Not a great article, but slightly less biased than the usual.

permalink

The article isn't too bad, but reading the comments that follow on the Washington Post website shows the stubbornness of people in their desire to continue to believe what they believe. It's as if new information cannot be considered unless it is spoon fed from a "highly authoritative" source like CDC, WHO, etc. Note that the article mentions how Merck (the maker of Ivermectin) says it doesn't work for Covid. Really? Wonder why! Oh, because Merck has a NEW Covid drug in the pipeline ready to go! Again - follow the money.

permalink

"Now, the National Institutes of Health might wade into the controversy. It is planning a randomized clinical trial to explore whether older, already approved drugs can be repurposed to reduce covid-19 symptoms, according to three individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plans have not been announced. Ivermectin is considered a top candidate for the trial, though the details are not final, the individuals said. Other possibilities are fluvoxamine, a decades-old antidepressant, and famotidine, the generic name for Pepcid, outside scientists said. The goal would be to get results within months."

permalink

Article was poorly written but any publicity is good publicity

permalink

This article is going to get a looooot of attention haha! Pretty good reporting I think it will convince a lot of early skeptics to give it a reconsideration. Share this article FAR AND WIDE!

permalink

This is a slanted article. It is designed to make readers skeptical of ivermectin-proponents’ advocacy. It could be used as a case study in a course on subtle propaganda techniques:

First it gives the reader the impression that ivermectin might be dangerous, because it is “unproven” (a scare word) and has caused hospitalization of three persons who consumed the horse-paste version. No mention is made of ivermectin’s excellent safety record over the decades over hundreds of millions of recipients, something a neutral article would have said. This omission, and the two below, constitute its worst (and deliberate) deception, and is its key to convincing readers that using or advocating for ivermectin before official approval is reckless.

Second, it fails to mention the almost universal pro-ivermectin findings of scores of studies and the fact that many of them were randomized control trials. Instead, it quotes a suggestion that the only evidence we have is mere “hints,” no better than the evidence for other purported folk-medicine treatments: ““We don’t have solid evidence right now” on the drug, said Janet Woodcock, acting FDA commissioner …. “We’ve had HINTS for a long time on ivermectin, but again, we’ve had hints on a lot of these agents and many of them have not panned out.”

Third, it entices the unwary reader into thinking that no RCTs have been conducted so far: “Now, the National Institutes of Health might wade into the controversy. It is planning a randomized clinical trial to explore whether older, already approved drugs can be repurposed to reduce covid-19 symptoms,” Actually, all that’s new in the NIH’s trial is that its control arm will receive a placebo instead of a “standard of care” treatment, like Tylenol, and the active arm will contain only ivermectin, not anything else (like aspirin or vitamins C or D. This should have been mentioned. Large, placebo-controlled RCTs are studies that only government or Big Pharma can afford, making it “cheap” of the article to implicitly demean the only studies that independent clinicians can perform.

Fourth, it states as a fact rather than an opinion that there is “insufficient evidence that it works as a treatment for covid-19.” In support it quotes “Janet Woodcock, acting FDA commissioner” and Angela Rasmussen as saying the same or worse. (Rasmussen claimed there is “NO evidence”). But several unmentioned high-quality meta-analyses have concluded that there IS sufficient evidence to green-light the drug, given the context of a raging deadly pandemic, the practical absence of an alternative, and the drug’s safety record,

Fifth, it implies that ivermectin pills have not been approved in the U.S. for internal use against non-tropical maladies, saying that the pill form: “is approved for tropical maladies and requires a prescription.” Actually, it is also approved for childhood leukemia and intestinal worms.

Sixth, it insinuates that proponents are largely uninformed and over-enthusiastic laymen by including this slanted quote: “ivermectin is TOUTED ON SOCIAL MEDIA as something that could end the pandemic.” And “The RUSH to EMBRACE unapproved therapies reflects an understandable DESIRE TO FIND A SILVER BULLET for the viral menace, Bhimraj said,” insinuating that the proponents are driven by childish emotionalism and magical thinking.

Seventh, it smears ivermectin by association with HCQ: ““It’s like the new hydroxychloroquine,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Science and Security.”

Eighth, it leaves the reader with the impression that the online “rush” to ivermectin is fueled by credulous acceptance of it-cured-me anecdotes. After describing one (ONLY one) case, it says: “Scientists warn, however, that such anecdotes do not prove a treatment works, because most people who get covid-19 eventually recover.” (Ooo, that’s sober, sensible SCIENCE that, in contrast, we are encouraged to believe.) But nearly all the online advocates cite studies and comparative regional results as their rationale, not anecdotes.

Ninth, it employs the debunked talking point: “Interest in ivermectin for covid-19 surged last spring after a small Australian study found that the drug inhibited the replication of the coronavirus in laboratory tests. But many scientists warned that it would be impossible for humans to take high enough doses of the drug to produce an antiviral effect.” The best rebuttal of that claim is found at the end of an April 25-page, Japanese review article, whose title and URL I’ve unfortunately misplaced somewhere.

Tenth, is touts the flawed Cali, Colombia / JAMA study without mentioning the criticism it has received: “Adarsh Bhimraj … pointed to what he described as a well-designed, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in Colombia that found the drug did not help patients with mild covid-19.” And it fails to note that the study actually found that ivermectin DID help patients—just not to the degree that would constitute proof, because of its small size. This continues the article's low level of scrupulosity.

Eleventh, it fails to point out that Merck is not a disinterested party, and incorrectly suggests that it has expert knowledge of the drug’s effect (it has presented no insider’s data, but only cited its opinion that the pro-ivermectin studies are not strong enough to be convincing) vs. Covid-19, by writing, “against covid-19, there is “no meaningful evidence” of efficacy, according to Merck, which makes the brand-name version.” It fails to mention, as an objective article would, that Merck has an anti-Covid-19 therapeutic drug in the pipeline whose sales would be devastated if ivermectin were approved, namely molnupiravir (pronounced mol-nu-pira-vir).

TrialSite News has an opinion piece describing the swampish insider behavior involved in its development, and its multi-billion dollar annual profit potential, namely “Merck’s Incredible Quest for the COVID-19 Blockbuster: A Tainted Path to Early Onset Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19 Therapy?” at: https://trialsitenews.com/mercks-incredible-quest-for-the-covid-19-blockbuster-a-tainted-path-to-early-onset-mild-to-moderate-covid-19-therapy/ Its enormous potential market (and apparent efficacy) is also described in a March 25 puff-piece in Bloomberg titled, “Merck’s Little Brown Pill Could Transform the Fight Against Covid” at: https://getpocket.com/read/3289802725

Her article has had its desired effect—massively misleading WaPo readers—if one goes by the atrocious, backslapping 90% of the 250 comments that follow it. That propaganda coup counts as success, it appears, by WaPo’s standards. Maybe it’ll win a Pulitzer prize—its standards are equally low.

permalink

a major trial is needed. It will definitely show no effect

permalink

Just in time for the Autumn surge of vaccine refusers

permalink