Coming across more and more articles rubbishing the effectiveness of Ivermectin (link inside). Hard to make up my mind. Rebuttals?

paninee | 9 points | Apr 22 2021 16:40:26

Coming across more and more articles rubbishing the effectiveness of Ivermectin (link inside). Hard to make up my mind. Rebuttals?

Hi,

After being kind of an ivermectin evangelist amongst my social contacts, lately I'm coming across lots of articles portraying Ivermectin as a poor treatment.

(eg: https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/ivermectin-covid-19-antiparasitic-political/)

Given all the research here and outside, it's a bit overwhelming for me. I still feel like Ivermectin should be good, after reading some sources and the studies they link to, but since I'm not from a medical background, I can't judge their validity.

I was wondering if you could share a few rebuttals, or link me to some meta analyses of the best studies supporting ivermectin.

//one link that I found on /r/covid19 thanks to /u/joegtech is: https://ivmmeta.com/

Again, it would be nice to have some info on the veracity of the links inside it.

[-] TehCaster | 9 points | Apr 22 2021 17:32:11

I know how you feel, the cognitive dissonance here for me is enormous and brings constant doubt and frequent changes of prevailing believe/opinion, depending on the current mood :) I really wish this question was resolved already. The fact that it still isn't resolved is the biggest disappointment for me.

Given how large the divide is, any of the two possible answers will mean a large number of people were wrong, which is not good.

But if the answer is "IVM works" then it perhaps won't be as bad, because most of those who are against it now are just saying there's insufficient evidence... and there just won't be insufficient evidence anymore. Certainly better outcome (for me, anyway) than if lots of doctors all over the world were wrong.

Until then, I will probably trust the front line doctors. They tried it, they've seen it work. I'd hope it's unlikely that so many would be so much wrong. Do watch the Dr. Jackie Stone interviews here, they are great: https://medicalupdateonline.com/

I don't see many doctors that tried ivm AND then said it doesn't work. Yeah there are some, but seems it's a minority. Most of the skeptics are people that never tried it and are just waiting for the ultimate trials. We can ignore what Merck said completely, that's just not relevant. And many authorities and articles just quote that as if it was a holy word.

[-] BernieTheDachshund | 5 points | Apr 22 2021 17:37:32

It helped my sister immensely with her covid long-hauler symptoms. Just one dose did the job. So for me I'll always be grateful it's around. Given how safe it is, it certainly doesn't hurt to try it. Sorry I don't have any articles, but I've got a lot of respect for this wonder drug and its positive impact on humanity and animals. All good stuff.

[-] paninee | 3 points | Apr 22 2021 16:43:43

Actually just noticed the sticky: https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/k4824u/where_to_find_the_results_of_ivermectin_trials/

this seems to have lots of good info.

Just a rebuttal to the link posted would be nice. I couldn't find much on whether this source* is reliable to start with.

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/ivermectin-covid-19-antiparasitic-political/

[-] outofspacetraveler | 5 points | Apr 22 2021 20:00:26

Is it dangerous? No.

Could it help? Yes.

Is it a big deal? It shouldn’t be, but it is.

[-] Hovercraft_Time | 3 points | Apr 22 2021 16:49:00

Watch some real life stories https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5rJlf5jdr_I6qiozbQdx-g

[-] paninee | 1 points | Apr 22 2021 17:10:52

Thanks for the link, this is good to see! :)

Unfortunately, the link I shared seems to try to debunk such claims by doctors as well calling them not rigorous enough as a large enough RCT. I don't even know if that website is reliable to start with, and it's hard to find anything about it's reliability on googling it.

LINK : https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/ivermectin-covid-19-antiparasitic-political/

[-] Hovercraft_Time | 3 points | Apr 22 2021 18:00:00

It has been argued that many small independent trials using a range of dosages and dose schedules, across a range of stages of disease progression, all showing efficacy is stronger evidence than a large trial with lots of people all following the same treatment plan.

This is why a meta-analysis is the gold standard for advising medical policy. Look up Tess Lawrie on Youtube.

[-] PrepperLady999 | 1 points | Apr 22 2021 23:09:57

Well put.

[-] runderwo | 3 points | Apr 22 2021 22:31:03

This is essentially the current battle line: https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/the-world-health-organization-doesnt-recommend-ivermectin-as-a-covid-19-treatment-the-drugs-safety-and-effectiveness-remains-uncertain-in-covid-19-patients/

"Kevin Wilson, a professor at the Boston University School of Medicine and Chief of Guidelines and Documents at the American Thoracic Society, explained to Health Feedback that the figure of the 81% reduction in mortality with the ivermectin treatment resulted from aggregating data from 18 trials, including “poor-quality trials that may bias the results”."

Based on this risk of bias and its assessment that the included studies are of poor quality, the WHO recommends against ivermectin despite the large magnitude aggregate benefit (a magnitude of benefit which happens to agree with the independent, anonymous CovidAnalysis meta-analysis).

Dr. Tess Lawrie reinterpreted the WHO meta-analysis using off-the-shelf meta-analysis tools and procedures and reached the opposite conclusion, that the evidential bar has been met that ivermectin should be deployed.

Supporters of ivermectin say that this evidence should be sufficient for public health authorities to allow doctors to prescribe ivermectin immediately, anywhere for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 syndrome.

Opponents of ivermectin fall back on what is essentially concern-trolling about safety (there is no articulable safety concern applicable to using ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2 infection that differs from its established safety profile in other applications) or efficacy - the bar they set for efficacy, in chorus, is a level of evidence that could only be produced by nation-state public health or NGO funding which as of yet has been diverted nearly uniformly to vaccines and patented new investigative drugs.

Experience shows that motivated opponents of ivermectin are nearly uniformly also enthusiastic supporters of the current global mass vaccination program. Enthusiastic means that they are not interested in concerns about safety (adverse events) or efficacy (against variants at individual or population levels) related to that program while at the same time being hyper-focused on non-specific safety and simply unreasonable efficacy concerns around ivermectin.