COVID-19

[Tycho_Brohe]

Good question. Like we like to say, ivermectin is one tool in the tool bag. Combined with other tools, there are studies that show it can help prevent, reduce symptoms, and minimize the impact of COVID.

There are just as many studies showing that it has little to no effect.

This, combined with decades of safe use in other countries, show that's it's part of the solution to getting past COVID. Pfizer is now in the process of developing a drug very, very similar to ivermectin in their search for more money COVID treatment.

Unfortunately, like others have said, large studies still need to be done to show conclusive evidence. Who will pay for the studies? Well, not the government and not philanthropists largely invested in vaccines. Real-world data with India using Ivermectin as part of the treatment plan in the majority of their districts show the differences between those districts that did use it and those that didn't (against, presumably, the delta variant).
Sources:

Exploring the binding efficacy of ivermectin against the key proteins of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis: an in silico approach

Aim: COVID-19 is currently the biggest threat to mankind. Recently, ivermectin (a US FDA-approved antiparasitic drug) has been explored as an anti-SARS-CoV-2 agent. Herein, we have studied the possible mechanism of action of ivermectin using in silico ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro

Although several clinical trials are now underway to test possible therapies, the worldwide response to the COVID-19 outbreak has been largely limited to monitoring/containment. We report here that Ivermectin, an FDA-approved anti-parasitic previously ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Identification of 3-chymotrypsin like protease (3CLPro) inhibitors as potential anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents - Communications Biology

Here, the authors identify potential drugs that target 3-chymotrypsin like protease (3CLpro), which is a pivotal protease for the replication of SARS-CoV-2. They found that off-target inhibitors such as ivermectin and micafungin inhibit 3CLpro enzyme activity, suggesting that these molecules...

www.nature.com

Ivermectin reduces in vivo coronavirus infection in a mouse experimental model

The objective of this study was to test the effectiveness of ivermectin for the treatment of mouse hepatitis virus (MHV), a type 2 family RNA coronavirus similar to SARS-CoV-2. Female BALB/cJ mice were infected with 6,000 PFU of MHV-A59 (group infected, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Epidemiologic Analyses on Ivermectin in COVID-19

The Latest Results of Ivermectin’s Success in Treating Outbreaks of COVID-19 including charts and data by Juan Chamie.

covid19criticalcare.com

These studies are all in vitro/in silico from over a year ago, except for the one that shows ivermectin can help mice with hepatitis, and the one that looks like it was straight-up sponsored by The Ivermectin Company, and which fails to cite any kind of controlled study, opting instead for the "correlation is causation" argument.

I'm sure there are more studies showing promising results.

It's been over a year. Where are they? Big Pharma didn't see the money in it? What about Merck releasing a statement saying ivermectin is not effective against COVID? Wouldn't they rather people think it works, so they can sell more of it?

"Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:

• No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
• No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
• A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information."

The strongest case I've seen made for ivermectin is still the same study from last year, the second article posted in the quoted post, showing that ivermectin can inhibit COVID in a test tube. Except such a high dose would be toxic for humans, as those same authors state here.

Like most things, to answer your first question, is misuse. Don't misuse a drug; don't miscalculate dosage. Don't try to eat a whole tube of horse paste just like you shouldn't murder your husband by giving him fish tank cleaner.

1000% agree with you on this. People needed to be told not to eat Tide Pods not too long ago. Honestly, Heartgard seems relatively tame compared to that.

 

[bcort]

There are just as many studies showing that it has little to no effect.

You must have missed the combined part. Ivermectin works in conjunction best, increasing its effectiveness. Yes by itself, it's inconclusive on how much it helps.

These studies are all in vitro/in silico from over a year ago, except for the one that shows ivermectin can help mice with hepatitis, and the one that looks like it was straight-up sponsored by The Ivermectin Company, and which fails to cite any kind of controlled study, opting instead for the "correlation is causation" argument.

It's been over a year. Where are they? Big Pharma didn't see the money in it? What about Merck releasing a statement saying ivermectin is not effective against COVID? Wouldn't they rather people think it works, so they can sell more of it?

If you could do something and make $1,000, would you do it for $10?

Would you even think about learning additional skills while you were make $1,000 when those skills, despite being useful, mean you make $10?

"Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:

• No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
• No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
• A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information."

The strongest case I've seen made for ivermectin is still the same study from last year, the second article posted in the quoted post, showing that ivermectin can inhibit COVID in a test tube. Except such a high dose would be toxic for humans, as those same authors state here.

1000% agree with you on this. People needed to be told not to eat Tide Pods not too long ago. Honestly, Heartgard seems relatively tame compared to that.

I'm sure there could be some case studies that could be made from the correlations to see if they could find causation, but I'm not convinced there is a whole lot of money in doing so. Again, people not misusing it has shown to be extremely safe for decades. If it helps them, great. If it doesn't, it does you no harm and, unless they feel like seeing if they can deep throat a horse-sized toothpaste tube, probably none to them either.


Edit: collectively, we should not get stuck on a sole drug like ivermectin. What we should be talking about are the therapeutic treatments to Covid that perform(ed) much better than sticking people on ventilators yet were completely dismissed by Fauci and the mainstream.

 

[wink]

View attachment 32163

That chart is misleading. The PhD cohort is very small compared to the others, so a smaller number of individuals not getting a jab represents a larger percent of the cohort than another larger cohort such as some college or bachelors. There are fairer ways to measure this.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

That chart is misleading. The PhD cohort is very small compared to the others, so a smaller number of individuals not getting a jab represents a larger percent of the cohort than another larger cohort such as some college or bachelors. There are fairer ways to measure this.

Does anyone here not know what a percentage is?

 

[wink]

Does anyone here not know what a percentage is?

Those that do know the chart is misleading. I am guessing you do. So does that mean you posted a misleading chart on purpose?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Those that do know the chart is misleading. I am guessing you do. So does that mean you posted a misleading chart on purpose?

First of all it’s a joke. Second, yes everyone here knows what a percentage is. Like I already said. Also you have no idea if the chart is misleading unless you know how many people they surveyed.

 

[wink]

First of all it’s a joke. Second, yes everyone here knows what a percentage is. Like I already said. Also you have no idea if the chart is misleading unless you know how many people they surveyed.

Well the primary source indicates 1 million people were surveyed every month January through May 2021. That was the aggregate of all the categories in the chart. So yeah, out of those 5 million surveys, the PhD cohort is the smallest.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Well the primary source indicates 1 million people were surveyed every month January through May 2021. That was the aggregate of all the categories in the chart. So yeah, out of those 5 million surveys, the PhD cohort is the smallest.

I’m pre-gretting this post but of course you know the total numbers don’t matter, what matters for your argument is who they asked. Because you, like most people in this site, understand percentages.

 

[Tycho_Brohe]

You must have missed the combined part. Ivermectin works in conjunction best, increasing its effectiveness.

Again, you say this as if there's any evidence of it.

If you could do something and make $1,000, would you do it for $10?
Would you even think about learning additional skills while you were make $1,000 when those skills, despite being useful, mean you make $10?

I'm not sure I understand the analogy. Ivermectin is already developed and tested, and as you said, has been used to treat something else for decades. It'd be easy for Merck to just let people assume ivermectin is effective so they'd buy Stromectol and use it off-label. Or, alternatively, if they thought there was any merit to ivermectin's efficacy against COVID, they could get some studies done and get FDA approval for its usage. I imagine the studies would be far cheaper than designing a new drug from scratch. Then they just slap "Also works on COVID!" on the old bottle and upcharge. But they went out of their way to tell people there's no scientific basis to what they saw on their aunt's Facebook posts.

I'm sure there could be some case studies that could be made from the correlations to see if they could find causation, but I'm not convinced there is a whole lot of money in doing so.

I mean, you can't just "study a chart" to determine causation (despite everyone else's best efforts earlier on in this thread). That's why there are controlled studies, drug trials and so forth. Ivermectin is not expensive. No drug that's been around for 40 years is. But I guess if there's no money to determine ivermectin does or does not work, then there's no money.

Again, people not misusing it has shown to be extremely safe for decades. If it helps them, great. If it doesn't, it does you no harm and, unless they feel like seeing if they can deep throat a horse-sized toothpaste tube, probably none to them either.

I agree that ivermectin in its prescribed dosage (for worms) does not harm people (that take it to treat their worms). And I appreciate the visual there. But I wonder if part of the remaining vaccine hesitancy is due to the potentially false promise of an alternative treatment.

Edit: collectively, we should not get stuck on a sole drug like ivermectin. What we should be talking about are the therapeutic treatments to Covid that perform(ed) much better than sticking people on ventilators yet were completely dismissed by Fauci and the mainstream.

Fair enough. Like that Regeneron cocktail. They're rolling that out in Florida lately for free.

 

[taxi1]

View attachment 32163

Yea, I saw that. Pretty interesting.

I wonder if it breaks out by discipline, STEM versus squishy fields.

the PhD cohort is the smallest.

They surveyed 10,000 PhDs, which is a pretty good sample size.

 

[bcort]

Again, you say this as if there's any evidence of it.

There is evidence of it. Studies were provided a couple posts back. Ivermectin works as an inhibitor to stop virus cells from replicating. That function does not change from a test tube to a body. There has to be additional drugs to get your antibodies help to win the fight (among other things).

Ivermectin is not a one drug to solve the problem. It's one tool in the tool bag. It's a good tool to have and use early if needed.

I'm not sure I understand the analogy. Ivermectin is already developed and tested, and as you said, has been used to treat something else for decades. It'd be easy for Merck to just let people assume ivermectin is effective so they'd buy Stromectol and use it off-label. Or, alternatively, if they thought there was any merit to ivermectin's efficacy against COVID, they could get some studies done and get FDA approval for its usage. I imagine the studies would be far cheaper than designing a new drug from scratch. Then they just slap "Also works on COVID!" on the old bottle and upcharge. But they went out of their way to tell people there's no scientific basis to what they saw on their aunt's Facebook posts.

Money....
If they can get funding for a new drug, why push an old one? There's very little money in that and billions in a new one. It would be bad business.

I mean, you can't just "study a chart" to determine causation (despite everyone else's best efforts earlier on in this thread). That's why there are controlled studies, drug trials and so forth. Ivermectin is not expensive. No drug that's been around for 40 years is. But I guess if there's no money to determine ivermectin does or does not work, then there's no money.

I agree that ivermectin in its prescribed dosage (for worms) does not harm people (that take it to treat their worms). And I appreciate the visual there. But I wonder if part of the remaining vaccine hesitancy is due to the potentially false promise of an alternative treatment.

Fair enough. Like that Regeneron cocktail. They're rolling that out in Florida lately for free.

It's not just the chart. The chart plus context can provide useful information. In this instance, we know the treatment plan and time when they implemented it. We know doctors in Houston used it as part of a treatment plan to better results.

Don't know anything about the Florida plan so can't comment on it.

 

[Tycho_Brohe]

There is evidence of it. Studies were provided a couple posts back. Ivermectin works as an inhibitor to stop virus cells from replicating. That function does not change from a test tube to a body. There has to be additional drugs to get your antibodies help to win the fight (among other things).

The main study, which inspired all other studies, shows that ivermectin is effective in dosages that would be toxic to humans. They flooded it with ivermectin, and it killed the COVID. Knowing that ivermectin has a mechanism of action that inhibits COVID is useful, but it is not the same as saying ivermectin treats COVID, regardless of whether it's combined with other drugs. Also, to be clear, one of those studies was about mice with hepatitis.

Ivermectin is not a one drug to solve the problem. It's one tool in the tool bag. It's a good tool to have and use early if needed.

The FDA, the WHO, and the IDSA disagree. I'd rather have room in the bag for medicine that was actually designed to (and is proven to) work against COVID, such as the vaccine and the Regeneron cocktail.

Money....
If they can get funding for a new drug, why push an old one? There's very little money in that and billions in a new one. It would be bad business.

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying. But pharmaceutical companies are not the only ones who fund these studies.

It's not just the chart. The chart plus context can provide useful information. In this instance, we know the treatment plan and time when they implemented it. We know doctors in Houston used it as part of a treatment plan to better results.

Again, like the original study, that is useful information that should point us to conducting clinical trials. I still haven't seen them. It's been over a year. By now, someone must have had the idea to test IVM+HCQ+AZM or whatever versus a control of standard care in COVID patients. But either it hasn't happened, or the results weren't promising enough to publish.

Don't know anything about the Florida plan so can't comment on it.

Sure, maybe not about Florida, but how about monoclonal antibody treatments? If you like ivermectin, you're gonna love this. One of the few things President Biden and Governor DeSantis can agree on. Even The Donald was singing its praises.

 

[SlickAg]

Typing this so a moderator doesn’t delete this tweet because it’s not simping for Fauci.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1428531031838236681

 

[bcort]

The main study, which inspired all other studies, shows that ivermectin is effective in dosages that would be toxic to humans. They flooded it with ivermectin, and it killed the COVID. Knowing that ivermectin has a mechanism of action that inhibits COVID is useful, but it is not the same as saying ivermectin treats COVID, regardless of whether it's combined with other drugs. Also, to be clear, one of those studies was about mice with hepatitis.

Thank you for agreeing that ivermectin can help with the treatment of Covid.

The FDA, the WHO, and the IDSA disagree. I'd rather have room in the bag for medicine that was actually designed to (and is proven to) work against COVID, such as the vaccine and the Regeneron cocktail.

They should not recommend a drug that does not have sufficient testing [for testing with Covid]. Agreed. You're talking about FDA, WHO, IDSA. I'm talking about real-world usage.

You must have easily forgotten the various methods of treatment used in the early days of the pandemic. Doctors tried anything and nearly everything to see if it worked. Did the FDA or WHO approve of those treatments?

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying. But pharmaceutical companies are not the only ones who fund these studies.

Government agencies would be the other large source of funding. They've made their beds...

Again, like the original study, that is useful information that should point us to conducting clinical trials. I still haven't seen them. It's been over a year. By now, someone must have had the idea to test IVM+HCQ+AZM or whatever versus a control of standard care in COVID patients. But either it hasn't happened, or the results weren't promising enough to publish.

Sure, maybe not about Florida, but how about monoclonal antibody treatments? If you like ivermectin, you're gonna love this. One of the few things President Biden and Governor DeSantis can agree on. Even The Donald was singing its praises.

I'll have to do some more reading on Regeneron and the associated drugs. It looks promising.

 

[taxi1]

Thank you for agreeing that ivermectin can help with the treatment of Covid...

You must have easily forgotten the various methods of treatment used in the early days of the pandemic. Doctors tried anything and nearly everything to see if it worked.

So why haven't they settled on Ivermectrim as a go-to therapeutic? Alone or with other treatments?