• 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:

Woody2Shoes

Impressive Member
Joined
5 Jan 2015
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
292
Location
Sussex UK
The guy in the videos describes himself as a “Doctor” in the Experience section of his LinkedIn profile. If you then look at his qualifications he is clearly not a “Doctor” as he hasn’t studied and qualified. He is, in fact a nurse who has a PhD in Nurse Education. I’m sure he means well but......
I've watched a lot of this guy's videos. He is somewhat politically naive, although to be fair he deliberately avoids the political dimensions. He does generally give an intelligent and digestible precis of 'proper' scientific literature without allowing his own personal opinions to intrude. Although he is not a medical 'Doctor' he quite possibly has more hands-on healthcare experience experience than most GPs (I'd compare him with an experienced general builder vs. a qualified architect, when it comes to medical knowledge IYSIM). I think that he is - as far as any one person can be - a reliable witness in all this.
 

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
6,914
Reaction score
883
Location
PA, US
Being used as a prophylactic in India, I read? Says all you need to know about this nonsense, so.
If their data holds up, the fact that 83% of the folks who would have gotten covid didn't get it isn't so much nonsense. Especially on a medicine that's cheap, needs to be taken only twice for an entire month and has no significant side effect profile or known significant health risk.
 

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
6,914
Reaction score
883
Location
PA, US
(by the way, this study came from doctors in India, not politicians. The most recent events that involve politicians tend to suggest that doctors and politicians don't operate the same way there).
 

sometimewoodworker

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2008
Messages
945
Reaction score
220
Location
Watford, Non S-At, Udon Thailand
Being used as a prophylactic in India, I read? Says all you need to know about this nonsense, so.
Typical jingoistic nonsense.
India supplies a largish percentage of the medical staff from nursing staff to senior consultants working in the NHS. and that’s just in health care. They produce the largest percentage of vaccines worldwide along with enormous supplies of other medicines.

Extract your head from your nether regions and try using it to think with before making it obvious where it usually is.
 

jcassidy

Learning.
UKW Supporter
Joined
5 Nov 2020
Messages
250
Reaction score
175
Location
Ireland
Typical jingoistic nonsense.
India supplies a largish percentage of the medical staff from nursing staff to senior consultants working in the NHS. and that’s just in health care. They produce the largest percentage of vaccines worldwide along with enormous supplies of other medicines.

Extract your head from your nether regions and try using it to think with before making it obvious where it usually is.
Oh here we go with the offensive personal attacks in lieu of actual factual argument.

**EDIT**

Actually this has really pineappled me off and is typical of the sort of rubbish conspirary theorists come out with.
Firstly, there's always an explanation for when something clearly is BS. Pointing out that India has currently the worst wave of C19 in the world is dismissed because, by amazing coincidence, the country stopped using this wonder drug right before the wave took off.

Secondly, pointing out how nonsensical this argument is results in personal attack. I'm jingoistic? I'm not even f**king British. So why don't you take your head from your nether regions.

But sure listen, never argue with a fool. Ignoring this thread.
 
Last edited:

Rorschach

Wicker man.
Joined
6 Jan 2016
Messages
5,857
Reaction score
826
Location
Devon
I'm jingoistic? I'm not even f**king British. So why don't you take your head from your nether regions.
Woah, are you saying only British people are jingoistic/racist/bigoted? That is quite the bold claim!
 

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
6,914
Reaction score
883
Location
PA, US
Oh here we go with the offensive personal attacks in lieu of actual factual argument.

**EDIT**

Actually this has really pineappled me off and is typical of the sort of rubbish conspirary theorists come out with.
Firstly, there's always an explanation for when something clearly is BS. Pointing out that India has currently the worst wave of C19 in the world is dismissed because, by amazing coincidence, the country stopped using this wonder drug right before the wave took off.

Secondly, pointing out how nonsensical this argument is results in personal attack. I'm jingoistic? I'm not even f**king British. So why don't you take your head from your nether regions.

But sure listen, never argue with a fool. Ignoring this thread.
2100 or so health care workers took it in a study. What's that going to do for the other billion people? You're making up straw scenarios and ignoring the only real data, then huffing off when you get caught.
 

artie

Sawdust manufacturer.
Joined
12 Jan 2015
Messages
1,533
Reaction score
421
Location
Norn Iron
And there I was thinking how much more civilized the new forum was because controversial topics were allowed and how much more polite things are because the wreckers can't come in and get a thread closed.

There I was...
 

jcassidy

Learning.
UKW Supporter
Joined
5 Nov 2020
Messages
250
Reaction score
175
Location
Ireland
Well we should see cases of Covid in Goa drop to nearly zero any day now....

Check back next week folks, and you'll see me making fulsom apologies to all concerned.

On the other hand, if the wonder drug has zero effect in Goa, I expect fulsom apologies for the personal abuse in return.
 

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
6,914
Reaction score
883
Location
PA, US
You're setting up false dilemmas again and expecting apologies for your reactions. I think you're going to find yourself upset again.

Address the actual study instead and tell us where it falls apart.
 

sometimewoodworker

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2008
Messages
945
Reaction score
220
Location
Watford, Non S-At, Udon Thailand
Oh here we go with the offensive personal attacks in lieu of actual factual argument.

**EDIT**

Actually this has really pineappled me off and is typical of the sort of rubbish conspirary theorists come out with.
Firstly, there's always an explanation for when something clearly is BS. Pointing out that India has currently the worst wave of C19 in the world is dismissed because, by amazing coincidence, the country stopped using this wonder drug right before the wave took off.

Secondly, pointing out how nonsensical this argument is results in personal attack. I'm jingoistic? I'm not even f**king British. So why don't you take your head from your nether regions.

But sure listen, never argue with a fool. Ignoring this thread.
Raising conditions that have never been suggested,
claiming points that haven’t been made,
being ignorant of the meaning of the word jingoistic.
Either being ignorant of or wilfully misrepresenting the real effects of a medication.

all that goes to show why you should inhabit the kill file of reasonable people.
I welcome being ignored by you, long may it last.
 

Jake

Established Member
Joined
5 Apr 2004
Messages
5,375
Reaction score
154
Location
London
The evidence doesn’t come from YouTube I would never use a YouTube video (or Wikipedia) as evidence.

If you bothered to watch any of the videos rather than just snark you would see that they summarise the evidence published by a whole lot of government and mostly peer reviewed academic publications.

It seems that you can’t bother to understand that you need to research sources and that while there is dross (quite a lot I agree) there are also gems of reliable information available.

So yes the the information is presented as a video, yes it’s on YouTube, but the gullible mug or as a minimum lazy mug is not named Jerome but the initial is probably a J ;)
Yes apologies I did not word that very well. A paragraph mark and another sentence to make clear the gullible comment was a generality about the cesspit of dis and mis info that is Youtube rather than directed at you was required.
 

TominDales

Established Member
Joined
21 Jan 2021
Messages
298
Reaction score
207
Location
Ripon
Here are few perspectives from 30 odd years in the pharm/chemical sector. Some has been said before.

In general vaccination is far preferable to prophylactic drug (chemical) treatment. From cost effectiveness and safety perspective

Even though Ivermectin is a low cost drug, prophylactic use will cost more to than vaccination. As it would need to be taken at high concentrations monthly. Given what we pay for our pets, it would cost £50 per annum to take a normal 2 to 3mg per kg dosages twice a month. This would need to be done under medical overview from a GP and the usual systems put in place to ensure proper use etc, these costs are not visible but add to the overall government burden. For viral treatment the dose may have to be substantially more than for its normal parasite use, I've read up to 10 times more. Cost is why all governments and especially those in developing countries spend their H/C budget vaccinating their population. And why a vaccine for malaria is seen as the holy grail as it will replace prophylactic drug use.

From a safety perspective, the MRHA/FDA demand a far higher safety result for vaccines than for drugs treating topical diseases as vaccines are taken by otherwise well people. If Ivermectin was prescribed on a vast scale I predict unexpected side effects will emerge as with all 'small molecule medicines' used on wide basis and its use would then be limeted.

A vaccine is taken once or twice in a lifetime - maybe a bit more often for covid - we shall see, whereas a prophylactic drug will need to be taken for the rest of our lives as with malaria, aids etc. The anti-viral drugs supress the disease, they don't eradicate it.

Vaccines create heard immunity this protects those who are unable or unwilling to take the vaccine. Whereas those who cant take Ivermectin will remain vulnerable.

Ivermectin efficacy and studies.
I strongly recommend waiting for data to be published from a reputable agency; the UK MHRA, US FDA etc. there are a lot of very poor doctor driven studies that get into the media and its almost impossible for us laypeople to make an informed judgement. There are unscrupulous folk peddling supposed cures or distorting the outcomes of studies in order to make money, so best to wait for a WHO sponsored study or one from Martin Landray's Oxford group or another reputable agency. There may be good studies emerging from other countries (eg India), but without knowing if they have gone through the rigorous process that the MHRA demands it best to wait for confirmation from those that we know well.

My understanding of why Ivermectin was not chosen in the initial Oxford and Who study was two fold; its mode of action, and high concentrations needed for viral treatment, meant is was seen as a lower chance of being effective. Its not normally proscribed as an anti-viral drug. I'm sure that proper studies are being considered. If the concentration needs to be increased, then further safety studies would need to be done, even a fully blown trial, which would put the research costs up.
The Oxford group is publicly funded, but they still have to justify how they spend taxpayers money so they are obliged to follow a scientific logic in selecting the drugs for trial. Given the amount of press attention to Ivermectin, I'm sure the initial assessment will be re-visited. As others have said, its unlikely the original drug companies would do these studies, their business models don't fit this kind of work, once a drug is off-patent they tend to leave the drugs to be the generics makers and they in turn don't have the business model to do this type of work, so it tends to be new companies that do this work, or government agencies. Which is why its not a quick process.

Pandemic vaccines are usually NOT money spinners.
Seen a lot of debate on this topic. Vaccines are generally a large volume low margin business. The money is made on the regular injections, polio, meningitis, MMR, flue etc, but these are not blockbuster drugs.

The pharma industry regards Pandemics /epidemics as loss makers, development is done for corporate social responsibility reasons. The Ebola, Sars , swine flue epidemics all made losses for the drug companies. A lot of vaccine research for epidemics is done with public money as the people who need to vaccines - usually the developing world - cant afford them. The search for Covid vaccines was regarded as a public duty rather than a for profit venture by the industry. Not to say profits wont be made from Covid -see later, but they were not expected at this time last year. Pfizer share price did not rise until recently, their vaccine has performed extraordinarily well opposite covid.

Pfizer will make money from Covid - but that is very much the exception caused by a number of special factors - such as the huge volumes in this instance. This is exceptional, large pharma don't generally do this kind of work routinely. If we look at who made the vaccine, it was not Pfizer but Biontech, a tiny start-up company that had been researching this field on a relative shoe string. Start-ups/smes by definition have to take risk in niche applications and hope they get lucky. Biontech being small found a large pharma company to do the scale up and global sales and Pfizer being the biggest was a good choice. Pfizer being savvy have found ways to do this profitably, although circumstances fell in their favour. However compare the profits made by Pfizer in covid with Amazon, Apple, google and most of China (gdp up 18% on the back of the consumer boom). You wont find profiteering by major pharma, there is too much is at stake for their wider reputations, remember they sell to state monopoly buyers (such as the NHS), so they will be careful not to upset their long term paymasters.
The other successful drugs are by Moderna, a start up that has not made money since its foundation in 2011, AstraZenica scaled up Oxford's publicly funded vaccine, its the same with J&J, they have done it as a not for profit endeavour.
Vaccine research is high risk, with most candidates failing. Covid is quite unusual and - a very few start-up companies have made their founders rich, while the rest of these innovators continue to languish, innovation space is full of start-ups living hand to mouth waiting for this type of opportunity.
With Covid, the industry got lucky, the early candidates were effective, and have produced few side effects and the virus is stable enough for the vaccines to be rolled out globally to all existing variants. We all got lucky, normally it takes 5 to 10 years to develop a good safe vaccine. Look at Ebola, the vaccine that were deleted have been loss making for the drug companies. I cant stress enough how unusual this is and how fortunate we all are that there is a save vaccine and pretty well the first experimental candidates worked.
I'm not saying the drug companies are saints the industry has its fair share of scandals with unscrupulous companies such as Purdue phama and opioids. But the very large companies value their reputations. They need to the public to have confidence in their products and so have corporate ethics committees keep them away from controversy.

I hope that provides some background. While the issue of new drugs etc can be confusing, the rational of what is promoted by the industry and public private partnerships is largely driven by logical predictable behaviour. The industry is very conservative, it has to maintain public trust in it products and its it continually having to contend with a pile of dodgy characters, quack remedies and main chancers seeking to make a quick buck from medical / heath issues.

So my recommendation for anyone thinking of taking Ivermectin is to wait for more data to emerge, and only take it under medical direction. If it is an effective treatment, then loads of good data will emerge, with recommended dosing levels for this indication and the known side effects will get reported. Just like we have seen for vaccines and other covid approved drugs. If not then expect to see more confused messages dotted across social medial as with quinine stories from last year.
 
Last edited:

TominDales

Established Member
Joined
21 Jan 2021
Messages
298
Reaction score
207
Location
Ripon
Refused is the correct word. The safety testing is extremely extensive and goes back many many years. The U.K. has not trialed it in COVID and probably will not. They have refused to accept the meta analysis for ivermectin (they do accept meta analytics for other drugs) ivermectin has been trialed against Covid and is currently being used in India on a prophylactic basis. At worst it would do nothing against the disease (but that isn’t happening) and protect against parasites

japan is so badly behind other advanced countries because it would not accept trial data from other countries and insisted on doing its own trials.

the blind insistence on we haven’t tested X ourselves so will not accept that X can work until we trial it is ridiculously parochial and dangerous.

No governments should not blindly accept foreign information but neither should they blindly refuse to look at it.
The UK MHRA regularly evaluates medicines for new indications, they become heroes when they do that, a cheap drug that cures a disease, its a good story. BUT they have very stringent and conservative guidelines. Because they have to maintain public trust in all the medicines that have received a licences.
In a pandemic they can accelerate the process of evaluation whilst still carrying out the work thoroughly (essentially by prioritising the urgent over other drugs). I would expect the MHRA to be evaluating all the studies on Ivermectin as you and other have pointed out, its cheap and effective then they would be heroes for licensing it. Once the MHRA approves a drug, it tends to get rolled out accross other countries, so society at large benefits. They have strong incentives to do this.
I suspect the data so far has not met their criteria. That does not mean the drug does not have merit, its just that most medical authorities have a conservative approach. The UK does not insist on UK based trials in order to approve a product (as the US and EU do), good data from well run trials overseas is acceptable. Also I'd expect Martin Landray to be looking at it as he has been studying a vast array of accessible licenced drug for covid. As I've mentioned before it was not considered in early rounds of testing for good reasons, its mode of action and the high dosage needed would have been problematic. If Ivermectin is effective, then the data will come through in reliable studies before long, if not then we will carry on getting noise through social media.
 
Last edited:

sometimewoodworker

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2008
Messages
945
Reaction score
220
Location
Watford, Non S-At, Udon Thailand
In general vaccination is far preferable to prophylactic drug (chemical) treatment. From cost effectiveness and safety perspective

Even though Ivermectin is a low cost drug, prophylactic use will cost more to than vaccination. As it would need to be taken at high concentrations monthly. Given what we pay for our pets, it would cost £50 per annum to take a normal 2 to 3mg per kg dosages twice a month.
In general a very well written informed post but there are a few missing or incorrect points.

Ivermectin cost far less than you estimate. The only significant cost is not Ivermectin but the packaging. A 1µg (micro gram) or 1 milligram (1000 times more drug) tablet costs almost the same to produce the drug cost is $0.00000017 for the 1µg tablets and $0.00017 for the 1000µg tablets

So at 3mg per kg and a 70 kg individual that drug cost is $0.011715 per time or $0.277365 per year. So any significant difference in price is purely due to marketing and nothing to do with drug costs.

However all of that is not really relevant as nobody that I know of is suggesting long term use.

While safety needs to be checked it can't be the usual stage 3 trials as the need is to reduce hospitalisation now while the vaccination programs get to everyone.

Vaccination will take years prophylactic use of Ivermectin will taper off as vaccination increases

Ivermectin does NOT prevent infection by COVID-19, it does drastically cut the severity in many people so reduces the load on hospitals

Ivermectin treatment is NOT a substitute for vaccination. It will mean that many fewer people will die or suffer the long term effects while they wait for vaccination.
 

TominDales

Established Member
Joined
21 Jan 2021
Messages
298
Reaction score
207
Location
Ripon
In general a very well written informed post but there are a few missing or incorrect points.

Ivermectin cost far less than you estimate. The only significant cost is not Ivermectin but the packaging. A 1µg (micro gram) or 1 milligram (1000 times more drug) tablet costs almost the same to produce the drug cost is $0.00000017 for the 1µg tablets and $0.00017 for the 1000µg tablets

So at 3mg per kg and a 70 kg individual that drug cost is $0.011715 per time or $0.277365 per year. So any significant difference in price is purely due to marketing and nothing to do with drug costs.

However all of that is not really relevant as nobody that I know of is suggesting long term use.

While safety needs to be checked it can't be the usual stage 3 trials as the need is to reduce hospitalisation now while the vaccination programs get to everyone.

Vaccination will take years prophylactic use of Ivermectin will taper off as vaccination increases

Ivermectin does NOT prevent infection by COVID-19, it does drastically cut the severity in many people so reduces the load on hospitals

Ivermectin treatment is NOT a substitute for vaccination. It will mean that many fewer people will die or suffer the long term effects while they wait for vaccination.
I agree with you. I was basing the cost on what i pay for our pets. Its about £60 for 100 tablets, distributed to our house. At 50kg, Id need to take about 5 tablets twice a month for 12 months. But I agree with you, this would only be needed until the vaccine was available.
My concern is some people would rather take a prophylactic drug than a vaccine, that is not a safe thing to recommend.
I agree that a 3 phase trial would not be needed, except if the dosage had to exceed those from the original trials - some reports say this, but not sure if they are reliable accounts.
I've just replied to your earlier post, as I'd expect the MHRA to approve its use once it passes their tests, but their approach is very conservative.

Best wishes Tom
 

sometimewoodworker

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2008
Messages
945
Reaction score
220
Location
Watford, Non S-At, Udon Thailand
So my recommendation for anyone thinking of taking Ivermectin is to wait for more data to emerge, and only take it under medical direction. If it is an effective treatment, then loads of good data will emerge, with recommended dosing levels for this indication and the known side effects will get reported.
Of course it must be used under medical supervision. There is no need to wait for more data as the data is already there. The studies have been done.
Yes monitor for side effects. That’s why you have medical supervision.
Yes continue collecting data.
Yes monitor for dosage.

is it completely safe? Of course not, no medication is completely safe.
all medication has risks, from the very close to death risk of cancer meds to the tiny ones of aspirin.
 

sometimewoodworker

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2008
Messages
945
Reaction score
220
Location
Watford, Non S-At, Udon Thailand
My concern is some people would rather take a prophylactic drug than a vaccine, that is not a safe thing to recommend.
I am completely with you on that.

That’s why I emphasis that it doesn’t prevent Covid nor does it prevent hospitalisation or death. It does reduce both hospitalisation and death.
But if you only need oxygen in hospital and the hospital has no oxygen then you die.
If you can reduce the number of people needing to go to hospital down to manageable numbers (unlike India at the moment) then treatable people will live.
Again unlike India where the percentage of people who should live but are not because of a number of factors is sadly high at the moment
 

sometimewoodworker

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2008
Messages
945
Reaction score
220
Location
Watford, Non S-At, Udon Thailand
Yes apologies I did not word that very well. A paragraph mark and another sentence to make clear the gullible comment was a generality about the cesspit of dis and mis info that is Youtube rather than directed at you was required.
Thanks for that. As mentioned I agree that almost any i*d*i*o*t (the forum changes my word so the stars) can and does post on YouTube and there are a huge number of them. But that should not detract from the well informed accurate good videos that also exist.
Of course YouTube is really designed for cat videos :) so here is my kitty tax
 
Last edited:
Top