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

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,941
Hands up: are you pro vaccine and pro Ivermectin? Answer the question. I didn't ask for more facebook auntie links. I maintain that you are arguing antivaxx and/or right wing nonsense via proxy of Ivermectin. Tell me I am wrong.


You love to move the goalposts. this isn't about SAHPRA, it's about evidence for the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating SARS-CoV-2. It's in the title, stop fscking around.


There is no cult in the practice of medicine across the globe. I accept what is scientifically verifiable. You believe that water has memory and wish to call me irrational and perty to a cult? Get a grip ya weeny.
Rubbish. The title of the post is BS. And it IS all about what SAHPRA has or has not done. It is 100% relevant.
And it is about the convenient interpretation that this debate is about IVM versus vaccinations. At least two others posting irrelevant information have continued to try and push that narrative.
While we are at it. Do you have nothing to say about the data used by the FDA to approve Remdevisir as a treatment for Covid 19?
Having difficulty in seeing how they could use that data as conclusive proof of the effectiveness of Remdevisir?
Does that data sound convincing to you?
 

nivek

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
9,885
Do you think if he was seeing a notable improvement in the patients taking Ivermectin he would be hiding that information?
Whether its effective or not can be debated, the dishonest part is saying the drug isn't intended for humans
They probably forgot to mention that this was a sponsored article
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,941
Do you think if he was seeing a notable improvement in the patients taking Ivermectin he would be hiding that information?
No. But I very much doubt the doctor has been quoted correctly.
The entire article is so badly written to make it virtually worthless. There are just too many statements hanging in the air unsubstantiated and downright wrong.
 

SlinkyMike

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
8,436
Rubbish. The title of the post is BS. And it IS all about what SAHPRA has or has not done. It is 100% relevant.
And it is about the convenient interpretation that this debate is about IVM versus vaccinations. At least two others posting irrelevant information have continued to try and push that narrative.
While we are at it. Do you have nothing to say about the data used by the FDA to approve Remdevisir as a treatment for Covid 19?
Having difficulty in seeing how they could use that data as conclusive proof of the effectiveness of Remdevisir?
Does that data sound convincing to you?
"This isn't a conspiracy theory, here look at this other conspiracy theory - if that doesn't prove it I don't know what will!"

Get off of Facebook it is making you stupider.
 

CataclysmZA

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
5,417
FDA:

“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​

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.

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?

Your post is all over the place and doesn't get the point across well enough. Here's a better way of doing that.

Your first link, to the story on the FDA approving the use of remdesivir, is from 22 October 2020. It approves the use of remdesivir in children under Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA), and the FDA chose to use that opportunity to expand approval and qualify the drug for use in hospital environments with mild to severe COVID disease requiring a hospital stay, and in children under the ages of 12 years and weighing less than 40kg, but more than 3.5kg.

Remdesivir in the USA is still under an EUA exemption. It is not a fully approved drug with proper licensing.

Your NIH link is from 29 April 2020, detailing the results of a trial run by NIH. Two days before the FDA's re-authorisation of an EUA to Gilead, NIH wrapped up their findings and showed that while Remdesivir was clearly useful in accelerating recovery, it needed to be evaluated further to be included in the standard level of care guidelines.


NIH also has a summary on treatments for COVID: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/summary-recommendations/

But there are wrinkles in this. For one, Gilead donates money to several key decision makers at NIH who approved clinical trials and its continued use in treating severe disease:


So why does the WHO not recommend it? For several reasons. One is that the mortality benefit is small, even if the recovery period for severe cases is statistically significant, and it doesn't improve other clinical conditions of patients. It only speeds up recovery time if they were already likely to recover.

An expert panel “concluded that remdesivir has no meaningful effect on mortality or on other important outcomes for patients, such as the need for mechanical ventilation or time to clinical improvement,” the W.H.O. announced.

The second reason is that it is expensive. Gilead profits handsomely from sales of its drug to hospitals:


The third is that it is administered intravenously. The panel run by the WHO still recommended that clinical trials continue, but they wanted more research to continue to find something that suited the adoption of a drug that could be administered orally and was cheap enough to be of use in developing countries.

Dr. Rochwerg said that the panel “made explicit in the document that trials of remdesivir should continue, and there may be specific populations that could benefit.” But the drug is expensive and administered intravenously, he noted. Using it could divert resources that could be deployed more effectively, Dr. Rochwerg said.

The NYT article is attached to this post as a PDF.

To anyone who is currently incapable of comprehending what's being said by the WHO, and the good reasoning behind it, perhaps this post clears it up for you.

Remdesivir has its uses in patients who do have severe symptoms, but do not require mechanical ventilation and are likely to recover. Giving it to a patient will accelerate their recovery.

Similarly, Ivermectin has shown to be useful in slowing down the growth of SARS-CoV-2 in-vitro and clearly has some benefit in helping to relieve symptoms and stress on the patient. However, it does not accelerate recovery time, it does not cure patients with advanced COVID (remember, it slows everything down to make fighting the infection more manageable), and depending on the study in question you either end up with no mortality benefit or a small mortality benefit.

Both drugs have their use-cases. Ivermectin needs better data and studies to prove where it is useful. Neither are substitutes for a vaccine.
 

Attachments

  • W.H.O. Rejects Antiviral Drug Remdesivir as a Covid Treatment.pdf
    2.6 MB · Views: 2
Last edited:

AfricanTech

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
37,117
Just another piece of junk journalism.
The doctors who are using IVM as a treatment, not NOT as preventative measure are having success.
The doctors evidence is just unsubstantiated and poorly quantified hearsay.
So noted.

'Junk' MSM journalism (tick)
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,570
Just another piece of junk journalism.
The doctors who are using IVM as a treatment, not NOT as preventative measure are having success.
The doctors evidence is just unsubstantiated and poorly quantified hearsay.
Sure what I can pick up its not even an interview rather a journalist trolling a facebook page.
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,570
Whether its effective or not can be debated, the dishonest part is saying the drug isn't intended for humans
They probably forgot to mention that this was a sponsored article
If you going to make that allegation we need proof, what and who sponsored this article?
 

Stonemason

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
630
Just another piece of junk journalism.
The doctors who are using IVM as a treatment, not NOT as preventative measure are having success.
The doctors evidence is just unsubstantiated and poorly quantified hearsay.
Do not blame the journalist. Blame the doctor. I have read the doctor's Facebook post and the report in Timeslive is accurate. Just because you do not like the message, do not automatically call it junk journalism.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,941
Do not blame the journalist. Blame the doctor. I have read the doctor's Facebook post and the report in Timeslive is accurate. Just because you do not like the message, do not automatically call it junk journalism.
Remains full of hearsay. Maybe even twice removed hearsay. Even worse. Journalists should be verifying information before publishing it. My not liking the message is irrelevant.
 

JohnStarr

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
7,718
Do you think if he was seeing a notable improvement in the patients taking Ivermectin he would be hiding that information?
Anything negative against IVM doesn't fit the narrative that it's the answer to the virus. People who don't respond whilst on it...simply hearsay, subjective and of no concern to anything.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,941
Do you think if he was seeing a notable improvement in the patients taking Ivermectin he would be hiding that information?
I would prefer the information straight from him properly reported in a report. Not from some or other journalist interpreting something he might have said/ wrote on a FB page.
It is that simple. It is called critically assessing the data used to back up a claim.
 
Last edited:

Stonemason

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
630
Remains full of hearsay. Maybe even twice removed hearsay. Even worse. Journalists should be verifying information before publishing it. My not liking the message is irrelevant.
What hearsay are you talking about? What the doctor said was not hearsay. It was his personal experience. The reporter reported on this. Are you now saying that all news stories should be dismissed because by quoting someone, the reporter is publishing hearsay? Also, what information was the reporter supposed to verify? The doctor made the statement under his own name and he was quoted. There was nothing more to verify.
 

Conack

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
2,052

"George Herald also spoke to a few local pharmacists on condition of anonymity who said sales in Ivermectin are very lively as doctors are increasingly prescribing it. They said they are aware of many cases where it made a difference in the recovery of patients. The local doctors approached did not want to comment."

Also anecdotal, but saying the reverse.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,941

"George Herald also spoke to a few local pharmacists on condition of anonymity who said sales in Ivermectin are very lively as doctors are increasingly prescribing it. They said they are aware of many cases where it made a difference in the recovery of patients. The local doctors approached did not want to comment."

Also anecdotal, but saying the reverse.
A well-balanced article quoting the good doctors directly. No Journalistic embellishments.

As for IVM and a reserved view. The reader decides.

The point is made that IVM does not replace vaccinations. :thumbsup:

Theron stressed that Ivermectin cannot replace vaccination. Worldwide, vaccination is proving extremely effective in preventing severe disease, hospitalisation and death.

The for view clearly spells out under what conditions IVM could be used. :thumbsup:

According to Dr Rust Theron,
The source.
internal specialist at Mediclinic Durbanville
His speciality
, the study found shorter periods of illness and lower mortality rates in patients who take the drug in the correct dosage, formulation and according to the correct regime.
His opinion and experience And the provisos.
The type of IVM
The study refers to Ivermectin formulated for humans only and not the one used in animals which is applied to the skin.

The reasons why some who take IVM end up in hospital:

Theron said Ivermectin can be used preventatively, but caution should be exercised. He recommends this only when the Western Cape reaches a peak in the pandemic because long-term use of the drug increases the risk of side-effects.

"We have admitted patients who misused the drug and even convulsed, because it reduces one's blood sodium levels."

The reserved view:

Dr Angelique Coetzee, chairperson of the South African Medical Association, said she did not want to get involved in a debate about Ivermectin. She is successfully treating and keeping Covid patients out of hospital with other medications.

Pretty obvious why she does not want to get involved.

Now, compare that with the previous news report and tell me which one is more believable and credible?
 

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,570
Geoff Dr Theron was talking about the IVM meta-analysis not his personal experience from reading the article. ( The same meta-analysis that is much less powerful with the Egyptians? )
The other doc was posting on Facebook to his friends probably after the worst few weeks in his medical career, potentially tired and frustrated and that got lifted into an "article". I don't think we can critique either.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,941
Geoff Dr Theron was talking about the IVM meta-analysis not his personal experience from reading the article. ( The same meta-analysis that is much less powerful with the Egyptians? )
The other doc was posting on Facebook to his friends probably after the worst few weeks in his medical career, potentially tired and frustrated and that got lifted into an "article". I don't think we can critique either.
Agreed. But which one is easier to "critique" if you wanted to?
Dr Theron is talking about when he prescribes IVM as a preventative measure as well. Certainly not as many who are self-medicating are doing!
And I am not finding fault with what the other doctor is claimed to have said either. The journalist's version is just too terrible to even bother. And I am not about to register on FB just to see what he is supposed to have said.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
29,724
Just another piece of junk journalism.
The doctors who are using IVM as a treatment, not NOT as preventative measure are having success.
The doctors evidence is just unsubstantiated and poorly quantified hearsay.
Also his "experience" doesn't fit its known safety profile. A lot of people are walking around with liver damage from other causes if you go and test for it.

There is no cult in the practice of medicine across the globe. I accept what is scientifically verifiable. You believe that water has memory and wish to call me irrational and perty to a cult? Get a grip ya weeny.
Ja, you've already established who and what you are. You'll continue to use misinformation for your agenda.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,941
It is however very encouraging to see there are research chemists out there digging deeper into the use of IVM to treat Covid 19.

There is even a clinical trial proposed for testing of an IVM nasal spray with the intention of trying to reach the concentrations required to directly attack the virus in the nose and airways.

This flows out of the very first research done about what concentration is required to kill the virus (5µM).
 
Last edited:
Top