Ivermectin the de-wormer

Partisans: 'Studies? We don care bout no stinkin studies!'

 

It is dose dependent. The higher the dose the better it reduces viral load. Mexico distributed 26 mg pills.

 

My understanding is dosing is done by weight. Round 1, 3 days round 2, another 3 days round 3.

And, without the labels, one can accept an idea without being 'pro' on the subject.

 

Yes, finally, someone understands that treatments can also be poison, and we shouldn't use them outside of a doctor's instructions.

And, now you make it personal. I don't have a degree in pharmacology, but I didn't see you post your credentials either.

 

And if people are using ivermectin under a doctor's instructions, do you think it should still be presented as "cow de-wormer".

What's the point of calling it "cow-dewormer" if it's being used to treat humans?

Would you also call Warfarin "rat poison" if a doctor were administering it to a human patient? Why wouldn't you do that too?

No credentials are required to see that you're pushing a political fear-mongering agenda when you deliberately conflate a human treatment with an animal treatment. It's obvious what you're doing.

 

Inexpensive, readilly available medications removes a point of control LW authoritarians hold over the rest of us and therefore must be destroyed. Only the LW "Holy" trinity of "Vaccines, Masks, Distance" is allowed.

 

No doctor that’s prescribed Ivermectin has come out against it.

 

No, the CDC is there to protect you. No one is forcing you to get treated. And as an individual you pay nothing for the shot. And there is not enough control. School children should be forced to take the shot. They should go to the schools and give the shot to kids just like every other shot they are forced to take.

 

A primer on Ivermectin and Covid-19.

Two recent meta-analyses (which means, a study that studies a set of other studies), one looking at 10 randomized controlled trials (that means, those that give the drug to a group of people, and a placebo to a similar group of people then compare the outcomes), and another one looking at 29 decent studies and some 40 that were deemed too weak in methodology and too flawed or biased, have both concluded that ivermectin is not efficacious to treat or prevent Covid-19. I posted both in my recent posting history, in a dialogue with poster 557.

One of the main studies in support of ivermectin was retracted, when it was shown that some statistical results they reported were impossible to achieve from the presented data, therefore must have been made-up.

There are still some 18 ongoing studies. While I had been saying that the jury was still out, by now I'm really doubting that these 18 will move the needle. I'm still keeping an open mind but it's looking more and more like ivermectin does not have a credible role in the treatment or prevention of Covid-19. At this time I wouldn't prescribe it for this indication. The FDA, the CDC, and even ivermectin maker Merck have published recommendations against the use of ivermectin for Covid-19 (and again, I did link to these statements in my recent posting history).

As for "cow de-wormer," yes, ivermectin is a cow, horse, dog, cat, and goat de-wormer. But it is also indicated for humans (and tablets and creams intended for human use do exist, under prescription, in US pharmacies, under the brand name Stromectol, made by Merck, and generics) for two relatively rare human parasites (strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis - rare in first world countries but prevalent in tropical third world countries), plus topical (which means something you apply to your skin or scalp as opposed to taking by mouth or by infection) preparations for rosacea, scabies, and lice.

While using ivermectin for the human diseases it is approved for is safe and effective, using it for Covid-19 seems to be a waste of time and money, although still rather safe in regular doses, which are established according to body weight. But using the livestock preparations in humans is not safe, because veterinarian preparations have different doses (those for large animals are very large doses) and have inactive ingredients that have never been tested for safety for humans. While ivermectin in regular human doses for its approved indications doesn't usually lead to toxicity, mega-doses can be very toxic especially for the liver and the brain, with a potential for causing seizures, coma, and death.

Even in regular doses, ivermectin has a number of potential side effects. These include: constipation, diarrhea, headache, joint pain, muscle pain, stomach pain, low appetite, nausea or vomiting, tremors, trouble breathing, vision changes, chest pain, irregular heartbeat, confusion, eye pain, dizziness, fainting, fever, urinary or fecal incontinence, tiredness, weakness, and seizures. This is why ivermectin is a prescription medication rather than over-the-counter. Nobody should self-medicate with ivermectin.

The issue of using a medication for parasites against a virus is not in itself a reason not to test the efficacy of ivermectin for Covid-19, given that many medications intended for different purposes, can and do have at least in-vitro (in lab trials using cell cultures) anti-viral activity. This in-vitro activity against Covid-19 was suggested for ivermectin, which then triggered the human studies. So there's nothing wrong with studying repurposed drugs. The issue with ivermectin is not that, but rather, the issue is that ivermectin has been failing to show benefit for Covid-19, when it is studied with appropriate methodology.

Now, you'll find plenty of anecdotal reports of people who took ivermectin for Covid-19 and recovered. Do consider that between 98% and 99.7% of people who get Covid-19 recover anyway regardless of what treatments they are given, so anecdotal "cures" from ivermectin do not prove that it's the ivermectin that did the job. The question of whether or not a drug works for a disease or condition can only be ascertained by randomized controlled trials.

You will also find many doctors who believe that it is a viable option to treat Covid-19. However, a really good doctor who follows the scientific side of medicine, at this point has no basis for this belief, given that as of now, the meta-analyses have failed to show a benefit. Not all doctors are appropriately in tune with the scientific side of Medicine and do not necessarily read the latest analyses. They may have seen one of the flawed, biased, and methodologically unsound studies, and may have felt impressed; but they should rather look at the large meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials to form a sounder opinion.

--------------

Now, what I find regrettable, is that again, after the fiasco of hydroxychloroquine, we're seeing another repurposed drug receiving attention from politicians, radio and TV personalities, and pundits who are not pharmacologists, virologists, or medical doctors. Frankly, prescription medicines require a prescription for a reason, and people should rely on the advice of good and up-to-date doctors rather than listening to politicians or other pundits (either the ones for or against it). And definitely, very definitely, people should not self-medicate with the veterinarian preparations in any circumstance; that's not safe.

 

Don't take cow dewormer. Its not handled or stored in the same way that medicine for humans is. Ivermectin is also widely available as an antiparasitic for humans. Get that. Save the cow dewormer for the zombie apocalypse. And the cows, of course.

 

Rolling Stone lied about that hospital turning away gunshot victims to treat Ivermectin overdoses. Yes, We are all shocked!

And several fake news outfits ran with the lie.

And some folks on the Left here, swallowed it all down quite eagerly.

 

That has to do with certification issues and nothing more.

In fact, the veterinarian product and the human product are the same drug. Different packaging, different label, but the same drug.

 

This is a good post, but I would just note there are other specific studies and metadata studies (which I've linked to previously here) that show Ivermectin can be effective. So the science isn't settled on it yet. Until the science is settled, the anti-Ivermectin messaging from the CDC seems premature at best, and more probably, an attempt to push other treatments like Remdesivir instead (more $$$$$$).

 

Just wow.... Science absolutely evades you. You really should stop getting your talking points from Rachel Maddow. Ivermectin is prescribe to at least 250 million people annually and there are currently 270+ active clinical trials with positive results for treating COVID 19.. Both as a preventative and as a therapeutic for minor and severe cases.

For your reading pleasure, here is meta data on 44 peered reviewed and 31 randomized trials for ivermectin treatment of COVID.

https://ivmmeta.com/

BTW, they also give cows antibiotics. You should surely not take antibiotics since it's used to treat cow's!

 

The CDC is doing a horrible job of it.

 

Follow the money and you will find the filthy rich and their state subsidized corporations.

“Activists said the wealth generation highlighted the stark inequality that has resulted from the pandemic. The nine new billionaires are worth a combined $19.3 billion, enough to fully vaccinate some 780 million people in low-income countries, campaigners said.

"These billionaires are the human face of the huge profits many pharmaceutical corporations are making from the monopoly they hold on these vaccines," Anne Marriott, Oxfam's health policy manager, said in a statement. "These vaccines were funded by public money and should be first and foremost a global public good, not a private profit opportunity," she added.”
CNN, Covid vaccine profits mint 9 new pharma billionaires, By Hanna Ziady, CNN Business, May 21, 2021. (emphasis mine)
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/21/business/covid-vaccine-billionaires/index.html

 

WHO advises against giving the shot to children and even the UK is now pulling away from giving the shot to children as there is still not enough data on the long term effects, especially to children. You're taking a bigger risk with the vaccine in your child than that of COVID.

WHO
Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults, so unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it is less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers.

More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19.


UK’s vaccine assessor opts against COVID jabs for children

 

Children over 12 years old.

 

My tongue and cheek didn't come across because of typing error

 

It's okay. We accept tongue-in-checks here. Or, at least I do.

 

This is not consistent with what this doctors says her experience with ivermectin was.

The impact of ivermectin use in Zimbabwe
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/ivermectin-the-de-wormer.591785/#post-1072921329


I wonder why that is.

 

Yes, get that (the human formulations) if you have strongyloidiasis, onchocerciasis (tablet forms) or rosacea, lice, or scabies (topical forms). Don't take it for Covid-19 because it doesn't work for that purpose; it will be unnecessary and inefficacious expense and exposure to the (relatively benign) side effects (and some rarer risk of toxicity). There's a reason why ivermectin is a prescription medicine. It does have significant side effects and should only be taken under medical supervision, for the conditions for which it is approved, indicated, and safe. Covid-19 is not part of that, given that two recent large meta-analyses with well-designed studies failed to show any benefit of ivermectin to prevent or treat Covid-19. Drop the miracle drug fantasy. So far, there isn't any. Get vaccinated and mask up with an N95.

 

That was not the opinion of the FDA. Why should we assume that two foreign agencies are any better than our own? The WHO has been consistently wrong about Covid-19 and their opinion is often politically intended. At this point they're interested in increasing vaccination of adults in the Third World and their advice against vaccinating children and against booster shots can be understood in the context of their attempt to save the scarce vaccines in the Third World to the intended populations. The UK agency has made some blunders too regarding interval and sequence of vaccines, and regarding their approval of a vaccine locally developed, the AstraZeneca, that is more dangerous than the mRNA vaccines and was denied approval in the United States. So, listen to the UK agency at your own peril. I'll rather listen to the FDA.

Even though the risk for children from Covid-19 is small, the risk is still bigger than the risk of vaccines which is negligible (if we include the more dangerous AstraZeneca which we don't have here in the US, the risk is 0.0000123%, bigger the risk of 0.02% for the virus in this age group. If we don't include the AstraZeneca then the balance of risks versus benefits favoring the mRNA vaccines is even bigger.

Covid-19 has killed 470 children in the United States and there is no way that the mRNA vaccines will be as dangerous. A record 2,396 children were hospitalized with Covid-19 as of Tuesday, according to official data. Let's not forget that losing a child to a preventable infectious disease is a tragedy, even bigger than the tragedy of the loss of older people. We have at this time 470 devastated families in the US. A pediatrician defending vaccines for children just recently said "we'd be up in arms and doing everything we could to protect children if any new disease killed 300 of them, let alone 470 and counting."

Also, you don't just vaccinate a population for individual protection. You vaccinate it for community control of a disease, as well. Children can spread the virus to teachers, parents, and grandparents.

The concern about "long term effects" for the mRNA vaccines is utterly exaggerated. Yes, we don't know what they are since this vaccines have existed for less than one year. But it is very likely that they are close to a round zero. These mRNA vaccines get degraded and eliminated from the organism in about 8 to 12 hours after administration. We've seen so far short term adverse events and no long term ones.

Also, let's not forget that we don't know what the long term risks of the virus itself are, either. Remember the Epstein-Barr virus, initially considered to be benign in acute phase, and later demonstrated to trigger dangerous and fatal lymphomas and about 9 other serious auto-immune diseases. Don't mess with this virus.

If I had children this age group (mine are older, and vaccinated), I'd have vaccinated them with an mRNA vaccine, no doubt about it.

 

Here's some info I just found.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...bout-ivermectin.591850/page-6#post-1072925009