Would you take Ivermectin for Covid?

Would you take Ivermectin for Covid?

  • Yes - I have

    Votes: 15 4.5%
  • Yes - I would

    Votes: 99 29.6%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 61 18.3%
  • No

    Votes: 150 44.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 9 2.7%

  • Total voters
    334

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
28,649
Most of the animal compounds are perfectly safe for human consumption, so I am not at all surprised to hear this. All that is required then is to adjust the dosages accordingly.
And most if not all doctors are licensed to compound medication or have a chemist, pharmacist, nurse they know who is licensed. Even the local Vet most probably has the required licence and knowledge.
Hence why all the noise about over dose risks is really not NEC, just applies to people who recklessly try self medication.
Most doctors wouldn't prescribe it, it doesn't have an effect, so people are probably going to be stupid and try to source it from somewhere else and probably get the vet version and then not realize there's a dosage difference.
People are quite stupid.

Do note that there are trials ongoing for trying ivermectin, but pretty sure all of those will publish papers stating it's useless for Covid. And again, they won't outright say useless, they will say near no difference observed or something along those lines.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,565
I’m pretty sure that if I did a clinical trial of covid infected people and gave everyone Big Macs or Mouthwash I would have similar success as some of these ivermectin and other flawed trials just purely based on the recovery statistics. You need a large and controlled trial done properly before coming to conclusions.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
19,690
Most doctors wouldn't prescribe it, it doesn't have an effect, so people are probably going to be stupid and try to source it from somewhere else and probably get the vet version and then not realize there's a dosage difference.
People are quite stupid.

Do note that there are trials ongoing for trying ivermectin, but pretty sure all of those will publish papers stating it's useless for Covid. And again, they won't outright say useless, they will say near no difference observed or something along those lines.
You have a lot of catching up to do.
Start with a program on TV tomorrow night e TV CH, 22:30 calls Devi.
 

JohnStarr

Expert Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
4,191
LoL. I see this thread has turned into a heated debate.

I have zero interest in medicine. My wife is a hospital pharmacist. Her life has now been taken over by Covid and she refuses to talk about it at home. Between my lack of interest and her unwillingness to bring her work home, I have learned the following:

- People are dying every day in the hospital where she works from Covid. This includes young people in their 20's and 30's as well as older people. At a stage someone commented that funeral homes cannot keep up and are contemplating digging a trench for the bodies.
- The hospital where my wife is based was chock and block in Dec with people dying in the passages, now they are at about 50% occupancy. The lock down therefore works (but one must remember the exposure level in Dec was abnormally high due to Christmas parties, holidays etc)
- She is in a private hospital and several of her colleagues have contracted Covid even with extreme preventative measures. You just let your guard down for a second and scratch the corner of your eye with your virus infested finger and you become part of the statistics.
- My wife's sister lives in Canada. Canada has secured 4 vaccines per Canadian citizen. They have apparently promised that once everyone in Canada has been vaccinated they will donate the remaining vaccines to the third world countries. We therefore simply need to wait a bit. Trudeau will save us.

My conclusion to all of this, ..... the liquor ban should become permanent :whistling:
Yep, my cousin is an ER doctor and caught it. And she was basically in a hazmat suit. With my wife being a pharmacist I get first-hand and proper information. They're being kept in the loop all the time and have the qualifications as you know to give an accurate account of what the medicine can/cannot do, as well as what the authorities have to do in order to approve a medicine.
I don't need Google, I just go to the source like you can. Googling doesn't make you an expert, and makes you a danger if you start giving your opinion like you're an expert. Using Google as an educator is fine.

As for the alcohol ban, we don't drink much at all, so if we run out we run out.
It will have an impact on jobs and the liquor industry. However, it's easier for government to continue the ban than address the actual cause which is addiction through educational means and interventions.
 

JohnStarr

Expert Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
4,191
You do what the doctors are doing, phoning clients they know who are farmers to see if they can get some. It happened to my brother in law. Trouble is, there's no stock. It's all sold out.
...and the farmers who might need it for their animals will pay that price!
 

JohnStarr

Expert Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
4,191
Most doctors wouldn't prescribe it, it doesn't have an effect, so people are probably going to be stupid and try to source it from somewhere else and probably get the vet version and then not realize there's a dosage difference.
People are quite stupid.

Do note that there are trials ongoing for trying ivermectin, but pretty sure all of those will publish papers stating it's useless for Covid. And again, they won't outright say useless, they will say near no difference observed or something along those lines.
You're fighing using logic against emotion here...I agree with you. If it works, awesome...but the process needs to run its course.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
19,690
I’m pretty sure that if I did a clinical trial of covid infected people and gave everyone Big Macs or Mouthwash I would have similar success as some of these ivermectin and other flawed trials just purely based on the recovery statistics. You need a large and controlled trial done properly before coming to conclusions.
Meanwhile, the relatives of those that die must just accept it because some or other committee decides that medicine that has helped people deal with the virus survives?
No, the answer is to let the doctors who are treating patients make this call. And if the doctor decides to try a drug to alleviate suffering then why not? Not some or other committee sitting on the fence.
At least with the Minister's new stance on this matter doctors and patients will now have the choice instead of being denied the chance.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,565
Meanwhile, the relatives of those that die must just accept it because some or other committee decides that medicine that has helped people deal with the virus survives?
No, the answer is to let the doctors who are treating patients make this call. And if the doctor decides to try a drug to alleviate suffering then why not? Not some or other committee sitting on the fence.
At least with the Minister's new stance on this matter doctors and patients will now have the choice instead of being denied the chance.
The safety and efficacy of a drug to treat a particular condition should be based on sound and scientific investigation and validation and not subjective or limited opinion even if from doctors. What you’re advocating for is the usage of any pharmaceutical products for any purpose even if not approved for such purpose. Where do you draw the line and how do you ensure that it’s not abused? There are plenty of “safe drugs” but that doesn’t mean they’re “safe” for a particular treatment never envisaged for a patient who most likely is extremely fragile with unknown contraindications or outcomes. The fundamental principle is sound in terms of the approval of medication.

Lastly, I highly doubt a doctor will assume personal liability for the death of a patient as a result of (or partially because of) the recommendation or usage of such a drug for alternative uses.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
19,690
The section 21 process covers how this works. In great detail, which includes the involvement of the specific patient. So pretty much covered. Besides this drug is NOT some or other unknown drug with no track record and a string of dire warnings and contraindications.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,565
The section 21 process covers how this works. In great detail, which includes the involvement of the specific patient. So pretty much covered. Besides this drug is NOT some or other unknown drug with no track record and a string of dire warnings and contraindications.
We have scientific factual data on contraindications with covid patients’ plethora of related conditions - when did this happen? This drug has killed people who are a lot healthier than those who will be administered it and we don’t even have a properly conducted clinical trial to ascertain if it’s even effective against covid in the first place. I fail to also understand the leap in logic that a known drug with known track record can be used for treatment of something it was never designed or intended for and the outcome should thus be known.
 

JohnStarr

Expert Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
4,191
The safety and efficacy of a drug to treat a particular condition should be based on sound and scientific investigation and validation and not subjective or limited opinion even if from doctors. What you’re advocating for is the usage of any pharmaceutical products for any purpose even if not approved for such purpose. Where do you draw the line and how do you ensure that it’s not abused? There are plenty of “safe drugs” but that doesn’t mean they’re “safe” for a particular treatment never envisaged for a patient who most likely is extremely fragile with unknown contraindications or outcomes. The fundamental principle is sound in terms of the approval of medication.

Lastly, I highly doubt a doctor will assume personal liability for the death of a patient as a result of (or partially because of) the recommendation or usage of such a drug for alternative uses.
Awesome, someone else bringing some logic and science to a discussion! Couple of guys pushing an agenda here that goes against the grain of what needs to happen to get a drug approved.
Be prepared to get a bunch of random articles, links and snippets of stuff thrown at you. I've given up...trying to debate using logic against emotions and someone with a Google couch doctor degree doesn't seem to work.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
19,690
We have scientific factual data on contraindications with covid patients’ plethora of related conditions - when did this happen? This drug has killed people who are a lot healthier than those who will be administered it and we don’t even have a properly conducted clinical trial to ascertain if it’s even effective against covid in the first place. I fail to also understand the leap in logic that a known drug with known track record can be used for treatment of something it was never designed or intended for and the outcome should thus be known.
That is why the drug should be administered under the guidance/control of a doctor and NOT by self-medication! The doctor will make that assessment! Not some local whatapp group.

Before this morning, the drug was outright banned, and applications were piling up at SAHPRA or not being submitted. Now, SAHPRA will process applications and a trial is supposed to have been approved run by UFS. A SA trial not another overseas trial but a local one. We are no longer sitting around as a country waiting for someone else to do the work. Which do you think is better? Active involvement in the evaluation or waiting for someone else to do it?

It is not open season it is now potentially a controlled situation.
 
Last edited:

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,565
Awesome, someone else bringing some logic and science to a discussion! Couple of guys pushing an agenda here that goes against the grain of what needs to happen to get a drug approved.
Be prepared to get a bunch of random articles, links and snippets of stuff thrown at you. I've given up...trying to debate using logic against emotions and someone with a Google couch doctor degree doesn't seem to work.
Agh it’s the usual selective logic applied to hope for a solution to this situation. You would think that sanity would prevail and that these doctors would simply go through the process of creating a clinical trial in South Africa and sourcing members of the public who want to participate bearing in mind half might not receive the drug as the controls.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
19,690
Agh it’s the usual selective logic applied to hope for a solution to this situation. You would think that sanity would prevail and that these doctors would simply go through the process of creating a clinical trial in South Africa and sourcing members of the public who want to participate bearing in mind half might not receive the drug as the controls.
Are you not listening? Or just being damn silly and stupid?
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,565
That is why the drug should be administered under the guidance/control of a doctor and NOT by self-medication! The doctor will make that assessment! Not some local whatapp group.

Before this morning, the drug was outright banned, and applications were piling up at SAHPRA or not being submitted. Now, SAHPRA will process applications and a trial is supposed to have been approved run by UFS. A SA trial not another overseas trial but a local one.

It is not open season it is now potentially a controlled situation.
I will reiterate. There is no scientifically and factual proof of substance including review that indicates that ivermectin is effective in the treatment of covid. Seeking authorization to administer it based on initial and mostly subjective findings is imho premature.

Are you not listening? Or just being damn silly and stupid?
I wasn’t responding to you nor had I read your response as I was typing still when I responded to Johnstarr. It’s bizarre to me that you don’t value due process. Just so you know the authorization being sought is usually to assist in instances where a drug has been approved for a particular application but not as yet in ZA and a patient requires it’s prescription for it’s approved use. Ivermectin not only is not approved for covid treatment but is has not been approved even for emergency use in the US.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
19,690
I will reiterate. There is no scientifically and factual proof of substance including review that indicates that ivermectin is effective in the treatment of covid. Seeking authorization to administer it based on initial and mostly subjective findings is imho premature.


I wasn’t responding to you nor had I read your response as I was typing still when I responded to Johnstarr. It’s bizarre to me that you don’t value due process. Just so you know the authorization being sought is usually to assist in instances where a drug has been approved for a particular application but not as yet in ZA and a patient requires it’s prescription for it’s approved use. Ivermectin not only is not approved for covid treatment but is has not been approved even for emergency use in the US.
As if the US is the ONLY place to use as a reference.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,565
As if the US is the ONLY place to use as a reference.
Ok, as if that shouldn’t be a rather large red flag. Out of interest then, which bodies mandated to give
such approvals have specifically approved ivermectin for covid treatment?
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
19,690
Ok, as if that shouldn’t be a rather large red flag. Out of interest then, which bodies mandated to give
such approvals have specifically approved ivermectin for covid treatment?
The only one that matters is our regulator.
As of the 6th January 2012. SAHPRA claimed they had no applications for a trial of Ivermectin in SA on hand and that there were no outstanding section 21 applications on hand. yet almost immediately quite a few sources stated that this was not so. Later it was reported in the media that SAHPRA would review an application of a trial received from UFS and committed to review existing section 21 applications received from doctors in the country to administer Ivermectin to patients suffering from Covid 19.

Such applications are supposed to be processed within 48-72 hours. Yet it took a court application from Afriforum over the weekend to get things moving. SAHPRA was given till today to respond to the courts in response to Afriforum's action.
Suddenly out of the blue this morning, the Minister in an interview on TV, stated that SAHPRA will approve the trial and that Section 21 applications on hand will be processed.

We await the outcome of the Court Application that will be heard tomorrow to see what has transpired.

In the meantime, this is a document released by SAHPRA on the 6th January 2021.

In it with the usual long drawn out preamble about Ivermectin SAHPRA committed to:

Conclusion
There are currently no applications either for clinical trials or for the registration of ivermectin for the treatment or as prophylaxis for COVID-19. However, SAHPRA encourages and supports all well- designed, ethically approved, scientific studies designed to identify new or existing medicines that are used for the treatment or prophylaxis of COVID-19. SAHPRA reiterates its commitment to expedite the review of such studies. Furthermore, as the South African regulatory authority, SAHPRA will continue to evaluate any emerging peer reviewed publications or data on the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, and notes that according to the global clinical trials register, additional data should become available in the course of the next few months. SAHPRA will also consider enabling access to approved formulations of ivermectin intended for human use, including through Section 21 authorisation, provided such a request is supported by evidence for the indication requested and is justified based on a risk benefit assessment that includes safety and clinical efficacy data.

It is the failure of SAHPRA to honour that commitment that led to the Afriforum Court action.
 

Attachments

  • Statement-from-SAHPRA-on-Ivermectin-use-for-treatment-of-COVID-19_06.01.2020_v2.pdf
    357.3 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,105
That is why the drug should be administered under the guidance/control of a doctor and NOT by self-medication! The doctor will make that assessment! Not some local whatapp group.

Before this morning, the drug was outright banned, and applications were piling up at SAHPRA or not being submitted. Now, SAHPRA will process applications and a trial is supposed to have been approved run by UFS. A SA trial not another overseas trial but a local one. We are no longer sitting around as a country waiting for someone else to do the work. Which do you think is better? Active involvement in the evaluation or waiting for someone else to do it?

It is not open season it is now potentially a controlled situation.
You seem to have a lot of faith in your local doctor?
I can assure you that the average doctor has not read the full publication of a research paper in the last year.

One has to only look at the prescribing habits of some of my colleagues wrt steroids in Covid to see the superficial understanding of the evidence.

Have you had a look at who makes up the SAHPRA board?


I feel quite confident that those persons are qualified and competent to assess Ivermectin's current and future role in Covid 19.
 
Top