Ivermectin: A multifaceted drug with indicated efficacy against Covid-19 | Hacker News Reader

Ivermectin: A multifaceted drug with indicated efficacy against Covid-19

sciencedirect.com

13 pointsdead-snake8 comments

Regardless of whether it is effective or not, something weird is happening around it policy wise.

E.g., in Israel, it is explicitly contra indicated for covid, and has in effect become a “dangerous drug” requiring a district doctor’s approval (of which iirc there are less than 10 in the whole country) even for indicated use such as scabies —- with 14B doses given world wide, and a safety track record significantly better than OTC paracetamol / acetaminophen.

And yet, a 3rd Pfizer dose, of a drug that has only ever received an EUA, and said EUA does not include a 3rd dose; with basically no safety or efficacy data for that 3rd dose - has already been administered to 300K people (at a rate of over 50K=0.5%pop per day), is highly recommended - close to being coerced.

Regardless of whether of what one believes about the efficacy and safety of either, policy wise, something is very weird with this picture.

I find it interesting that rational, and normally inquisitive people turn a blind eye to this and other huge red flags around our Covid-19 handling.

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19. Such claims are not backed by credible scientific evidence."

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

That seems like another good example of Wikipedia being unreliable and corrupt on politicized topics, not so much a substantive counter for this article. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jul/16/wikipedia-c...

It's a shame that the discourse around this drug has been horribly mangled by conspiracy theorists. If it actually ends up being useful, it'll have to overcome a higher barrier to mainstream entry much like hydroxychloroquine. In HCQ's case the higher barrier was correct as its evidence was laughable, in IVM's case the evidence is still not convincing, and it has a lot further go to before the conspiracy theorists are given any shrift. The abstract to this particular article doesn't help, as its tone sounds like conspiracy theorist catnip.

>It's a shame that the discourse around this drug has been horribly mangled by conspiracy theorists..

Do you think companies that are developing vaccines and other costly treatments for Covid does not have an incentive to discredit Ivermectin?

If you say, yes they have an incentive, but there is no evidence that they are doing so, then it becomes quite subjective. If you think it is not possible for the researchers and media to work towards a narrative, then of course that is an outrageous possibility, but if you think that is possible, then not so much so..

Relevant Cochrane review published a week ago [1].

"Key messages

We found no evidence to support the use of ivermectin for treating or preventing COVID-19 infection, but the evidence base is limited.

Evaluation of ivermectin is continuing in 31 ongoing studies, and we will update this review with their results when they become available."

1: https://www.cochrane.org/CD015017/INFECTN_ivermectin-prevent...

> The indicated biological mechanism of IVM, competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, is likely non-epitope specific, possibly yielding full efficacy against emerging viral mutant strains.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com