Ivermectin for the Treatment of Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
academic.oup.com
academic.oup.com
The scientists who developed Ivermectin were given the Nobel prize for it. For humans. The point here is not to say that proves it works for COVID. The point is just to note that calling it “horse medicine” is hyperbolic.
https://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
It kills more than covid every year!
This low-balls the actual numbers. Worldwide, about 300K people die of drowning - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/drowning-deaths-by-age-gr... .
"Exposure (heat and cold)" is another ~50K - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-number-of-deaths-b... .
By comparison: "As of Jun 10, 1,884,146 people have died of COVID-19 in 2021, compared with the 1,880,510 in 2020." - https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/06/global-c...
COVID kills at least 5x more than water in the last two years. And those numbers are from only 1/2-way through 2021.
I'm interested in this big, randomized clinical study, alas not yet concluded:
https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investi...
https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initi...
For now there are a mix of smaller studies, some of which show no benefit and others which show a significant benefit. Most of those studies had different treatment protocols so the results aren't directly comparable.
It seems now doubtful, that we can achieve herd immunity, so we still need something to treat people for which the vaccine doesn't work.
I wouldn't hold my breath on ivermectin though either.
Conclusions
Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19.
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210314/Cannabis-compound...
Yet another substandard publication by the self-serving academic/Big Pharma cabal.
The doctors reporting success are using it for longer. Consider most anti virals are taken for 10+ days
I spent time reading about Ivermectin and the most reliable info I could find is from the NIH and WHO and neither recommends it for COVID-19:
- https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-adv...
- https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/ant...
They seem to have reviewed many Ivermectin studies and found all of them low quality and/or insufficiently controlled.
Edit: grammar, formatting
Everything else is anecdotal. Quite a few Covid-19 patients do survive, and when doctors prescribe it, they are not doing randomized controlled trials, so they can easily fool themselves and others into thinking Ivermectin works.
The are randomized trials being conducted, wait for better science to come in before writing it off.
Is it so bad to have a medicine for treatment? Should we not be looking at all possibilities still? There are open questions about the long term and variety effectiveness of vaccines. Seems best to have as many tools in our medical toolbox as possible.
Spreading unproven claims could, for example, cause people to rely on Ivermectin instead of getting vaccinated, which would be an extremely dangerous bet with almost nothing to win and almost everything to lose.
(politics alert)
This is being stoked by certain media and political organizations. It's a political wedge issue--GOP stokes their base, keeps/gets new voters on this issue, then gets in power and robs the country/planet by doing the bidding of donors/corps/lobbyists.
Also, to treat someone for 10+ days it would be useful to have them survive the first five days, right?
I put low weight on this study because I've only been prescribed anti viral treatments that last 10 or 14 days of pills.
How do you claim zero effect while there is conflicting reports? Is only "the other team" capable of fraudulent claims and studies?
I don't get where the anti-anti-viral for treatment comes from. We know the vaccine is not 100% effective. Why are you against also having medicines for when people get sick?
How do you jump from a scientific study telling you something doesn't work, to "open mindedness about anti viral treatments"? Ivermectin is ley-lines and crystals for the 21st century.
You can't take one meta study and make claims that it doesn't work. What happened to the randomized controlled trials argument?
The minute crystals win the Nobel prize in medicine, let me know. I’ll buy a nice stock.
As you can see from my posted study, there is a lot of evidence that ivermectin is efficacious against covid, and some that it isn’t. I suspect those are similar to the now retracted study denigrating Hydroxychloroquine
It gets worse when people use the doses intended for horses and cows.
It is complete insane bullshit to believe those vaccines might somehow exhibit "long term" side effects that have eluded the whole world for more than six months after hundreds of millions of applications. No vaccine has ever done that, not even those who didn't make it through clinical trials.
Voixx was pulled from the market 5 years after approval when they finally determined it caused heart attacks. It took a lot of work to figure that out. There a multiple examples of fatal or severe side effects popping up years later. And every single one said “weve never seen it before” or “there is no scientific reason it should do that”.
The landscape is littered with drugs where people waved their hands and said “there is no way this drug is harmful” and that we’re subsequently found to be so.
Not saying people shouldn’t get vaccinated, I did. But your claim is ridiculous.
And even then, in the case of Voixx it was a comparison against other drugs that ultimately made regulators pull the plug. Additionally, the manufacturer concealed the side effects, so the argument about long-term effects is even weaker.
Also that particular virus also caused narcolepsy, rarely, by a similar immunological mechanism.
Here's a human study referring to their safety. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/
More than 700 million people have taken ivermectin as an anti parasitic medicine. Something like 4B doses have been given. The WHO lists Ivermectin as an essential medicine.
That's why you should not be using it unless there is a clear benefit. For the 700 million people taking it as anti parasitic medicine it does have a clear benefit, but some of them still experience side effects, some of them even might have died.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7uVXKgE6eLJKMXkETwcw0D?si=p...
If you do open the podcast, know that it is very possible in Spotify to skip forward 15 seconds at a time to get past the many ads at the beginning.
Also on the show was evolutionary biologist Brett Weinstein. Long story short, the guests suggest that some of the (allegedly compromised by money) authoritative medical bodies have been captured, and have helped industry by cherry picking studies to highlight the low quality ones, while the high quality studies and, more importantly, country wide actual results in practice in several large countries, they are downplaying. Again this is done by authorities who, it is claimed, may have a vested (direct or indirect) interest in suppressing a low cost drug that is bad for business.
The episode also covers the remarkable censorship around this.
They also mention that US hospitals are prescribing Remdesivir (sp?) even though the WHO does not recommend it. According to the doctor on the podcast Remdesivir costs $3,000 a dose.
Anecdotal evidence, but a powerful one to be sure.
but pretty sure the excuse here is going to be a no true scotsman thing
However, setting that aside, please bear with me here, he does sometimes have very intelligent and well informed people on his show. I think that is the case with this particular episode. It would behoove you or anyone to keep an open mind.