TehCaster | 25 points
A new, long interview with the first Czech doctor to admit using ivermectinFor balance, he's a Slovakian doctor saying ivm doesn't work:
Translation:
Some points:
- he says they tried it but didn't work. No time to run proper clinical trials in the busy ICU though.
- says existing studies might be all confounded because ivm was not the only difference (me: but what about propensity matching, multivariate analysis etc? ICON seemed to do that very well)
- says JAMA was the only good one because they gave placebo vs ivm and no other stuff (me: but I thought that standard of care plus something vs standard of care only is valid design too?)
- the usual in vitro concentration argument
- after ivm was authorized in Slovakia, they gave it to patients who asked for it, but it didn't help. Some people took it at home and yet they ended up in the hospital and some died. (me: looks like positive anecdotal evidence means nothing, but negative anecdotal evidence is fine)
- they've also seens intoxications due to ivm use (no specifics?)
- some people buy ivm at aliexpress or black market (me: so much for wide availability of legally prescribed human ivm in Slovakia. Also were the cases where it didn't help or got intoxicated using such black market or veterinary stuff, or not?)
I'm sensing some "we are the developed west" ego from this doctor. I don't think he's being honest.
I got my head permanently messed up from ivermectin taken as a post exposure protocol. I think that doctors right when he says he saw people get ivermectin toxicity.
Sorry to hear that. Can you share details please if possible? What exact diagnosis and the dosage (and length of protocol) that lead to this? And if there was some genetic predisposition determined or acute/chronic illness or interacting drug that caused IVM to cross your BBB (I assume it had to in order to cause such damage?). Thanks.
"On the other hand, the European Medicines Agency ( EMA) states in its opinion that ivermectin has not been applied for, ie that no one in Europe has yet applied for ivermectin. Because you know that in order to be successful, you have to have a [large] study. And these institutions do not recognize all studies performed on ivermectin so far, whether for methodological or other reasons, they are of little evidence."
I really think that 26 small RCTs, and 50 studies total, should in sum be equivalent to or better than one large study.
I think someone should apply for regulatory approval of ivermectin in Europe for Covid.
[-] lemallette | 2 points
Strange headline: "....admit...." ?
Like it was some sort of crime?
When 26 randomized controlled studies all point in the same direction, it would be a crime NOT to prescribe it for moderate or high risk patients with a proven or strongly suspected diagnosis of Covid-19.
PS. There was one recent IVM study published recently that showed no effect, which has been widely quoted in MSM.
It was done in a community where IVM is readily available, without any blood levels of ivm or medication history collected, using a protocol that failed to identify properly the study drug in the informed consent document and in which the study drug was given on an empty stomach (which decreases systemic absorption of the medication),
A meaningless bit of data, but even if it were included in a meta-analysis, it wouldn't change the conclusions.
I just didn't want to write "first doctor to use it" because there might have been others, who just didn't want the publicity. I'm grateful that he did and (even if it was all perfectly legal, no crime), there are now people accusing him and others of being quacks and going against evidence based medicine.
And yeah the JAMA paper you mention was well discussed in this subreddit.
[-] lemallette | 3 points
That's is what I thought might be the case. Sorry, no strong criticism intended. Perhaps "report" would be a more accurate word?
Those who accuse doctors of being quacks for prescribing IVM are showing their ignorance of the science and of medical ethics. They are the quacks.
[-] DDDOOORRROOO | 1 points
Additionally, the researchers were unable to meet their promary goal of the study - compare how many patians degragated. So half way the trial they asked the question will IVM shorten the duration of the sickness by 3 days. What they found was that it shortened the duration by 2 days so the answer to their 3 day question was NO.
[-] lemallette | 1 points
That is indeed the additional fault in the study that is equally important in invalidating it. Totally bogus study. Amazing it was considered for publication.
[-] DDDOOORRROOO | 1 points
And in JAMA, too.
[-] ChipOnShoulder1 | 1 points
This "study" was sponsored by Big Pharma and we can surmise they were pleased with the fake results. Refer to the Conflict of Interest statements in the study itself.
IVM users were allowed into the "control group". That could well explain why both sides had far fewer serious effects from c-19 than was predicted. Only those that admitted IVM use in the prior 5 days were ostensibly excluded. One pharmacist discovered IVM had been given to the control group "by accident". Were there other incidences that were not discovered? This was evidently an IVM vs IVM trial.
IVM activity is believed to have a significant residual effect. A once a year dose for parasites is common though studies indicate that a dose each 90 days offers more protection.
Given C-19 is novel, no one can yet say what the optimal dose and frequency of IVM is for C-19. Given the severity of the risks of C-19, whatever the risks MIGHT be of increasing the dosage and frequency of IVM would seem to pale in comparison.
In animal tests, a single 10mg/kg dose (50 times the standard human/animal dose (0.2mg/kg) for parasites) was not lethal to dogs, yet was found to "directly inhibit [cancer] tumor growth" in mice. A lower dose of 2mg/kg (10 times the standard parasitic dose) was found to have "reversed drug resistance, making the cancer cells more vulnerable to chemo-therapy."
Thank you so much for bringing this information for us from Czechia and Slovakia. This is especially important for us living in nearby countries.
[-] DDDOOORRROOO | 1 points
Politico informs its readers in The rise and fall of a coronavirus ‘miracle cure’.
"Geography also plays a role in ivermectin's popularity, argued Sultănescu. Its adherents aren't in major cities or close to the levers of power, but "are on the periphery of some centers," he said. "You have this in areas where people are frustrated because the results are not in their control, the solutions are not in their control."
If such arguments are put up against IVM, what else can be said in its defence.
[-] TehCaster | 9 points | Apr 17 2021 15:31:43
Translation: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.flowee.cz/civilizace/8652-ivermektin-stoji-za-to-ho-zkouset-brzy-zverejnime-cisla-rika-primar-od-svate-anny
Main points:
- he says hospital mortality in Czechia is around 20%, they have around 10% with IVM. They are waiting for the outcome of some patients and then plan to publish these stats, hopefully still in April. (Hooray. But it won't be a RTC, so nobody will care, most likely...)
- some patients respond and improve almost immediately, but some not at all (also not to steroids etc)
- he expects the largest effect would be when administered early, not hospital
- they offer ivm to all patients, only few refuse
- mentions that if Remdesivir was assessed as critically as ivm, one would say there's no proven effect
- they want to follow standard of care, but if there's a situation when none exists, it makes sense to try even something with less sufficient evidence, when being certain of its safety
- ivm has no large study because there's no financial interest for pharma to do it
- until ivm was so much publicized, there were no doubts about its safety, now its hysteria. reported serious adverse effects were very rare, related to two parasites at once
- yet EMA in their statement said there's a safety risk, but in their detailed study (he mentions that EMA detailed study again, where is it, dammit?) they say it's safe and no adverse effect in commonly used dosages
- NIH says neither for or against, the most rational recommendation of all authorities so far
- ivm is cheap, but if widely used, would be a competitor to more expensive drugs and maybe even vaccines. But that's relative, ivm is not a miracle and universal cure for all phases of covid without other medicine. vaccination is the best way to manage the pandemic.
- WHO made own studies to then recommend against HCQ, remdesivir. Now they recommends also against ivm, but didn't do their own study this time. The WHO guidelines mention studies showing effect, but say the studies might be flawed. Satoshi Omura calls for it being used and that there's enough evidence.
permalink