines are the only solution" brigade - they hate the idea that there could even be anything that would work while the world waits for everyone to get a jab or 2.
Not for the ones who prefer people to die rather than admit that alternative treatments are just as important as the vaccines.

And it always ends up as an either/or, mutually exclusive debate instead of accepting that both treatment AND vaccines are required.

 

[Geoff.D]

but studies looking into the prophylactic angle are not well run.

The studies are not well run. Hardly any observational studies are because in most cases, the studies are "after-the-fact". Neither the patients nor the doctors involved are at all bothered about the niceties of ensuring study protocols are adhered to ---- the doctor's focus is on making the patient better, and for the patient, getting out of hospital.

 

[buka001]

You're right I don't. You've already demonstrated you can't debate with me on technical subjects. So I hope I never have to be treated by you. Please tell us where you are. I promise I won't stalk you like Splinter does, I just want to avoid that place like the plague.

You also might need to relook that dark matter reference of yours.


Another one. You're misusing one form of evidence to disprove another. And you don't think you're the insane one? It's at times like these I wish Techne was still here.


We're not the ones with blinkers. There are some good studies supporting IVM but their sample sizes aren't very good. There are a few that doesn't but they mostly have bad methodology. The blinkered view is choosing to not look at the evidence on the whole.


Only insufficient comprehension by some posters here.

Lol.

Techne?

He was a holocaust denier.

 

[Geoff.D]

So you agree then that there are insufficient data?

No. I believe the doctors using IVM to treat patients are tackling the issue from the other end. Science is well on its way to tackle the issues from the front end objectively and quantifiably. The problem is that can take too long to be of any benefit in the short term.

The issue about IVM, just as it is for Remdevisir AND the vaccines that ALL of them have emergency use approval in SA by SAHPRA. A tiny fact that all of you arguing so much conveniently overlook in your desperate attempt to turn a molehill into a mountain.

 

[SoldierMan]

Again, they don't.

If we're going to argue semantics using flawed data reporting, then we have to nitpick that the India news doesn't help form the argument.

In the analysis I posted, it pointed out that one halfway decent study showed that the median recovery time for patients taking ivermectin was just over half a day earlier than patients taking other drugs. Both groups received oxygen and both groups received the standard leb of care.

Half a day for median recovery time, at around nine days, is not statistically significant and matches the expected recovery time for most people with a mild case of COVID-19.

In another paper that the analysis nitpicked on, and which is mentioned multiple times afterwards, the benefits of taking ivermectin as a prophylactic are slim to nonexistent. There are clear cases where it would be of help in treating severe illness, but studies looking into the prophylactic angle are not well run.

Also.

Given that most of the cases in India are not going to be going to hospital, and given the recovery time of most COVID patients being an average of two weeks from infection, the huge drop in new caseloads makes perfect sense.

If that news rag had any sense to also graph hospitalisation levels over that same period, you'd see the same pattern.

Our country's drop in average new cases dropped by an even larger amount, and we're not wholesale pumping ivermectin and remdesivir into people's mouths on the off-chance that it will help.

The adoption of ivermectin into the standard level of care needs better science and data behind it before it can be considered. As SAHPRA points out, there isn't enough to go on.

So why is it that the state the refused to use IVM saw a huge increase in Covid patients? The complete opposite of those that chose to use it.

 

[Swa]

Lol.

Techne?

He was a holocaust denier.

And you're just a plain idiot that'd label people because they don't fit your narrative.

 

[Swa]

So why is it that the state the refused to use IVM saw a huge increase in Covid patients? The complete opposite of those that chose to use it.

That should be something that's looked into. There's a definite correlation. Those saying that correlation isn't always (the correct term) causation are ignoring when it is causation. A study after the fact will never be as good as a trial set up to examine a specific aspect but sometimes you can draw some pretty good conclusions from them.

 

[buka001]

And you're just a plain idiot that'd label people because they don't fit your narrative.

He literally argued that the holocaust figures have been over inflated and claimed most deaths were from typhoid and the gas chambers did not exist.

It is not my narrative, it is a fact that the holocaust existed and was carried out.

What would you call someone who makes these claims, that deny the facts?

 

[Conack]

FDA:

FDA Approves First Treatment for COVID-19

FDA approved Veklury (remdesivir) for adults and pediatric patients 12 years of age and older for the treatment of COVID-19 requiring hospitalization

www.fda.gov

“The FDA is committed to expediting the development and availability of COVID-19 treatments during this unprecedented public health emergency,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, M.D. “Today’s approval is supported by data from multiple clinical trials that the agency has rigorously assessed and represents an important scientific milestone in the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of the FDA’s Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the agency will to continue to help move new medical products to patients as soon as possible, while at the same time determining whether they are effective and if their benefits outweigh their risks.”


NIH:

NIH clinical trial shows Remdesivir accelerates recovery from advanced COVID-19

Preliminary results indicate that patients who received remdesivir had a 31% faster time to recovery than those who received placebo.

www.nih.gov

NIH clinical trial shows Remdesivir accelerates recovery from advanced COVID-19​

Hospitalized patients with advanced COVID-19 and lung involvement who received remdesivir recovered faster than similar patients who received placebo, according to a preliminary data analysis from a randomized, controlled trial involving 1063 patients, which began on February 21.


---

W.H.O. Rejects Antiviral Drug Remdesivir as a Covid Treatment

In a review of several trials, the World Health Organization found that Gilead’s drug did not improve survival rates for patients nor did it help them recover.

www.nytimes.com

W.H.O. Rejects Antiviral Drug Remdesivir as a Covid Treatment​

In a review of several trials, the World Health Organization found that Gilead’s drug did not improve survival rates for patients nor did it help them recover.

Remdesivir has been authorized for emergency use since the spring in the United States, and in October, Gilead reported that it had generated $873 million in revenue thus far this year.

The drug’s widely adopted use for Covid symptoms had baffled some experts well before the F.D.A. approval.

“This is an entirely appropriate decision by the W.H.O.,” Dr. Peter Bach, director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, wrote in an email. “Remdesivir costs thousands of dollars, the largest randomized trial examining its use in Covid suggests it may have no benefit of any kind, and the one positive study dates back to a time before we were using dexamethasone for severe disease,” he added, referring to a steroid now commonly used in hospitals.

----

So let's recap.

The FDA and NIH finds expensive drug (Remdesivir) safe and successful in Covid treatment and quickly approved it. [Gilead reported that it had generated $873 million in revenue thus far this year - 2020]
"Total first quarter 2021 revenue of $6.4 billion increased 16% compared to the same period in 2020, primarily due to Veklury® (remdesivir) sales, Cell Therapy growth with Yescarta® (axicabtagene ciloleucel) and the U.S. launch of Tecartus"


The WHO finds it did not improve in Covid treatment.

Better deplatform/ban these spreaders of fakenews with that silly abbreviation called the "WHO", right? @Dave

"Big pharma" aka Gilead in this case - totally legit and the profits could certainly have nothing to do with anything getting stamped with approval by the FDA and NIH, surely?