Antiviral effect of high-dose ivermectin in adults with Covid-19 | Hacker News Reader

Antiviral effect of high-dose ivermectin in adults with Covid-19

thelancet.com

44 pointsnradov21 comments

I don't get why only tiny sample size trials are being conducted on ivermectin, I mean this is a generic drug which can easily be produced anywhere and is known to be safe drug for humans plus the circumstantial evidence if not conclusive is definitely worth looking into 1) https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/epide...

i think there ought to be a bigger study on this if even there are marginal benefits we should employ them against the pandemic

2)https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-relea...

here is a podcast where doctor Kory talks about this with Eric Weinstein

Financing large studies costs a lot of money, an Ivermectin is out of patent so the company conducting the tests wouldn't recover the costs. Therefore, no "gold standard" (large scale, placebo controlled, double blind, etc.) studies of one of the most promising drugs against COVID. And then the objections you hear about Ivermectin is that sure, there are studies, but there are no gold standard studies, therefore there is "no evidence" it works.

I don’t buy this explanation. There are enough publicly funded healthcare systems in the world for it to make economic sense for one of them to run a large scale trial. I don’t see an agency problem arising for such an existential threat as COVID-19. Do you see an issue with my argument?

Well, no flaw in the argument I think, but for me it hints at those publicly funded healthcare systems being heavily influenced by the privately held Pharmas.

Your argument is sound. It is however, built on one glaring assumption: the people in charge of the publicly funded healthcare systems are primarily incentivized to find cheap and safe treatments for the illness.

I think when you look at the selective medicare payments, the ventilator contracts, and the price of the 'recommended' patent-drugs like Remdisivir... it quickly becomes apparent that our public incentive structure is profoundly broken.

Actually, they are incentivized! It keeps taxes down, which means voters are happier, and sometimes benefits people as well. It is a balancing act, since having bad care also makes folks unahappy or makes for bad outcomes and you wind up having to balance costs like paid time off and travel costs vs building more facilities (assuming you actually offer paid time off and travel costs for long travel, which any decent health care system should for better outcomes). I'll add that it isn't a fair comparison to use things like medicare to speak for publicly funded systems because things just don't work the same in other places.

You don't have to have recommended patent-drugs unless, of course, they are the best option. Sometimes the newer drugs really are better.

> Your argument is sound. It is however, built on one glaring assumption: the people in charge of the publicly funded healthcare systems are primarily incentivized to find cheap and safe treatments for the illness.

In many countries, they do. In some (like Brazil and India), they even rebelled and fought for their right to do so at some point (saving lives of people in other countries by the way).

I mean, in theory, all governments should care, but some are corrupted, and some have been designed to work against the best interests of the patient.

I would agree with your argument but maybe my naivety clouds my judgement surely someone high up in the various public systems recognizes the true cost the pandemic has had in the people both on the economic systems and directly on their health and should be trying to atleast verify or nullify the findings on a grander scale,I might be wrong but from what I've read Remdesivir isn't that effective on the SARS-Cov-2 virus ,another benifit i think Ivermecitin has is the prophylactic qualities this drug may have i read an AIIMS study on the same 1)https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/aiims-study-c... while anyone living outside india may think this is a sub par organization but it is held to the same standards say the IITs are held if the media or right people in the right places get to hear of it we can atleast have a big study that can find what the truth is and if it arms us with another tool to fight the pandemic it would be worth a lot

They tested dexamethasone in a good standard study and found it to be effective. It's a cheap drug just like Ivermectin.

What about:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885530?term=Ivermec...

There are several more running too, but this one is aiming for the largest amount.

If there exists an effective treatment/therapeutic for covid, then the emergency use authorizations for vaccines are invalid. There's a lot of money and popularity at stake in this game.

Here's a meta analysis https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Also a recent clinical trial from Israel: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v...

Money shot: "45 participants were recruited (30 to IVM and 15 controls)." These tiny trials say nothing apart from "more research needed."

Indeed, more research needed.

But we do have to start somewhere.

In this case, I think you're right, it's a small sample. More generally, the statistical power of a test [1] relates the sample size with the magnitude of the effect to test.

In other words, subtle effects need a huge population to distinguish from noise, while huge effects will show even with small populations. All this is very sensitive to bias due to selected population as always.

All in all, I agree, more research needed. Anyone knows more research about this, with bigger samples?

[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_a_test

It's widely available as a generic drug, so no pharma company is going to conduct a large sample clinical study, which costs 10s or 100s of millions. It would have to be a publicly funded clinical trial, of which I haven't really heard of.

You're not wrong. We NEED large scale trials for this ASAP.

I don't understand your knee-jerk negativity here though.

There are plenty of non-double-blind studies that show significant potency of these treatments. Not only this, it is a cheap and proven safe treatment that we have used for decades. This is a very low risk treatment with a huge potential upside.

Why would you be anything but positive about this news? Whose payroll you on buddy?

>Why would you be anything but positive about this news? Whose payroll you on buddy?

OP points out that more research is needed, which it is. And you accuse them of being a schill? Wow.

"More research needed" doesn't seem consistent with YouTube pulling Bret Weinstein posts

Do we already have a record of everything being pulled somewhere?

Not not mention the smear campaign that was instantly retracted when put under the slightest scrutiny.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com