Ivermectin: False science created a Covid 'miracle' drug
bbc.com
bbc.com
Some Quotes:
>(Ivermectin) has had an immeasurably beneficial impact in improving the lives and welfare of billions of people throughout the world.
>There are few drugs that can seriously lay claim to the title of ‘Wonder drug’, penicillin and aspirin being two that have perhaps had greatest beneficial impact on the health and wellbeing of Mankind. But ivermectin can also be considered alongside those worthy contenders, based on its versatility, safety and the beneficial impact that it has had, and continues to have, worldwide—especially on hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people.
Contrary to popular belief, Ivermectin is not just a "horse dewormer" but has antiviral properties:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7564151/ (general antiviral)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6277121/ (dengue)
Also, I hate when it's call a "horse dewormer", because it's also a good human dewormer. I try to write an angry comment in each article that calls it a "horse dewormer".
Note that many antivirals has been tried, but for now the only one with good results is molnupiravir and it's a very recent result https://www.merck.com/news/merck-and-ridgebacks-investigatio... (HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28719928 )
Maybe part of the studies that they reviewed have been purposely falsified (there are suspicions about the studies on the efficacy of the vaccines as well), however, it is also known that the studies finding no benefit of Ivermectin use were using very low doses of it - way below those recommended. I consider that sabotage as well.
Medical doctors are trained to cure people but only a small part of them are trained to make good research papers. So a lot of papers about Ivermectin have a control group that is just an unrelated bunch of guys. The problem is the lack of understanding of why it's necessary to have a control group, and the error in old studies about other drugs that showed why it's necessary to use RCT to get reliable results.
Other have different errors and red flags, like discussed in the article. They says it's a sign of potencial fraud, I think it's more sloppiness. In any case, they are nor reliable results.
This reminds me of a few articles I've seen talking about the "gaslighting of science."
There's a fair amount of research indicating the opposite so it's a little more complicated to know what's "indicated by the research".
After this paper, they had a second wave that looks very similar to the first one. And IIRC the second wave disappeared without Ivermectin. So the question is: Did the first wave disappeared because they used Ivermectin or it disappeared because it's the common behavior like it happened in other countries?
The problems with this type of studies is that near the top of the wave people get desperate and try anything, and then the wave slowly disappears and it's not clear if it was the new drug or just the normal behavior. To be sure, the only solution is to make double blind randomized controlled trials.
At least here in Argentina it's used unofficially by many people. For example, there was a big announcement last month by some medical doctors from one of the provinces, but it was only a press release, not even a preprint, and it was not a RCT so I'm not very optimistic about the validity of the results.
Maybe it helps when taken very early. It helped with Remdesivir according to Gilead.