Goa Recommends Ivermectin After Scientists Say Its Use Can End Covid-19 Pandemic | Hacker News Reader

Goa Recommends Ivermectin After Scientists Say Its Use Can End Covid-19 Pandemic

in.news.yahoo.com

8 pointsandrenth14 comments

Could anyone here address the credibility of the news source or the research?

Maybe you can find this useful: https://c19early.com/ Several well studied drugs are effective for treatment or avoidance of the disease.

Or this:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/

https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-pl...

Edit: For an informative, but lower quality source:

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/05/i-dont-know-of-a-big...

ivermectin is primarily used to combat parasites. the dose required to perturb the mechanisms contributing to covid infection are toxic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin

The Wikipedia article on ivermectin treatment of COVID is just some editor’s opinion. It isn’t properly referenced.

Here are some references:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/

there are 115 references regarding ivermectin, and they are not misinformation.

Ivermectin is toxic in the doses required to influence covid. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.antiviral.2020.104805

(200 micrograms per kg) will not influence covid in the way that was observed in cultured cells in vitro

"The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro" Antiviral Res. 2020 Jun; 178: 104787. Published online 2020 Apr 3. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2020.104787

a dosage of 2uMoles in vivo et situ is most definitely not recommended to dose at 1.6 grams/kilogram is not recommended.

AP fact check also means nothing to me.

i also dont trust wikipedia, what i do trust is that it is obvious who has made a critical review of primary literature, and who has not despite the resources being presented.

The recommended dose is the same (200 micrograms per kg) as used to treat parasites in humans, per the Wikipedia article.

We are talking about COVID. See the referenced studies in the links I provided. An AP “fact check” means nothing to me. Nor does obviously politicized opinion.

> per the Wikipedia article

> An AP “fact check” means nothing to me.

You trust Wikipedia more than the AP? The AP isn't perfect, and if that's the standard, why even bother discussing this?

The use of ivermectin to treat human parasites is famous and has been a great success story. My evaluation of the WP article is that the content is neutral, except for the section on its use as a palliative for COVID. The difference in tone and emotion in that section is obvious.

I have no reason to disbelieve the dose level cited in WP for treatment of parasites in humans, because the topic became politicized only after COVID arrived. OTOH, I have not verified it.

The 0.2 mg / kg is the same as the dose recommended in the I-Mask protocol I linked above.

My belief is that "fact checkers" for the media, including the AP, are, in general, unqualified either by training or experience to perform that function. It also appears to me that a high proportion of "fact checks" are eventually shown to be false and politically motivated. I usually discount them, unless they provide solid references that I can trace.

While WP is often biased on topics which have become politicized, as a long-time WP editor I am used to examining the edit history and the talk pages in order to dig out what factual information may be present. At least, one can observe the differences of opinion between WP editors. With "fact checkers", one usually just receives an opinion from on high, often with the word "debunked" attached. That word is a tell, in itself - it's an appeal to authority.

I'm posting a link in response to @rolph, which you might find useful. It's an example of an article in which the author is trying hard to stay neutral. Well, I'll post it here, too:

https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/05/09/update-on-ivermect...

Hi, some further information the following day!

The 115 references you mention are for the entire Ivermectin WP page. There are only three related to COVID, and two of those are obviously biased reportage from the popular press. The single pertinent reference left is

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111...

which is a well-warranted complaint regarding the chaotic nature of the current literature and clinical trials.

The article you cited was behind a paywall, but I was able to get a copy through my university. It contains a warning from the FDA not to use veterinary grade ivermectin to treat COVID, especially without a physician's supervision. That's certainly good advice.

Secondly, there are several letters that discuss the early Caly, et. al. paper regarding in vitro use of ivermectin on SARS-Cov-2 and the dosage levels involved. The point is made that, "Ivermectin's key direct target in mammalian cells is a not a viral component, but a host protein important in intracellular transport; the fact that it is a host-directed agent (HDA) is almost certainly the basis of its broad-spectrum activity against a number of different RNA viruses in vitro. The way a HDA can reduce viral load is by inhibiting a key cellular process that the virus hijacks to enhance infection by suppressing the host antiviral response."

The very great difference between the in vitro dosage level and a clinically effective dosage level is discussed on the third page of this recent article:

https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/files/review-of-the-eme...

We are in violent agreement about not using the in vitro dose level in vivo! (I think that's a strawman, no one is suggesting that.)

I'd also recommend the following recent article discussing actual clinical experience, written by a physician who makes every attempt to remain neutral and science-based:

https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/05/09/update-on-ivermect...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com