Ivermectin, for the interested

[J@son]

Jason, youre obviously not stupid

Well... there you go making wild assumptions from the very start!

I would argue that there's a problem with the first principal "proven antiviral action". The fact that (1) Ivermectin can kill the virus/prevent its replication does not make it (2) an effective treatment or prophylactic in relation to CV19.

I accept (1). The same can be said of bleach. But much of my argument rests on the fact that (2) doesn't follow from it.

The evidence that is offered in support of (2) comes from observational studies - in other words the lived experience of people like @Freeforester and, of course, a great many people in places such as India.

But these observations studies are riddled with problems. This is, after all, why we have peer reviewed double blind randomised controlled trials - to address the flaws (such as confirmation bias) associated with the reported lived experience of individuals.

People who believe that they have been healed by crystals will point to the fact that they really were seriously ill (which they can demonstrate) and that they hugged a cystal (which they can demonstrate) and that they have made a miraculous and full recovery (which they can demonstrate). All of these demonstrated points can be true. But it doesn't mean the crystal healed them.

It also doesn't mean the crystal didn't heal them. And it is important to recognise this. I am not saying I know Ivermectin is not an effective cure for CV19. But I am saying that I know the evidence to support this claim isn't there.

Maybe one day it will be. But it isn't there now. And I would say the same thing to the crystal huggers.

In response I would expect them to say: "that's because it's not in Big Pharma's interests for the world to know about our crystal's healing qualities." It is difficult to argue against this because those who believe it to be true, believe it to be true.

And again this brings me back to my point about the similarity between the two positions. I think these arguments (for crystals/for Ivermectin) come from a similar place, are constructed in a similar way and suffer from similar flaws.

The flaws in the crystal huggers argument are obvious to you but only because of what crystal huggers would claim is your determination to ignore the evidence (based on lived experience) in support of their claims - not because of the obvious problems (which you can clearly see) with this evidence.

We are all guilty of this to some extent. Which is why we should be free to do what we want but also why we have peer reviewed double blind randomised controlled trials when it comes to deciding the effectiveness of medicine.

 

[TomDeer]

Even the term itself, "Big Pharma", seems laden with menace.

One really does not have to wear a tinfoil hat or be a regulatory law expert to know about some of the incredibly grave abuses committed by companies that might be considered to be within the 'Big Pharma' bracket. If trust in Big Pharma is lacking, it may not be entirely without reason.

I readily accept that Ivermectin isn't an "alternative medicine". It is a product of the pharmaceutical industry every bit as much as the vaccines. However, I think the way many people argue in favour of the use of Ivermectin in respect of CV19 closely resembles the way that people argue to promote/defend the use of things which very much are alternatives to medicine

It is interesting how the Ivermectin dismissal has moved from "it's horse wormer" to analogies with alternative medicine.

I do not pretend to know whether Ivermectin is or is not efficacious in treatment or prophylactically against Covid. I am aware that some clinicians with serious professional reputations believe it to be efficacious, just as others question it to be of any use. What I think would be interesting to see would be an independent and non-partisan full scale clinical trial to determine the point one way or the other. If it works, fine. If it doesn't work, fine. Let's face it, with breakthrough infections heading the way they appear to be going, a ready to go cheap as chips efficacious medication with known side effects really would be quite useful!

In the meantime, if someone is self-medicating within safe parametres with Ivermectin I'm not going to get excited one way or the other and I'm not going to dismiss them as nutty adherents to alternative medicine or a crystal hugger (unless they happen to be hugging crystals whilst taking Ivermectin).

And a third theme is control. Illness can bring with it a frightening loss of control - particularly in the context of a global pandemic. Lots of people find a loss of control very alarming and are therefore attracted to simple solutions that appear to re-assert a sense of their own agency when their automony feels threatened. "I am doing something about this - I am taking action and I am doing things my way".

The above is intriguing and applies in many directions. What a simple solution that might re-assert a sense of agency looks like depends on perspective and applies as much to decisions by government as individuals. I think we are seeing these 'simple solutions' coming thick and fast from all directions and some, including those from government and health advisers, are starting to appear threadbare. At what point does a "noble lie" from those in authority just turn into a bog standard back side covering lie?

 

[J@son]

What I think would be interesting to see would be an independent and non-partisan full scale clinical trial to determine the point one way or the other.

Completely agree. It would be really interesting to see this. So you have to ask yourself why hasn't it happened? One answer is that Big Pharma is part of a global conspiracy to supress an effective low cost treatment for CV19. Another answer is that no-one capable of organising such a trial judges that it is worth doing.

You could ask the same question about magical healing Crystals. Why haven't they been subject to rigorous RCTs? And you could offer the same two answers.

And that is my point.

 

[Foxyboy43]

Austria to go into full lockdown as Covid surges Austria to go into full lockdown as Covid surges

 

[Rasputin]

Austria to go into full lockdown as Covid surges Austria to go into full lockdown as Covid surges

One things for sure big pharma are laughing their asses off at the guaranteed profits they will now be making on account of government stipulations.

 

[Dalua]

I am aware that some clinicians with serious professional reputations believe it to be efficacious, just as others question it to be of any use.

The assumption of equivalence of opinion of a handful of high-profile outliers with the overwhelming majority in any particular professional or interest group is not something I would so readily make. The 'just as' is therefore IMO disingenuous.

 

[TomDeer]

You could ask the same question about magical healing Crystals. Why haven't they been subject to rigorous RCTs? And you could offer the same two answers.

Placing Ivermectin alongside magic healing crystals isn't going to win any debates, however apt one might consider the analogy. One is a medication approved for use in humans and the other is not. To place them alongside each other in this context will be seen as both patronising and dismissive and will just add fuel to the suggestion of conspiracy. We've already been there with the "it's horse dewormer and poisonous to humans" line that has previously been taken by some.

The assumption of equivalence of opinion of a handful of high-profile outliers with the overwhelming majority in any particular professional or interest group is not something I would so readily make. The 'just as' is therefore IMO disingenuous.

The assumption that the opinion of the overwhelming majority in any particular professional or interest group is correct is not one I would so readily make. The 'just as' is therefore IMO not disingenuous. By all means be informed by the consensus but dismissing outliers carries its own risks.


It is quite fascinating how this, along with so many other issues of late, has become so partisan. For my own part I am neither for nor against Ivermectin. I am however genuinely intrigued by the strength of feeling on this issue, particularly given the absence of definitive evidence one way or the other.

 

[Dalua]

By all means be informed by the consensus but dismissing outliers carries its own risks.

...and potentially, depending on what they're basing their opinions on, considerable benefits.

 

[J@son]

I'm sorry if anyone thought I was being patronising or dismissive. The analogy with healing crystals was intended to illustrate a point of similarity in the way both arguments are advanced.

particularly given the absence of definitive evidence one way or the other.

No one can prove a negative. You can't expect anyone to produce definitive evidence to demonstrate Ivermectin doesn't work. That is daft. Rather the onus is upon those who believe it to be an effective cure to produce credible evidence to support this case.

And the most effective way to do this would be to use sources trusted by those who disagree with them.

If the crystal huggers could produce RCTs that repeatedly demonstrated the healing properties of their shiny stones, you would be a fool to deny their claims. But they can't. And in this respect they're in the same boat as those who argue in favour of ivermectin at the moment.

 

[Freeforester]

The topsy-turvy world of the administrators telling the clinicians what, and what not to use: makes no cents:





God save us from Gilead…

 

[mchughcb]

Interesting statistic: the total value of Big Pharma is widely agreed to be around 1.5 trillion USD; the total value of the alternative "wellness" industry is... (drumroll) ...4.5 trillion USD.

Even the term itself, "Big Pharma", seems laden with menace. And yet it is worth reflecting that Big Pharma is nowhere near the size of "Big Wellness". Indeed, Big Wellness is three times bigger!

What is more, the claims made by those promoting "alternative medicine" (or, perhaps, more properly "alternatives to medicine"), are not subject to anything like the levels of scrutiny faced by those in pharmaceutical industry bringing new medications to the market.

I readily accept that Ivermectin isn't an "alternative medicine". It is a product of the pharmaceutical industry every bit as much as the vaccines. However, I think the way many people argue in favour of the use of Ivermectin in respect of CV19 closely resembles the way that people argue to promote/defend the use of things which very much are alternatives to medicine - everything from healing crystals to a great many vitamin supplements (which have been repeatedly demonstrated to be of no health benefit whatsoever to people who already have a balanced diet).

It is really interesting to consider why some people are so suspicious of Big Pharma and the cause of their underlying fears - particularly in light of the readiness with which they accept alternatives that are subject to less rigorous scrutiny and supported by "evidence" that is not widely accepted.

For example, a common theme here is often how a lack of evidence in support of the alternative narrative is held up as "proof" that this evidence has been intentionally supressed by the mainstream narrative. "The shocking truth that Big Pharma doesn't want you to know..." when, in fact, it is nothing of the sort.

Another theme is the "It's my body and I'll do what I think best" argument. This is, of course, true. And that's the point: no-one is arguing against it. People should be able to do what they like with their bodies. Take Ivermectin, paint yourself blue: it makes no difference. No-one else cares - or at least no-one else should care. But the fact that someone is doing something, should not be muddled with the evidence that the thing that they are doing is a good idea.

And a third theme is control. Illness can bring with it a frightening loss of control - particularly in the context of a global pandemic. Lots of people find a loss of control very alarming and are therefore attracted to simple solutions that appear to re-assert a sense of their own agency when their automony feels threatened. "I am doing something about this - I am taking action and I am doing things my way".

...all of which explains the enormous growth of the "Wellness" industry over the course of the last 60 years. And I also think it casts a light that is worth considering in respect to our debate over Ivermectin.

Maybe, but the healing crystals don't get sued and payout $2.3B in lawsuit like Pfizer settlements either.

 

[J@son]

$2.3B in lawsuit like Pfizer settlements either.

Interesting that you quote this example...

What did Pfizer do wrong here and why did they agree to settle? To quote from the Dept of Justice commenting on this case:

Under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a company must specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to FDA. Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for so-called "off-label" uses – i.e., any use not specified in an application and approved by FDA. Pfizer promoted the sale of Bextra for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns.

Ivermectin's use to combat CV19 is a good example of precisely this sort of "off-label" use that is prohibited in order to keep people safe. You are making the very point I made yesterday:

What is more, the claims made by those promoting "alternative medicine" (or, perhaps, more properly "alternatives to medicine"), are not subject to anything like the levels of scrutiny faced by those in pharmaceutical industry bringing new medications to the market.

I don't see why you think what you have written demonstrates that the point I have made is wrong.

Rather I think it shows how your desire to defend Ivermectin's use to treat/prevent Covid is (in part at least) motivated by your distrust of "Big Pharma". In this respect you are just like many of the crystal-huggers - who believe in their crystals because they don't trust Big Pharma.

I think you are making my point for me rather than arguing against it.

 

[zambezi]

Ivermectin's use to combat CV19 is a good example of precisely this sort of "off-label" use that is prohibited

Off-label use is not prohibited.

Doctors can prescribe medicines off-label if, in their assessment, there is a patient health benefit. Here is an explicit statement by the FDA for that position in the USA:

 

[zambezi]

Here are a raft of medicines licenced for other purposes whose potential for covid-19 treatment are being considered:

Drug Repurposing Approach, Potential Drugs, and Novel Drug Targets for COVID-19 Treatment - PMC

Novel coronavirus first appeared in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, and it speedily expanded globally. Some medications which are used to treat other diseases seem to be effective in treating COVID-19 even without explicit support. The existing ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[J@son]

I take your point. I should have written: Ivermectin's use to combat CV19 is a good example of precisely this sort of "off-label" use, the marketing of which is prohibited in order to keep people safe.

Not that Merck need to worry about marketing Ivermectin in relation to CV19... along with other contributors to this thread, you are doing an admirable job on that score!

 

[Freeforester]

Another day, another ‘temporal correlation’; whatever happened after the olympics?

 

[zambezi]

opinion of a handful of high-profile outliers with the overwhelming majority in any particular professional

That raises an important point. One raised by one such high-profile "outlier" in a recent U.S. senate hearing on covid measures.

The point he made is that fellows within the science fraternity were expressly threatened with funding jeopardy if they broke ranks with the majority narrative.

Clearly, those "high-profile outliers" who already hold high positions, have been awarded Nobel prizes for their work, have high numbers of peer reviewed publications and high volume citations of their work are not likely to fear funding arrest or damage to career prospects and are thus freer in their expression.

Regardless of such peer pressure, there is already a numerical and national shift in policy on Ivermectin validity in combating covid.

The headliner now is that 12 days after doctors were allowed to prescribe Ivermectin for covid: