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.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@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.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
-
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.
-
-
Is it really that good?
I've heard some people say it makes vaccines moot. (How? Does it clear covid up like morphine to pain?)
If it' so good and it's been on the radar for so long - why hasn't this been publicized widely (by other countries, if we think it's political here)?
-
What ever happened to hydroxychloroquine?
When you shake someone's deep sense of self-worth, leaving a scar in their ego, they will persistently try to diminish you through petty arguments & obsessive captious criticism of your actions, just to soothe the wound.
- Nassim Nicholas Taleb
-
@horace said in Ivermectin:
The Wall Street Journal ran an opinion piece today about Ivermectin and why the the FDA is crapping on such a promising drug. I wasn’t able to read the whole story without a subscription. Can anybody paste it here?
Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?
Ivermectin is a promising Covid treatment and prophylaxis, but the agency is denigrating it.
By David R. Henderson and Charles L. Hooper
July 28, 2021 12:34 pm ETThe Food and Drug Administration claims to follow the science. So why is it attacking ivermectin, a medication it certified in 1996?
Earlier this year the agency put out a special warning that “you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.” The FDA’s statement included words and phrases such as “serious harm,” “hospitalized,” “dangerous,” “very dangerous,” “seizures,” “coma and even death” and “highly toxic.” Any reader would think the FDA was warning against poison pills. In fact, the drug is FDA-approved as a safe and effective antiparasitic.
Ivermectin was developed and marketed by Merck & Co. while one of us (Mr. Hooper) worked there years ago. William C. Campbell and Satoshi Omura won the 2015 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for discovering and developing avermectin, which Mr. Campbell and associates modified to create ivermectin.
Ivermectin is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines. Merck has donated four billion doses to prevent river blindness and other diseases in Africa and other places where parasites are common. A group of 10 doctors who call themselves the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance have said ivermectin is “one of the safest, low-cost, and widely available drugs in the history of medicine.”
Ivermectin fights 21 viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the cause of Covid-19. A single dose reduced the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in cells by 99.8% in 24 hours and 99.98% in 48 hours, according to a June 2020 study published in the journal Antiviral Research.
Some 70 clinical trials are evaluating the use of ivermectin for treating Covid-19. The statistically significant evidence suggests that it is safe and works for both treating and preventing the disease.
In 115 patients with Covid-19 who received a single dose of ivermectin, none developed pneumonia or cardiovascular complications, while 11.4% of those in the control group did. Fewer ivermectin patients developed respiratory distress (2.6% vs. 15.8%); fewer required oxygen (9.6% vs. 45.9%); fewer required antibiotics (15.7% vs. 60.2%); and fewer entered intensive care (0.1% vs. 8.3%). Ivermectin-treated patients tested negative faster, in four days instead of 15, and stayed in the hospital nine days on average instead of 15. Ivermectin patients experienced 13.3% mortality compared with 24.5% in the control group.
Moreover, the drug can help prevent Covid-19. One 2020 article in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications looked at what happened after the drug was given to family members of confirmed Covid-19 patients. Less than 8% became infected, versus 58.4% of those untreated. Among 200 healthcare workers and others at high risk of exposure, only 2% of those given ivermectin developed Covid-19. But 10% of the control group did.
Despite the FDA’s claims, ivermectin is safe at approved doses. Out of four billion doses administered since 1998, there have been only 28 cases of serious neurological adverse events, according to an article published this year in the American Journal of Therapeutics. The same study found that ivermectin has been used safely in pregnant women, children and infants.
If the FDA were driven by science and evidence, it would give an emergency-use authorization for ivermectin for Covid-19. Instead, the FDA asserts without evidence that ivermectin is dangerous.
At the bottom of the FDA’s warning against ivermectin is this statement: “Meanwhile, effective ways to limit the spread of COVID-19 continue to be to wear your mask, stay at least 6 feet from others who don’t live with you, wash hands frequently, and avoid crowds.” Is this based on the kinds of double-blind studies that the FDA requires for drug approvals? No.
Mr. Henderson, a research fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, was senior health economist with President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers. Mr. Hooper is president of Objective Insights, a firm that consults with pharmaceutical clients.
"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.
-
@george-k said in Ivermectin:
Ivermectin fights 21 viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the cause of Covid-19. A single dose reduced the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in cells by 99.8% in 24 hours and 99.98% in 48 hours, according to a June 2020 study published in the journal Antiviral Research.
Conspiracy of all time. Can you imagine something that effective over a year ago and it’s not widely distributed. What is wrong with people?
-
@loki said in Ivermectin:
@george-k said in Ivermectin:
Ivermectin fights 21 viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the cause of Covid-19. A single dose reduced the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in cells by 99.8% in 24 hours and 99.98% in 48 hours, according to a June 2020 study published in the journal Antiviral Research.
Conspiracy of all time. Can you imagine something that effective over a year ago and it’s not widely distributed. What is wrong with people?
I think there are two points in the editorial, and it's easy to conflate them.
Point #2 is whether the drug is effective in treating COVID. I have zero skin in that game, and from what I've seen there have been few good studies to support its use. Anecdotes are not a reason to use it, unless you're practicing "might-as-well-give-it-a-try" medicine. Not that that's a bad thing when you're desperate, of course.
Point #1 is somewhat more sinister. Ivermectin is a safe drug. Side effects and complications are exceptionally rare. Compare those effects with the side effects of a drug like digitalis, which has an exceptionally narrow therapeutic window, and was the mainstay of treatment for congestive heart failure for decades. Goodness, compare it with aspirin, which would never be approved today.
Edit to add: I have not read the FDA statement about the dangers of ivermectin, so I'm relying on the editorial's accuracy.
-
@george-k said in Ivermectin:
@loki said in Ivermectin:
@george-k said in Ivermectin:
Ivermectin fights 21 viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the cause of Covid-19. A single dose reduced the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in cells by 99.8% in 24 hours and 99.98% in 48 hours, according to a June 2020 study published in the journal Antiviral Research.
Conspiracy of all time. Can you imagine something that effective over a year ago and it’s not widely distributed. What is wrong with people?
I think there are two points in the editorial, and it's easy to conflate them.
Point #2 is whether the drug is effective in treating COVID. I have zero skin in that game, and from what I've seen there have been few good studies to support its use. Anecdotes are not a reason to use it, unless you're practicing "might-as-well-give-it-a-try" medicine. Not that that's a bad thing when you're desperate, of course.
Point #1 is somewhat more sinister. Ivermectin is a safe drug. Side effects and complications are exceptionally rare. Compare those effects with the side effects of a drug like digitalis, which has an exceptionally narrow therapeutic window, and was the mainstay of treatment for congestive heart failure for decades. Goodness, compare it with aspirin, which would never be approved today.
Edit to add: I have not read the FDA statement about the dangers of ivermectin, so I'm relying on the editorial's accuracy.
Nope nope nope. No country in the world would have had the revelation yet?????
Countries that can’t vaccinate their people?
This is why we are going to have passports, masks and lockdowns. Enough people in the US think Ivermectin will be there for them.
Yes, it is almost free and very safe.
-
@jon-nyc said in Ivermectin:
What ever happened to hydroxychloroquine?
It turns your skin bright orange. Just look at goldfish if you don't believe me.
-
@loki said in Ivermectin:
@george-k said in Ivermectin:
Ivermectin fights 21 viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the cause of Covid-19. A single dose reduced the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in cells by 99.8% in 24 hours and 99.98% in 48 hours, according to a June 2020 study published in the journal Antiviral Research.
Conspiracy of all time. Can you imagine something that effective over a year ago and it’s not widely distributed. What is wrong with people?
People are imagining that, yes. You can't imagine it, but that doesn't say much. It is fact that 1) there is reason to believe, with evidence, that Ivermectin is effective and 2) it has not been widely studied, to get a more clear idea of effectiveness. The op-ed writers, and Bret Weinstein et all, are advocating for studies. Why do you find that so bewildering? A guy like Bret has his neck out there, because he's making predictions that could easily be proven wrong. So, let's prove it wrong, why not?
As for whether Bret is too confident based on existing evidence - I would think he is being too confident. But his confidence doesn't give me a shocked face while I run for a fainting couch at how humans can be so crazy.
-
@george-k said in Ivermectin:
@horace said in Ivermectin:
The Wall Street Journal ran an opinion piece today about Ivermectin and why the the FDA is crapping on such a promising drug. I wasn’t able to read the whole story without a subscription. Can anybody paste it here?
Thanks George.
