Ivermectin
-
"On Bret Weinstein's podcast yesterday, they spent some time talking about the medication Ivermectin. Low cost, known for a long time, free in 19 African countries. They were pissed that Twitter pulled all links to the article.
Ivermectin. Weinstein is no dummy, nor is his wife Heather. Both hold Ph.D.'s in biology. Everything is politicized, and then follow the money if you can, and try to combine the two while the media ignores all, and social media is policed on what is allowed to be covered. Jesus.
Ivermectin. Anybody heard of it, especially you docs? Hope I spelled it right."
"Paul Marik, MD, FCCM, FCCP, founder of the alliance and a professor and chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, said that ivermectin “is a safe drug that is exceedingly cheap.”
"He added that “what is truly remarkable — this was a gift to us — ivermectin has high activity against COVID-19.”"In a press conference, researchers said that ivermectin is an FDA-approved anti-parasitic drug that has been available for approximately 40 years and previously earned researchers a Nobel Prize.
"Ivermectin is a key factor in the alliance’s I-MASK+ protocol for prophylaxis and early treatment of outpatients with COVID-19."
-
Are there any studies to show its effectiveness, other than anecdotal stories like this?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
-
@mark said in Ivermectin:
@mik said in Ivermectin:
Really? Heart worm medicine?
Seriously? My dog takes that once a month.
Has he gotten Covid? WELL?!?
-
George, thanks for starting this topic in a new thread.
Jodi, thanks for the link.
Jolly, thanks for the comment on the other thread.Here is a good quote from Jodi's link. I cut/paste not because it is particularly informative, but it just sounds cool:
" Ivermectin has shown its potent in vitro antiviral effects against several RNA viruses, such as Zika virus, Influenza A virus, Newcastle disease virus, Chikungunya virus, Yellow fever virus, Dengue virus, Japanese encephalitis virus and DNA virus such as BK polyomavirus and Equine herpesvirus type 1 [3]"I wish we could put quotes in a box like the old site.
THIS quote is interesting, as so much of the article goes over my head:
"Recently, two in vivo studies of ivermectin alone or in combination with doxycycline has been published. In a Randomized Trial of 116 patients treated with Ivermectin-Doxycycline(n = 60) or Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin(n = 56) therapy the authors found Ivermectin-Doxycycline combination therapy had a better success of symptomatic relief; shortened recovery duration, reduced adverse effects, and superior patient compliance compared to the Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin combination. The authors concluded ivermectin as a better choice for the treatment of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 disease" -
George, thanks for starting this topic in a new thread.
Jodi, thanks for the link.
Jolly, thanks for the comment on the other thread.Here is a good quote from Jodi's link. I cut/paste not because it is particularly informative, but it just sounds cool:
" Ivermectin has shown its potent in vitro antiviral effects against several RNA viruses, such as Zika virus, Influenza A virus, Newcastle disease virus, Chikungunya virus, Yellow fever virus, Dengue virus, Japanese encephalitis virus and DNA virus such as BK polyomavirus and Equine herpesvirus type 1 [3]"I wish we could put quotes in a box like the old site.
THIS quote is interesting, as so much of the article goes over my head:
"Recently, two in vivo studies of ivermectin alone or in combination with doxycycline has been published. In a Randomized Trial of 116 patients treated with Ivermectin-Doxycycline(n = 60) or Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin(n = 56) therapy the authors found Ivermectin-Doxycycline combination therapy had a better success of symptomatic relief; shortened recovery duration, reduced adverse effects, and superior patient compliance compared to the Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin combination. The authors concluded ivermectin as a better choice for the treatment of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 disease" -
You can quote things just put a single greater-than sign in front of it. Like this, without the quotes
“>”
-
@mark said in Ivermectin:
@mik said in Ivermectin:
Really? Heart worm medicine?
Seriously? My dog takes that once a month.
Doubt your dogvtakes Ivermectin. Old ranchers tend to give it to their dogs, because it's cheap and they have it on hand.
IIRC, it will kill a border collie or border collie cross.
-
@mark said in Ivermectin:
@mik said in Ivermectin:
Really? Heart worm medicine?
Seriously? My dog takes that once a month.
Doubt your dogvtakes Ivermectin. Old ranchers tend to give it to their dogs, because it's cheap and they have it on hand.
IIRC, it will kill a border collie or border collie cross.
@jolly said in Ivermectin:
@mark said in Ivermectin:
@mik said in Ivermectin:
Really? Heart worm medicine?
Seriously? My dog takes that once a month.
Doubt your dogvtakes Ivermectin. Old ranchers tend to give it to their dogs, because it's cheap and they have it on hand.
IIRC, it will kill a border collie or border collie cross.
https://www.poison.org/articles/ivermectin-your-dogs-heartworm-medicine-173
Yes he does take it, every month, and I know border collies that take it. Some collies have a genetic mutation that makes ivermectin and other medications dangerous. Not all collies, border or sheltie, etc have the mutation.
from: https://www.dogster.com/lifestyle/is-heartgard-plus-safe-for-collies-and-shelties
"My opinion, and more importantly the opinion of numerous veterinary toxicology gurus, is that Heartgard Plus is safe for Collies and Shelties.
Heartgard (it always pains me to type that word — I wish the manufacturer had decided to spell guard correctly) Plus is used in dogs as a monthly heartworm and intestinal worm preventative. It contains two active ingredients. Ivermectin prevents heartworm infestation by killing larvae in the bloodstream. Pyrantel pamoate removes many types of intestinal worms.
Collies (including Border Collies, Bearded Collies, and Rough Coated Collies), Shelties, and dogs with pigmented bodies but white feet are prone to a genetic anomaly called the MDR-1 mutation. Dogs with the mutation are susceptible to toxicity from a number of medications. Ivermectin is the most famous and widely used of the medications that can cause toxicity in many Collies and Shelties.
This fact has led many vets to be wary of using Heartgard Plus in Collies and Shelties. However, the dose of ivermectin in Heartgard Plus (6 ug/kg) is only about 1/8 of the dose (50 ug/kg at least) that causes toxicity in individuals with the mutation. The consensus among experts therefore is that Heartgard Plus is safe for all dogs.
Ivermectin commonly is used at higher doses to treat various types of mange and other parasitic diseases. High-dose ivermectin is a huge no-no in Collies and Shelties unless they are first tested for the mutation.
The test for the mutation is readily available through commercial veterinary diagnostic laboratories. I recommend it before starting a course of high dose ivermectin in any dog. However, I do not worry about toxicity when I prescribe Heargard Plus."
-
A DuPage County judge has ordered a hospital to allow a comatose COVID-19 patient access to a drug the FDA says could be unsafe, according to The Chicago Tribune.
Elmhurst Hospital says the drug use isn’t justified, another court hearing is scheduled for Tuesday morning.
The drug itself has been around for a long time, but it is usually used to treat parasitic worms. Although, some doctors have found success using it for COVID-19 patients.
The Tribune reports 68-year-old Nurije Fype has been at Elmhurst Hospital since April and is now on a ventilator. Her daughter has been fighting to get her the drug ivermectin.
The FDA does not recommend the use of the drug for COVID-19, while the National Institute of Health says there isn’t enough research to recommend it’s use or not for COVID-19.
An attorney for the hospital says none of the doctors agreed to administer the drug and an ethics panel concluded it couldn’t justify the drugs use, according to the Tribune.
The Tribune reports the judge pointed to a court document from the woman’s doctor who says he’s used the drug successfully. The judge asked if no one at the hospital is willing to give her the drug, why not allow her doctor to do it?
The Tribune reports the judge added why does the hospital object to using the medication if the patient is not improving.
The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday morning.
Interesting. FDA says drug can be unsafe (though it's been around forever), Docs say they don't want to use it. Ethics panel says "nope."
Judge says, "Use it."
-
Follow the money?
Down here, it's given by some docs, especially in early COVID.
Does it work? I dunno. But like Plaquenil, it might and in the right dosage, fairly safe.
-
Follow the money?
Down here, it's given by some docs, especially in early COVID.
Does it work? I dunno. But like Plaquenil, it might and in the right dosage, fairly safe.
-
Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns
A medical student in London, Jack Lawrence, was among the first to identify serious concerns about the paper, leading to the retraction. He first became aware of the Elgazzar preprint when it was assigned to him by one of his lecturers for an assignment that formed part of his master’s degree. He found the introduction section of the paper appeared to have been almost entirely plagiarised.
It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. “Humorously, this led to them changing ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’ to ‘extreme intense respiratory syndrome’ on one occasion,” Lawrence said.
“The authors claimed to have done the study only on 18-80 year olds, but at least three patients in the dataset were under 18,” Lawrence said.
“The authors claimed they conducted the study between the 8th of June and 20th of September 2020, however most of the patients who died were admitted into hospital and died before the 8th of June according to the raw data. The data was also terribly formatted, and includes one patient who left hospital on the non-existent date of 31/06/2020.”
Lawrence contacted an Australian chronic disease epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, and a data analyst affiliated with Linnaeus University in Sweden who reviews scientific papers for errors, Nick Brown, for help analysing the data and study results more thoroughly.
Brown created a comprehensive document uncovering numerous data errors, discrepancies and concerns, which he provided to the Guardian. According to his findings the authors had clearly repeated data between patients.
“The main error is that at least 79 of the patient records are obvious clones of other records,” Brown told the Guardian. “It’s certainly the hardest to explain away as innocent error, especially since the clones aren’t even pure copies. There are signs that they have tried to change one or two fields to make them look more natural.”
Kyle Sheldrick, a Sydney doctor and researcher, also independently raised concerns about the paper. He found numbers the authors provided for several standard deviations – a measure of variation in a group of data points – mentioned in tables in the paper were “mathematically impossible” given the range of numbers provided in the same table.
Sheldrick said the completeness of data was further evidence suggesting possible fabrication, noting that in real-world conditions, this was almost impossible. He also identified the duplication of patient deaths and data.
-
That’s batshit crazy.
-
So, if this is true, who's behind it?
I'm asking this because I've been told there are no stupid questions, and I want to test the premise.
-
Here's Bret Weinstein's twitter response:
I don’t know if the study in question is fatally flawed, or worse. But nothing rests on it. The remaining evidence points in the same direction.
Can the public track the evidentiary signal through the noise of a fraud allegation? Time will tell.
