Peruvian states decrease mortality with Ivermectine

[-] covid-19_throwaway | 2 points | Jul 28 2020 16:48:12

With drugs which nobody can make money off of, I think we're lucky to see any serious trials, ever.

[-] strongerthrulife | 2 points | Jul 28 2020 22:50:50

There are plenty of cheap drugs in clinical trial

[-] covid-19_throwaway | 2 points | Jul 29 2020 01:03:48

It's less bad than usual during the present crisis, but cheap drugs tend to get very low research priority. Example:

1991-2: Italian doctors try NAC as a prophylactic versus influenza in a vulnerable geriatric population, and it eliminates almost all symptomatic cases, though asymptomatic cases still happen, but those subjects still develop immunity to the strain. Great news, right?

1997: The finally get around to reporting it.

2006: Another paper notes the result, and also comments that NAC is useful against HIV, but that "It is, however, unlikely that NAC will be established as a treatment for HIV infection on the basis of randomized trials – such studies are too expensive for such an inexpensive drug as NAC."

Some cheaper sorts of research trickled in over the subsequent years, but 28 years after the study, NAC is still infrequently recommended for influenza, because vaccinations and tamiflu. COVID is driving some research into how all it gets involved in viral replication, cytokine storms, blood clotting and so on, but compare it to vaccines or things like remdesivir, and you'll see that it's on a really glacial (relative) schedule. Some doctors are using it now, and I expect that to continue, just as a few still recommend it for flu, but I don't expect it to be broadly accepted as a treatment for anything besides acetaminophen overdose. The usual private sector incentives just aren't there.

I'm not sure that ivermectin will get a fairer shake, but we will find out how well it works, whether it's ever designated as a treatment or not. My suspicion is that the official winners are going to be fast tracked, better funded, and higher priced.

[-] fleece19900 | 2 points | Jul 28 2020 16:52:54

Who's going to fund it? They would rather use remsdevir and make $3,000/patient than ivermectin, which is so cheap its practically free.

[-] Murky-Lengthiness | 1 points | Jul 28 2020 22:01:42

No one will make a cent out of this, in fact you lose money by funding non patentable drugs. You can make billions with useless drugs like Remdesivir

[-] Proud-Masterpiece | 3 points | Jul 29 2020 19:43:50

That's silly. Medical researchers are human beings who've devoted their lives to this.

You'll find apathy and evil among any group, but do you really think they're all willing to lie openly and let hundreds of thousands die?

Do you really think thousands of researchers in dozens of countries can effectively keep this panacea under wraps for even a week, much less a month or a year?

People aren't that competent when it comes to conspiracies and they aren't that callous when it comes to lives.

Nobody's keeping the secret cure in a lockbox.

[-] Murky-Lengthiness | 0 points | Jul 30 2020 09:01:30

When Ivermectin becomes the standard treatment in center and South America and the US will ban it inside its territory you will see how wrong you are.

[-] Proud-Masterpiece | 2 points | Jul 30 2020 11:40:43

What's easier to believe: that there is a vast conspiracy among top medical researchers in dozens of countries to kill hundreds of thousands of people... or that there isn't one.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far you haven't provided any.

[-] Murky-Lengthiness | 1 points | Jul 31 2020 10:10:02

Its not that they want to kill people, they just do not want to even consider the possibility of something working that it will not fill their pockets.

[-] Murky-Lengthiness | 1 points | Jul 31 2020 10:12:40

For example, if I wanted to hurt someone with Covid I would recommend using paracetamol to lower their Glutathione levels. No one planned this, yet it is happening this way:

But let’s keep sending them home with megadoses of paracetamol and prohibit them using ivermectin. What could go wrong? This is the real legacy of this awful handling of the pandemic,The sequels will be an order of magnitude worse than the pandemic in economic, health and human suffering terms.

Paracetamol does not have a double blind to prove its effectiveness in Covid Acetaminophen overdose produces more calls to poison control centers in the US than overdoses of any other drug substance, representing more than 100,000 calls, as well as 56,000 emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and 458 deaths from acute liver failure per year.

Ivermectin 0

However it is correct to prescribe acetaminophen on Covid but is it forbidden to prescribe Ivermectin?

They tell us not to take anything for Covid because it has not been proven to work and yet they recommend Paracetamol. Taking ONE or two more tablets than recommended can cause severe liver damage and death. The use of paracetamol is one of the main causes of liver failure. Ivermectin is one of the medications with the least known / reported incidents of toxicity, is non-toxic to the liver and there are no deaths reported from its use. Does this seem reasonable to you?