Ivermectin Not Recommeded by WHO and EU

For informational purposes only. Medical care is a matter for personal decision. I do not attempt to make choices for others.

The rise and fall of a coronavirus ‘miracle cure’

https://www.politico.eu/article/rise-an … vermectin/

In just 12 months, an affordable anti-parasitic has made its way from a humble head-lice treatment to being touted as a "miracle cure" for coronavirus — getting an audience before the U.S. Senate and making its way into official government guidelines.

Veterinarians have seen a rush on doses of ivermectin meant for large animals as people battle to get hold of doses meant for humans, while black markets cash in and a fervent media campaign pushes inconclusive research.

The Czech Republic now allows its off-label use, while Slovakia imports tens of thousands of doses. Promising research on the drug's potential to treat and prevent coronavirus, combined with desperation over rising case numbers and deaths and a tidal wave of disinformation, has led to use of the drug skyrocketing in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as Latin America and South Africa.

Along with treating animal parasites, the medication has also been used for many years in pill and cream form for humans to treat a variety of conditions such as scabies, head lice and river blindness. It has long been hailed as a wonder drug, and the drug’s discoverers, William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura, were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in medicine due to its ability to treat multiple diseases.

The catch: The world’s leading medicines regulators have consistently warned against its use for coronavirus. Last week, the European Medicines Agency stated that the evidence doesn’t support its use for coronavirus outside of clinical trials, and warned that toxicity at high doses "cannot be excluded." The U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned on March 5 that overdosing on the drug could even lead to death, noting multiple reports of patients being hospitalized after self-medicating.

“All good conspiracy theories or lies have a bit of truth to it — that's what makes them good,” said Carlos Chaccour, assistant research professor at Barcelona Institute for Global Health and one of the first researchers to raise concerns about the drug's use for coronavirus.

In this case, it’s known that ivermectin has some antiviral properties — so researchers were right to investigate it at the start of the pandemic, he said.

In fact, Chaccour knows ivermectin better than most. He began work on the drug’s ability to kill malaria vectors in 2007, and when people began dying around the world from a new virus early in 2020, Chaccour turned to the area in which he is an expert.

His work both supports the possibility that ivermectin could be used against coronavirus and debunks dodgy studies on the drug. This has made him an enemy to both sides, and even led to his wife receiving threats. Chaccour said he’s been named "an assassin on the payroll from big pharma" and conversely "naive and advocate [for ivermectin]." Last month, to take a break from the frenzy, he even quit Twitter for Lent.

Getting off on the wrong foot
It all started in March 2020, when an in-vitro study from Australian scientists indicated that ivermectin was an inhibitor of coronavirus. But there was one big problem, said Chaccour: The scientists used concentrations so "huge" that they weren't naturally found in humans.

Part of the research that emerged was a study using data from Surgisphere — the group behind the now infamous hydroxychloroquine study that was retracted by The Lancet after concerns about the data. However, the study didn’t make it beyond the pre-print stage, so even though some academics raised questions about the validity of the study, they were never officially acknowledged by a reputable journal.

At that time, the use of ivermectin remained mostly confined to Latin America. Peru had included the drug in its national therapeutic guidelines for coronavirus (which it later removed), while hundreds of thousands of people were administering it in Bolivia. Chaccour believes that the drug's take-up there was linked to its widespread use for both animals and humans, combined with the presence of local manufacturers.

There were some pockets of use elsewhere as well. Hungary, for example, reported in November that veterinarians were seeing an increase in interest for ivermectin.

But that would all change when the drug was put on its most global platform yet — the U.S. Senate.

Big Bad Pharma
The bombshell arrived on December 8, when U.S. physician Pierre Kory spoke before a Senate hearing on early outpatient treatment for coronavirus. Ivermectin, alongside other medicines such as vitamin C, zinc and melatonin, could "save hundreds of thousands of people," he testified, citing more than 20 studies.

Kory also questioned why remdesivir — a pricey drug that has shown some limited efficacy in severely ill coronavirus patients — was able to secure a compassionate use authorization from U.S. regulators while ivermectin was not.

Kory's appearance reverberated across the globe. A YouTube video of his testimony went so viral that it was removed under the platform's COVID-19 disinformation policy. As Chaccour put it, the video immediately prompted some people to ask: "Why are they killing us if there's this life saving drug out there? Why is Big Pharma pushing for their own solutions?"

"And that sparked the whole second wave of interest," said Chaccour.

Many miles away, in South Africa, a black market for ivermectin soon emerged. In Romania, stocks of ivermectin at both human and veterinary pharmacies were reported to be depleted in January.

The implication that Big Pharma is blocking the use of ivermectin fits into the broader pattern of seeing "some sort of big conspiracy 'against us ordinary people,' " explained Jonáš Syrovátka, program manager at the Prague Security Studies Institute. 

Who's most inclined to believe such disinformation? Researcher Dan Sultănescu, of Romania’s National School of Political and Administrative Studies’ Center for Civic Participation and Democracy, pointed to “people with lower degrees of trust."

It's not just about health, he noted — trust in Western institutions such as NATO and the EU also fell last year, a “period of vulnerability" for many countries, including his native Romania. People only listen to sources that they trust, and the media has become "the battleground right now," as various groups with vested interests fight for coverage.

But in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, it wasn’t just a couple of doctors pushing ivermectin, but the government itself.

In January, the Slovakian health ministry began allowing the use of ivermectin for treating and preventing coronavirus. In March, while noting the limited evidence on its efficacy against coronavirus, the Czech health ministry approved doctors prescribing ivermectin at their own discretion.

Geography also plays a role in ivermectin's popularity, argued Sultănescu. Its adherents aren't in major cities or close to the levers of power, but "are on the periphery of some centers," he said. "You have this in areas where people are frustrated because the results are not in their control, the solutions are not in their control."

In the Czech Republic, meanwhile, Syrovátka sees the rising desperation due to the current dire situation with the virus as another factor, as people hunt for "easy solutions" to escape the crisis. Adding to the confusion is the government’s inconsistent communication throughout the pandemic, made worse by going through three different health ministers in just two months, he noted.

Conflicting messages 
While Europeans have flocked to pharmacies and veterinarians for ivermectin, research into the drug has continued.

A pre-print from dozens of academics around the world, including Chaccour, was published in January and led to the headlines that ivermectin’s staunch supporters could only dream of. The Financial Times declared that the "cheap antiparasitic" could cut chance of virus deaths by up to 75 percent.

The pre-print, which has yet to be peer reviewed, does indeed state that ivermectin could have a dramatic impact on deaths. But it also comes with a big caveat: The meta-analysis showed that the drug needs to be "validated in larger, appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities."

Then in March, the drug took its next hit. The Frontiers in Pharmacology journal reversed the provisional acceptance of a paper penned by Kory and other members of his group, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. The journal noted that "the article made a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance, and at times, without the use of control groups." It also took issue with the authors promoting their own specific ivermectin-based treatment, which Frontiers found "inappropriate" for a review article and against its editorial policies. 

Kory took aim at the decision, telling The Scientist the decision was "censorship" and accusing the journal of allowing "some sort of external peer reviewer to comment on our paper."

Around the same time, the U.S. and EU regulators stepped in — with both warning that there isn’t enough evidence for use of the drug to treat or prevent coronavirus. The European Medicines Agency also noted in its statement, issued March 22, that while lab studies showed hope for ivermectin, they were based on much higher doses than those currently authorized — and that results from clinical studies were varied.

"Further well-designed, randomized studies are needed to draw conclusions as to whether the product is effective and safe in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19," the EMA added.

Trials such as these are now underway, and Chaccour estimates that in the next three or four months, more concrete data will start to emerge. Indeed, despite the drug's checkered history, even Chaccour hopes that it could turn out to be the wonder drug it was once promised to be.

"When you have these trolls harassing you, it makes me want to say, 'I hope it doesn't work'," he said with a wry laugh. "But that's not what I want. I would actually be very happy if this works."

So the fact that there is a group in the DR who treated over 6,000 patients is wrong? The fact that even conservative doctors, like the one I have in the US, believes there is some potential with it? What about other therapies that have worked with studies to back them up? For example, the WHO shot down the use of the inhaled steroid budesonide, yet Oxford did a study on it and found it reduced hospitalizations by 90%. I do not trust the WHO over what I and my doctor determine what would be a good course of treatment should I need one.

EMA advises against use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outside randomised clinical trials

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-a … cal-trials

Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer- … t-covid-19

Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statem … -pandemic/

Along with now WHO, EMA, FDA and Merck the manufacturer, they all can't be wrong about Ivermectin.

And who is monitoring the long term health of those patients who got prescribed a cocktail of drugs including Ivermectin in DR. And will they take legal responsibility for any longer term poor outcomes?

Surely, it isn't worth arguing anymore if all these reputable bodies have reached the same conclusion?

Meangreen they are saying there is not enough correct  scientific evidence that it works as of yet!  They are saying more study,  proper controlled study is required.

Almost all the info and data to date is anecdotal!

Meanwhile the human trials of vaccine continues. What does the term emergency use only mean.  This is all driven by politics and not science.

StanR wrote:

Meanwhile the human trials of vaccine continues. What does the term emergency use only mean.  This is all driven by politics and not science.

Out of necessity I think.

And that is why a few doctors have been experimenting on humans with various drugs without any regulatory approvals.

For informational purposes only. Medical care is a matter for personal decision. I do not attempt to make choices for others.

WHO data: Ivermectin reduces COVID mortality by 81%.
Also WHO: We still don’t recommend it. Imagine that

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz … commend-it

DANIEL HOROWITZ April 01, 2021

Imagine if we could have saved 81% of those who ultimately died from the virus by treating them early with a cheap, safe drug, along with other cheap therapeutic cocktails. Well, for one, more people would be alive today. But more important to the powers at be, there would have been no excuse to fear the virus and sow panic and tyranny. Also, there would have been no market for expensive therapeutics and vaccines that are much more experimental and unproven. Which is likely why the WHO is refusing to recommend ivermectin for early COVID treatment, even as its own data prove it should be championed as a cure.

On Wednesday, the WHO updated its guide on therapeutics and COVID-19. Under ivermectin, the meta-analysis shows an 81% drop in mortality among those who used ivermectin as opposed to standard care. It also shows a 64% decrease in hospitalization. Nonetheless, the WHO refuses to endorse it because it claims the confidence level is low.



"The issue with the Ivermectin is that based on initial study and the currently available data, it is not strong enough for us to advocate the use of Ivermectin for treatment of COVID or prevention of COVID," said WHO representative to the Philippines Rabindra Abeyasinghe on Tuesday. He claimed that using it without "strong" evidence is "harmful" since it would give "false confidence" to the public.

Gee, that sure sounds a lot like telling people if they wear a mask indoors, they won't get COVID. Tragically, when they invariably do get the virus, the global health elites have nothing to treat them with.

In total, there have been 49 studies, 26 of them randomized controlled trials, showing that ivermectin works against the virus. The pooled results show an 80% improvement when used early, 89% when used as prophylaxis, and even a 50% improvement at late stages. It is simply shocking that the global elites would continue to treat this long-used drug as experimental while treating novel vaccines that were only studied by the companies creating them as ironclad. Consider that the vaccines have not been approved by the FDA, on label or off label, there is no liability, and there is no data on long-term safety issues.

Ivermectin, on the other hand, has been dispensed billions of times for decades and has proven itself as one of the safest drugs around. William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura were awarded the Nobel Prize for physiology in 2015 for discovering the drug as a cure to river blindness. Here is an excerpt from the press release of the Nobel Assembly:

"Today the Avermectin-derivative Ivermectin is used in all parts of the world that are plagued by parasitic diseases. Ivermectin is highly effective against a range of parasites, has limited side effects and is freely available across the globe. The importance of Ivermectin for improving the health and wellbeing of millions of individuals with River Blindness and Lymphatic Filariasis, primarily in the poorest regions of the world, is immeasurable. Treatment is so successful that these diseases are on the verge of eradication, which would be a major feat in the medical history of humankind."

That sure sounds like a dangerous drug, doesn't it?

The WHO itself lists ivermectin among its Model List of Essential Medicines for 2019, given its efficacy against parasitic infections and its track record of safety.



But suddenly when it comes to eradicating COVID and pre-empting lockdowns, masks, and vaccines, it's a problem! It's the worst thing known to man.

Consider the fact that even some unicorn idea of mask efficacy can only conceivably reduce transmission by a small amount, yet they treat masks as mandatory to the point that they enforce them against 2-year-olds, rape victims, and people with disabilities. Imagine if they poured that much vigor into promotion of ivermectin.

And as any doctor who has actually studied the early stages of the virus will tell you, this is not just about ivermectin or any single drug. It's about a cocktail of drugs. Aside from ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, imagine if everyone with a positive test were given a cocktail with vitamins, steroids, and other drugs that have proven to work well over the past year, rather than waiting until someone has already experienced the inflammatory response, when it's much harder to treat.

In other words, how come the people who claim to care the most about COVID don't really care about saving people from it?

For example, if the global elites were really about saving lives, why wouldn't they have made vitamin D the new mask? The studies on the correlation between high vitamin D levels and positive outcomes with COVID have been impervious. The Karolinska Institute just published a comprehensive synthesis in the journal Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology on how vitamin D offers a great degree of protection against all respiratory viruses. Based on an analysis of three randomized and placebo-controlled studies involving 49,000 people, they found that a daily dose of vitamin D offers extra protection against respiratory diseases. They observed this to be particularly important for people with low vitamin D levels, such as those with dark skin, overweight people, and the elderly.

Why has this information not gotten out to Americans? Why didn't vitamin D become the new toilet paper? Last week, Dr. Ryan Cole, a board-certified pathologist in Idaho who runs the largest independent laboratory in Idaho, where he's overseen 100,000 COVID tests, explained on my podcast exactly how vitamin D works against the inflammatory response to this virus. He showed how vitamin D is the master key of the immune system and prevents any dysregulation of the immune response that leads to the cytokine storm, which is responsible for most COVID deaths.

There are other cheap therapeutics that have been proven effective by respected research, such as low-dose aspirin. A recent study from George Washington University published in the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia showed that those given aspirin immediately in the hospital were 44% less likely to go on a ventilator, 43% less likely to need to go to the intensive care unit, and 47% less likely to die in the hospital. Imagine if people took it daily from the moment they feel symptoms or test positive.

Again, why are people who test positive, especially the elderly, still being denied information and prescriptions for cheap, life-saving cocktails early in the viral replication process? Last night, I got a panicked email from a listener whose 74-year-old mother with health conditions was vaccinated four weeks ago, but just came down with a fever and tested positive. Her doctor won't prescribe her ivermectin. This is the tragedy of the vaccine being treated as proven and proven therapeutics being treated as experimental and even dangerous.

A full year into this virus, our medical establishment have turned our civilization upside down and inside out under the guise of saving lives, but they have censored the one thing that will actually keep people out of the hospital. The question is why.

well Luis, seems like we have no rights anymore...back to the lemming syndrome...

I guess we have some choice.  Take it and die or don't take it and die...

You all wanna engage in these ridiculous conversations have at it.

I won't even take part. It's absolutely ridiculous speculation, partial facts, outright incorrect information.

Do what you want on this thread

Uniformed crap is common amongst fools .. and pushed by those with an agenda

The horse has a mouth, and it say the attempt to push their drug as a covid cure is utter bollocks

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statem … -pandemic/

KENILWORTH, N.J., Feb. 4, 2021 – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. 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.

The sad part is internet idiots, those with a reason (cash/politics) for pushing, and religious nutters with an anti blood products agenda are shoving fake cures - but their idiocy kills people.
They're no different to the anti-MMR jab morons.

Right, I'm working on a big project so I have little spare time, but a post that might save someone from anti-vax cretins is worth a couple of minutes.

Fred, I would say that is rather harsh to call anyone who does not agree with you a fool and a moron. Well, I am happy to put myself on that list. I am not afraid to look at alternatives should I ever contract this disease. Presently there is 27 trials going on now, just not by the big pharma or WHO. You may ask the question, why not. Big pharma cannot make millions off ivermectin. They have no interest in promoting or testing this drug that has been on the market and proven to be safe even in high dosages. Does it not make you curious why Ivermectin  is FDA approved but there is not 1 vaccine that is.  It is also on the WHO list of essential drugs.

The NIH has changed there position on Ivermectin.

https://covexit.com/nih-updates-its-pos … vermectin/

NIH concludes from its current analysis that, “results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide further guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.”

The previous position of NIH, dated August 27, recommended against Ivermectin.

“The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial” stated then the NIH Panel, arguing that the “available clinical data on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 are limited.”

Planner, I know you wish this discussion would go away but ask yourself 1 question. If you were to develop Corona virus, would you not want to look at all treatments. Watch the attached video with a open mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV5nYe88hI8

Planner is staying the hell out of this conversation. Period!

Correction.

StanR, as post #4 FDA as of March 5th 2021 advises not to use Ivermectin for covid19

The wording is quite firm:

COVID-19. We’ve been living with it for what sometimes seems like forever. Given the number of deaths that have occurred from the disease, it’s perhaps not surprising that some consumers are looking at unconventional treatments, not approved or authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Though this is understandable, please beware. The FDA’s job is to carefully evaluate the scientific data on a drug to be sure that it is both safe and effective for a particular use, and then to decide whether or not to approve it. Using any treatment for COVID-19 that’s not approved or authorized by the FDA, unless part of a clinical trial, can cause serious harm.

There seems to be a growing interest in a drug called ivermectin to treat humans with COVID-19. Ivermectin is often used in the U.S. to treat or prevent parasites in animals.  The FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses.

Here’s What You Need to Know about Ivermectin

FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans. Ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses).

Taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm.

If you have a prescription for ivermectin for an FDA-approved use, get it from a legitimate source and take it exactly as prescribed.

Never use medications intended for animals on yourself. Ivermectin preparations for animals are very different from those approved for humans.

Please take the time read what I stated in my post. I never said it was approved for treating covid-19, only that it is a approved drug by the FDA. Did you take the time to watch the video.

Ivermectin is FDA-approved for parasitic infections, and therefore has a potential for repurposing.

The FDA’s job is to carefully evaluate the scientific data on a drug to be sure that it is both safe and effective for a particular use, and then to decide whether or not to approve it. Using any treatment for COVID-19 that’s not approved or authorized by the FDA, unless part of a clinical trial, can cause serious harm.

How is it that vaccines are not approved by FDA but are being administered? I guess it falls under human trials.

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines. … vermectin/

It is not my purpose to convince anyone to take Ivermectin, only to keep a open mind for other possibilities.

You two are saying the same thing

One Difference -

Lennox says - Don;t try Ivermectin - shouldn't be used

Stan says - Keep an open mind..............
that implies one COULD try it if they chose to.

WW I am just pointing out innaccuracies in Stans post:

Does it not make you curious why Ivermectin  is FDA approved but there is not 1 vaccine that is.

Ivermectin is NOT approved for covid19 treatment. Several vaccines ARE approved for Emergency Use in treating covid19.

this drug that has been on the market and proven to be safe even in high dosages

FDA state: Taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm.

NIH latest advice dated 11th February 2011 doesn't change their position:

Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection.

[i]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.
[/i]
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/

Now if antbody wants to use it  with such massive doses which are stated as dangerous by FDA to get what are questionable results, then it is up to them.

But let's not spin the current advice of the WHO, EMA, FDA and NIH plus the manufacturer.

Understood.....

The 'word salad' answer was -

Ivermectin is FDA approved
We can all agree on that
but
It's not approved for CV19.....

therein lies the flaw

The opening post is about Ivemectin for covid19 use.

To suggest it is FDA approved in that context is to mislead.

I've read many of these Ivermectin studies and found them to be seriously lacking if not comical.

1. Safety. Ivermectin is a single-dose drug and long-term use has never been considered. We don't know if it is toxic (causing organ damage) or of increased risk of other diseases (cancer, clots, etc.). Advocates of the drug for Covid treatment are recommending patients use it for a month and even as a prophylactic. I think that's irresponsible.

2. Credibility. Physician practitioners are not qualified to conduct studies of medical efficacy. It's a highly specialized field. Peer reviews are essential and so far they have not passed the test.

3. Quality of the Studies. All of the leading studies on this topic I have read were much too small with too many uncontrolled variables to be conclusive. Some of them have only five patients! Having no deaths in a 100-person study is also meaningless when the death rate is 2.5%. And the criteria for success is not well established in these studies. Some say it's the number of people admitted to hospital. One study in DR didn't even have proper diagnostic equipment and argued the x-ray was better than PCR. And the "major" Florida study didn't control for other treatments given to patients who were spread over various hospitals and other variables.

4. Outrageous Conclusions. Many of the studies are in developing countries with questionable expertise of those conducting the studies. Many did not account for the average of the age of the patient or comorbidity, for example. In these countries, the mortality rates are much lower. In western countries, 18% of the population are over 60 whereas in developing countries it is often 7%. One somewhat larger study concluded that Ivermectin was effective because the death rate was only 1.3 compared to the international average of 2.5%. But elsewhere in the study they noted the average age of the patients was only 52. That would be the same death rate globally for the same age group!

So yes, put your trust in more credible scientists from WHO, Mayo, FDA and even the drug manufacturer itself (Merck) who all say that there is no reliable evidence that this is a safe and effective drug for Covid.

Thanks Seegoer. Although you do not provide any links to what you are claiming, I will take your word for it. Your reply is credible. I still will not rule it out as I believe more research is needed.
I am reluctant to see WHO as a credible source. Even the FDA have had to retract 35 approved drugs from the US market since 1970.

https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/fd … he-market/

I have made my position on this clear. Since I am in the minority on this subject, I will give in and step away from these posts.

Thanks, StanR. I appreciate your skepticism. But it's important to appreciate that science is constantly changing as emerging peer reviewed studies may change the weighted evidence. I was hopeful that Ivermectin would be the answer because of my extended stay in DR. But it's clearly not. I found no credible evidence that it is effective or safe for extended use. I was hopeful. Like most viral infections, you immune system is the only defence. And a drug designed to kill a parasite gave me cause to be suspicious. It was used because it's easily available and cheap. https://dr1.com/wordpress/2020/04/24/iv … nts-in-dr/

Doctors sometimes feel the need to prescribe when they are truly helpless. They often give antibiotics to fight viral infections which actually makes it worse because it weakens the immune system. It's like the story of the guy throwing gasoline on his house that's on fire because he had no water. "I have to do something!"

True, 99% of patients will recover from Covid in DR (due partly because of younger population), but they would regardless of whether they take Ivermectin or not. But it is a drug. And there is always a price to pay.

I didn't take it. Had mild symptoms. And I recovered like everyone else. But if I had taken it, I probably would have attributed my recovery to Ivermectin.

For informational purposes only. Medical care is a matter for personal decision. I do not attempt to make choices for others.

American Journal of Therapeutics: Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19

https://journals.lww.com/americantherap … the.4.aspx


Abstract
Background:
After COVID-19 emerged on U.S shores, providers began reviewing the emerging basic science, translational, and clinical data to identify potentially effective treatment options. In addition, a multitude of both novel and repurposed therapeutic agents were used empirically and studied within clinical trials.

Areas of Uncertainty:
The majority of trialed agents have failed to provide reproducible, definitive proof of efficacy in reducing the mortality of COVID-19 with the exception of corticosteroids in moderate to severe disease. Recently, evidence has emerged that the oral antiparasitic agent ivermectin exhibits numerous antiviral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms with trial results reporting significant outcome benefits. Given some have not passed peer review, several expert groups including Unitaid/World Health Organization have undertaken a systematic global effort to contact all active trial investigators to rapidly gather the data needed to grade and perform meta-analyses.

Data Sources:
Data were sourced from published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts posted to preprint servers, expert meta-analyses, and numerous epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution campaigns.

Therapeutic Advances:
A large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes. Numerous prophylaxis trials demonstrate that regular ivermectin use leads to large reductions in transmission. Multiple, large “natural experiments” occurred in regions that initiated “ivermectin distribution” campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns.

Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

About the Journal
American Journal of Therapeutics is an indispensable resource for all prescribing physicians who want to access pharmacological developments in cardiology, infectious disease, oncology, anesthesiology, nephrology, toxicology, and psychotropics without having to sift through stacks of medical journals. The journal features original articles on the latest therapeutic approaches as well as critical articles on the drug approval process and therapeutic reviews covering pharmacokinetics, regulatory affairs, pediatric clinical pharmacology, hypertension, metabolism, and drug delivery systems.

There is no new compelling evidence for ivermectin here. It’s unlikely to sway the minds of anyone. It’s the view of three medical practitioners, not scientists with expertise in pharmacology. And it’s not hard for anyone to get published in some web-based periodical to spread misinformation. It’s become ridiculous. This is part of the problem.  A few medical doctors purport the off label use of a drug as a treatment and suddenly grab public attention by celebs like Trump who think it’s legitimate. This is how the anti-vaccinators and other similar problems arise. It’s a real challenge for lay people  to scrutinize what’s legitimate. The problem is so bad that mainstream medical journalist in the NYTIMES etc are inundated with new claims that’s a challenge to vet properly and efficiently for publication. On the other side, large legitimate independent studies are pressured to publish inconclusive information to get further funding or personal acclaim; while big pharma similarly submit incomplete data due to massive profit incentives. It’s no wonder we must all be cynically distrustful of media spread and must consider only weighted evidence over time. My hunch is that there will be no credible large studies of Ivermectin in the future now that vaccines this subject irrelevant. We may expect  to see big pharma develop more antivirals, but they are much more challenging to create than vaccines. It’s one of the reasons I’m particularly skeptical of any drug being repurposed to be anti-viral. We can’t even find one for the common cold!

Fred wrote:

Uniformed crap is common amongst fools .. and pushed by those with an agenda

The horse has a mouth, and it say the attempt to push their drug as a covid cure is utter bollocks

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statem … -pandemic/

KENILWORTH, N.J., Feb. 4, 2021 – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. 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.

The sad part is internet idiots, those with a reason (cash/politics) for pushing, and religious nutters with an anti blood products agenda are shoving fake cures - but their idiocy kills people.
They're no different to the anti-MMR jab morons.

Right, I'm working on a big project so I have little spare time, but a post that might save someone from anti-vax cretins is worth a couple of minutes.

I'm amazed anyone still thinks the stuff is any use against covid. As you see above, the company that makes the stuff makes it clear it isn't a covid drug.

Fake news is spread by internet trolls, the nut job end of religion, and people with a political agenda - and believed by brainless idiots.

I absolutely agree! 

This is being SHUT DOWN.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … treat-cov/

Posted by a very right, pro-trump politician, then backed up by people with no evidence.

planner wrote:

I absolutely agree! 

This is being SHUT DOWN.

Apart from being very silly, fake rubbish like this can be dangerous.
Locking the thread is a good idea.