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?
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.
wrote on 29 Jul 2021, 13:15 last edited by@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.
wrote on 29 Jul 2021, 13:20 last edited by@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.
wrote on 29 Jul 2021, 13:23 last edited by Horace@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.
wrote on 29 Jul 2021, 13:31 last edited byThis post is deleted! -
wrote on 29 Jul 2021, 13:35 last edited by Horace
@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.
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2021, 13:46 last edited by
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?
wrote on 29 Jul 2021, 13:51 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2021, 13:56 last edited by
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.
wrote on 29 Jul 2021, 13:58 last edited by@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.
-
@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.
wrote on 29 Jul 2021, 14:11 last edited by@doctor-phibes said in Ivermectin:
@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.
I think lefties had plenty of meetings last year, thanks.
-
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.
wrote on 29 Jul 2021, 14:19 last edited by@loki said in Ivermectin:
I had no idea I was at the top of the charts with emotions, seriously.
You're not. Don't worry about it.
And don't go.
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2021, 14:48 last edited by
Can we just stop with the personal attacks?
Meanwhile, back on topic - is there any understanding (I haven't read all the available literature) of how or why ivermectin works or might work against COVID? I haven't seen it.
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2021, 14:53 last edited by
OK, I googled it myself. Best article I found:
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
And some tidbits...
Proposed Mechanism of Action and Rationale for Use in Patients With COVID-19
Reports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response.4,5 In addition, ivermectin docking may interfere with the attachment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein to the human cell membrane.6 Ivermectin is thought to be a host-directed agent, which may be the basis for its broad-spectrum activity in vitro against the viruses that cause dengue, Zika, HIV, and yellow fever.4,7-9 Despite this in vitro activity, no clinical trials have reported a clinical benefit for ivermectin in patients with these viruses. Some studies of ivermectin have also reported potential anti-inflammatory properties, which have been postulated to be beneficial in people with COVID-19.
Rationale
Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures.13 However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.
-
OK, I googled it myself. Best article I found:
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
And some tidbits...
Proposed Mechanism of Action and Rationale for Use in Patients With COVID-19
Reports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response.4,5 In addition, ivermectin docking may interfere with the attachment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein to the human cell membrane.6 Ivermectin is thought to be a host-directed agent, which may be the basis for its broad-spectrum activity in vitro against the viruses that cause dengue, Zika, HIV, and yellow fever.4,7-9 Despite this in vitro activity, no clinical trials have reported a clinical benefit for ivermectin in patients with these viruses. Some studies of ivermectin have also reported potential anti-inflammatory properties, which have been postulated to be beneficial in people with COVID-19.
Rationale
Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures.13 However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.
wrote on 29 Jul 2021, 15:03 last edited by@mik this is the same thinking as HCQ. The fact that a drug may work in vitro, in a cell culture does not translate to you can expect it to work in vivo.
And, a somewhat related point, Plaquenil (HCQ) was first developed as an anti-malarial, but discovered to have anti-arthritic properties, effectiveness in SLE, and porphyria as well. The fact that ivermectin is an anti parasitic drug does not, per se, preclude its usefulness in other situations.
-
Can we just stop with the personal attacks?
Meanwhile, back on topic - is there any understanding (I haven't read all the available literature) of how or why ivermectin works or might work against COVID? I haven't seen it.
wrote on 29 Jul 2021, 15:08 last edited by@mik said in Ivermectin:
Can we just stop with the personal attacks?
Probably not, if I'm confronted with mindless attacks that anybody who so much as entertains notions I entertain are incomprehensibly divorced from reality.
Meanwhile, back on topic - is there any understanding (I haven't read all the available literature) of how or why ivermectin works or might work against COVID? I haven't seen it.
There is at least some small signal in the evidence that suggests Ivermectin has some effect, especially as a preventative against COVID. Even the sceptics acknowledge that. They also acknowledge that Ivermectin hasn't been studied enough to know one way or another. If it is effective, I don't think anybody has a clue as to the mechanism.
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2021, 15:39 last edited by
I'm down with more studies. Actually a shitload more studies. Treatment's definitely a missing piece. Obviously strong enough control on an infection would be just as good if not better than a vaccine.
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2021, 15:51 last edited by
Yep. Study away. Then talk to me about it as a treatment.
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2021, 16:14 last edited by
@mik said in Ivermectin:
Yep. Study away. Then talk to me about it as a treatment.
+3
With hydroxychoroquine it was the only hope at the time and I was frustrated that it was so roundly criticized as it felt political and there was no other hope.
With ivermectin it would be a dream come true for billions of people that really can’t get the vaccine.
My sensitivity arises when I perceive it as proposed as the better “or” rather than “and”.
Some of the proponents are on record in their discussion of Ivermectin as the better approach and there is a scientific obligation to correct that- until proven otherwise.
-
wrote on 12 Aug 2021, 13:38 last edited by
Major study of Ivermectin finds 'no effect whatsoever'
Ivermectin, the latest supposed treatment for COVID-19 being touted by anti-vaccination groups, had "no effect whatsoever" on the disease, according to a large patient study.
That's the conclusion of the Together Trial, which has subjected several purported nonvaccine treatments for COVID-19 to carefully designed clinical testing. The trial is supervised by McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, and conducted in Brazil.
One of the trial's principal investigators, Edward Mills of McMaster, presented the results from the Ivermectin arms of the study at an Aug. 6 symposium sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
I've had enough abuse and so have the other clinical trialists doing Ivermectin. Others working in this area have been threatened, their families have been threatened, they've been defamed.
Edward Mills, COVID researcherAmong the 1,500 patients in the study, he said, Ivermectin showed "no effect whatsoever" on the trial's outcome goals — whether patients required extended observation in the emergency room or hospitalization.
"In our specific trial," he said, "we do not see the treatment benefit that a lot of the advocates believe should have been" seen.
The study's results on Ivermectin haven't been formally published or peer-reviewed. Earlier peer-reviewed results from the Together Trial related to the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, which had been touted as a miracle treatment for COVID by then-President Trump, were published in April; they showed no significant therapeutic effect on the virus.
The findings on Ivermectin are yet another blow for advocates promoting the drug as a magic bullet against COVID-19. Ivermectin was developed as a treatment for parasitical diseases, mostly for veterinarians, though it's also used against some human parasites.
-
wrote on 12 Aug 2021, 15:34 last edited by
Anecdotal comment to follow:
Another treatment, remdesivir, is being used at least one hospital. It requires a 4 day admission. It has been suggested a rise in hospitalizations is tied to this protocol.
