Ivermectin
-
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.
-
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?
Education is extremely important.
-
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)?
-
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?
@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?
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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?
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.
-
@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.
@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.
-
@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.
@horace 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?
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?
Take the vaccine and study it is what I would do.
We are going back into some form of limited freedom because enough people aren’t getting the vaccine.
Quietly study the thing in India or Brazil and let us know what happened.
So disheartening to have this pandemic extended because of skeptics but maybe this is our limits. We are not so great after all.
-
@horace 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?
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?
Take the vaccine and study it is what I would do.
We are going back into some form of limited freedom because enough people aren’t getting the vaccine.
Quietly study the thing in India or Brazil and let us know what happened.
So disheartening to have this pandemic extended because of skeptics but maybe this is our limits. We are not so great after all.
@loki said in Ivermectin:
@horace 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?
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?
Take the vaccine and study it is what I would do.
We are going back into some form of limited freedom because enough people aren’t getting the vaccine.
Quietly study the thing in India or Brazil and let us know what happened.
So disheartening to have this pandemic extended because of skeptics but maybe this is our limits. We are not so great after all.
Well, you're definitely not so great at focusing on a point when you're emotional about some vaguely related point, but actually an attempt to convince people not to get vaccinated appears nowhere in that op-ed.
-
@loki said in Ivermectin:
@horace 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?
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?
Take the vaccine and study it is what I would do.
We are going back into some form of limited freedom because enough people aren’t getting the vaccine.
Quietly study the thing in India or Brazil and let us know what happened.
So disheartening to have this pandemic extended because of skeptics but maybe this is our limits. We are not so great after all.
Well, you're definitely not so great at focusing on a point when you're emotional about some vaguely related point, but actually an attempt to convince people not to get vaccinated appears nowhere in that op-ed.
-
@loki said in Ivermectin:
@horace said in Ivermectin:
@loki said in Ivermectin:
@horace 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?
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?
Take the vaccine and study it is what I would do.
We are going back into some form of limited freedom because enough people aren’t getting the vaccine.
Quietly study the thing in India or Brazil and let us know what happened.
So disheartening to have this pandemic extended because of skeptics but maybe this is our limits. We are not so great after all.
Well, you're definitely not so great at focusing on a point when you're emotional about some vaguely related point, but actually an attempt to convince people not to get vaccinated appears nowhere in that op-ed.
Horace- you are so funny with your emotional and self righteous comments over and over again. I understand the tactic.
I also understand the tactic of narrowing the scope of a convo to discrete words and sentences.
If your goal is to silence me, say the word and I will happily go.
I hope you don't go, Loki. At this point I have little interest in your histrionics, and I have given up any hope that you'll be self-aware of how irrational you become when you get emotional, but when you're not histrionic you're interesting. I think you're a smart guy and an interesting poster. But you have a definite issue with remaining tethered to rational discourse when you get emotional about something. What is most irritating to me about that, is that when you're in that state, you begin accusing everybody else of being crazy.
-
Hey, if Loki goes, can we all blame the conservatives for driving him away?
-
Hey, if Loki goes, can we all blame the conservatives for driving him away?
@doctor-phibes said in Ivermectin:
Hey, if Loki goes, can we all blame the conservatives for driving him away?
I would blame the anti-vaxxers.
-
I had no idea I was at the top of the charts with emotions, seriously. I am trying to figure out how I earned that title I have misread so many posts.
-
I had no idea I was at the top of the charts with emotions, seriously. I am trying to figure out how I earned that title I have misread so many posts.
@loki said in Ivermectin:
I had no idea I was at the top of the charts with emotions, seriously.
You can sod off - I'm at the top of the charts. You're not even a proper lefty. Least-ways, you never attend any of the meetings.
