Ivermectin Last Updated: February 11, 2021, by NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines

manote_arpornsuwan | 10 points | Feb 12 2021 04:07:25

Ivermectin Last Updated: February 11, 2021, by NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines

Recommendation

There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/

[-] dogrescuersometimes | 4 points | Feb 12 2021 05:08:25

Bollocks.

[-] migrod1 | 4 points | Feb 13 2021 00:22:38

"and we won't conduct these trials."

[-] Done_Quixote | 3 points | Feb 12 2021 15:56:13

Yet untested crispr mRNA are being injected into the majority of the population in phase 3 of the trials that nobody knows the results of. And that's OK. Even though these so called"vaccines" don't do what vaccines are supposed to do which is to disrupt transmission and stimulate immunity.

[-] mekikichee | 2 points | Feb 12 2021 14:31:24

Delay. Delay. Delay.

.....

Why?

What is going on behind the scenes?

[-] bikes4paul | 2 points | Feb 12 2021 16:51:29

While this isn't the firm endorsement that we all were hoping for it is another small step in the right direction. It formalizes their "Neither for or against" position. Their previous interim notice was not official Guidance. As such, many hospitals and medical groups would not consider it's use until it's part of the formal Guidance. They also did provide much more data.

According to a friend who is an experienced Critical Care Physician he felt that this Guidance would lead to wider adoption. Hopefully, with additional results soon to be released we'll see more firm Guidance in support of IVM in C19. Agreed this has/is taking WAY too long but trying to look at the positive side in that it's at least progress.

[-] bikes4paul | 2 points | Feb 12 2021 22:32:45

Whiteboard Doctor does a great review of the NIH's Treatment Guidelines update on IVM. He see's it as generally a positive development although does point out some peculiarities. Here's a link to his video review:

https://youtu.be/G5lO2uxNQ4U

BTW, it drives me crazy when the NIH (or others) bring up the in vitro study or the animal study to cast doubt on the clinical trials. In the hierarchy of evidence clinical trials are vastly superior to in vitro and animal studies. The in vitro and animal studies were justification to run the clinical trials, end of story. Talking about high in vitro concentrations to negate clinical evidence from RCTs is ridiculous!

[-] dogrescuersometimes | 2 points | Feb 13 2021 05:27:04

Statement is chick full of outright unapologetic lies.

It does not take a 100 fold dose increase, we do have robust studies, and ouch pharma will lose money when people find out how good iver is

NIH doesn't work for us.

[-] my-tech-reddit-acct | 1 points | Feb 13 2021 04:28:31

This is the same thing NIH says about Regeneron, bamlanivimab, and convalescent plasma. It's an improvement over their previous recommendation against the use of ivermectin.