TrumpLyftAlles | 43 points
Ivermectin conversations: a place for exchanging information outside the context of a particular article or studyHave a question? An experience you'd like to share? Need to rant?
This is a place to write whatever you like, with a couple qualifications. Let's keep it about ivermectin -- and let's leave politics out.
How ivermectin-centric does it have to be? Not extremely. If it could be relevant to ivermectin, directly or otherwise, that's OK. Posts about zinc, which AFAIK is not related to ivermectin, are OK because ivermectin is often used with doxycycline and doxycycline is a zinc ionophore. Posts about HCQ are acceptable if it's comparing some HCQ result with ivermectin, but posts about HCQ's effectiveness outside that context are NOT welcome. Cat photos are right out. Clear enough? We can have a conversation about it!
What's considered politics? Someone recently posted that it's a shame that people may be more guarded about ivermectin because of how things went with HCQ. That's fine. Posts about the Presidential campaign or similar should be taken to /r/politics or the political sub of your choice. "Democrat" and "Republican" (or GOP), liberal and conservative, are words I really want to avoid in this sub. We're all on Team Ivermectin. Let's exercise our other tribal affiliations elsewhere. That will help this sub remain a friendly place.
Sound reasonable?
This only works if people read it! Note when you see the red (new) notification, come see what's new! Otherwise, people will post questions as main posts so they get attention, which IMO is not desirable. What's your opinion?
[-] Unusual_Delivery_343 | 6 points
Not sure if posted here already: Belgian virologist Marc Wathelet puts ivermectin as a cornerstone in his plan to deal with the pandemic. He wrote an open letter to Belgian prime minister, which you can read here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/plan-eradicate-sars-cov-2-from-belgium-emergency-trial-marc-wathelet?trk=public_profile_article_view
Some info about Marc Wathelet: he has been issueing warnings on the coronavirus to Belgian government very early on. His warnings were laughed at, the health minister even called him a "dramaqueen". Some background info on this virologist in following article (in dutch): https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2020/07/03/kanaries-in-de-corona-koolmijn-de-viroloog-die-weggezet-werd-al/
[-] DreadPyriteRoberts | 3 points
Really good article, Unusual! This is the sub's very first post about ivermectin + Belgium. Would you please post the first link as a main post to the sub? Here is the correct title per the sub's naming convention:
A plan to eradicate SARS-CoV-2 from Belgium and Emergency Trial proposal for Ivermectin. (Belgium 2020-12-23) <whatever you want to add, usually a capsule summary of the article
It's an excellent article, replete with lots of links, by someone who obviously has been following the ivermectin research and events closely. I suggest you include the article about the virologist's background in your initial comment on that post, but that's up to you of course.
Thanks very much!
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
This is a good article, please make a post of it.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 5 points
/r/ivermectin now has over 500 readers and 700 posts!
It's been a huge pleasure, watching more and more smart people come here to read, comment and post articles and studies.
Sincere thanks to all of you! 💖
[-] Excellent-Garden1718 | 5 points
Don't forget the FLCCC (Dr. Marik /Dr. Kory et al) is having their press conference today. It starts in 30 mins. https://covid19criticalcare.com/
Any good outcomes of taking ivermectin paste while having Covid? I’m on day 3 of Covid, and just ordered the paste. I plan on using 12mg a day, along with other supplements. Has anyone felt better? I see a lot of people on this thread taking it prophylactically, but anyone actually have Covid? Thx
Hoping you're feeling better, have you received your paste already?
I have been taking the paste for about 5 days. I just got a prescription for Ivermectin that I will start tomorrow, since I took paste already today. I do feel like it helps my breathing when I take the paste. I’m on day 8 of Covid.
Hope you get better and recover completely soon!
Thank you so much!
I hope you have a speedy recovery and get back to being healthy soon. Do you feel that your illness has been relatively mild or has it still been more severe at times?
I'd like to make a suggestion that a statement like "This is not an anti-vax sub and we do not support or endorse any anti-vax sentiments or positions" be added to the "Welcome to..." section.
I think we need to be loud and clear about it. No one with any credibility is anti-vax. Finding and quoting the FLCCC's position about ivermectin serving as a "Bridge" to vaccination might be a good start... I'd just hate to see anti-vax bullshit infesting this quality sub.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
Good idea. Remind me if I don't do it soon. I tend to procrastinate.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
I thought it came with the no-politics message, but it would be good to be clear. My focus is on the research. I am pro mask, distancing, vaccines. We need all the weapons we can find to beat this pandemic. It's fallacy to think ivermectin is all we need.
[-] magenta_thompson | 4 points
Hi all. I have personal experience taking ivermectin for Covid. I have CVID (common variable immune deficiency - a really crappy acronym to have these days). I started showing symptoms of Covid on Sunday night, including a fever, cough, and fatigue. Had the test on Monday evening, and got the positive result Wednesday morning. My immunologist called me and talked about me trying ivermectin. After much discussion I agreed to try it. By then I did not have a fever, but I did have headache, chest pressure, elevated heart rate whenever I did more than lie down, and continued fatigue. Wednesday early afternoon I took my first dose: four 3 mg tablets. I took a three day course, so I finished yesterday. Obviously I don’t know what this would be like had I not taken ivermectin, but my symptoms have not gotten worse. My fever and cough have not returned, although I definitely feel chest congestion and chest tightness still. I should mention that I have a pulse oximeter that I check obsessively. My oxygen saturation has not gone below 96. This is day six, so I’m cautiously optimistic. I should mention that the urgent care doctor on Monday put me on Augmentin and prednisone for a suspected sinus/upper respiratory infection. After I got the positive test results my doctor told me to stop the Augmentin but I have continue the prednisone. I am on a course of 3 doses for 3 days, then 2 for 3 days, then 1. I thought I should mention that in case it might skew my experience. I’m a little worried that the prednisone is masking my symptoms.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 6 points
Thanks very much for sharing your story!
I have CVID (common variable immune deficiency - a really crappy acronym to have these days).
LOL!
My immunologist called me and talked about me trying ivermectin.
Remarkable! Do you mind sharing what country you live in? I'm under the impression that almost no US MDs know about ivermectin.
Obviously I don’t know what this would be like had I not taken ivermectin, but my symptoms have not gotten worse. My fever and cough have not returned, although I definitely feel chest congestion and chest tightness still.
This is good. Talk to your immunologist about perhaps taking another 12mg after a week. There seems to be a growing consensus about the week-later second round.
I should mention that I have a pulse oximeter that I check obsessively. My oxygen saturation has not gone below 96.
Very good news: it implies that the infection was halted before the virus migrated to the lungs and did damage there.
I don't know anything about prednisone. Perhaps someone else will respond about that.
Thanks again. Good luck!
[-] magenta_thompson | 6 points
I'm in the United States - in the Tampa Bay, Florida area. My immunologist (who, like most, primarily treats allergies) is young and smart, and seems to be up on the latest research. She told me that her partner used it with success for an immune-compromised patient.
I will talk to her about a second course. She's been keeping close tabs on me. As for the significance of my oxygen sats, that's very reassuring -- especially given my diagnosis, I was very scared that I would get hit hard. My immunologist told me to temper my enthusiasm when I told her how happy I was about that, and she reminded me that I'm on day 6 (ish).
I'm happy to answer any other questions that folks have, to the best of my ability.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 4 points
A US doc! Glad to hear it! Good for her, good for you!
Your doc knows much better than me -- but you're probably past the infectious phase of the disease, which starts 2-3 days before symptoms and typically lasts about 6 days. You caught it early with the ivermectin. If you get another PCR test, ask for the CT score, which is the number of times the swab sample was copied. A CT over 35 or so means the virus is effectively gone, and the test is just picking up inert RNA fragments (source: Dr. Fauci).
One of the sub's readers took ivermectin six weeks after her disease started and had a very difficult time -- but she credits ivermectin with saving her life. If you have continued difficulty, I'll ask her to reach out to you. She's very intelligent and does her research.
[-] magenta_thompson | 3 points
Thank you so much! I sure hope I don't need to take you up on the kind offer, but I'll keep it in mind. And thanks for the other information.
I'm really lucky that I have great doctors, and great insurance. I know that's not true for too many in the US, sadly.
Thanks again!
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
You're very welcome -- both ways. Drop by often!
[-] magenta_thompson | 3 points
Hello! I'm on day 12 and continuing to improve. I have a mild, dry cough and occasional headaches. And I'm tired. So tired. I need a new word for tired. But I'm also grateful that my doctor saw fit to prescribe ivermectin. Given my history, I think I was on a very bad path, and I credit ivermectin with stopping the progression of the disease, cold.
You mentioned asking her about a second course. I did, and she told me that she had researched it and concluded there wasn't enough evidence to support it. So I wonder: am I still exhausted to my bones because that's normal for COVID, or would I benefit from a second round? It's hard to say.
One more thing: my ears are ringing/whooshing. It waxes and wanes but never really goes away. I hope it does, and soon!
Peace.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Thanks for the update! Very happy to hear that you're doing well!
she told me that she had researched it and concluded there wasn't enough evidence to support it. So I wonder: am I still exhausted to my bones because that's normal for COVID, or would I benefit from a second round? It's hard to say.
There isn't enough evidence to contradict it. Ivermectin is ridiculously safe, so there's no reason not to take it, IMO. A number of trials gave a second dose after a week if patients were not yet recovered. Would a second round help you? Maybe. It definitely wouldn't hurt you.
Since May I've been taking ivermectin twice a week. Too much is not a problem.
[-] Impressive_Run8581 | 3 points
Mine does - we've been discussing it for months. I had O2 levels in the 70s, ground glass in lungs (xray and ct) and several other covid symptoms - negative test though (but many with covid do test neg) My MD prescribed IVM and 48 hours later O2 was 97-99 and xray was clear. MD thought it was extraordinary.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
I had O2 levels in the 70s, ground glass in lungs (xray and ct) and several other covid symptoms - negative test though (but many with covid do test neg) My MD prescribed IVM and 48 hours later O2 was 97-99 and xray was clear. MD thought it was extraordinary.
Wow, congratulations for your recovery! Presumably you feel a lot better? Were you able to sleep with your ground glass lungs? An early poster to the sub was pretty messed up from covid, got a lot of relief from ivermectin, but was slow to recover from shortness of breath that made sleep difficult.
My MD prescribed IVM and 48 hours later O2 was 97-99 and xray was clear. MD thought it was extraordinary.
That's remarkable two ways -- that your MD was willing to prescribe IVM, and that it was so helpful so quickly.
I'm in touch with Mary Beth Pfeiffer, who has written 3 ivermectin articles for TrialSiteNews (well, the 3rd just touches on ivermectin). She might want to write about your case, speak with you and your MD. Are you game?
[-] Impressive_Run8581 | 2 points
Yes. I'm hoping my story can help people.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Thanks, it's such a good story!
[-] Impressive_Run8581 | 2 points
Initially I was excited by this idea but there are a couple of issues. # 1 my MD may not want to be publicly associated with someone taking drugs shipped in from Thailand, Russia, Mexico, Balkan States etc. # 2. IVM was not the sole intervention or therapeutic so it's hard to know exactly what benefit was achieved by IVM vs the covid toolbox I used before going to ICU. It just may not be the 'angel in white IVM' story needed. I will be confessing to my MD on Dec 1 what I did. He knows I have the niclosamide because I gave him some in June. I'm hoping he'll write IVM and doxy scripts for me that I'll pay OOP for.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I haven't yet raised the idea with Mary Beth. I'll refrain.
I don't know about niclosamide? Prophylaxis?
Good luck with your MD. There's always the horse paste.
[-] Impressive_Run8581 | 2 points
niclosamide is an endosomal entry inhibitor - per Ice you need that and TMPRSS2 inhibitors - these are friendly drugs - also on WHOs essential meds list.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
niclosamide
[-] rachelh2007 | 4 points
we need to be more proactive getting Ivermectin out to everybody. I have personally used the topical version of ivermectin for covid-19. I have a diminished immune system and I was able to use the Ivermectin and reduce symptoms dramatically in 12 hours. Really tough 12 hours. Mostly recovered in 72 hours. Became extremely sick on a Wednesday recovered by Friday. Tested on the following Monday for Covid and tested negative. Retested three days later still negative.
This drug eradicates the virus from your system. It doesn't just help you fight the virus it kills the virus.
I'm not alone hundreds of thousands of people around the world have experienced exactly the same results with no side effects. everyone needs to get it and take it before getting sick. It can reduce the symptoms or prevent you from contracting the virus.
FDA and News media keep downplaying its potential and overwhelming evidence for success.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 4 points
I am SO happy that you're feeling better. That's an amazingly fast recovery! Two negative tests 3 days apart: you're cured! :) :) :)
Really tough 12 hours.
Ugh. Good for you for pulling through -- and for thinking of ivermectin! Where did you learn about IVM vs covid19?
You used topical ivermectin? I never realized that would put significant amounts of IVM into your blood stream?! How much did you use? I guess, how many square inches did you apply the topical version to? Did you put it on your arm? How many times did you apply it.
President Trump uses ivermectin cream for rosecea. I wonder if that contributed to his fast recovery?!
Did you ever get a positive PCR?
This drug eradicates the virus from your system. It doesn't just help you fight the virus it kills the virus.
That's my firm belief too. There are some skeptics on this sub, but not me.
I'm not alone hundreds of thousands of people around the world have experienced exactly the same results with no side effects. everyone needs to get it and take it before getting sick. It can reduce the symptoms or prevent you from contracting the virus.
I'm totally with you.
FDA and News media keep downplaying its potential and overwhelming evidence for success.
They are ignoring ivermectin, as far as I can tell. It finally made it to the NYTimes list of therapeutics, with a few mostly negative paragraphs. The FDA has issued a couple advisories against it, and those were months ago.
It's very frustrating. I read about people in a room in south Texas who are put there, untreated they die. I want to scream "Give them ivermectin!"
Word is spreading. Dr. Marik's adoption of IVM is a dramatic step. I hope the FDA catches on before it's too late for thousands of Americans. Even more so the WHO: it's endorsement could save a million lives between now and when the world is vaccinated.
[-] rachelh2007 | 3 points
I learned about Ivermectin early in April after the Monash Univ. Study.
I thought by mid-April to late April the coronavirus will be over. I saw this interview
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/local-doctor-tries-new-coronavirus-drug-treatment/2219465/
I did the research. it was easier back in early April. most of the news articles regarding Ivermectin were not taken off the internet. in April the CDC listed Ivermectin as one of the top 10 drugs for possible use against the coronavirus however they said it needed more testing. . now you can go to clinicaltrials.gov and see that there are 38 clinical trials that have been performed or ongoing with ivermectin for covid-19. it is the number one research drug for covid-19 anywhere in the world. it is incredibly disheartening with the National Institute of Health does not recommend Ivermectin due to a lack of clinical trials.
I've researched the history of this drug from Merc developed this drug in 1975 from mud found in Japan. this product is derived from the natural bacteria Avermectine. the patents ran out in 1996. Merc was not able to extend the patent for anti-viral properties without clinical trials. Merck as part of a worldwide marketing campaign donated 100 million doses a year since 1998 to the WHO. The WHO has dispensed 2.5 Billion doses to humans. Merck wrote the donation to reduces tax liability and destroyed the market for Ivermectin. Making it virtually worthless. There are more than 20 years of research with Ivermectin used for Malaria, West Nile Virus, Dengue and many more.
I have downloaded more than 60 research papers and virology reports on Ivermectin. The results of Ivermectin in Peru is amazing. That started from a grassroots movement from doctors. In Florida, there has been a grassroots movement to use Ivermectin. However, it has been met with great resistance.
The topical solution is used for Animals. It is referred to as Cattle Wash, and it is for cows pigs goats horses sheep Etc. They all use the same dosage as the WHO for head lice at 200 micrograms/kilo.
The pour-on version can be found on Ebay, Amazon and at Tractor Supply
https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/product/durvet-ivermectin-pour-on-250-ml
You only need 20mg of Ivermectin or 4mL of the cattle wash for preventive measures. That is approximately 60 dosages for $20. It will last 10-12 weeks.
it's incredibly disheartening to think we have a drug that doesn't cause any side effects that could be helpful so why are we not at least trying it. there has been no evidence of any negative side effects. the evidence shows that it either doesn't work very well or it works fantastic. the results vary because the dosage is very. typically doctors only use what is prescribed in the World Health Organization website at 200 micogram/ kg. it has to be noted that this is only a single dose that is ever given to anybody. doctors described it as one and done. other doctors from around the globe have use higher doses of ivermectin with far better results. I personally use five times the recommended dosage. Studies have shown the use of 50 times the recommended dosage with little to no side effects. Cardiac doctors in South Florida used 18 of the 3 mg pills for severely ill cardiac patients with covid. By the way, they all recovered.
We need not be dissuaded by negative news. some of the negative news I read was by people who never heard of ivermectin never did any research or were, not even medical doctors. not sure how these people's opinions trump actual medical doctors working in the ER but it seems to matter more to big newspapers to downplay this drug.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Did you see my questions, Rachel?
I hope they weren't annoying, I didn't mean for them to be.
[-] LinkifyBot | 1 points
I found links in your comment that were not hyperlinked:
I did the honors for you.
^delete ^| ^information ^| ^<3
[-] [deleted] | 2 points
the Ivermectin in the cattle wash is in an isopropyl alcohol medium. (Rubbing alcohol). DO NOT DRINK IT. This method of delivery makes it incredibly safe. the skin can only absorb the alcohol at a set rate. the excess amount will either run right off or evaporate. once the Ivermectin is absorbed through the skin it is absorbed directly into the bloodstream. this makes the delivery of higher concentrations of ivermectin much safer. the typical Ivermectin in a pill format is distributed as Stromectol and 3 mg pills. the pills require digestion in the stomach and intestines. this takes a lot longer to get into the bloodstream and higher dosages can cause nausea and diarrhea. it can also in larger dosages cause problems with kidneys and liver.
The cattle wash comes with a simple delivery system for measuring the dosages. Remember slightly higher dosages will be safe. (As I've explained).
The standard 200 microgram per kilogram dosage listed on the World Health Organization website is for lice and parasites. the coronavirus is far more invasive than parasites and requires a larger concentration. it's especially important to understand the larger concentration because Ivermectin is typically given in a single dose.
You also have to understand that Ivermectin Works in multiple ways. it binds the alpha and beta 1 proteins creating a protective layer around the cell membranes preventing the coronavirus from entering the cells. this is why smaller doses of ivermectin can be used as a preventive measure so you do not contract the virus.
the second way that Ivermectin works is that it enters the cells and kills the virus. As demonstrated in the in vitro testing done by Monash University in Australia.
The last interesting effect of ivermectin is that it will enter the cell structures and repair cellular damage. Ivermectin has experimented with cancer patients for repairing cellular damage due to chemotherapy. because Ivermectin Works in three separate ways a larger dosage is more beneficial that way I can protect the cells, kill the virus and then repair the cells which reduces the virus to a 3-day illness.
we have to understand that Ivermectin was found in the mud in Japan. mud has been used around the globe for centuries for various healing properties and of course, women have used mud packs to rejuvenate facial tissue for years.
Fred and research you can always go to the Thailand medical news they have an entire database of Articles from around the globe for fighting covid-19 including many articles on Ivermectin.
https://www.thailandmedical.news/articles/covid19-drugs
I should also give the bad side effects of ivermectin. Ivermectin should not be given to children under 5 or women who are pregnant or nursing. Large doses of ivermectin can cross the blood-brain barrier and cause damage to the brain tissue and cause the brain to swell which could lead to strokes, and death.
Most of the side effects listed on the World Health Organization and the CDC website are for larger dosages than the 200 micrograms per kilogram of body weight. Interesting that the FDA and the CDC do not recommend Ivermectin because of the side effects. This is incredibly disturbing because they recommend that you take the vaccines, knowing that there are severe side effects.
The new vaccines that are coming out have severe side effects of nausea headache, fever, diarrhea and muscle aches. Sometimes lasting for days. And did I mention you have to get two shots? Sounds worse than the virus.
The World Health Organization actually had a panel of various doctors, scientists and virologists from around the world collecting data on ivermectin for covid-19. it was disbanded and all data was removed from the internet without warning or explanation.
The World Health Organization donated 350,000 doses of ivermectin to Trinidad in Bolivia to go door-to-door to reduce covid. Later news articles condemn crazy unproven treatment.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/bolivian-region-authorizes-ivermectin-as-treatment-against-covid-19/
Peru and Ivermectin. look at the results 0.03% mortality with Ivermectin. (Again small doses) Larger single doses are more effective.
https://juanjchamie.medium.com/what-happened-in-iquitos-peru-3a2828ae3bcf
Here is a proposal to stop the coronavirus worldwide, 5 month ago. Where is the news on this!!!!
Previous research showing that Ivermectin's ability to prevent and cure tropical diseases was well known before covid-19.
https://www.who.int/neglected_diseases/news/nobel_prize_2015/en/
I've searched the dark web and found literally hundreds of Articles from around the globe on Ivermectin and various hospitals and researchstudies in doctors touting that Ivermectin is amazing. There are too many to include here.
I've included a enough to show that Ivermectin was well known before coronavirus came out and has been well known to stop the Coronavirus for several months. Biden needs to change his tone Trump didn't kill 200,000 people the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies did. The Cure is right here in front of us and nobody wants to listen.
[-] rachelh2007 | 1 points
thank you
There's an interesting part in drugs to fight Covid-19 already on the market, say Israeli experts:
As ISRAEL21c reported in June, Schwartz launched a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of antiparasitic drug ivermectin on 100 Israelis with mild to moderate Covid-19.
This should be high quality RCT and targeting mild to moderate patients where ivermectin is likely to be effective. And, as it started in June it should be completing soon.
I'm not sure if this warrants a separate post (and not sure if this is already well known one), so decided to just comment here.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
We should email the researchers and ask when they expect to publish data, they are past completion date and still marked as Recruiting.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Good idea. I hope they didn't miss their recruiting window: the lockdown there was effective.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
I think it's worthy of a main post. This trial was prominent in the news when it was first announced and there are probably 2-3 posts about it to the sub -- but the sub has grown since then. If I were posting it, I would only include the Schwartz part about ivermectin. Let me know if you don't want to post it. I will if you don't.
[-] Impressive_Run8581 | 4 points
F*ck! The great thing about ivermectin is that we've all caught on correctly that this is a damn good drug for covid. The worst thing is that everyone (including myself) some times somehow view themselves as experts in their strategies. The stupidity with which I've seen others adhere to insane ideas about self treatment in the face of better evidence and strategies is mind numbing. Some friends are sick in ICU and getting remdesevir and conv plasma. Might as well give them strawberries and whipped cream. An MD advises to take doxy as a prophy everyday and as an ionophore. (EGCG or QCT?) (making resistant bacteria???) People with 02 levels in the 70s don't want to take horse paste? But will wait 48 hours for a script? (you may be dead by then). Anyone advising late stage HCQ and IMHO HCQ at the exclusion of IVM. Since it's proven HCQ only fractionally useful compared to IVM. The list goes on and on.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 5 points
Imagine being a doc and trying to navigate all this, with AFAIK very little direction from NIH. Dr. McCullough testifying before Congress said that 500 papers per day are being published. Physicians spend long days treating covid patients, which has to be a terrible, scary job -- and then they have a few hours a day to live their lives. Maybe they snatch a few hours a week to look at the research. How do they decide what to read? Ivermectin isn't on their scope. I think there are a total of four ivermectin posts on /r/medicine, and only a few of the docs responding to the most recent two-month-old post knew anything about it.
I suppose the FDA and NIH are in the same position.
Hopefully the FLCCC will break through the information storm and get ivermectin due attention from the federal agencies?!
[-] Impressive_Run8581 | 2 points
Agreed - we have to be empathetic to how hard it is to be a healthcare professional during this. But at the same time they need to stop white coating. Friends in KU medical center getting remdesivir and conv plasma. Good thing there is a morgue trailer - they're going to need it.
[-] passfailboat | 4 points
What's up my fellow horses. Been on the prophylaxis protocol for a few weeks now. No issues to report other than that very soon after taking it each time, I get some rank gas very briefly and rip a few fainters. All good in all other categories.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
When you master it, please post the recording of you farting "Ivermectin rocks". LOL
[-] ClasseD-48 | 4 points
Like many people here, I have been exasperated and driven to rage and fury by the refusal of medical authorities to take into consideration ivermectin studies or to organize clinical trials for prophylactic and early treatment uses of ivermectin. I had failed to come up with any plausible theory for why they would do that, the only theories I could fathom up to now were abject incompetence, corruption or downright malice... until now.
I explored the guidance of the FDA on Emergency Use Authorizations of drugs, and I found this criteria for such an emergency approval:
d) No Alternatives
For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. A potential alternative product may be considered “unavailable” if there are insufficient supplies of the approved alternative to fully meet the emergency need. A potential alternative product may be considered "inadequate" if, for example, there are contraindicating data for special circumstances or populations (e.g., children, immunocompromised individuals, or individuals with a drug allergy), if a dosage form of an approved product is inappropriate for use in a special population (e.g., a tablet for individuals who cannot swallow pills), or if the agent is or may be resistant to approved and available alternative products
What is the point?
Well, let's say ivermectin gets an EUA for prophylactic use, and it turns out to be just as effective as the studies suggest, meaning nearly 90% reduction of symptomatic cases (which it seems to have done in Alto Parana). Ivermectin would be a very adequate prophylactic agent at preventing COVID disease, it would be approved, it has a well-established safety profile and would be widely available considering it could be sourced from many existing plants to step up the supply to respond to demand.
Well, that would mean that any other drug which goal would be preventing COVID disease would no longer be eligible for EUA because there would be an adequate, approves and available alternative that already does so.
Well, what other treatment can you think of which purpose would be to prevent COVID infections?
Vaccines. Like Pfizer's vaccine that just got an EUA.
I'm not a believer in conspiracy theories. I'll take my vaccine shot without worrying about microchips or changes to my DNA. But what if medical authorities have decided for months now that vaccines were the way out, and governments got pharmaceutical companies to hurry up their vaccine production, and that the reason they've refused to fund clinical research into prophylactic or early treatment use of existing drugs against COVID is that they're afraid they're going to find a drug just effective enough to make it impossible for vaccines to be approved?
So is it just bureaucratic and technocratic stubbornness? They don't want to change horse in mid-stream? They committed themselves to that solution and so they didn't want to risk looking at potential solutions that might ruin everything they've done until now?
[-] passfailboat | 3 points
These people have blood on their hands. And all of the people with a hand in suppressing the information have blood on their hands. That includes the moderators of r/coronavirus. I hope they find judgment, but find no mercy.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
I find this rule troubling. What is the rationale of preventing a multitude of effective treatments being approved at the same time? Nothing is stopping multiple vaccines using different technology to be EUA approved. Is it because they all are receiving EUA prior to being considered a treatment?
[-] ClasseD-48 | 1 points
I'm guessing this rule exists to limit risks of emergency approvals. If you allow 4 different treatments, that increases the odds of possible negative side effects rather than just choosing the one with the lowest rate of side effects.
Multiple vaccines can be approved because there are insufficient supplies of each vaccine to do the job to inoculate the entire population.
[-] Ok_Meeting_6364 | 1 points
The truth is the RCT is like the 100m dash in the olympics - it’s clean and after the drug result you get a real result-
Everything else is just a side race, or analysis
The truth is with covid so many people cut corners and put up crap that has not stood the test of time
Not to mention a lot of data was gleaned from the surgisphere corporation data which has been tainted just like baseball and steroids
In South America and Central America where I have family ivermectin is part of the covid protocols and the death rate is no better than USA
Look at Peru where it’s use is rampant?
Third highest death percentage in the world- this us why you need a clean study
[-] ClasseD-48 | 3 points
This is quite incorrect. The RCT is not a short and sweet clinical test. It's long and requires a lot of resources to do correctly.
Adoption of ivermectin is not widespread in Latin America despite what you claim. National ministries are often under pressure of the WHO not to include ivermectin (among other drugs) as part of their national treatment protocol. Analysis of data where regional governments have distributed ivermectin to vulnerable high-risk individuals in Peru tends to indicate a strong positive effect: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/COVID-19-in-Peru-in-people-older-than-60-years-Total-deaths-and-detected-Covid-cases_fig1_344469305
The Dominican Republic, according to interviews with health providers, seems to have widespread adoption of ivermectin by its health providers and currently has a CFR of around 0,4 - 0,5% whereas most of the developed world has one of around 1,5 - 2,0%.
What seems to be a major problem in Latin America is that many people self-medicate, so they don't take proper dosages and take a bit of everything, and some people may even be dying from self-medication because they don't use safe doses or safe drugs. Which is why medical authorities shouldn't hold off from offering treatments, because if the guideline is only "go home and let the sickness get worse without doing anything", self-medication may be the result. It may also result in shortages where people who less need it can get treatment and deprive those who most need it from access to it.
[-] Ok_Meeting_6364 | 1 points
Sorry I think you missed my point about RCT. It’s the gold standard meaning the best test to definitively pick a winner, not that it’s short and sweet.
To further the analogy the RCT will do drug testing to ensure they are truly the better better candidate and not because they are on steroids, as was an issue with some of the ivermectin trials
For example in the beginning every Icu doctor was throwing hydroxychloroquine at everyone and it was only after multiple trials were done was the enthusiasm muted.
Not even the highly touted remdesivir was that great- reducing hospital length of stay
No what was ground breaking were steroids the good old dexamethasone- excellent RCT study done in the uk showing a reduction in mortality for those needing supplemental oxygen —-this IS a game changer
[-] ClasseD-48 | 2 points
First, studies comparing observational studies and RCTs have shown that high-quality observational studies provide the SAME results as RCTs.
Second, RCTs are very expensive and labor-intensive to run. This means RCTs are best suited for small sample sizes in hospital settings, and very poorly adapted to prophylaxis or early treatment studies ESPECIALLY if the primary outcome being studied is hospitalization or death in a disease where the risk of either at the point of diagnostic is 2-5%. That may be why there's so little information coming out about early treatment on COVID... yet early treatment is the most promising avenue to deal with the crisis, if something taken early can reduce hospitalizations, it can protect the healthcare system from being overloaded.
No what was ground breaking were steroids the good old dexamethasone- excellent RCT study done in the uk showing a reduction in mortality for those needing supplemental oxygen —-this IS a game changer
The same people who are promoting ivermectin now were promoting corticosteroids like dexamethasone back in April and May. They were savagely attacked for it until the trials proved they were right and the guideline changed... in September.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 1 points
We all understand why RCT is the gold standard for determining a clear winner, but it's also not something that can be done without a huge amount of money, coordination and support. The doctors who have done Ivermectin studies to date don't have access to this, they're busy running their wards.
A trial of any kind, RCT included, still depend on good design to get a meaningful result. Do remember that in those large trials HCQ was given in really large doses to hospitalised patients. Not making this up, it's published in the trial protocol. RCT also tend to test drugs in isolation rather than test a combination. These trials gets caught up trying to eliminate confounders and end up not considering synergism. We can't test all permutations and we don't need to, just the most promising ones.
All that said I agree with the findings, HCQ isn't for the hospital setting. Maybe it has a role in early outpatient treatment as a zinc ionophore, but this is on the word of doctors who use it and the Zelenko's study. Given the symptoms of post-COVID resemble autoimmune disease, perhaps HCQ can be of real help for long haulers, I am just speculating here.
Anyway I'm not here to argue whether HCQ works or not.
HCQ may be a good cautionary tale, but science is about being open to possibilities and doing more tests until the truth is known. What we have so far with Ivermectin is enough evidence to definitely require a large cohort trial, but what is astonishing and disappointing is instead all attention remains on disproving HCQ again and again, and it's still ongoing.
All the WHO needs to do with their RECOVERY trial is drop HCQ and add Ivermectin, and while using a safe and reasonable dose. While they're at it drop Azithromycin (proven ineffective) and add Doxycycline. Trial them together as well, why not? I want this data as much as anyone, let's get on with it.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Not to mention a lot of data was gleaned from the surgisphere corporation data
Uniquely, it seems, I believe that the Surgisphere studies were valid, based on valid data -- their unfortunate fatal flaw being that they were based on a proprietary database which could not be audited because of confidentiality agreements with the company's client hospitals.
In South America and Central America where I have family ivermectin is part of the covid protocols and the death rate is no better than USA
Would you say that the two regions (US vs Central/South America) should have comparable death rates, given the comparative quality of their healthcare systems?
[-] Ok_Meeting_6364 | 2 points
No what I am implying is that IF ivermectin really is a “game changer” then a country where the use is widespread should in theory be much better off than a similar country not using ivermectin
So if Peru uses it a lot and say Paraguay does not then, one might infer a death rate difference could be due to the drug
I’m not saying the drug doesn’t work- I’m saying a lot of smart people are not willing to spend the effort in setting up a good RCT which could benefit the entire world rather than just incorporate it into your country treatment plan and assume it works like my second home honduras
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/honduras-treatment-for-covid-19-stands-out-worldwide-301139390.html
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
So if Peru uses it a lot and say Paraguay does not then, one might infer a death rate difference could be due to the drug
IMO these kinds of analyses are very difficult to get right. They need a lot of data, so they can control for covid-related things like population density, quality of health care, elevation, etc. as well as even the basic fact of what proportion of the population took ivermectin therapeutically and prophylactically, at what doses.
That said, this is a study like that which found positive results for ivermectin.
I’m saying a lot of smart people are not willing to spend the effort in setting up a good RCT which could benefit the entire world rather than just incorporate it into your country treatment plan and assume it works like my second home honduras
This frustrated me, because it's easy to add set up RCTs (I say as someone who studied statistics and experimental design in college -- but has never been involved in a trial).
Pick a random sample of patients and given them ivermectin in addition to standard care.
Define a population of nursing homes, randomly select half of them to receive ivermectin.
Select a random sample of prison inmates (or meat packers) and dose them with ivermectin once a week
Offer six weekly doses of ivermectin to every church-goer over 65 at a few dozen churches
With the high infection rate and hospitalization rate in the US, at least, there's an abundance of subjects.
I guess there's a few reasons why someone in a position to do so, would not undertake to do a RCT:
Already the policy is to use ivermectin, and itt's dirt cheap, so what's the advantage to be gained by doing an RCT?
There's plenty of evidence already, no more RCTs are needed
RCTs aren't needed because we can do observational studies, which research has shown typically produce the same findings
RCT? What's a RCT? (A lot of people never got past Intro. to Statistics, if that)
They aren't actually smart. ;)
If you are in the US and test +, ask your doctor to presribe this protocol. (US because I have no idea about healthcare/ prescription availability in other countries)
I'm in TX, tested + last Wednesday and have been on it since Wed night. Partner (high risk) is a day behind me in same treatment. Also tested +.
Ivermectin (5 days)- 12 mg/ day x 5 days Azythomycin (6 days) Prednozone/ 6 day steroid pac Aspirin- 1/day to prevent post covid blood clots Zinc A D Expectorant (do not use anything to "dry up")
I feel great! Still have slight cough on day 4 but everything else is great. Smell is a little off but still there.
[-] Excellent-Garden1718 | 3 points
I'm glad to hear that you're doing well and that you have a doctor willing to treat you early. It seems good doctors can be hard to find. You don't mention how long you had symptoms before you tested positive, but this comment is directed more to those who read your post. I just wanted to point out that I've heard where Dr. Marik and others recommend to wait a bit on the steroids for best results. I believe around day 8 from symptom start /or at the beginning of the pulmonary phase of the disease. Best wishes to you and your partner in your continued recovery and congrats on finding a good doc. Keep us updated on how y'all are doing.
Thank you. I tested day 2 of symptoms since I found out I had contact with a positive case, and I started all meds same day.
I am lucky. I live in an area where there are many Drs and actively involved in using the latest protocols and treating parients at the onset. This was my regular primary care doc.
I also am glad to hear that LJJ73 is doing well. Concerning testing, personally I plan on starting the FLCCC protocol for Mild/Moderate Covid infection---making the assumption that I have Covid19---upon the FIRST upper respiratory or any other symptom of ANY kind that could possible be the first sign of Covid19. Sure, I could be medicating unnecessarily if it's just a little cold I am having, or a little GI upset, but these meds and supplements are INCREDIBLY SAFE. I would much rather be ahead of the curve on treatment. Hopefully that will not be necessary since I am also following the PEP protocol, but if it is I will not hesitate and get started before I get any test results. Just my opinion of course.
[-] Excellent-Garden1718 | 2 points
My point was specifically about only the steroids mentioned in LJ173's post. The FLCCC protocol does NOT include steroids on day 1. Both the FLCCC and Dr. Been are saying that it is important to wait on the steroids because steroids could actually make things worse if taken early. I agree totally that it's not necessary to wait on the Ivermectin and other supplements. I would start those immediately upon a strong suspicion of a positive, even before the test results are back.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
I'll start off by asking you (collectively) a question.
A while back, someone suggested having a sticky post where people could write about their experience taking ivermectin. We have at least one frequent poster with a vivid experience; that person might post about it.
Do you think that's a good idea, having a sticky post for that purpose?
I guess this post (being sticky) could be used for that. Would a separate post be better?
[-] foggynotion | 3 points
One potential problem would be if there's a visible post where people are giving advice for taking a cure for covid-19 this sub might get shut down. I wish we could talk about it here, maybe consider making a discord server for this subreddit?
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I emailed my favorite \r\covid19 mod about this. The reply said:
The mod said that the reddit admins give warnings before shutting down a sub. I think we could try it and see if we get in trouble.
On /r/scabies they give each other advice about treatment constantly. There's on the order of 150 people on that sub (a kind of guess) who have eaten the horse paste form of ivermetin.
[-] Ill-Hand-404 | 2 points
thank you, I joined that group, they have lots of people taking the horse paste there, it is reassuring. I would love to share my experience taking the paste, but don't want to get banned, so if someone started a sub, I would share.
[-] Ok-Film-9049 | 2 points
FWIW re dosing. i found a study on calves and IVM dosing from a few years back. It cost so I managed to enlarge the tiny graphs to see what happened.
lung concentration 3.5x that in plasma. Peak conc in a few hours. Peak conc remained high in lungs (90% of peak) till day 8. the next time they measured was day 18 when much much lower, but still some.
Therefore maybe redosing required every 10 days (maybe 12-15), but not weekly for use as a prophylative, assuming the lung is the main access point for covid.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Hey, OK! I missed this comment until just now. Can you give me a link to that study? Maybe I'll fork up $$ for it. Sounds really interesting.
Good comment, thanks!
[-] Ok-Film-9049 | 1 points
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12646446_Comparative_distribution_of_ivermectin_and_doramectin_to_tissues_location_in_cattle
I think this is the one
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
In \r\covid19 here I posed this question:
Does anyone know how many newly-hospitalized mild or moderate covid-19 patients typically advance to more severe illness? Links? I can't figure out how to google effectively.
I asked because the answer is critical to the Argentine study that was posted to the sub recently. In that study (a 2:18 youtube video), the author said that the norm is for 5% of newly-admitted mild or moderate covid-19 patients to advance to more severe disease. He touts ivermectin success because NONE of the treated patients advanced to a worse condition.
Does anyone happen to know about this? Is 5% a "real" number? It would be great to get a link from an authoritative source.
You can find how many die and that would be a lower bound.
[-] [deleted] | 1 points
[deleted]
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I don't understand. In the study in question, 135 mild and moderate patients all recovered, none advanced to more serious illness.
No one died.
Lower-bound == ???
I mean you can find how many mild advance to critically ill if you find how many Hospitalized patients die (I am talking about the general average, not this study). You probably need to add some % to see if the 5% is a reasonable comparison point. Looks like it is.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Ah, sorry I'm dumb sometimes. Got it.
You probably need to add some % to see if the 5% is a reasonable comparison point.
If you saw something substantiating that, post the link please! :)
In the UK the number seems to be much lower now. There are some possible reasons here
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/declining-death-rate-from-covid-19-in-hospitals-in-england/
Looks like the study may need to be bigger as if we need to compare 0 vs. 1.5 % that n won’t give us enough power. but it’s still very encouraging
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
Possible reasons for the decline in UK covid-19 deaths:
Older patients who had recovered from COVID-19 but could not be discharged to care homes have places that have over recent weeks become available. This would not, however, explain the decline that started from 9 April 2020.
Patients with COVID-19 in late March and early April included a significant proportion of patients who caught the infection in hospital. These patients, because they were in hospital, were more likely to be sicker and more vulnerable than patients who acquired infection in the community and so more likely to die from COVID-19. As patients with community-acquired infections became a greater proportion of patients in hospital the hospital death rate fell. However, this would not explain why the death rate has fallen continually for approximately 8 weeks with no signs that the decline has yet plateaued.
Clinicians have become more skilled and adept at treating patients with COVID-19.
Patients overtime being admitted are becoming younger with fewer comorbidities, although there is no evidence of this in the daily hospital death data which, if anything, suggests a greater proportion of deaths in hospital are over the age of 60 than at the peak of deaths in early April. Patients are entering the hospital with less severe disease, which could be a reflection of either the disease becoming less severe or hospitals that are now less concerned with being unable to manage peak infections being more willing to admit patients with lower disease severity than they would admit in early April.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Cool to know. The deaths / cases ratio is a lot lower in the US as well. I haven't seen good explanations except maybe younger people NY/NJ/MA early deaths dominate the statistics and can't be projected to the rest of the states. I notice that NY/NJ/MA have cities with subways and trains, which have to be dangerous places during the pandemic.
I've used the horse paste. I'll come back later and give more detail when I have a keyboard but in sum... My experience has shown no downsides. There are no discernible side effects taking a 250lb dose on a weekly basis (since March) or double that on several occasions where I began developing COVID like symptoms. In each case where I had COVID / flu like symptoms this year including fever, headache, body ache, dizziness, spacey malaise, itchy nose and sore throat, and diminished taste and smell (everything tasted off, wrong, or rotten) I've taken an extra squirt and symptoms have subsided within a day or two. Notably I've taken several tests and all have returned negative, so the only claims I will make are a) no side effects and b) when I feel like shit taking some has made me not feel like shit very quickly.
Do I recommend it as a treatment? No. That's up to you and your own medical history, risk tolerance, and doctor to decide.
Do I think it helps? Probably, and enough so that I'll continue until such time as it seems reasonable to stop. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that this poses any more significant a threat to my health than doing nothing or catching covid, so I'll stick with it.
I also don't need proof. If I take it and die, then so be it. If I take it and survive, I don't care if there's any proof. Survival and the chance at minimizing the risk of more severe disease is what I care about, and is side of the risk equation I choose to take.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Excellent answer and great information, thanks very much, rraak!
Sure thing! I'll note that the closest thing I've had to any kind of side effects happened during the first few doses. I had some itchy skin and other things that may have been related to die-off (we all carry mites e.g., demodex) but in later doses have literally felt nothing. In regard to that, I can see some wisdom in trying it out as prophylactic or test prior to illness so that a person would not have to deal with both parasite die-off effects and viral load.
Between Farnam and Durvet, I'm personally more inclined to buy Durvet. It's relatively nasty but seems to be more consistently mixed... the Farnam variety very obviously had stronger / variable concentrations of active ingredient at different parts of the syringe (taste and feel) so it would be much better reserved for single application use as intended. Durvet feels more consistent, but again, just subjective.
In my opinion the problem is really that we're left with no choice but to go this route - there's no problem with the drug itself - and I'm somewhat annoyed that getting actual Stromectol is virtually impossible in our healthcare system. Extreme times require extreme measures.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Edit: This is really long, not that interesting, and barely ivermectin-related. You should just skip reading it.
I had some itchy skin and other things that may have been related to die-off (we all carry mites e.g., demodex) but in later doses have literally felt nothing.
IN-teresting!
I have a vaguely related happy story. All my adult life I've been itchy. Originally it was mostly my scrotum. At times for decades it was bad enough that it prevented me from sleeping 2-3 nights a week. Later I had itchy nipple hairs (that's embarrassing to type). Mildly maddening. Relatively recently my scalp got itchy -- again, bad enough to interfere with sleep. It was just one area. I was dreading the seemingly inevitable spread.
You've guessed the punchline. I started dosing with ivermectin in April. A couple-three weeks later -- I noticed I wasn't itchy in any of those places. I was sleeping better. Wow, what a great side-effect.
When I noticed the itching gone, it occurred to me to look in the mirror. Again all my adult life I have had blephoritis -- inflamed red eye rims. I kind of knew it was due to mites or similar but I never bothered to do anything about it. I just looked like I hadn't slept or had drunk to much the night before -- always.
Gone too! :)
I'm really thrilled about the itching. The blepharitis I could have lived with forever, but it's nice to have normal looking eye lids.
There are a lot of horse paste consumers in /r/scabies. Well, I haven't counted them, but searching that sub for "horse paste" turned up about 180 hits, so presumably there are a bunch. When my itching subsided, I posted to that sub to see if anyone there had that experience when they used ivermectin -- but no one responded. So I don't know if this is a general phenomon.
Were you ever often itchy? Is it better post-ivermectin?
How many people have worms or demodex and are suffering to some degree and just don't realize it or don't realize there are treatments? Dosing widely with ivermectin could help them.
Getting really far afield, have you heard about John D Rockefeller's campaign to deworm the South in the early 1900's? The story in wikipedia doesn't give the flavor of the tale. As I heard it, Rockefeller wanted to make more money in the moribund South, where people were observably lazier than Northerners. Somehow he (or someone who worked for him, probably) figured out that it was because so many Southerner were worm-infested. For poorer people, no doubt, the bathroom might be a tree or rock, just a designated place. Lots of people were bare-footed. They would go to the tree to do their business, stand in someone else's excrement -- and worms would enter through their feet. Hookworms. Southerners weren't inherently lazy, they were worm-infested and fatigued and unable to work hard as a result. Not everyone, obviously, but a lot of people -- enough that it depressed the economy -- and made it harder for Rockfeller to sell them stuff.
The Rockefeller Sanitary Commission (described on the Wikipedia page) sent teams to the South to teach people hygiene. Don't step in other people's crap. Wear shoes when you have to go. Build outhouses. They persuaded towns to establish public health departments to establish and enforce hygiene standards.
It worked.
Public health is interesting stuff. The US used to have malaria. Seems odd, doesn't it? It does to me. I took a couple public health classes in college; I was considering going into the field and took the classes to see if it was appealing. One of my professors asserted that public health measures have saved more lives than all the MDs since the public health field was invented, by a couple orders of magnitude.
Bringing this back on topic, if ivermectin proves to be the magic bullet we're hoping for (I am, anyway), it's imaginable that ivermectin becomes a public health measure. Dosing prophylactically on first notice of a new coronavirus, or annually if they establish long-term prophylaxis. Maybe that will help with flu?! Put ivermectin (at a low concentration) in toothpaste, like fluoride, if a continual low dose works better. Ivermectin in the water supply! OK, that's just cray-cray.
Thanks for keeping me/us updated about your ivermectin experience. I would tell my tale but there's really nothing to tell other than the itching story -- so I guess I have told it.
Have a good one!
[-] [deleted] | 1 points
[deleted]
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Between Farnam and Durvet, I'm personally more inclined to buy Durvet.
I haven't done any comparisons; I just bought the Durvet because it's the cheapest on Amazon. Based on your comparison and conclusion, it was a fortuitous choice!
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
I'm somewhat annoyed that getting actual Stromectol is virtually impossible in our healthcare system.
It's annoying to me because ivermectin is so bloody safe. 4+ billion doses given to billion(s) of people over 20 years, maybe 6-8 deaths. Aspirin is sold over the counter; it kills 3000 people/year. I suppose it's because the FDA sees it as strongyloidiasis only, the CDC for scabies only, and those are things people should see the doctor for. Maybe that will change if the ivermectin trials come in gangbusters and eventually it's seen as more like a really good cold remedy.
Any study about weekly prophylactic dosing? Or long term side effects consuming at least 1/2 standard doses a week?
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
AFAIK, there are no studies looking at a regular schedule of dosing -- nor are there any reported studies showing the ivermectin provides prophylaxis.
I emphasize reported because a study testing prophylaxis, where close contacts of covid-19 positive subjects were given ivermectin, completed a month ago -- but as far as I can tell, has never been reported.
Hey! Good news! I checked the completed-never-reported trial and for the first time, the results tab says "Results Submitted". That means (I believe) that the results are being reviewed by ClinicalTrials and will be posted there if/when they pass muster.
Or long term side effects consuming at least 1/2 standard doses a week?
The best I can tell you is that in some places, MDs are dosing themselves weekly or every other week or monthly -- there's no consensus on the schedule because there's no data, no research. This is barely helpful -- but somewhere on the sub there's a post about how in Europe a protocol for scabies has people dosing about 10 times in a 3 week period. <-- That's an old memory and could be wrong.
I haven't seen any such studies, but I still feel like ivermectin isn't really get enough attention yet to get into that level of detail. I imagine it's difficult setting up a trial to prove something like that.
Look at it from the perspective of risk - Do you feel the risk to your health and well-being is higher or lower as a result of potentially taking a weekly dose of ivermectin? Do any potential risks outweigh the potential benefits? Is the cost of weekly dosing bearable?
You can look at case studies of ivermectin usage in the past - where people commonly take doses for 15 years - but I haven't seen anything personally about the risks of regular usage, aside from a few examples where people basically went apeshit, took way too much too often for a very extended period of time, and ended up with neurological problems.
Do you have any link that narrate those experiences? I can’t find enough data to consider it safe enough for a weekly dose but I would be surprised if it’s not.
I don't have any such data. I have seen reports of people suffering reversible / non-fatal encephalopathy (e.g., https://www.antigifcentrum.be/sites/default/files/imce/Poster_Ivermectin_vs03b_2014.pdf) after taking a weekly dose of 12mg for 6 months followed by a 2 week period of taking 12mg EVERY DAY. That's a very extreme example - and extrapolating back from the days / times in the report, it took 10 days in a row to develop those problems. In the end, it sounds like she was given Zyrtec and went home just fine.
So... Even in that extreme case, I don't see any indication that a regular weekly dose is "unsafe" on it's own... and that problems begin only after being absolutely ridiculous with the frequency of dosage. My greater worry would be over the quality of the binders and fillers used in the paste forms - which is why I wish Stromectol were widely prescribed or available OTC.
[-] hypnotheorist | 2 points
These are just rat studies, but it does seem like there's some reason to be concerned.
You could post them.
[-] hypnotheorist | 2 points
/u/TrumpLyftAlles, what's the preferred way to post about two studies?
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Since they are so similar, why don't you select the one that makes sense to read first, post that one as the main post, and then post the second as a reply to the first? Sound reasonable?
Thanks for asking.
Wow, ivermectin is also male birth control! It truly is a miracle drug! (kidding).
[-] hypnotheorist | 3 points
Sounds good, posted.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
I found out today that the Monash 48 hours study used monkey cells that express ACE2, the route covid-19 uses to infect cells, less than human cells do. (I thought they didn't express ACE2, period, but that's wrong). I asked the lead author, Dr. Kyle Wagstaff, about this on linked in, and got a wonderful answer! It's buried in replies, so I'm posting this link to her answer to raise its visibility.
[-] [deleted] | 1 points
[removed]
Any idea if it’s safe to administer to somebody with spinal cord injury? I’ve seen a very old study where it’s used for spasticity but nothing else.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
No idea, sorry.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
I posted Dr. Marik (Eastern Virginia Medical School) prophylaxis recommendations here. He cites the Egyptian prophylaxis study. I'm posting this because it's buried in an old topic and otherwise no one will ever see it.
Ivermectin is still optional in his protocol, for prophylaxis, for symptomatic patients at home, and mildly-ill hospitalized patients. The first is the change of his protocol, the first time ivermectin has been included post-exposure prophylaxis.
Dr. Marik has come up on This Week in Virology; apparently he's a big deal, i.e. is highly respected.
[-] saitchouette | 3 points
Still no updates as yet from Victoria, Australia as regards ivermectin + doxycycline + zinc (the approach suggested by Professor Thomas Borody). Nor have I heard anything re Dr Carlos Chaccour's trial in Spain (which doesn't include doxy, afaik).
There need to be thorough RCTs for greater certainty to emerge. While there has been one in Bangladesh with encouraging results, it appears if Western countries will remain hesitant about trials from developing countries.
My reading of the situation is this... (from the perspective of many in the West), the many observational studies from around the world suggest a correlation between ivermectin and efficacious treatment of COVID-19. However, they don't establish causation.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 1 points
But we observe correlation across multiple countries, independent findings, different population groups, different protocols, and they all return similar results. The probability it's all a fluke is starting to diminish.
Agreed we need a good RCT, one done in the West, but do we consider this ethical in a pandemic? So many people have died already, we could have done this trial 100x over.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
do we consider this ethical in a pandemic?
Every hospital has a standard of care by now. Add ivermectin to a random half of patients, justified by the trial results to date and ivermectin's general outstanding safety record. I don't see an ethical problem.
The likely ethical problem is cancelling the study and changing the standard of care to include ivermectin, when the early results are very positive.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
Tweeted by Adam Gaertner today:
Blocking receptors is just one action. IVM also blocks RdRp, which allows relief from chronic covid for those with immune deficiency, and IMP-a/b, which allows ISGs to translate and destroy vRNA, as well as IFN-driven immunomodulation to reduce inflammatory cytokines.
ELI5? What are ISGs? vRNA?
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 4 points
Interferon Stimulated Genes. Interferons outside the cell connect with the membrane, which activate STAT in the cytoplasm, which is transported into the nucleus using importin dimer which activates the genes that translate into antiviral proteins. These proteins destroy the viral RNA. You can see why some viruses target the STAT pathway, and how Ivermectin can help against such viruses.
I want to expand on the Cell article about cytokine storm and Covid. Some quotes from https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)31542-7 below.
"Of the cytokines induced in COVID-19, our findings show that TNF-α and IFN-γ play a prominent role in damaging vital organs by inducing inflammatory cell death."
"Case studies have shown that patients who are on anti–TNF-α therapy for autoinflammatory diseases, such as IBD or Crohn’s, who contract SARS-CoV-2 tend to have a mild disease course (Rodriguez-Lago et al., 2020; Waggershauser et al., 2020), suggesting that prophylactic anti-cytokine therapy may also be beneficial."
Now, combine this with some articles mentioning ivermectin inhibits production of TNF-alpha (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19109745/) and we have a very convincing mechanism of action for ivermectin both as prophylactic and at later stages of disease.
I wonder if there's more information about this in the current research? I'd really like to learn more about this!
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 1 points
Hey there, I posted a long rambling reply in the hamster study thread. The short of it is I think Ivermectin inhibits TNF-alpha and its signalling via a number of paths. I think you are onto something very interesting and explains a great deal of Ivermectin's anti-inflammatory and immune modulating effects. I am not fully convinced Ivermectin directly acts against viral proteins, instead it acts on the mechanisms viruses seek to exploit and allows cellular defenses and the immune system to do their job.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
3:12 PM on 2020-11-23: Tweeted about 45 minutes ago, Dr. Marik will be on Dr. Been's show on TOMORROW.
On twitter:
It's confirmed.
Dr. Paul Marik will be with us tomorrow to discuss I-MASK protocol with #koolbeens.
Did you see this article and thread? They removed my comment where I said that the headline and the article sound like media manipulation to me. https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/k30m2q/latin_americas_embrace_of_an_unproven_covid/
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
That article is old -- October 20. Why would someone post it, except to inveigh against ivermectin? It will naturally invite the haters. :(
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
I believe it has been posted before as well.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Hey, thanks a lot for rounding up those RCTs and posting them with their results sections. Very nice work, very appreciated!
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
I did such a thing? I forget...
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Whoops, that reply was for /u/usernaeim. He's done a great job posting RCTs with links to the "Where to find the results of ivermectin trials quickly and easily" sticky threat.
Never mind.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Sorry, I didn't see it.
That sub is extremely touchy about politics. ALTHOUGH I noticed a comment condemning ivermectin because it's just like HCQ -- and IMO HCQ might not have gotten a fair shake in the scientific community because it was endorsed by a famous politician. That seems pretty political to me.
Thanks for hanging in there, in /r/covid19. It is often too nasty for my taste.
There have been different large and small trials that found no efficacy in hcq. They are trying to picture those hyped about ivm studies like some conspiracy theorists anti-science. That's why I suggested to put a stickied post here with all the scientific evidence
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
A stickied post is an excellent idea!
It would be easy to link to the two sites that are extremely well-done synopses of the ivermectin research.
For synthesis of the research:
For an easily-consumed list of trials/studies:
I guess the FLCCC/Dr. Marik paper could be included. What do you think?
Would you be willing to do the work of adding the links to the worthy studies in /r/ivermectin?
The list of studies on those two sites would be a great way to organize a stickied post. If there are omissions, /r/ivermectin readers could post them to the sticky, and I (or someone) could send the studies to the people maintaining those two sites. As new studies appear on those sites (which is really easy for c19ivermectin.com because studies are listed with the newest first) they can be posted to /r/ivermectin (if it's not already posted).
Sure, I'll see what I can do tomorrow at home
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
I'll try to get the post up today.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
The stickied post is up!
Please reply to it, with the posts you deem worthy. I think they should be links to posts in \r\ivermectin, so people see our comments. What do you think?
I'm working on it, I'll write the name of the study, the pubblication date, the country and the link to r/ivermectin. Something else? The abstract?
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
That's great! Not the abstract, but maybe the punchline, a 1 or 2 sentence summary? You can usually find that in the reddit post. Sound do-able?
Yes, I think it should be better to add a link to ivermectin search on r/covid19 and to the main studies discussions. I know that some people there are quite irrational but scientific debate should be as open and critical as possible
[-] sneakpeekbot | 1 points
Here's a sneak peek of /r/COVID19 using the top posts of all time!
#1: Stanford researchers confirm N95 masks can be sterilized and reused with virtually no loss of filtration efficiency by leaving in oven for 30 mins at 70C / 158F | 1117 comments
#2: Number of people with coronavirus infections may be dozens of times higher than the number of confirmed cases | 1473 comments
#3: At least 11% of tested blood donors in Stockholm had Covid19 antibody as of last week. | 1200 comments
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^Contact ^^me ^^| ^^Info ^^| ^^Opt-out
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
This happened today. I feel very flattered.
The text to note is "Follows you".
[-] Excellent-Garden1718 | 2 points
Nice!
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Tres cool, as they say in Francee!
3-4 months ago, Dr. Aguirre was only following 4 people, one of whom was @JJChamie. He's doing great work. BOTH of them are. Dr. Aguirre is foundational for ivermectin vs covid19.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
We're familiar with ivermectin's wide range of therapeutic activity, from scabies to covid19 to cancer. Now: alcohol use disorder.
Someday they'll put ivermectin in the water supply, like chorine. (Kidding)
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 3 points
The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19 makes no mention at all of Ivermectin. Just linking to note how much of an outsider this drug is to the medical community. It's just a horse wormer and sheep dip! Or perhaps it's wanton ignorance? Or do they count HCQ as enough of a negative anecdote that all other repurposed antiparasitics are an absurd proposition?
The panel acknowledges that enrolling patients in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) might not be feasible for many frontline providers due to limited access and infrastructure. Should lack of access to clinical trials exist, we encourage setting up local or collaborative registries to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of drugs to contribute to the knowledge base. Each clinician can play a role in advancing our understanding of this disease through a local registry or other data collection efforts.
This goes some way to explain why Ivermectin studies are small, there must be many challenges for frontline doctors to gather the resources and patients.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
This goes some way to explain why Ivermectin studies are small, there must be many challenges for frontline doctors to gather the resources and patients.
There are also sharply diminishing returns. Statistically, the difference between N=200 and N=1000 is not that much, in terms of the power of the statistical analysis.
Edit: The difference between N=25 and N=200 is substantial, though. Money? These are mostly poor countries putting out ivermectin research.
I assume that the main reason why Dr. McCoughlin (iis that his name? the doc who self-treated with IVM/HCQ) called for a trial of 20,000 is to turn up the edge cases who have serious adverse events. Not likely with ivermectin, which has been given to half-a-billion people annually, 590 million in 2019.
Or maybe it's because that's what the FDA would find credible?
Just linking to note how much of an outsider this drug is to the medical community. It's just a horse wormer and sheep dip!
I don't know. I just searched /r/pharmacy, 80,000 readers, only 4 posts mentioning ivermectin. This one seems kind of balanced, but it's clear that IVM doesn't have much mindshare there.
Or do they count HCQ as enough of a negative anecdote that all other repurposed antiparasitics are an absurd proposition?
HCQ was raised in that post.
I don't think HCQ ever got a fair shake either, because politics -- but I'm mostly ignorant about HCQ.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 1 points
When people say HCQ is associated with harm based on RCT, they're pretty much referring to RECOVERY and SOLIDARY which gave 2000mg in the first 24 hours (800mg at 0h and 6h, followed by 400mg every 12 hours). I'm not a doctor but that sounds like a dangerous dose. But it was an RCT so it's perfect /s.
I understand now why vaccine trials require huge recruitment of 10,000 per arm, because not all people vaccinated will be challenged by SARS-CoV-2. Say 2% of people were exposed, that's 200 people per arm to analyse. Moderna's phase 3 trial had 30,000 volunteers with 185 positive infections (1.2%) in the placebo arm. When trialling a drug on a patient already confirmed infected, the cohort can be smaller for the same quality data.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
When people say HCQ is associated with harm based on RCT, they're pretty much referring to RECOVERY and SOLIDARY which gave 2000mg in the first 24 hours (800mg at 0h and 6h, followed by 400mg every 12 hours). I'm not a doctor but that sounds like a dangerous dose.
You know me, ADHD-focused on ivermectin: I haven't been following those trials. Did they find that HCQ was dangerous? I wonder what the dose of HCQ is used for malaria.
I'm not a doctor but that sounds like a dangerous dose. But it was an RCT so it's perfect /s.
Sad isn't it. Excessive love of RCTs is the root of a significant amount of evil, in the context of a deadly pandemic.
When trialing a drug on a patient already confirmed infected, the cohort can be smaller for the same quality data.
Good point! Trials also work when the trial population is at higher-than-average exposure, as in the Egypt trial looking at members of the household of a PCR+ patient, and the Argentina trial of health care workers who are exposed to covid at the hospital.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
200mg HCQ BID is considered a safe low dose and is showing effect when given early. For comparison, people with RA prescribed HCQ are given 200-300mg BID (total of 400-600mg a day).
I don't support HCQ as a therapy because it's too time dependent, it has become a political icon, and it's not nearly as effective as Ivermectin. If doctors employ a safe low dose in the early outpatient setting, that sounds fine to me. But those trials were giving 500% the dose of a drug with a fairly low toxicity threshold, I don't need double blind randomisation to know the outcome.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
What idiots? Sabotage?
Ah, they're probably secret ivermectin fans who wanted to kill the competition!
Did 500% fail too? Bad timing?
Never mind, I'm not interested in HCQ.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
From a 1-minute google search for "power of a test" and an arbitrarily-selected result, a chart showing the importance of sample size.
You get "large sample properties" with N=10. More is better, but with diminishing returns. The difference between N=50 and infinity is tiny.
I didn't try to understand the context, so I might be wrong. I studied statistics in the 70's.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
Dr. Daniel Griffith, who for me is the best part of the This Week in Virology podcast, tweeted this image of the stages of covid19. I thought it might help us understand where ivermectin might fit in.
Is anyone aware of a person or family who followed ivermectin prophylaxis procedures and still became symptomatic with COVID-19? If so, did the resulting illness require hospitalization, and how severe was the course of the illness?
I know people who have used ivermectin AFTER becoming symptomatic, or to treat long-haul symptoms, but I have not yet heard of cases where people took prophylactic ivermectin and then became ill.
I personally have not read of anyone who took ivermectin and then became seriously ill with COVID-19, but I'll bet there have to be some cases that people have witnessed or experienced.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
I am not aware of anyone with severe disease after taking ivermectin, but I know very few actual accounts. I hope others respond.
The studies prove (IMO) that ivermectin almost always prevents the advancement of the disease to more serious stages, though.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
Did you see the pronouncement by Dr. Aguirre that IVM = less severe course of disease?
Yes to this and acknowledging your other post too. I'm a skeptic and a cynic and, while I want to believe that the IVM prophylaxis I've been taking since March is effective, I'm also very curious about why we don't read any cases online about people who took it and still got sick. Are there not many people doing IVM prophylaxis? Are fewer still posting online? Is there a subset of those for whom the prophylaxis simply didn't work? How many people who were admitted to the ICU were on prophylactic doses of IVM but either weren't reported due to HIPAA or died?
You see where I'm going - I want to know IF there are cases where it's failed... and IF there are cases where people we're reaching out to DID become ill, and whether those people got really sick or experienced the mild progression of symptoms and rapid resolution that we're all hoping for.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Are you a member of the IVERMECTIN MD group on Facebook (whatever it's called). I seldom go there because the UI drives me mad, but you might find more case histories there. You could certainly ask your question.
Thanks, by the way, for hanging around after you were fed up by the person seeking help with their zits. ;)
Edit: Here's the link to the Facebook group. I don't know what their admission policy is. They let me in, eventually. I think someone was posting links from /r/ivermectin or my twitter account there; that might have helped. Try it!
I have no FB account and have all the related domains blocked via Pi Hole.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Send an email to your system administrator! !Kidding. Sounds like a good mental health move.!<
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
I tweeted this list of ivermectin's purported benefits just now. What did I i leave out? The last couple items are Dr. Scheim hypotheses, which AFAIK have not be confirmed, has the "may".
Dr. Marik (EVMS FLCCC) says Remdesivir may help - but ivermectin speeds recovery MORE, and it COSTS about 1/100th as much! IVM DOES more: kills covid, preserves immune response, prevents advancement, reduces inflammation and may reduce blood clotting and preserve lung function.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 3 points
I have been in email conversation with Dr Scheim, will share more later. I posed the question regarding ivermectin binding with the spike protein, as this is what prevents the virus binding to CD147 and forming clots. I asking whether an agglutination experiment could be performed by adding SARS-CoV-2 virus to a blood sample containing ivermectin. If the spike is being neutralised, the agglutinated sheet will not form. Seems like a simple experiment. Will report back.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
That's brilliant! You should go into research. Actually not kidding for once.
Unfortunately you need a BLS-3 (secure for dangerous bugs) lab to do the experiment.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
It's just that the molecular docking study found ivermectin bound to the spike protein but I haven't seen any in vitro study to back this. It's becoming a big question because it has implications for infectivity and pathology of COVID-19.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Sorry to be a pain but can you find the molecular study and send me a link? There are 3-4 posted to the sub. If that's difficult, never mind.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I posed the question regarding ivermectin binding with the spike protein
This is Dr. Scheim's hypothesis, correct? Not verified by any trial/test -- which is why you're proposing a test?
Would you mind asking if he has an opinion on any effect ivermectin may have on the body's ability to benefit from the vaccine? I've heard a few points in favor of ivermectin not interfering with the vaccine, but I'd like to know if there are any other opinions. It seems like a valid concern - wondering if a history of ivermectin prophylaxis could have any impact on the body's ability to produce antibodies in response to a vaccine.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 1 points
Feel free to email him, you can find via Google, include MIT in your search term.
[-] Historical_Earth_235 | 3 points
Has anyone had enhanced sleep from IVM? I took for the first time (Horse kind... just about a pea size on my finger) yesterday around noon, and last night I slept like a rock for the first time in months. No waking up in the middle of the night, didn’t budge until my alarm went off. I’ve been dealing with post-Covid symptoms (fatigue, neurological, mostly) since around August. Hopefully this helps.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
Just twigging on your experience here (very interesting). I haven't had covid so I can't contribute much, but here is a video of Dr Been interviewing Dr Patterson, discussing inflammatory hormones affecting long haulers: https://youtu.be/9HSKceCt8tQ?t=39m20s
So he talks about how VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) can contribute to neuropathy.
VEGF is upregulated by the inflammatory cytokine IL-6, upstream from this is NF-κB signalling which ivermectin is thought to inhibit. Whiteboard Doctor discusses the topic here: https://youtu.be/2KZSOkaqSNg?t=9m45s
There may be feedback loops too, with IL-6 causing more NF-κB signalling causing more IL-6. Ivermectin could be calming this down. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5173109/
This paper is for is cancer research, but perhaps once again this may point to ivermectin having a benefit in treating cancer.
As for fatigue, one study on CFS found IL-10 was elevated in study patients, though of course this isn't a conclusive finding: https://cvi.asm.org/content/17/4/582
We see with this long hauler who took ivermectin that her IL-6 and IL-10 levels decreased: https://twitter.com/CatiaLookin/status/1341606482287222785
Anyway just some wild thoughts on why ivermectin may be helping your sleep, there are going to be other explanations.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
Aitch, can you still post to /r/covidlonghaulers? I'm permanently banned for posting a notice of Dr. Aguirre's project testing IVM + aspirin for longhaulers. If you CAN post there -- it would be a kindness to post this there.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
You know I'll just get banned there.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Take one for the team, man!
OR you could send a link to your post to the moderator and see if there's any objection.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
If the post won't get deleted, then I will post it
[-] DreadPyriteRoberts | 1 points
last night I slept like a rock for the first time in months.
By any chance, do you tend to be itchy when you sleep?
[-] Historical_Earth_235 | 2 points
Nope, no itching here.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
Only a month ago, I posted the excellent news that /r/ivermectin had 500 readers! Huge milestone!
A month later, on 2021-01-01, the sub has over 1000 readers!
Thanks for all your contributions, posts and comments! You make it a fun, informative sub!
So I see that ivermectin has 72%garlic , in our area people has been saying eat garlic . Take one clove cut it in half n crash with ur teeth n eat. Ppl have been doing this from Feb last yr . They Ve not gotten sick . Some even said they visited ppl with COVID n drank water at their house .
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 5 points
So I see that ivermectin has 72%garlic
Would you explain what you mean, please?
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
On /r/coronavirus, someone posted this ivermectin hit piece which I responded to here. Probably no one will read it, since the /r/coronavirus post is a day old. It musters three arguments against the familiar CONCENTRATION TOO HIGH!!! attack. Comments welcome!
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Sort by "New" to see new questions (etc) at the top!
I've tried to set that as the default sort, but it's not working for me. Is anyone seeing "new" as the default sort when you open the comments?
I tweeted the image too, always seeking more eyeballs reading about ivermectin.
Ivermectin products say to take on an empty stomach. Why is this? What happens if you don't?
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I think it might be typical over-caution, with an eye to lawsuits?! Studies have found that more ivermectin gets into your bloodstream if you take it after eating a fatty meal, 2.5 or 2.6 times as much (I've seen both numbers). There's almost never a reason to be cautious with ivermectin; it's ridiculously safe.
[-] BillyBob_TX | 2 points
Just wanted to note that I have been seeing a few posts on a reddit covid positive board about some ivermectin usage and positive results. Don't want to link anything, but a simple search should find the posts.
I had direct exposure to someone infected in the first week of September and took a double dose the same day, then more a week later. I had an evening where my throat felt a little funny but it could have been the usual allergies - no test this time, but I did not develop any significant or ongoing symptoms after the exposure. Either not infected, asymptomatic, or incredibly mild. Either way, the combination of masking, hygiene, and ivermectin seemed to be sufficient in that situation.
[-] mmmm_frietjes | 2 points
Could ivermectin help for people who still have symptoms months after their infection? What should the dose be? Has someone here tried it?
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I think it can but I don't have personal experience. I PMed a link to your question to someone who had a difficult recovery, whom I believe credits ivermectin with helping a lot. I don't know if that person will get in touch.
In the meanwhile, check this post. Dr. Aquirre can be reached via twitter; his twitter ID is in the title. He has used ivermectin a lot treating covid-19 patients. I don't know many people. He's the one I would / will go to with questions.
He tweeted just his evening about his Therapeutic Test. I think he'll be receptive to questions. If you don't mind, if you and he have a conversation, can you post the tweet conversation starter here, so we all learn something?
Good luck!
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Whiteboard doctor is covering the IVERCAR trial at 6:00 PM on 2020-10-05
IVERCAR is a study that was done in Argentina looking at COVID-19 prophylaxis in healthcare workers. They studied with dosing liquid Ivermectin and intranasal Carrageenan 5 times daily could prevent infection. The study was registered with Trial Site and they debuted a news article reporting
RemindMe! Next Sunday at 6pm
[-] RemindMeBot | 1 points
There is a 1 hour delay fetching comments.
I will be messaging you in 1 day on 2020-10-04 18:00:00 UTC to remind you of this link
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) ^(delete this message to hide from others.)
|^(Info)|^(Custom)|^(Your Reminders)|^(Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
An article about a remdesivir RCT:
Should all COVID-19 patients get remdesivir? The trial follows a gold-standard design of being double blind, randomised and controlled, and like most trials published in top medical journals, at first glance the outcomes are fairly impressive. They found that patients receiving the drug improved and recovered more quickly, were less likely to progress to severe disease, were discharged from hospital sooner, and had a lower death rate of 11.4% compared with 15.2% in patients receiving “usual” treatment.
My first thought: If this was an ivermectin trial, it would be disappointing, esp. the relatively small reduction in deaths. It's 25%. That's actually ICON territory. I need to create a chart of ivermectin trial results.
[-] SwiftJustice88 | 2 points
I’m curious if antibiotics such as doxycycline are truly necessary in a treatment regimen or if ivermectin alone produces sufficient results?
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
1) I don't know
Has there been a trial reported of ivermectin without an antibiotic? My memory is weak and I can't recall. I need to make a chart.
2) When Dr. Aguirre (Peru MD with lots of ivermectin experience) released the most recent update of his protocol, I asked him about one of the ancillary medications. Instead of answering that question, he replied words to the effect "Ivermectin is the important drug."
3) Dr. Aguirre's protocol calls for the antibiotic bromhexine for mildly-ill patients, levofloxacin for moderate, ceftazidime for severe and (probably) critical (he recommends some antibiotic anyway, for critical patients). All those drugs are antibiotics.
4) In the collection of prophylaxis comments I collected from the MD Ivermectin group on Facebook, there are 3 mentions of Azithromycin and 5 of Doxycycline, at least 1 of which is Dr. Aguirre again. Other antibiotics might be mentioned; I searched for just those two. Feel free to pore over that collection and let us know if you find other antibiotics mentioned.
5) The rationale for an antibiotic, as I understand it (a huge caveat), is that people with weakened immune systems are subject to opportunistic bacterial infection. When the virus makes it difficult for people do breath, a bacterial infection in the lungs would be bad.
6) As we've seen, it's conventional to include antibiotics in the trials.
Conclusions from all that:
I still don't know
Dr. Aguirre thinks they're necessary, along with a lot of other docs
AFAIK the question hasn't been tested in trials. Recall that my memory is weak, though.
Probably
Sorry I can't offer a more definitive answer.
Does that help? Why do you ask?
[-] SwiftJustice88 | 2 points
Thanks for your time and prompt response! Due to your presentation of Ivermectin findings I ended up purchasing some just in case we need it. We are in the Midwest and cases are really starting to pick up so better safe than sorry. After reading the recent Ivemectin/Doxy study I was amazed at the results and was just curious how big of a role doxy plays. I can acquire some and was considering have it in the cupboard just in case if that makes sense. Thanks again my friend!
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Glad you found it helpful! :)😊
I can acquire some and was considering have it in the cupboard just in case if that makes sense.
How do you get doxy? Do you have a cooperative MD? My MD is (medically) conservative and won't prescribe ivermectin. I haven't asked him about doxy -- but I'm seeing him tomorrow. Doubtful.
[-] SwiftJustice88 | 3 points
Through some research I’ve discovered that there are high purity antibiotics for animals, namely fish that don’t require an RX. I’d recommend doing some digging on here, there are many posts about this very topic primarily in the “preppers” subreddit. From what I gather there aren’t any differences in quality and they worked well in those that have used them. Chewy the website sells doxy for about $25 for 12 -100mg pills which would be plenty based on the recent ivermectin/doxy study.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Chewy the website sells doxy for about $25 for 12 -100mg pills which would be plenty based on the recent ivermectin/doxy study.
Requires a prescription. Edit: SOLVED! The fish variety doesn't need a prescription. Order placed! Thanks for the help!
I did locate this Canadian site which doesn't appear to require prescriptions, but I stopped shy of placing the order so I'm not sure. For ivermectin, $160 is a lot more expensive than horse paste, $8 per 12mg dose vs about $1.
I'll check preppers. Edit: No luck there. :(
[-] saitchouette | 1 points
I’m curious if antibiotics such as doxycycline are truly necessary in a treatment regimen or if ivermectin alone produces sufficient results?
Here's an Aussie radio interview with Professor Thomas Borody by Luke Bona for Triple M. Somebody else posted it in r/ivermectin (but I can't find where). Triple M is very "public-spirited", so the interview may sound a bit tabloidy. I don't think he has been interviewed on the ABC or any really reputable programmes, alas.
Anyhow, you can listen yourself. But iirc, I think he argues that doxycycline is an adjuvant for ivermectin. So including doxycycline in the treatment regimen enhances the efficacy of the ivermectin (meaning ivermectin can be administered in moderation, as opposed to in unsafe doses).
[-] saitchouette | 2 points
I'd also like to know about specifically how ivermectin might inhibit viral replication of SARS-CoV-2. If I may take the liberty of copying and pasting much of what I wrote in another reddit comment.
Ivermectin's potential strength is its potential ability to prevent SARS-CoV-2 getting into the nucleus. But SARS-CoV-2 viral replication takes places in the cytoplasm of the cell, not the nucleus. (As someone from a non-science/non-med background) I can only guess that the way it works is by stopping the virus from disabling the host cell's antiviral response. Dunno if that's plausible or not?
The research of Kylie Wagstaff, Leon Caly, etc., which demonstrated that ivermectin clears SARS-CoV-2, in a laboratory setting, within 48 hours. My understanding of their research is... Dr Wagstaff's theory is that ivermectin inhibits viral replication by stopping SARS-CoV-2 infiltrating the nucleus.
More specifically, Dr Wagstaff's team have the following hypothesis:
We hypothesise that this is likely through inhibiting IMPα/β1-mediated nuclear import of viral proteins (Fig. 1G), as shown for other RNA viruses (Tay et al., 2013; Wagstaff et al., 2012; Yang et al., 2020); confirmation of this mechanism in the case of SARS-CoV-2, and identification of the specific SARS-CoV-2 and/or host component(s) impacted (see (Yang et al., 2020)) is an important focus future work in this laboratory.
Wagstaff's research has been interpreted in all manner of different ways. Some doctors and scientists think it's fantastic work and suggests that ivermectin has tremendous potential. Other experts dispute aspects of Wagstaff's theory but still think ivermectin has antiviral properties in some other way. Other people appear to think this research lacks relevance and that isn't applicable in a clinical setting. For example, there is an argument that no SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid proteins (NPs) go into the nucleus in the first place.
So, I think it comes down to these questions:
I'm inclined to believe that ivermectin does work in vivo and that it's safe at certain levels. I hope they have really comprehensive RCTs. However, supposing the results of such RCTs are great but scientists still don't know how exactly it is that ivermectin is efficacious in treating COVID patients, what then? Are there precedents of drugs being officially endorsed as a treatment by the FDA/MHRA/TGA, despite a lack of knowledge as to how the drug is actually successful on a pharmacokinetic level?
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
I think it's a stronger case that SARS-CoV-2 does employ NP and/or ORF6 to disrupt gene activation in the nucleus. This is an RNA virus survival trick to give it undisturbed replication in the cytosol. To hijack the cell body it needs to silence the cell "brain".
We can reason that SARS-CoV-2 would not be so replication competent, and have such a long asymptomatic phase (Interferon blocking), without a potent disruption to the nucleus. This is what the studies indicate.
My current assessment is that Ivermectin's main action is to prevent the disruption of the nucleus, thus allowing the cell to defend itself. The antiviral activity of Ivermectin may (more research required) have some direct interaction with the virus replication process. Some papers suggest it binds to the spike protein too, but on this I am not convinced yet.
Taking Ivermectin's action of dissociating Importin α/β dimer, this would prevent STAT1 and in particular STAT3 from entering the nucleus. This might explain in part the mechanism of calming inflammation we see in severe COVID-19.
Are there precedents of drugs being officially endorsed as a treatment by the FDA/MHRA/TGA, despite a lack of knowledge as to how the drug is actually successful on a pharmacokinetic level?
I get the impression this is more the norm than the other way around. Theoretical mechanisms of action, docking studies, and in vitro experiments won't take the place of clinical study and RCT. Discovering the full pharmacodynamics for a molecule can take decades to explore, and yet we can still use it if we know it works and it's safe.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Are there precedents of drugs being officially endorsed as a treatment by the FDA/MHRA/TGA, despite a lack of knowledge as to how the drug is actually successful on a pharmacokinetic level? I get the impression this is more the norm than the other way around.
Agree.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
Came across a couple of interesting papers about cancer research and that aren't about Ivermectin but, but we can infer Ivermectin as having strong potential in having benefit. I just needed to share this somewhere, please forgive the indulgence.
KPNB1 expression is required for NF-κB p65 nuclear import and tumor progression in multiple myeloma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
Our study provides further evidence that inhibiting KPNB1 has anti-cancer effects and shows promise as a chemotherapeutic target.
KPNB1 is another name for Importin β.
Given we know that Ivermectin dissociates the Importin α/β complex and inhibits its formation, Ivermectin is effectively stopping a number of proteins getting into the nucleus that mediate cancer growth. Many of these proteins need to bind to the adapter protein Importin α, which binds to Importin β, before docking at the nuclear pore complex for transport into the nucleus.
Could Ivermectin cure cancer? Could it combine with chemotherapy for greater effect? I find this question intriguing.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Applying this search with PubMed:
cancer ivermectin NOT covid-19
Wow. I had no idea. I've come across a couple ivermectin vs cancer articles. Didn't know there were so many.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
I think that shows a lot of people are thinking about this nuclear transport mechanism as a line of attack on cancer.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
I guess it makes sense, that cancer cells have to fend off the immune system, like a virus does. Get into the nucleus and ...
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
@Liberteur (twitter) has been posting ivermectin vs covid19 information for a while. Recently he added ivermectin vs cancer.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
I've been anticipating this happening in the US (and I stocked up).
Those in UK may be interested to know it’s becoming more difficult to purchase horse paste 1.87%, with a requirement to prove ownership. However, I was able to waltz into a farm store and buy 2 x 500ml of 1% cattle for my pigs and cows, without question.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
If anyone happens to be interested in rapid tests, as advocated by Michael Mina, which I think could be the solution to the pandemic (since the FDA won't approve ivermectin) -- I've been collecting related articles in /r/Covid19Testing/.
Imagine: If everyone has $1 10-minute paper tests that determine (with 90% accuracy?) whether you are infectious -- you wake up, start the test, get dressed, brush your hair, wash your face, brush your teeth -- and look at the test results. If you're positive, stay home and keep testing every day until you're negative. Mina thinks this would end the pandemic in 6 weeks because it would reduce infection so much.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
I don't think it's appropriate to publish the author's identity, but an MD taking care of patients in a US nursing home communicated via twitter:
Good news so far with the I-Mask protocol (however all patients were on Zinc prophylaxis prior) only 1 death out of 57 cases (1.7% mortality) and two hospitalizations 17 days into the outbreak. Average covid19 mortality in nursing facilities nationwide is 20%.
I urged him to write up his experience when he gets a breather.
[-] [deleted] | 2 points
Peak Prosperity channel has covered the recent Benha University Ivermectin vs HCQ study. He notes that countries like Egypt, Greece, and India are doing so much better than the US, UK, France. Australia is doing well owing to aggressive lockdowns and contact tracing rather than early medical intervention.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
Professor David Jans at Monash University in Melbourne left a comment on TrialSiteNews:
I am confused by the NIH’s incorrect idea that you would need very high doing of ivermectin to get therapeutic benefit – this is clearly not true – ivermectin partitions really well to the lung and is stable there for more than 30 days in large animal studies. The false idea seems to come from serum measurements, which of course are not as relevant as lung. A UK group modelled conventional human dosing based on the animal data would give 10 times the required dose (peer-reviewed, published in good journal*) – how or why did NIH get this so wrong ?
The implication is that the 1-4 doses we see in various study protocols should be sufficient to build up levels in lung tissue to last for a number weeks, up to a month. This is very useful information regarding prophylaxis dosing and the "dose-too-high" argument that is very persuasive among opponents and sceptics.
Also, I came across a medical webinar by NUS Medicine which was an exchange of COVID-19 treatment best practices. The doctors mainly spoke negatively about Ivermectin because people have been self medicating an unproven medication, causing them to allow symptoms to progress without seeking care. This is a real issue we should be aware of, our stance should be to seek medical attention immediately if diagnosed with COVID-19.
However, there was one very brief positive mention where a doctor concedes that there is emerging evidence of Ivermectin prophylaxis, though her main point was about doctors avoiding media hype and preprint papers. Here's the link with timestamp Patient Management | Solidarity Bridge between Singapore and Latin America.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I am confused by the NIH’s incorrect idea that you would need very high doing of ivermectin to get therapeutic benefit
The early Lancet attack on ivermectin was incredibly effective: 8 months later and the only thing NIH knows about ivermectin is CONCENTRATION TOO HIGH!!!. Same with the guys at This Week in Virology. It's maddening.
Prof Jans included the name of the study in his comment. I posted it here.
Very interesting article about TNF-alpha and INF-gamma causing some of the severe symptoms of Covid. See https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)31542-7 for details.
What they found was that TNF and INF elevate in moderate and severe covid cases respectively, and the combination of those leads to cell death, sepsis and so on.
Now, guess what... Ivermectin just happens to reduce levels of TNF-alpha, see for example https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19109745/ (this is just the top Google hit). Interesting coincidence, right?
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
I don't watch Dr. Been, maybe I should. I knew that he has talked about ivermectin. I didn't know that he applied ivermectin with his patients until now.
What's interesting is that despite my hope - supported by multiple claims and findings - in ivermectin's effectiveness, I'm still finding myself stressing about going into a pharmacy to get a flu shot. It's interesting how the mind and anxiety work because despite my confidence in prophylaxis, there's still part of me that associates going to a place where sick people congregate with danger. I suppose I have to get over it.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
I have a new trick for proofing hand-written posts.
I wrote up notes on Dr. Scheim's video and there were a number of errors, spelling and grammar. The reddit spell-checker isn't that smart so it didn't flag "long" where I meant to type "lung".
I copied my post into a new gmail email. Gmail has grammar checking! It flagged the errors. Each suggested correction took only one click to apply.
Recommended!
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
I restored the "Where to find the results of ivermectin trials quickly and easily" as a pinned announcement so people new to the sub can find the research quickly. There's a link to the FLCCC press conference page in that post.
[-] DreadPyriteRoberts | 2 points
Does any else think that Dr. Kory is overselling ivermectin? This is from his Fox interview:
Our group, again, we've come to the conclusion after reviewing months of data that have all come out in the last few months, this is all new data. We never believed ivermectin was the answer. We thought it might be, early on, because there was some theoretical rationale that it might work. But what we uncovered in the last three months is nothing but repeated studies and trials showing phenomenal effectiveness in multiple areas -- not only in prevention but early and late treatment. The most overwhelming data is in the prevention of transmission of covid19. If you're on ivermectin, the studies, and they are randomized controlled trials, large and well done, show if you're taking ivermectin you will not contract covid19. I repeat, if you are taking ivermectin you will not contract covid19.
I don't think there are any large RCTs. Am I wrong?
I very much doubt that ivermectin provides 100% protection against catching covid19.
[-] Excellent-Garden1718 | 4 points
I agree. I was mentally correcting him as I listened. I think that since Friday when the press conference was met with silence and he was censored by Facebook, he has become increasingly frustrated. But honestly, even with his hyperbole, he's still my favorite to listen to on the topic. If he had couched a couple of his statements in a bit of limiting language he would have been more accurate.
[-] [deleted] | 2 points
Unsourced (twitter) but a valid indictment of the NIH.
[-] Excellent-Garden1718 | 1 points
This is a quote from one of the participants in the recent senate hearing, right?
[-] Excellent-Garden1718 | 1 points
So possibly a screenshot from the written copy of his statement.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Right! I wonder if those statements are available.
[-] Excellent-Garden1718 | 1 points
You can get it here, but it's from the uncorrected closed captioning, so there are mistakes.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?507035-1/medical-response-covid-19 I searched for the word bottleneck to find it. The search box is under the video but above the bits of the transcript.
[-] [deleted] | 1 points
[deleted]
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
I don't know if it signifies anything, but I get emails from reddit occasionally, highlighting different subs, and in this evening's email /r/ivermectin is included!
I don't know how reddit selects which subs to put in the email. The sub has been growing quickly, recently!
Is there a list of countries where ivermectin is an OTC drug?
[-] FallofftheMap | 3 points
Ecuador. We just bought some to keep handy before the pharmacies run out.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
That's an excellent question! Unfortunately I don't know the answer.
Do you use twitter? @jjchamie would probably know about several Central/South American countries.
Edit: I asked @jjchamie. I'll post his reply (if he replies).
I don't have twitter, thanks for asking him!
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
His answer was vague, something like "Ivermectin can be purchased OTC in most third-world countries." Sorry.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
Just want to share a good conversation I had with Dr Yo on his YouTube video that I had shared a few days ago:
H: Thank you for this presentation. I have been following the study of this drug in COVID-19 since April and the science continues to be fascinating and the results positive. The trend is strongly towards more success the earlier it is given, all signs point to this being an excellent early intervention and prophylactic medication against COVID-19. We are owed a high powered government-run study if they are interested in bringing this pandemic under control while the vaccines roll out. Once this is all done I would like to see how effective it is in cancer treatment. Dr. Yo: Myself and many of my physician friends are prescribing ivermectin- and I get that this is all very anecdotal but if we can prevent people from going into the ICU, then anecdotes are enough. And none of us have had any patients have any side effects. H: It's great to see anecdotes from yourself and other respected physicians, it puts a face to the study numbers. No body of evidence is complete without good anecdotes! I really hope this growing publicity will move the NIH (and the health authorities here in Australia) to review the data, shift their policy, and also launch a large study. Dr. Yo: Wait until we show the immunomodulating effects of ivermectin in our longhauler project. Some of the results are PHENOMENAL. None of the drugs we have tested, has come close to these effects so quickly. H: Mate, I make no exaggeration to say that sounds awesome and I cannot wait. This lines up really well with the mouse study (LPS-induced cytokines) and the golden hamster study (modulated TNFa, IFNg, IL6, IL10) which admittedly tested active infection but I see no reason why this doesn't extend into post-viral stages. Dr Yo: Dr. Patterson and our team are sitting on some incredible ivermectin data right now. We just submitted our first study on longhaulers and the next one will focus on the immunomodulating effects of many drugs including ivermectin. We are now treating a cohort of patients on ivermectin and steroids- will have some data to report in 2-3 weeks once we get their blood work back. H: I saw the Tweet ofthe longhauler who had her cytokine panel analysed after taking lvermectin. The improvement was remarkable. Thank you and Dr P for never resting on the science. Keep spreading the word with quality research. Dr. Yo: I suspect we will be able to predict who will respond to what medication based on the immune profile. It is all about testing and picking up patterns. The ivermectin results will be part of our next paper!
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Very cool, Aitch, thanks for posting.
(Aitch is one of the heroes in Ready Player One, and you're an /r/ivermectin hero, so please forgive my dropping the "H".)
If you can find it, would you please post the longhauler's tweet (or its content)?
It's super-cool that Dr. Yo is publishing about ivermectin! TIL for me!
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
My name is a play on how not to pronounce the letter, so you rightly drop the H.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
LOL.
Did you see Ready Player One? I loved it -- but it's a huge 80's culture fest and I was into all that stuff at the time.
[-] SnooWords7026 | 2 points
So I want to follow the FLCCC protocol. I see the dosage for prophylaxis and exposure both start the same with doses on day 1 and 3. But then for prophylaxis only it says continue every 2 weeks but nothing for ppl with exposure? Wouldnt that be when it’s needed more? And for outpatient only - initial dose on days1/3 only? Why are more IVR prescribed if prophylaxis?
So if I take preventive then start symptoms do I start a new protocol again another start day 1/3?
Then How much if I get really sick? Start another day1/3? But no ongoing maintenance dosages?
I’m confused because for sickness only day1/3 then stop but for prevention, take regularly? Can anyone clarify? New reddit user so still learning functionality here lol
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I'm sorry, but answering your question would be tantamount to giving medical advice and we are avoiding that in order to avoid getting this sub banned. Please post your question in /r/gettingIvermectin. Look at the topic "Dr. Aguirre's Advice" at the top of that sub. You might find the answer there.
[-] Historical_Earth_235 | 2 points
Curious to know if there are potential side effects from stacking IVM with vitamins, specifically Niacin, but also curious about any possible vitamin interactions. Any insight welcome.
Wishing good health on you all!
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
I am unaware of any side-effects from any supplements, but I haven't looked at the issue. If it helps, I've been taking IVM and a cubic foot of supplements since May, including nicotinamide.
A PubMed search for "ivermectin niacin" turned up ZERO results. You could try the search using the various forms of niacin. Post if you find something please.
[-] Historical_Earth_235 | 3 points
Thank you very much. I also searched online for interactions and turned up nothing. It’s good to hear I’m not the only one with the entire Vitamin Shoppe in my bathroom cabinet!
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Yours fits in a bathroom cabinet? Piker. I keep mine in a file drawer. ;)
My collection occupies a lot of volume because much of it comes from Costco: BIG bottles.
I have also been supplementing like mad since last April. I have to use one of those weekly medications pill organizers to keep my regimen straight.
I am interested in the thinking behind taking the nicotinamide pre-long covid. In this pandemic I’ve read that it has helped many long haulers. I have a stash in case I become one, but I’m curious what it can do in the pre-exposure period?
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
So, I'm all on board with this whole COVID treatment thing. I've even bought a couple of pill boxes already just in case me or my family get sick.
Thing is, I've read a lot about the virus and Ivermectin, and while I'm pretty confident in its usefullness and safety, I'm still kinda afraid it could give secondary effects to my family.
One of them has thyroid problems, the other one suffred from a pretty heavy hit in the head in the past.
I don't know how the drug could affect them with these problems, if at all. But I don't wanna risk giving it to them before finding answers, which I haven't really gotten specifically.
Does anyone know if Ivermectin has adverse effects in those two situations?
Perhaps I'm being overdramatic and paranoid of course, since its safety spectrum has already proven to be amazing. But just in case.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Not a doctor, this isn't medical advice.
I have read a lot about ivermectin, and don't recall anything about thyroid or past concussions being a problem.
Your question motivated me to post ivermectin contraindications here.
It doesn't have anything about thyroid or past concussions.
I suggest googling for those specific conditions, if you're still concerned, e.g. "ivermectin thyroid".
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I chanced across this:
The drops are easy to apply using the dropper nozzle. Ivermectin is a very cost effective solution, with enough product to provide a full course of treatment to 50 birds. Can also be used prophylactically.
Prophylaxis works! For birds. Maybe. ;)
https://www.animeddirect.co.uk/ivermectin-drops-1
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Results for the trial For Prophylactic Ivermectin in COVID-19 Contacts were submitted to ClinicalTrials on 2020-08-23. Hopefully they'll be published soon.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
From a site where you can search for trials, that has more than just ClinicalTrials, this chart shows that several drugs have more trials posted than ivermectin, which has 39. HCQ has 212 (!!) and AZT has 64. HCQ has had mixed-to-poor results in early studies, so I expect that a lot of the 212 trials have been abandoned (pure guesswork).
[-] SaltyRevSr | 2 points
Latest on HCQ: https://c19study.com/
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I posted this article to /r/coronavirus yesterday, about how Abbott is going to make 50,000 paper tests per month that purportedly reports positive only during the transmission period. A key aspect of this is that the typical viral load has a long tail after the transmission period, during which the PCR test registers positive, but the subject is actually safe to return to her world.
This could be a breakthrough for more, better, faster trials, because the tests only cost $5 and it doesn't report spurious positives from the long tail. Consider the recent Bangladesh study that showed that 86.3% of the subjects cleared the virus by day 6. It's possible that ivermectin cleared the virus below the transmission level by day 2, but that wasn't detected because the researchers weren't looking at the viral load needed for transmission, and they couldn't test every day because of the cost and pain of the PCR test. Paper tests could result in there being more trials because it's cheap, allow more granulated research because of the low price and relative comfort of the tests, and trials done more quickly if the targeted outcome is reduction to below the transmission level instead of waiting for day 14. Check the linked article and the discussion. There's a link to a MedCram video that lays out how the paper test identifies whether someone is shedding. This could be an enormous breakthrough.
New topic: A new ivermectin trial was registered yesterday (right?) and two trials were registered today! This is a great sign, that ivermectin's success to date is encouraging more researchers to take the plunge. :)
Ivermectin works inhibiting ACE2. Ambroxol is an TMPRSS2 inhibitor. Both are entry points for covid. Did anyone try a combination of both? These are relatively safe, cheap and complementary.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Ambroxol
Searching ClinicalTrials turned up NO Ambroxol trials, with or without ivermectin.
Searching PubMed for "covid-19 Ambroxol" turned up two trials. They're not ivermectin related though. Searching PubMed for "covid-19 Ambroxol ivermectin" yielded no hits.
Both of the Ambroxol articles in PubMed are new, published in August, so maybe they will inspire trials.
I bet there are doctors trying this already. This is so cheap and safe I can’t think why not.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
One reason might be because doctors haven't heard of the application of Ambroxol to covid-19. US MDs are barely aware of ivermectin vs covid-19, and ivermectin has the advantage of the Monash study, which DID draw a lot of attention.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I've been away!
Have you ever gotten a ban that warns you about trying to evade the ban by using another account? It turns out that they can detect that if it's a linked account. It's been so long since I created an account, I don't remember entering an email address, thought that wasn't required. Anyway, they detected my using a different account to post to /r/politics and I was banned from reddit for 3 days.
Thanks for carrying on with good posts while I was gone!
[-] steveissuperman | 1 points
The number of doctors utilizing ivermectin seems to be spreading slowly but surely. I have a feeling in a few months the world will suddenly realize we've got something here. It's kind of sad how quick everyone was to evaluate HCQ, but ivermectin has shown real results in many observational studies and it is barely even looked at.
I myself have begun taking a bit of durvet ivermectin as prophylaxis. So far I haven't sprouted an extra arm or gotten sick. I've been in some areas where I knew I would be at high risk for exposure, so having a potential treatment/preventative at hand has helped keep me sane through all this.
I'll echo again that durvet seems to be the most consistent among the ones I tried.
[-] ReallyAngryCanadian | 1 points
Indeed, it's a shame when politics and a desire for profit prevails over objective medical science. Hopefully we will see more promising data from the ivermectin trials. It has a pretty safe track record and it's disheartening to see some people casting it aside or still pushing HCQ despite many adverse reactions in clinical settings. I'm confident time will reveal some good results. Also thank you to the OP who posted Dr. Wagstaff's response.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
LOL. In his first TV interview (I'm pretty sure) Prof Borody starts muttering about studies that "we" did (he wasn't involved). He mentions "the China study".
What? {blink, blink} There's a China study?
I thought he was smoking something, until just now when I looked at the authors of this study that was done in Bangladesh.
How do I know it was done in Bangladesh and not China? Because this is the trial on ClinicalTrials, with the study's lead author Chowdhury listed as the study director on ClinicalTrials. CT has the location as "Chakoria Upazilla Health Complex Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh, 4741"
In a later interview, Borody said that he read 6 publications, doing his ivermectin "research". Apparently the study I linked is one of them. He looked at the authors list and decided it was done in China.
Edit: It was the first TV interview, based on the dates returned by a google search for "youtube borody ivermectin" -- August 7. Around 2:27 Borody says:
In China, they tried to reproduce it, they got 60 of 62.
I have no idea where he got that result.
May this other cheap/widely available/safe enough drug be a good complement to ivermectin? Any idea how to do further research there? The half life of the drug is 12 hs and most people using it use it twice a day so we should be able to see some impact if the users data could be crossed with covid incidence.
https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/iwj8in/the_antihistamine_azelastine_identified_by/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
[-] Fun-Hall-1351 | 1 points
I have had an experience with the liquid ivermectin. My experience is that it is easier than the paste to get the correct dose for my “horse”.
Is there any potential reason for using a “standard” dose once a week vs “micro dosing” every day if taken as prophylactic? Wouldn’t it be even better as concentration would remain stable through the week? Or is it better to give the potential virus a “good kick” once a week?
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
This is Too Friggin' Cool!
The lead author of "Ivermectin treatment may improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19" replied in to the post about his study. I was able to ask him a question! Hope he answers.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
From Dr. Boros from the MDs-only Facebook group (he's using ivermectin in the FL keys):
I’m waiting for Dr Redondo from DR to report his 90 day data on his Covid team. He and his team deserve great appreciation. In my gut I think the winning prophylaxis will be Iver, Hydroxy and zinc about once a month. I’m concerned that induced and natural antibodies won’t have duration of significance and like HIV we will learn to control it with meds. Vaccines plus/minus in my mind. Don’t forget to get your flu shots mid September or so. It’s going to be a nasty fall and winter for FRONTLINERS like my team at the Urgent Cares. Swabbing everything. Good luck to all
Have you come across any studies or anecdotes about ivermectin and flu? I'm going to get my flu shot this week and I'm curious if the ivm prophylaxis I've been doing has any impact on other respiratory viruses (colds, flus) and if ivm prophylaxis can potentially attenuate the effects of vaccines, or any such thing.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Pretty much coming up empty. There's been speculation that ivermectin could reduce the incidence or severity of flu, but it was just speculation.
Edit: If you have the time and attention span, you could take a look through these links and report back!
Edit: I'm taking ivermectin for prophylaxis and got my flu shot 3 weeks ago. No noticeable side effects.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
When are covid+ patients infectious?
From Australian virologist Dr. McKay. (His site has a ton of interesting virology stuff.)
Another opinion (unsourced, tweeted by Dr. Ding): the infectious period goes on and on.
Damn, so confusing (also Dr. Ding).
From here:
The time from exposure to symptom onset (known as the incubation period) is thought to be three to 14 days, though symptoms typically appear within four or five days after exposure.
We know that a person with COVID-19 may be contagious 48 to 72 hours before starting to experience symptoms. Emerging research suggests that people may actually be most likely to spread the virus to others during the 48 hours before they start to experience symptoms.
Relevance to ivermectin:
If IVM kills enough coronavirus when taken prophylactially, then the incubation stops and the person doesn't experience the exponential growth and doesn't become infectious!
The Egypt prophylaxis trial started with PCR+ patients. They were infectious at home for days before their housemates got ivermectin. The virus could have taken hold by then, grown exponentially to the level that a single 12mg dose can't fix.
For clinical trials: If patients come to the clinic to get tested when they are experiencing symptoms, then they are already past the exponential growth period (it's a very steep curve, both up and down), so ivermectin's effectiveness is diminished.
Barely related but interesting (Ding). The twitter thread.
The "Barely..." image says that 50% of infected patients display symptoms, and 20% of that 50% (10% of the infected cohort) end up in the hospital. This has large implications for understanding ivermectin's efficacy in trials without proper control arms. When, for example (making it up), 100 outpatients take ivermectin and none requires hospitalization, the implication is that 10 hospitalizations were prevented by IVM.
TLATODO: Find the Argentine video "study" that had zero patients needing hospitalization. The researcher claimed a victory for ivermectin, because the expectation is that 5% would require hospitalization. I couldn't find substantiation for the 5% figure at the time. "Barely..." implies that 10% is the correct expectation.
TLATODO: Try to substantiate "Barely..." by looking at the references on the slide.
Edit: A truncated "Barely..." style chart.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 1 points
This image from the MATH+ protocol is also helpful in showing the timeline of viral load and symptoms. Some important things for us to understand:
Dr Marik has included Ivermectin in the early phase treatment. His protocol uses corticosteroids in the later immunological phase. This makes sense in the intensive care setting. I heard that Ivermectin is contraindicated by corticosteroids because it affects the blood brain barrier. Apologies for the edit but I need to fix incorrect information.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
In another slide Dr Paul Marik points out that virus cannot be cultured after around day 10 after exposure.
Wow. Michael Mina (paper test advocate) says we can infer what viral load is infectious from whether it is culturable.
Phagocytosis, process by which certain living cells called phagocytes ingest or engulf other cells or particles. ... The phagocyte may be a free-living one-celled organism, such as an amoeba, or one of the body cells, such as a white blood cell.
The dysregulated immune system is causing the runaway damage.
TIL.
PCR tests may come back positive (lingering RNA) even after viral replication has stopped
For 30 days post-infection or longer.
Dr Marik has included Ivermectin in the early phase treatment.
Is it still optional for mild/at home patients?
we have seen benefit of continuing Ivermectin into the later stages due to its binding properties. I see no reason why they should not be tried in conjunction.
Dr. Marik cites the ICON study that showed 52% fewer fatalities with ivermectin, among the sickest patients -- but nonetheless only had ivermectin (optional) for the mildest disease, the last time I looked at his protocol.
Fabulous post, thanks!
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 1 points
I think it's marked as "optional" in the protocol because they cannot say there is conclusive evidence.
Is it still optional for mild/at home patients?
Not mutually exclusive in my mind. Intervene early during viral replication phase whether at home or at hospital, and it may help an outpatient during recovery too. This is only my opinion as a nobody redditor, so let's hope the good studies come in soon and the health system makes changes.
I don't think we have yet seen studies of Ivermectin being used to treat long haul symptoms? Corticosteroids, statins, anticoagulants, omega 3, seem to be having success for doctors from what I'm hearing.
The phagocytosis aspect is something I want to find more studies on - as macrophages and neutrophils and other immune cells consume foreign particles, they release interleukins and other ligands which cause further activation of immune cells, increase inflammation and so on. A macrophage consuming a coronavirus might become infected, and consuming too much coronavirus or its proteins may cause other problems. Basically having a high viral load is a big risk factor.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
This NYTimes article is fascinating, photos and videos depicting the virus. Ivermectin-related? I don't know, I need to grok it fully and look for ivermectin actions against NSP1, if any. Definetely work a read, regardless.
Discussed in the /r/coronavirus sub here.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Would someone please let me know if they see the new links at the top, when they open this post?
Yes, it works for me. The default sorting is new.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Thanks!
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
MECTIZAN is Merck's brand-name for ivermectin. From Merck's Corporate Responsibility Report:
Through the MECTIZAN® Donation Program, 344 million treatments were shipped to endemic countries for the elimination of river blindness and lymphatic filariasis (LF) in 2019.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
This appears to be a Canadian site (maybe not?) that sells ivermectin without a prescription. It says it's a Canadian pharmacy, but it also says it takes 2-3 weeks for delivery by airmail. The prices aren't India-cheap: $6.72 per 12mg pill. A tube of horse paste from Amazon costs about the same, depending on what quantity you buy, and a tube is 113mg of ivermectin.
It's a recently created domain (August 2020) without any real kind of reputation. It's unlikely that it's a legitimate site.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
LOL. I actually did WhoIs and didn't notice that detail. Good catch, thanks.
[-] felinedime | 3 points
Ivermectin horse paste is $3.99 at the feed and seed store. According to Amazon reviews, people use it all the time for scabies and rosacea mites.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Are you using the horse paste, e.g. for protection against catching covid19?
Ivermectin horse paste is $3.99 at the feed and seed store.
Cheap! Hmm: I wonder if there's one of those around here. I'm in urban Boston -- but there are certainly people with horses around here.
According to Amazon reviews, people use it all the time for scabies and rosacea mites.
Indeed! Here is a selection of about 20 Amazon reviews by people who used horse paste.
My decades-long chronic itching kept me from sleeping 1-3 nights/week. 3 dermatologists came up with nothing. I started taking ivermectin, problem solved. That makes me so happy! I guess I was mite-infested.
[-] felinedime | 1 points
Yes, I've taken two doses a week for the past two weeks without any ill effects.
I got mine from Tractor Supply Company. You should be able to find one in the burbs or just order it from their website. The apple flavor isn't too bad, but it's very sticky and requires lots of water to wash it down.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
I've been eating the Durvet since April, also twice a week! I kind of like the taste. It's kind of a cross between licorice and motor oil... not that I consume motor oil, just a guess. :)
[-] Impressive_Run8581 | 2 points
Taking 1mg a day (0.2mg 5x) seems superior to 3mg every 2-3 days. But good to hear you've been doing it for the long run.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
You might be right. There's an Ivermectin MDs group on Facebook. I spent an hour collecting comments from that group about prophylaxis. Someone mentioned that he knows MDs who take it very day -- no dose specified.
If I could get them, I might take 3mg every day. I weight 200 pounds, so 200mcg/kg would be 18mg. I think 21mg a week is in the ballpark.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I hadn't read your post about your treatment and recovery when I responded to this earlier. What did your MD prescribe for you? What dose / frequency?
[-] Impressive_Run8581 | 1 points
He prescribed 21 mg day and day 2. According to some loose numbers I found peak plasma and tissue half life of IVM, in general; peaks in the first 4-6 hours, has a plasma half life of ~ 18 hrs. and a tissue half life of 3-4 days.
Day 1 and 3 are probably a better strategy based on half lives. My face felt numb that mapped to peak plasma levels.
Some interesting details - IVM loves adipose.
Ivermectin was detected in tissues obtained from patients. Fat showed the highest and most persistent levels - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8839664/
Body mass index (BMI) and weight were associated with t1/2 and V/F, probably reflecting the high liposolubility of IVM with longer retention times proportional to the presence of more adipose tissue.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29346388/
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
This is a report of the Argentine IVER.CAR prophylaxis trial (ivermectin + carrageenan) trial, dated 2020-05-20. It's in Spanish. Would someone who speaks Spanish please look at it and figure out if it is new -- and if so, post it as a main post and write up a summary?
Have we seen these N's before?
POBLACIÓN: Total de Personal de Salud: 229 (doscientas veintinueve)
• Con IVERCAR: 131 (ciento treinta y uno)
• Grupo control 98 (noventa y ocho): cuidado estándar
Thanks! :)
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Is anyone interested in comments like this?
Remember too that the American News media is purposely ignoring these doctors and then trying to slander them when forced to mention them. That is why they and these drugs (Ivermectin & HCQ) get very little attention. It’s a damn disgrace that is causing the heavy loss of lives.
I'm inclined to delete comments with content like this. It's just a rant, not information about ivermectin. I don't want the sub to be mired in politics.
What's your preference? It's your sub, not my little fiefdom.
Hi I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful specially on a thread where rheres is constan support to this drug. What are the chances that all this data and research is also to promote sales of the drug or to graso on tonthe las hope that ivermectin would work? Like other things as HCQ or this chlorine dioxide that people who support it also swear that it works even there are doctor who support but kinda feel the same with all other promising treatments, of course chlorine is supossed to be dangerous and ivermectin isn't but the concept of promising chesp treatment feels the same.
What are your thoughts on this? Of course the chlorine dioxide was just an example I fear not a good one but was the one that pop into mind. Im in no wat expert or anything just wanted to hear tyour thoughts on this.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
I'm enthusiastic about ivermectin because I believe it works, and because it's dirt cheap, so it's suitable for less wealthy countries. I first became interested in the drug, along with thousands of other people, when a study was published in April that found ivermectin killed 99.98% of coronavirus (at a high concentration). It's been off-patent for decades, so no one is going to make significant money from it. 1 patient's course of Remdesivir costs about $3000 in the US, which is enough to treat 1000 people with ivermectin in India. There are 72 registered trials, and unregistered trials pop up occasionally, so there's a lot of interest in the drug in the science community -- not just on this sub.
I don't follow HCQ but I know that there are a lot of HCQ-believers out there. One difference is no one here is interested in ivermectin because a political leader endorsed it. Because HCQ is also cheap it is (or was) the drug of choice many lower- and middle-income countries. There have been several IVM vs HCQ trials; IVM has consistently come out on top.
Does that answer your question?
Well giving that my intent was to know opinions on that and yours is one of them, yes in part. I mean like I said, there are tons of "promising" treatments out there not just ivermectin, hcq, chloride dioxide, remdesivir and so on that can play on peoples hopes, which is specially predators like pharmaceutical, political leaders want to take advantage of, in no way I want to be troll or anything. I myself like to believe ivermectin helps in fact I have some (not much) in my house in case of the worst (let's hope nothing bad happen). I also saw that you said that you need high doses but I thought you only needed like 6mg every 2 days
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
I thought you only needed like 6mg every 2 days.
There's a big band of uncertainty around what's needed for treatment. It's at least 200mcg/kg, That's the minimal dose used in the trials. It is more than 6mg unless you're quite small. The 200mcg/kg (or whatever) might be taken on days 1 and 3, or days 1 and 8. 6mg every 2 days might be therapeutic, I don't know. It might even provide prophylaxis. According to a comment in a MDs group on Facebook, some health care workers take ivermectin every day -- dose unspecified.
Thanks for your opinion and clarification 👍
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
It's just my opinion, and a rather vague one. I hope others will chime in. There are many readers of this sub who are a lot smarter than me.
[-] Impressive_Run8581 | 2 points
The tables are published at https://covid19criticalcare.com/ TLA is right about dosing
[-] NoOrchid6597 | 3 points
Ivermectin 12mg Doxycycline 100 mg Hydrochloroquine 200mg Vit c, vit d and zinc 50mg
This is the treatment given to a lot of patients in India and I have seen 100 percent success with the covid positive patients who were administered with these.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
In the last 8 months I have been heavily focused on learning about COVID-19, why it causes such severe symptoms, what treatments have been tried. It has been a journey of understanding the human body, how our immune system works, what the virus is doing to the cell and to the body. It is from this angle that I approach everything. There are lots of other aspects to health and COVID-19 treatments that I don't write about, and of these Ivermectin has the most potent biological effects and is showing strong efficacy in saving lives. This isn't about desperate false hope because other options were dead ends. If the signal in the data wasn't there, if the biology wasn't sound, I would accept it. In comparison, the data for HCQ is not strong enough to build a policy around, even though its biology is still of interest.
As far as sales are concerned, I live in a country where Ivermectin requires a prescription to obtain. I am not a pharmacist so there's no personal interest other than wanting to see an end to the pandemic. This is not about negating vaccines, we need both effective therapy and good vaccines to get through this pandemic. My observation is that governments and institutions take the position to disregard early treatment therapies and wait for the vaccines to arrive. Their hope lies in vaccines not in curative therapy. As of today there is not a vaccine in distribution, hospitals are filling up, people are needlessly dying, so I think this position is irresponsible.
Can I suggest to put a sticked post with all the studies that have demonstrated the efficacy of ivm against covid?
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
That's something I have started working on but I do wonder if it's worthwhile; this site has very nicely presented meta analysis of Ivermectin trials: https://ivmmeta.com/
I think this is a fairly new site?
Nice website. If I had enough time I'd help. I think that a brief summary of the paper like the n, the type of study, doses, arms, outcomes, the link to the study and the discussion on r/covid19 would be enough
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 1 points
I'll go so far as a link to discussion on this sub, that other one isn't a friendly place.
[-] Ok-Film-9049 | 1 points
Someone made the following comment after an IVM video in response to why governments are ignoring an overwhelming number of trials.
If they acknowledge there is an effective treatment they won't be able to have emergency authorisation of the vaccine. It would take much longer.
Any thoughts?
[-] Impressive_Run8581 | 1 points
Liberals on the wrong side today. https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1336353906922819586
NYTIMES got it wrong too.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
Ugh. If only Rachel knew.
But let's avoid politics please. There's no need to associate anything with liberals or conservatives. That's actually the problem.
"Rachel Maddow got it wrong today" would be better, please.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 5 points
At first I was excited to hear these doctors were testifying in front of a Senate committee, but I was not familiar with the politics at play here. Reading the article, the Tweet and its the replies, I am frustrated that Dr Kory's reasonable message is swept aside as part of the anti-vax and anti-mask crowd. Their protocol literally has MASK in it. Those who say they are intelligent people of science should read the papers and listen to his testimony before saying another word.
We need nuance in our conversation and remove the politics - this is a pandemic, right?
Vaccines are absolutely necessary to end the pandemic. We need to keep working on other drugs as complimentary treatments. What happens when a vaccinated person falls ill with the virus? What happens when the virus evades the antibodies?
RECOVERY and SOLIDARITY looked at a limited panel of therapies selected early on in the pandemic, since then Remdesivir and Dexamethasone late treatments are all we have and the door has shut on any other ideas. Anyone who is genuinely grieved by the hundreds of thousands of lives lost should be persistent in searching for better ways.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points
At first I was excited to hear these doctors were testifying in front of a Senate committee, but I was not familiar with the politics at play here. Reading the article, the Tweet and its the replies, I am frustrated that Dr Kory's reasonable message is swept aside as part of the anti-vax and anti-mask crowd. Their protocol literally has MASK in it. Those who say they are intelligent people of science should read the papers and listen to his testimony before saying another word.
If ivermectin becomes another partisan issue, it's goose is cooked. That it is already is indicated by the NYTimes article criticizing the hearing in advance, and the comments by Senator Gary Peters denigrating the testimony before it was given. He left and didn't even hear the testimony.
We need nuance in our conversation and remove the politics - this is a pandemic, right?
Absolutely. It will be an ironic tragedy if Senator Johnson's raising ivermectin's visibility with his hearing results in IVM being dismissed as just politics. Argh!
Anyone who is genuinely grieved by the hundreds of thousands of lives lost should be persistent in searching for better ways.
Dr. Kory emphasized over and over, the necessity for NIH to review the research.
Unfortunately, IMO he paints the research as far more compelling than it is. It will be too easy for NIH to set aside the studies/trials as flawed, one after the other. IMO. And I'm an advocate!.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
Dr Rajter makes the better point that the evidence should trigger a large well run study, although this is a further delay at least the definitive data will be there.
But even with imperfect data it should be sufficient to shift to an early treatment policy until more data emerges. The current state of inaction and now censoring is honestly quite concerning.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
The course of disease is so short, that trials could be done FAST.
There was a heart-rending news story about a south Texas hospital that has a room that's for people who are going to die. They are put there with that expectation, on ventilators, I think. I wanted to reach through my computer screen and shout at them "Select a random half and give them 1200mcg/kg of ivermectin every day!" I don't know if it would work -- but I think it would.
Of the 18 patients treated with ivermectin, 12 recovered within 3 days. Of the 18 who did not receive IVM, none recovered.
That trial could be done in a week.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Dr Rajter makes the better point that the evidence should trigger a large well run study,
Months ago, 3-4?, he was rumored to be trying to organize a formal trial. I guess it wasn't approved or he couldn't raise the money.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 1 points
Months ago, clearly there is a high level of blockading outside of the hospital he works at.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
??? What are you talking about?
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 3 points
In the Senate hearing he talked about how Ivermectin has been accepted at his network of hospitals, but he lacks the funding to run a large study. Since the ICON study first got attention he said he was organising a coalition of willing doctors/hospitals to conduct a trial. Months have passed and it seems to have not happened, likely due in part to lack of said funding. I was inferring that there is systemic resistance, but perhaps that was a stretch.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
Where's Bill Gates when we need him?
[-] [deleted] | 1 points
[removed]
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
What about "No politics" do you not get?
[-] passfailboat | 1 points
I may be mistaken, but I think I heard him indicate funding is an issue.
[-] Impressive_Run8581 | 2 points
HCQ Jane was only there to discredit and disrupt - same with Sen Peter. Sad day for IVM. Could have been a win if the message wasn't diluted.
BTW Gandhi is to the right and authoritarian to me. : )
[-] [deleted] | 1 points
[deleted]
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I think this extremely cool image has a SARS-CoV-2 virus in the middle, red center with tentacles (? maybe not) and - other things. Help me out!
Open the image in a new tab so you can see it BIG.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
IMPORTANT New Policy: questions about buying or dosing ivermectin MUST be posted to /r/gettingIvermectin -- to minimize the risk of /r/ivermectin being banned
Censorship of ivermectin is happening on youtube and Facebook. As interest in ivermectin develops, this sub could develop the wrath of the Reddit administrators. An obvious excuse for banning /r/ivermectin is irresponsible dispensing what looks like medical advice.
Therefore please do NOT ask about where to buy ivermectin or what doses to take -- in this sub. Instead go to /r/gettingIvermectin and ask there.
I have to DELETE posts about buying or dosing ivermectin. I'll post a "Take this to /r/gettingIvermectin" message as I do that. Please save me the trouble!
Note that /r/ivermectin now has a sidebar! Feedback is welcome. Is there something essential that I should add? Something dumb to remove?
Thanks, TLA
Edit: I'm deleting buying/dosing posts instead of hiding them -- having learned that hiding just hides them from ME. 🙄
[-] [deleted] | 1 points
[deleted]
[-] [deleted] | 1 points
[removed]
[-] [deleted] | 1 points
[deleted]
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
This ivermectin study was briefly discussed in This Week in Virology, episode 691, starting at 1:32., also on youtube without the show notes.
This is one of the weakest ivermectin trials, and unfortunately it's the one that TWiV selected to discuss.
I really despise conspiracy theories -- but it does seem remarkable to me that Vincent picked out this one randomly. I wonder if he asked someone who has been following the research for an unimpressive study.
The only thing I learned (if Vincent is correct) is that doses used in US trials have to be approved, based on a dosing study showing that the dosing is safe. This trial did 12mg for 5 consecutive days. That is not FDA approved as treatment for anything, hence the need for a prior dosing study.
Three months ago Kyle Wagstaff said via LinkedIn that she is working on an ivermectin dosing study using human cells, and her findings to date make her unconcerned about the dose required, which (of course) is the first thing Vincent brought up.
Where is her dosing study? In that LinkedIn conversation, she said that she very much believes in the peer review process, so that's probably holding up publications, esp. since it's difficult finding enough reviewers these days, because of the onslaught of papers to review.
Edit: My tweet at TWiV's Vincent (and everyone else) about this.
[-] DreadPyriteRoberts | 3 points
I posted this as a comment on the youtube video of this TWiV episode:
It's unfortunate that you selected one of the worst 2-3 ivermectin trials for your discussion. It's not representative of the ivermectin trials, which overall show much more positive results.
Dr. Pierre Kory, a critical care physician who uses ivermectin extensively to treat patients and member of the faculty at the University of Wisconsin medical school, wrote a paper summarizing the research here:
https://files.osf.io/v1/resources/wx3zn/providers/osfstorage/5fae6051efc18a013a00a6d3?direct=&mode=render
He lays out the strong evidence for both prophylaxis and therapy for covid19 with ivermectin.
Dr. Kory would be an EXCELLENT GUEST for TWiV. He's well-known as an ivermectin advocate. The youtube video of his opening remarks before the US Senate on December 8 has 5.8 million views:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq8SXOBy-4w
This post has links to easy entry points to the ivermectin research:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/k4824u/where_to_find_the_results_of_ivermectin_trials/
This is one of the easy-entry links. I think it's biased in favor of ivermectin, but it provides capsule summaries of 41 studies, with links to the study papers:
https://c19ivermectin.com/
One of the best therapeutic trials is discussed here on reddit's ivermectin sub, with a link to the study:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/j7y88h/clinical_trial_of_ivermectin_plus_doxycycline_for/
This is an AMAZING prophylaxis trial, which TWiV touched on during another episode but IMO didn't do justice:
https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pdf
It is discussed in the ivermectin sub here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/k7fl92/study_of_the_efficacy_and_safety_of_topical/
Those of us who KNOW ivermectin vs covid19 (I've been closely following the research since April) who love TWiV (like me) have been badly disappointed by TWiV's commentary so far. Please invite Dr. Kory and/or review 2-3 of the GOOD studies soon. If you want my suggestions for papers to discuss, I'm @hoytster on twitter.
Thanks, TWiV, for the amazing work you do! (ivermectin aside)
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
RemindMeRepeat! 1 Day "Repost the above to the TWiV youtube video"
[-] RemindMeBot | 1 points
I will be messaging you in 1 day on 2020-12-25 23:26:18 UTC and then every 1 Day to remind you of this link
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) ^(delete this message to hide from others.)
|^(Info)|^(Custom)|^(Your Reminders)|^(Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Vincent R from TWiV put his virology course online.
[-] dead_pirate_robertz | 1 points
I haven't looked at these videos yet, so I can't say how covid-related they are, but presumably Prof. Racaniello touches on covid when the lecture is relevant. In any event, I think they would be useful to people trying to understand the mechanism of various treatments for covid, and probably the vaccines.
There are 28 lectures with average length of an hour and 10 minutes or so.
If there's enough interest, perhaps we could create a sub for discussing each lecture, /r/virologyCourse or something.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I just asked this question in the Ivermectin MD Team Facebook group:
For 8 months I've been taking ivermectin at 200mcg/kg twice a week, hoping to avoid catching covid. The only side-effects I have noticed is a lot less itching (demodex gone) and less alcohol consumption (there are mouse studies in which ivermectin reduces alcohol use).
AFAIK there is NO DATA about long-term use of ivermectin. I would love to be wrong!
Please share any information / opinions about the following concern:
As you know, the main theory about ivermectin's mechanism against covid19 is it blocks the imp alpha/beta1 transport mechanism so covid can't insert proteins and disable the cell's immune response.
WHAT ARE THE HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OF THAT MECHANISM BEING BLOCKED FOR 8 MONTHS OR A YEAR?
Presumably we have the imp mechanism because we need it. What are the positive uses of imp alpha/beta1? What can go wrong, if those uses are blocked for a long time?
Thanks VERY much for your responses!
I'll post them if I get any replies. I suspect that no one knows but I never went to medical school and have no clue about what MDs know.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
So far, the Facebook group hasn't been helpful. Someone kindly posted a 2012 article by Dr. Wagstaff et al but it didn't actually shed any light.
So I asked Dr. Wagstaff the following via LinkedIn:
Hi, Dr. Wagstaff,
You may be the most qualified person in the world to answer this question!
I've been taking ivermectin since May: I'm very high risk for covid19 and I'm hoping IVM will help me avoid catching the virus. The main mechanism is blocking the IMP alpha/beta1 heterodimer so the virus cannot inject proteins into the nucleus and disable the cell's immune defenses.
What are the health implications of IMP alpha/beta1 being blocked over the course of 8 months or a year? Presumably the transport mechanism exists because it's needed. What GOOD things aren't happening in my cells because I'm taking ivermectin?
Thanks very much for your answer, even if it's the one I anticipate: "Sorry, that has not been studied."
[-] [deleted] | 1 points
[deleted]
All the 5 clinical trials with ivermectin inside the EU are still ongoing since last year May/June. Is there a way to know when could they have results?
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
The only way is the results being reported on the EU registration site or coming across the report some other way. Dr. Chaccour's SAINT trial (posted to the sub) is 1 of the 5; it's done but the registry doesn't indicate that.
[-] Powerful_Advisor_278 | 1 points
Does ivermectin also possibly work for the common cold? Just curious!
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
It may. Something like 15-20% of US "colds" are due to coronaviruses. Does ivermectin work against all coronaviruses? I don't know. I haven't actively noticed anything about ivermectin and the common cold (nor have I looked).
Hi! I've two little boxes of Ivermectin which have an expiry date in April 2021, someone know if it loses its potency/efficacy the more it nears that date? I'm kinda worried that if in case it'll be needed they will not work very well
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
I don't know. My pure guess: expiry dates are very conservative and it will be fine.
Googling "Are drug expiration dates valid" this was at the top of the results:
It's true the effectiveness of a drug may decrease over time, but much of the original potency still remains even a decade after the expiration date. Excluding nitroglycerin, insulin, and liquid antibiotics, most medications are as long-lasting as the ones tested by the military.
I'd be concerned about whether your two little boxes are enough. How many total mg? Are you only concerned about yourself or are their others you would like to treat if they catch the virus?
Hi, yes I read that too but the "most" meds thing implies that a few can lose potency, don't know of IVM is one of those unlucky ones.
Those boxes have in total 8 pills of 6 mg each, they will be for my parents just in case (I hope not) they weight 60 and 66 kg which I believe they would get 2 pills day 1 and 2 pills on day 2, I don't have for day 3 but I think day 3 is no longer necessary anymore according to I-MASK+ right?
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points
That might be enough. It might not be. Understand that I-MASK+ is guesswork, good guesswork, but the trials are very far from definitive.
To illustrate: The Pfizer vaccine trial (IIRC) gave the second dose 3 weeks after the first. The UK has decided to get the first dose to more people so it's delaying administration to the second source, like 6 weeks. Prizer cannot make any statement about whether the vaccine will be as efficacious when the second dose is given at 6 weeks because they didn't test that in their trial.
For you to depend on 2 days being enough, because I-MASK+ says so, you should have a big well-designed trial that studied 2 days of dosing at 12mg, compared to 2 days at a higher dose, 3 days at that dose, 3 days at a higher dose, 4 days, etc. There is no such trial. A minor minority of the trials went with 12mg. The predominant trialed dose is 200mg/kg. That dose means 12mg is enough for your parents if they each weigh less than 133 pounds. You can do the calculation here.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 6 points | Dec 16 2020 20:32:28
I think this is funny, slightly clever, and could possibly save my life.
I recently exhausted a tube of toothpaste. I found that by pulling both ends, I could get it to expand so it had a lot of empty volume. I put two tubes of horse paste into it very easily, just holding the tubes together as I pressed the plunger. Almost none leaked.
Why is a toothpaste tube of ivermectin a clever idea? Because if I catch the virus and end up at the hospital, I know that ivermectin will speed my recovery, but my doctors won't. So the toothpaste-cum-ivermectin tube goes into my go bag. No one at the hospital will object to my brushing my teeth -- and no one will notice me eating the odd yellowish toothpaste! :)
permalink