• We invite you to join UKWorkshop.
    Members can turn off viewing Ads!

Ivermectin - Cheap and Probably Effective

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
7,689
Reaction score
1,181
Location
PA, US
The first study I read about ivermectin said something along the lines of it being effective (said it as in based on data) for mild covid-19 and potentially as prophylaxis, but the results for people with severe disease didn't look that great as I recall.


This appears to remain true, but for a much larger study group - both in the data, and in the observations of department health care workers.

I also recall seeing some government responses along the lines of "yeah, looks interesting. We'll keep waiting to see more information" (before thinking of actually testing or trying it).

At what point is there enough data for someone to take something like this seriously?

I'm not big on the anti-vax stuff (already been vaxed), but things like this don't do gov. health care systems much favor when they ignore it. It was pretty easy to see remdesivir and hydroxychorloquine weren't going to amount to much before they were even started in the US. Why? The chinese already tried them and posted the study results. The narrative here is still that remdesivir still shortens severe disease somewhat (and perhaps it does, but it couldn't get statistically significant results in any study that I'm aware of).

There was opposition to use of steroids as routine or at high doses early on, too.

Follow the data, test the effect and confirm independently. But please don't ignore reality.
 

Trainee neophyte

[Known Putin apologist ]
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
2,773
Reaction score
633
Location
Greece
We are into conspiracy theory country here - are there effective cures, which render vaccination unnecessary? Vitamin D has been touted as important (hence the winter increase in fatalities - it's not a winter excess mortality, but rather a vitamin D deficiency mortality, allegedly. India used Ivermectin with much success all of last year (see their low infection rate), but then changed tack early this year and turned to vaccination, followed by a sudden explosion of cases. Allegedly, anyway - I'm not following any of this to any great degree.

This morning I was reading about the possibility that the vaccination causes more fatalities than the disease - complete outrage from the fact-checking industry, but interesting none the less. The problem with the internet is that there are more facts than reality can handle.

I started off here: Hot off the Press: Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla admits Israel is the 'world's lab.'

Then went to the source, which is oddly laid out (Israeli formatting from right to left) and chock full of links: The uncovering of the vaccination data in Israel reveals a frightening picture-הודעות של נקים

I don't quite know what to make of this, but to quote Monty Python "It really makes you think, don't it!"
 

RobinBHM

Established Member
Joined
17 Sep 2011
Messages
6,164
Reaction score
974
Location
Wst Sussex
Unfortunately Ivermectin has been subject to politicisation.

John Campbell is quite interesting....but these people build their YouTube channel by being controversial, so there is a disproportionate level of Covid mavericks pushing this stuff.
 

RobinBHM

Established Member
Joined
17 Sep 2011
Messages
6,164
Reaction score
974
Location
Wst Sussex
Ivermectin has become a hot topic in South Africa...so much so it's being bought on the black market.
 

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
7,689
Reaction score
1,181
Location
PA, US
Unfortunately Ivermectin has been subject to politicisation.

John Campbell is quite interesting....but these people build their YouTube channel by being controversial, so there is a disproportionate level of Covid mavericks pushing this stuff.
John Campbell isn't remotely controversial. He runs over data that's been collected and rumors. He spent a fair amount of time chiding the Indian authorities for their arrogance in ignoring covid there and making statements like "there's no shortage of oxygen, it's a transportation issue", while the issue is a shortage of oxygen. Of course, there could be a transportation problem because there's nothing to transport (even that is a bit odd given the load of medical oxygen generators that I found when I was looking for a permanent oxy supply for a torch setup).

He wasn't on the ivermectin stuff early and just reported the data, which is important. Data from trials is vitally important because it actually shows what works and what doesn't.

Ivermectin is supposedly controversial to some people because those who *are* political latched on to it. But the fact is from the outset, it showed efficacy with mild covid (and now prophylaxis, as well as potentially improving the condition of covid long haulers). This is drastically different than remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine, which have no statistical significance, didn't in early studies and either have significant side effects, high cost or potential danger with overdosing.

The reality is the rest of the world waiting for vaccines is literally dying for some kind of prophylactic treatment, and ivermectin is that. It's not a medication for severe covid, at least it hasn't proved to be like steroids has.
 

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
7,689
Reaction score
1,181
Location
PA, US
Ivermectin has become a hot topic in South Africa...so much so it's being bought on the black market.
It's a sheep antiparasitic here. I'm sure it's hard to get now from a vet supply store (and was probably pulled). In a lot of countries, it's over the counter. Since this is the US and not the NHS, if you really want it in the US, you can be hooked up to telemedicine with a doc who specializes in it and get a scipt. This doesn't apply to me as I was pfizer-ized early on. If 95% became 99%, it's not the kind of odds making I care about. 0 vs 60% or 0 vs. 80%, and suddenly i'm starting to pay attention, but I'm not in that cohort.
 

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
7,689
Reaction score
1,181
Location
PA, US
That article has one small trial (small being important as one small trial falsely suggested efficacy of hydroxychloroquine) with mild covid and a larger trial with ivermectin used on hospitalized patients. The very first larger study that came out probably the better part of a year ago now said it was was potentially effective for minor covid (the data said it definitely was), but that it didn't show promise with severe covid (and probably moderate).

Now the indian medical institute above has done just what that article says nobody has done, which is allocate trial participants into two groups - take and no take, without muddying the water by combining it with an antibiotic.

This seems like a pretty easy trial to undertake in a western country - unvaccinated folks, 50% get ivermectin, 50% don't. Give them a PCR test if they have symptoms and otherwise once a week for one or two months. You'll have your answer very quickly. Two doses in a month (no long term use study needed). I haven't seen any legitimate suggestion of its use for severe covid in a long time, the point is prophylaxis in countries either too poor or too far down the latter to be vaccinated efficiently. I have no clue why this is a political issue when efficacy is shown standalone at least twice now (it was being used regionally as prophyaxis in peru). Who cares if it doesn't treat severe covid or hospitalized patients, that's not the point.

And the argument that doctors and scientists don't know best is a false argument - the publication of the indian study was done by doctors, not chiropractors.
 

RobinBHM

Established Member
Joined
17 Sep 2011
Messages
6,164
Reaction score
974
Location
Wst Sussex
The problem with Covid treatment drugs is they have been adopted by Covid conspiracists for their cause.

There are often claims of "MSM are suppressing information" .... my guess is it stems from Trump supporters.
 

RobinBHM

Established Member
Joined
17 Sep 2011
Messages
6,164
Reaction score
974
Location
Wst Sussex
I haven't seen any legitimate suggestion of its use for severe covid in a long time, the point is prophylaxis in countries either too poor or too far down the latter to be vaccinated efficiently
That's an interesting point - I do think some of these drugs have potential.

Personally my guess is the NHS etc have good reasons to not investigate them further....after all healthcare professionals have shared and collaborated on treatment protocols for Covid all through this pandemic. They've learnt a lot, certainly the survival rate has increased a great deal.
 

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
7,689
Reaction score
1,181
Location
PA, US
I think they don't study them because there's nobody to fund the study.

There was initial resistance to the idea that something as simple and cheap as steroids would have efficacy. There are a couple of docs in the US who brought this forward and were ridiculed (it was probably tried in china, i only remember the hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir because they didn't work and we went from one to the other in the US with each side of the political aisle claiming theirs worked. Remdesivir is perhaps the first time I've heard the medical community say "well, it doesn't have a statistically significant therapeutic effect, but it's better, it's great!!". Even my doc, who I talk data items with more or less said he feels like his severe and moderate patients recover a couple of days faster.

(the doctors mentioned above, by the way, got in hot water or at least criticized for saying "you have to prescribe large amounts of steroids, not just typical standard for other purposes", and I'm not sure that's caught on across the board as a standard of care. Their point being, don't be a chicken about steroid doses when you have someone dying. I guess they're exasperated because there's not much interest in measuring things that may make a difference. As far as their legitimacy, they've testified in front of congress at least once.

The trouble is (it's like right to repair legislation here), you're testifying in front of a group in public, but they get most of their funding based on meetings they have in private. Lobbyists will tell them which way they want things to go and talk about the negative effects of not supporting constituents and businesses. So we end up with a multi thousand dollar treatment (remdesivir) that may have some therapeutic effect, but it's not statistically significant, and then we get preliminary studies like this ivermectin study that if it gets through peer review, shows a statistically significant study, and what do we hear? Well, "the studies either show no effect (used on the wrong basis) or "there's statistical significance, but we think it's suspicious".

Well, isn't that something - what if we look at remdesivir through the same lens?

steroids are monstrously cheap over here, which means they are potentially valuable in terms of keeping patients off of oxygen in poor countries.


I recall a doctor on youtube from NY getting in trouble because he suggested that automatic intubation was perhaps not that great of an idea, and that maybe it wasn't as helpful as they initially thought. He risked getting in trouble with medical boards here.

Guess what's common now - higher doses of steroids and delaying intubation - those two things are probably primarily responsible for the increased survival rate.

A neighbor here has a sister (physican) who got covid at work from a colleague. She wasn't that old (late 30s), but got to the point that she was seeing declining oxygen levels (this is about 6 months ago now). She refused to go to the ER for fear of being intubated. She had apparently seen enough damage from intubated patients that she said that it beats you up and she wasn't going to do it until the last second. She rode out the low oxygen levels at home - can you believe that a physician would do that? She's of the anti-trump political lean, so that wasn't the trigger for that behavior - she didn't trust the mainstream treatment at the time based on what she observed. Wife's friend still double masks (even though they're vaccinated). The fact that the doctor sister refused to take a chance on being put on a vent was fascinating. It turned out that her observations were right - why did it take so long for people to speak up?
 

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
7,689
Reaction score
1,181
Location
PA, US
The problem with Covid treatment drugs is they have been adopted by Covid conspiracists for their cause.

There are often claims of "MSM are suppressing information" .... my guess is it stems from Trump supporters.
If the media presents two conflicting stories about covid treatment two days in a row, they have no exposure other than embarrassment.
 

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
7,689
Reaction score
1,181
Location
PA, US
Here's a tip on the media in the US (I don't think the BBC has a chance of being competent enough to be progressive on the topic, they'll just repeat what they're told to).

In the US, the FCC has a policy on falsification. There's a famous case here where a court determined that a journalist who was requested to falsify or scrub her reporting lost her whistleblower status and prior award because the policy is not a law or regulation, therefore she had no standing as a whistleblower.

I hope that's clear - what it means is the only thing out there requiring news not to be falsified is an FCC policy, but it has no legal teeth. Here's how it's stated"

"An appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes.[5] ... Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes,["


Do i think there's intentional distortion here? No, I think it's more a matter of curated news that shows lack of interest in significant or progressive reporting because it can threaten advertisers and commentary makes more money (and is far less effort to create. Far far far less effort. you can pretty much make your commentary whatever maximizes ratings).
 

dzj

Established Member
Joined
29 Jan 2013
Messages
1,229
Reaction score
403
Location
Serbia
I saw that video the other day.
It doesn't say whether the non-takers were designated as such or if they just couldn't be bothered to take the
Ivermectin. If the latter is the case, then perhaps they are the kind of people that might also cut corners when wearing PPE.
He had a chap on his show the other day claiming that Zimbabwe all but eradicated Covid by prescribing high doses
of the stuff. Time will tell.
 

Trainee neophyte

[Known Putin apologist ]
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
2,773
Reaction score
633
Location
Greece
How much money will vested interests make by selling Ivermectin, vs innoculating the entire planet annually, for ever more?

That would be the obvious conspiracy theory approach, but it seems to be clear that worldwide vaccination is the main thrust with all the billions in funding. Follow the money, as they say.
 

Cabinetman

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2017
Messages
2,104
Reaction score
1,074
Location
lincolnshire Wolds
We are into conspiracy theory country here - are there effective cures, which render vaccination unnecessary? Vitamin D has been touted as important (hence the winter increase in fatalities - it's not a winter excess mortality, but rather a vitamin D deficiency mortality, allegedly. India used Ivermectin with much success all of last year (see their low infection rate), but then changed tack early this year and turned to vaccination, followed by a sudden explosion of cases. Allegedly, anyway - I'm not following any of this to any great degree.

This morning I was reading about the possibility that the vaccination causes more fatalities than the disease - complete outrage from the fact-checking industry, but interesting none the less. The problem with the internet is that there are more facts than reality can handle.

I started off here: Hot off the Press: Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla admits Israel is the 'world's lab.'

Then went to the source, which is oddly laid out (Israeli formatting from right to left) and chock full of links: The uncovering of the vaccination data in Israel reveals a frightening picture-הודעות של נקים

I don't quite know what to make of this, but to quote Monty Python "It really makes you think, don't it!"
That second link you provided, "uncovering of the vaccination data in Israel "is truly horrific, I had been coming across similar warnings in other places, and this is just the start of it. This is all I’m going to say at the moment.
 

RobinBHM

Established Member
Joined
17 Sep 2011
Messages
6,164
Reaction score
974
Location
Wst Sussex
That would be the obvious conspiracy theory approach, but it seems to be clear that worldwide vaccination is the main thrust with all the billions in funding. Follow the money, as they say
Pharmaceutical companies don't make much money out of vaccines.

Think about it....drugs for arthyritis, heart conditions, high blood pressure, cancer, dementia.....they are taken daily.

A vaccine once a year at best.


If you follow the money, a vaccine is not the place to start.
 

Rorschach

Guest
Joined
6 Jan 2016
Messages
7,021
Reaction score
1,109
Location
Devon
How much money will vested interests make by selling Ivermectin, vs innoculating the entire planet annually, for ever more?

That would be the obvious conspiracy theory approach, but it seems to be clear that worldwide vaccination is the main thrust with all the billions in funding. Follow the money, as they say.
I said that a few weeks ago. Why would drugs companies research whether cheap, possibly out of patent, drugs can be used to treat covid when they can sell billions of brand new vaccines every year. It's the perfect disease really, it spreads easily, isn't particularly deadly but deadly enough to make people afraid and has the potential to overwhelm health services so it's easy to make the argument that prevention is better than cure. Of course once we finish this first phase of pandemic and the world is vaccinated there will be no need for a cure, just regular vaccinations, it's an ideal business model. No country can afford to stop vaccinating because "it might come back" or "variants". I'd be laughing all the way to the bank if I owned shares in a vaccine producer right now.
 

Rorschach

Guest
Joined
6 Jan 2016
Messages
7,021
Reaction score
1,109
Location
Devon
Pharmaceutical companies don't make much money out of vaccines.

Think about it....drugs for arthyritis, heart conditions, high blood pressure, cancer, dementia.....they are taken daily.

A vaccine once a year at best.


If you follow the money, a vaccine is not the place to start.
Yeah of course, they would totally turn down the opportunity to sell 1-2 vaccines per year to 8 billion people because they are happy to just sell blood pressure medicine :rolleyes:
 
Top