Ivermectin: beating a dead horse
stops covid in vitro (in a glass) but not in vivo (in a body)
several pro-Ivermectin studies were faked and have been withdrawn
there are no peer reviewed studies that show any evidence for Ivermectin curing Covid
anti-vaxxers who love Ivermectin and hate vaccines are "neighsayers"
"The non-fraudulent non-messed up clinical trials are all pretty uniformly negative," says David Gorski, a cancer surgeon and researcher at the Wayne State University School of Medicine in Michigan.
- Doubting mainstream medicine, COVID patients find dangerous advice and pills online July 19, 2022 Geoff Brumfiel www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/19/1111794832/doubting-mainstream-medicine-covid-patients-find-dangerous-advice-and-pills-onli
Ivermectin fans generally like to talk about the evils of Big Pharma, but it's worth noting that Merck, a multinational pharma company which makes Ivermectin, has cautioned that there is no evidence it does anything against Covid-19 (and therefore will not be profitting from public interest in it).
The real lie behind "take Ivermectin for Covid" is the insinuation that Ivermectin (and Hydroxychloroquine and weirder stuff) is supposedly suppressed by the medical establishment so vaccine manufacturers can make obscene profits forcing everyone to be vaccinated.
A variant of this claims the medical system deliberately is killing people by suppressing "early treatment" with Ivermectin to boost vaccines. This is a core catechism of the anti-vaccine movement and it is one of the main motivations of the violent rhetoric that some of them hurl at nurses and doctors who are trying to treat their covid infections.
Unfortunately, the virus doesn't know about any of these claims and replicates unhindered in the unvaccinated bodies of the Qult of Ivermectin. It will never be possible to count all of the unvaccinated who got sick and died of Covid after taking Ivermectin, but a casual unscientific look shows countless examples of people who believed Ivermectin was the solution (in large part because of their anti-social media) and then were shocked they got sick enough to require emergency medical care.
A good place to read a few of these sad stories is the Herman Cain Awards, named after former Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain, who made the fatal mistake of attending, unmasked, the first Donald Trump rally of the Covid era in Tulsa, Oklahoma in June 2020. Cain died the following month. The award given in his memory (without his family's consent) highlights deniers who end up dying of the disease. It is not a recognition to make fun of the victims but rather a warning to others to pay attention and treat the threat with respectful precaution.
Ivermectin is a great drug to treat worm infestation, its inventors deserved their Nobel prize. But there is zero fact checked, peer reviewed evidence that it does anything to treat Covid disease. Viruses are very different than worms that cause river blindness.
Worse, a number of studies claiming it is effective were faked. Made up. Bogus numbers put into charts without reflecting any actual studies. It is a sad example of a mass hypnosis trance induced by paranoia and viral marketing.
As of January 2022, a number of top level medical centers in the USA are conducting a large, quality Ivermectin for Covid study. It is hard to say why they are bothering, but my guess is their motive is to put this claim to rest, although mere facts are unlikely to penetrate the belief system (b.s.) of the true believers. Why should we trust medical schools, they're in bed with big pharma and Bill Gates!
A friend is an epidemiologist for a State public health authority. She told me in 2021 that her state considered doing a study on the effectiveness of Ivermectin but decided against it because they are already overwhelmed with their duties trying to mitigate the pandemic, they don't have extra funds for it and if the study concluded it's useless for viruses the true believers would not believe it anyway.
To be fair, if a real study with proper controls, accurate counting and genuine placebos shows that Ivermectin helps some covid patients, I will admit being wrong and celebrate that there is another treatment to help people overcome this plague. But the odds of that are similar to the former President apologizing for downplaying the pandemic.
Technically, the early evidence for Ivermectin's alleged effectiveness was taken from "in vitro" studies where large amounts of this drug were put into a sample and since that stopped the virus it was alleged it might also work inside bodies. However, the concentrations in vitro are far greater than could be achieved in anyone's lungs. Ivermectin is mostly safe in the prescribed doses needed to treat parasites, but the level that would be needed to get high levels in the lungs pose risks to patients that are ignored by promoters.
Ivermectin is great against worms, useless against covid. Several studies claiming it works against Covid were fraudulent and have been withdrawn. The much touted "meta-analysis" promoted used these fraudulent studies and other reports that were not peer reviewed, and removing the bogus studies causes the claims to collapse.
It's hard for logic and facts to dissuade a belief system (b.s.) that was entered into in an irrational way. It's a great story about how a cheap drug supposedly defeats the reasoning for vaccines, thus reassuring the fearful that their decision not to get vaccinated was justified, and they stood up to "big pharma" greed by taking horse dewormer from the feed store. Most people survive their covid infection without hospital intervention which makes correlation with effective treatments difficult to establish. Large samples for epidemiological review are needed.
from Contagion (2011): a grifter touted a fake cure he knew to be worthless to personally profit
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801828
February 20, 2023
At a Higher Dose and Longer Duration, Ivermectin Still Not Effective Against COVID-19
Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS1; Preeti N. Malani, MD, MSJ2
JAMA. 2023;329(11):897-898. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.1922
A Cochrane meta-analysis of 11 eligible trials examining the efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 published through April 2022 concluded that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19.1 Since May 2022, an additional 3 large randomized clinical trials including several thousand participants have been published, each reaching a similar conclusion.2-4
Today JAMA publishes a new trial of ivermectin treatment for mild to moderate COVID-19 that addresses the possibility that the existing literature may have missed the efficacy of ivermectin because the previously tested dose (approximately 400 μg/kg daily for 3 days) was insufficient.5 At a higher treatment dose (600 μg/kg daily) and longer treatment duration (6 days), Naggie and colleagues again conclude that ivermectin is not beneficial for the treatment of COVID-19.
At the doses and durations tested in these studies, ivermectin does not appear to be associated with serious adverse effects. However, a generally well-tolerated therapy that lacks efficacy can still be dangerous, particularly if it results in patients forgoing other interventions with proven efficacy, such as evidence-based COVID-19 treatments6 or vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Ivermectin has been used throughout the pandemic.7 Although the current prevalence of ivermectin use in the US and globally is difficult to determine, reports in the lay media as well as our own experience as clinicians suggest that use of ivermectin for COVID-19 has not fully abated, fueled in part by real or perceived lack of access to effective therapies, continued confusion or misinformation, and active disinformation about ivermectin's efficacy, including by physicians.8
Scientists will continue to produce knowledge on the effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.9 JAMA will continue to vet this science and help disseminate the highest-quality work to clinicians, patients, and the general public. But closing the knowledge gap is, on its own, not sufficient, and more must be done in partnership with others to address the misinformation that continues as we embark on the fourth year of the COVID-19 pandemic.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827 [Journal of the American Medical Association]
Effect of Higher-Dose Ivermectin for 6 Days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19A Randomized Clinical Trial
Findings In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial including 1206 US adults with COVID-19 during February 2022 to July 2022, the median time to sustained recovery was 11 days in the ivermectin group and 11 days in the placebo group. In this largely vaccinated (84%) population, the posterior probability that ivermectin reduced symptom duration by more than 1 day was less than 0.1%.
Yet another negative ivermectin study, this time in the NEJM
Yesterday the The New England Journal of Medicine published a high quality clinical trial that found no benefit in treating COVID-19 with ivermectin. Cue attacks on the study.
Post author By Orac Post date April 1, 2022
www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869
New England Journal of Medicine
Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19
March 30, 2022
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2115869
Conclusions:
Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19.
www.jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362
Journal of the American Medical Association - February 18, 2022
Efficacy of Ivermectin Treatment on Disease Progression Among Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19 and Comorbidities The I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial
"In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19."
'You will not believe what I've just found.'
Inside the ivermectin saga: a hacked password, mysterious websites and faulty data.
Last Updated: Feb. 7, 2022 at 10:52 a.m. ET
First Published: Feb. 7, 2022 at 8:20 a.m. ET
By Jaimy Lee
How a drug used to treat parasites for decades became the hot and controversial drug of the pandemic
.... no comprehensive clinical trials have found that ivermectin works as a COVID-19 treatment. To make this issue even more complicated, no "gold standard" studies have yet found explicitly that it's useless against COVID-19 or that it's harmful to people taking it.
The ivermectin saga shows how the American drug regulatory system has been overrun by the pressures of the pandemic, including the rush to put out new research and then act immediately on those findings.
.... At a Senate hearing on Dec. 8, 2020, three days before the first COVID-19 vaccine was authorized in the U.S., Kory's testimony described ivermectin as a "miracle drug" that could be used more quickly than the vaccines, which would take months to roll out. His testimony several times referenced the Benha University preprint promising major clinical benefits, and video of the testimony went viral on YouTube.
"Nearly all studies are demonstrating the therapeutic potency and safety of ivermectin in preventing transmission and progression of illness in nearly all who take the drug," Kory wrote in his prepared testimony.
[note: the "Benha" study was done in Egypt and claimed remarkable success with ivermectin for covid patients. Unfortunately, the study seems to have been completely made up from nothing, never done, and the paper has since been withdrawn.]
.... Kory now says the Benha study is deeply flawed — "that paper stinks," he told me — but he puts the blame for the wave of retractions and withdrawals of ivermectin studies on pharmaceutical companies that he said have spent decades developing disinformation campaigns that aim to restrict the repurposing of cheap generic drugs.
"It would dry up the sales of remdesivir and Paxlovid and molnupiravir," said Kory, referring to some of the most prominent therapeutics, developed by Gilead, Pfizer PFE, +0.40% and Merck & Co. MRK, -1.25%, which have been authorized to treat COVID-19. "You name it. Monoclonal antibodies. It literally threatened the market value of almost anything out there on a global pandemic." Kory added: "What we're talking about, a historic corruption, the disinformation campaign waged against a repurposed drug."
https://respectfulinsolence.com/tag/ivermectin/
several articles by Dr. David Gorski
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/10/18/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-take-7/
Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine, take 7:
Are there positive studies that aren't fraudulent?
Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine, a drug repurposed for COVID-19 that almost certainly doesn't work but is still being touted as a "miracle cure" by quacks, grifters, and political ideologues. Are the data supporting it all fraudulent and/or biased? The answer, increasingly, appears to be yes.
October 18, 2021
Meta-Analyses Do Not Establish Improved Mortality With Ivermectin Use in COVID-19
Rothrock, Steven G. MD1,2,*; Weber, Kurt D. MD3; Giordano, Philip A. MD3; Barneck, Mitchell D. MD3
American Journal of Therapeutics: January/February 2022 - Volume 29 - Issue 1 - p e87-e94
doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001461
Ivermectin has been identified as an inexpensive, readily available drug with the potential to be repurposed as a treatment for COVID-19, especially in countries with limited access to vaccines. Although multiple studies have been published in an attempt to evaluate its usefulness in COVID-19, many are small and not constructed appropriately to detect differences in important clinical outcomes (ie, death). For this reason, researchers have turned to meta-analyses to combine study results and draw summary conclusions regarding ivermectin's effectiveness. Two such meta-analyses recently published in the American Journal of Therapeutics concluded that ivermectin decreased mortality and improved other surrogate end points in COVID-19.1–4 A recently withdrawn article caused both authors to rework their meta-analyses without altering their main conclusions.1–5 We feel that shortcomings within both sets of meta-analyses and limitations in the component studies are significant enough to invalidate their main finding that ivermectin reduces mortality. A review of other meta-analyses on the same subject, containing many of the same individual studies, were similarly limited by poor design.
www.vox.com/future-perfect/22776428/ivermectin-science-publication-research-fraud
How bad research clouded our understanding of Covid-19
Early studies of Covid-19 therapeutics turned out to be fabricated or suspicious. That's a huge problem for science.
By Kelsey Piper Dec 17, 2021, 9:00am EST
One ivermectin study included in an influential meta-analysis that found great results for the drug turned out to be based on a data file where the same 11 patients were copied and pasted repeatedly to produce a more robust sample size of a few hundred. When BuzzFeed News followed up on another ivermectin study with huge results, a hospital where the research had reportedly been conducted said it had no record of such a study happening there.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08850666211049062
Retraction Notice
First Published November 9, 2021 Retraction
https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666211049062
RETRACTED: Clinical and Scientific Rationale for the “MATH+” Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19
At the request of the Journal Editor and the Publisher, the following article has been retracted.
Kory P, Meduri GU, Iglesias J, Varon J, & Marik PE. Clinical and Scientific Rationale for the “MATH+” Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19. J Intensive Care Med. 2021:36;135-156. 10.1177/0885066620973585
The article has been retracted after the journal received notice from Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia (“Sentara”) raising concerns about the accuracy of COVID-19 hospital mortality data reported in the article pertaining to Sentara.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/part-one-the-ivermectin-episode/id1373812661?i=1000534551322
Part One: The Ivermectin Episode
Behind the Bastards
www.sorryantivaxxer.com/post/ryan-ograyensek-41-taylor-mi-insurance-broker-unvaxxed-dead-from-covid
didmyresearch3xvaxxed
The drug name should be changed to "Imavictim" given all the caterwauling about it.
https://www.sciencealert.com/meta-studies-like-those-on-ivermectin-promote-poorly-done-research-scientists-argue
Meta-Reviews Are Amplifying Bad And Even Fake Ivermectin Data, Researchers Warn
HEALTH
25 September 2021
By CARLY CASSELLA
A few bad apples have spoiled the meta-studies that first touted ivermectin, the common deworming agent, as a promising treatment for COVID-19.
Within weeks of being made available online, some of these clinical trial overviews were found to contain impossible numbers, unexplainable cohort mismatches, inconsistent timelines and substantial methodological weaknesses.
One of these preprint analyses has since been withdrawn, whereas another has been revised after it was found to include fraudulent data.
Despite the slew of serious mistakes, millions of doses of ivermectin have already been given to COVID-19 patients the world over, while others who haven't caught the virus are taking matters into their own hands and using it as a preventative, potentially endangering their health.
Some scientists are now calling for an immediate remediation of the meta-analysis process to stop this from happening again.
In a letter published in Nature, the authors argue we should no longer include any studies in a meta-analysis unless we have access to the raw individual patient data (IPD).
If the original study authors are not willing or able to provide such detailed information, then the clinical trial should be excluded. Such simple standards would have stopped the meta-studies on ivermectin from ever being published, researchers say.
"We recognize that by recommending IPD review… we are calling for change to nearly universally accepted practice over many decades," the authors of the letter admit, "but the consequent potential for patient harm on a global scale demands nothing less."
According to one of the authors, epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, the process behind a meta-analysis runs almost entirely on trust. It's simply assumed that no one will ever commit fraud, and so no checkpoints are put into place.
Unfortunately, this means some meta-studies are relying on experimental data that may have never been collected.
"In the case of ivermectin, we have evidence that quite a few studies in the literature that were included in meta-analyses are potentially or definitely fraudulent, and these have been included into dozens of meta-analyses without the slightest qualm for months," Meyerowitz-Katz told ScienceAlert.
"It is only when you review the actual line data that you can detect fraud of this kind, therefore that needs to become standard practice."
That's what happened this summer with ivermectin. In July, a few meta-analyses found evidence that the anti-parasite medicine was "very useful for controlling COVID-19 infections", but in the weeks that followed, a closer look dissolved much of the evidence base. ....
In the case of ivermectin, for instance, several meta-analyses were skewed by only a few studies with falsified or potentially falsified data.
Once incorrect information is out there, it's much harder to retract or clarify. Even after certain conclusions have been shown to be baseless, it is hard work changing people's minds, as we know from our experience with vaccines.
Stopping false information from leaking out in the first place is crucial, and to do that, some scientists think cracks in the meta-analysis process need to be filled. Others suggest we should do away with meta-studies entirely, as they might not actually contribute all that much too scientific progress and may, in fact, muddy the waters.
(Because meta-analyses do not require original lab work, it is suspected that many such studies are done by authors who only want a publishing record.)
At the very least, the authors of the recent letter say we should double-check the raw data included in a meta-analysis before we make any sweeping claims. Whether that will ever actually happen is another matter.
www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ivermectin-covid-study-suspect-data
A Prominent Study Said Ivermectin Prevents COVID, But The Data Is Suspect
An influential study from Argentina has been used to argue that ivermectin prevents COVID 100% of the time — but its inconsistencies have led experts to question if it could have actually happened as advertised.
Stephanie M. Lee
BuzzFeed News Reporter
Ken Bensinger
BuzzFeed News Reporter
Last updated on September 27, 2021, at 6:12 p.m. ET
Posted on September 2, 2021, at 6:03 p.m. ET
2 fringe doctors created the myth that ivermectin is a 'miracle cure' for COVID-19 — whipping up false hope that could have deadly consequences
Hilary Brueck
Sep 17, 2021
www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full
Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID‐19
Maria Popp, Miriam Stegemann, Maria-Inti Metzendorf, Susan Gould, Peter Kranke, Patrick Meybohm, Nicole Skoetz, Stephanie Weibel
published: 28 July 2021 Version history https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub
Based on the current very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID‐19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials.
Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns
The preprint endorsing ivermectin as a coronavirus therapy has been widely cited, but independent researchers find glaring discrepancies in the data
Melissa Davey
Thu 15 Jul 2021
https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-06348-5
Published: 02 July 2021
Ivermectin to prevent hospitalizations in patients with COVID-19 (IVERCOR-COVID19) a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Ivermectin had no significant effect on preventing hospitalization of patients with COVID-19. Patients who received ivermectin required invasive MVS earlier in their treatment. No significant differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389
March 4, 2021
Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19
A Randomized Clinical Trial
Eduardo López-Medina, MD, MSc1,2,3; Pío López, MD1,2; Isabel C. Hurtado, MD2,4; et al Diana M Dávalos, MD, MPH, DrPH5; Oscar Ramirez, MD, MPhil3,6,7; Ernesto Martínez, MD8,9; Jesus A. Díazgranados, MD10; José M. Oñate, MD3,8,11; Hector Chavarriaga, MD, MS12; Sócrates Herrera, MD13; Beatriz Parra, PhD14; Gerardo Libreros, PhD14; Roberto Jaramillo, MD15; Ana C. Avendaño, MD15; Dilian F. Toro, MD16; Miyerlandi Torres, DrPH12; Maria C. Lesmes, MD4; Carlos A. Rios, MD17; Isabella Caicedo, MD3
Author Affiliations Article Information
JAMA. 2021;325(14):1426-1435. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.3071
Question What is the effect of ivermectin on duration of symptoms in adults with mild COVID-19?
Findings In this randomized clinical trial that included 476 patients, the duration of symptoms was not significantly different for patients who received a 5-day course of ivermectin compared with placebo (median time to resolution of symptoms, 10 vs 12 days; hazard ratio for resolution of symptoms, 1.07).
Meaning The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand effects on other clinically relevant outcomes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6CJFQ_Xr7A
The science behind why Ivermectin is NOT a miracle cure for COVID
Premiered Dec 15, 2020
Debunk the Funk with Dr. Wilson
Dangerous doctors continue to spread misinformation in the midst of a pandemic. This time, it's in front of Congress. Not cool, Dr. Kory. Not cool.
