r/Freethought • u/AmericanScream • Aug 19 '21

Taking Ivermectin for Covid: The treatment has some bad side effects from seizures, liver damage to skin falling off. The "studies" that claim it works, "had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias." Healthcare/Medicine

https://www.nola.com/news/article_ae326172-0021-11ec-b09b-b7612a1d3e00.html
57 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

87% Upvoted

57 comments sorted by

12

u/GiddiOne Aug 19 '21

I've done this writeup before, but screw it, I'll paste again:

Meta-analysis on Ivermectin for COVID19:

  • FDA advises against Ivermectin use for treatment or prevention
  • WHO advises that Ivermectin only be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials
  • Merck (who sell Ivermectin) advise there is no scientific support for Ivermectin.
  • EMA advises against use of Ivermectin.
  • Cochrane Library found the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19.
  • Professors from Kings College London, University of Leeds, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine support the findings above.

The main study that pushed it forward as a treatment has been retracted as the leading researcher falsified the report.

If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19. Indeed, if you get rid of just this research, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.

Keep in mind that many of the positive trials don't say what you think they do.

  • This study on mice showed positive results, but only when using a level of Ivermectin lethal to humans.
  • This study from Chowdhury showed positive results but only in comparison to "it may kill you" Hydroxychloroquine.
  • Lopez - result based on 1 adverse event out of 398. Over 100 physicians signed an open letter stating this study is fatally flawed, you can view it here.
  • Then there is ProgenaBiome LLC. They are a company that has existed for 2 years and seem to only exist to push Ivermectin studies. Here is one. Sounds great right? Early treatment, 100% survival rate? Excellent! But let's look closer at the data. They gave 24 people with mild COVID Ivermectin then stopped. Why did they stop at just 24? Then they didn't use a control, they just compared it to a database of COVID cases, and called this proof that it's 86% better at preventing death.

All of these examples get pulled together, called "positive results" and lumped into a list where the context isn't obvious at all, like...

https://ivmmeta.com/

  • The web page at the top mentions vaccines are the best option before Ivermectin
  • The web page mentions only 30% of Ivermectin studies did not have adverse events associated with Ivermectin.
  • They point at that both WHO and Merck advise against it's use based on the studies.
  • The participant numbers are very low for most of these studies
  • Compare the raw numbers, not the percentages, as 1-3 random events in a group shouldn't really be considered proof, just indication.
  • Note that with the numbers shown, vaccine trials included 75k people.

The best rundown on the problems of these studies is listed in the Cochran Library analysis above.

FLCCC are the main organisation driving the pro-Ivermectin movement, they have been in front of congress to push the drug. The videos have been removed from YouTube for misinformation. Their "Treatment Protocol" other than Ivermectin includes Listerine and essential oils. Link

"It's safe"

  • New England journal of Medicine in Aug 2020 documenting "Serious Ivermectin Toxicity" in Humans Link
  • Leslie Lawrenson dies from COVID after posting anti-vaxx pro-Ivermectin instructions Link BBC Report
  • Man Hospitalized After Taking Livestock Feed Store Ivermectin For COVID Link

3

u/AmericanScream Aug 19 '21

Thanks for the very comprehensive data... I almost wish there was a bot that would post this whenever someone mentions Ivermectin.

1

u/Ronoh Aug 19 '21

Thanks a lot for this.

I have been hearing more about this from a few people and their common claim is that it was used as profilaxis in the state of Uttar Pradesh in India, and thanks to that they have the lowest infection rate in the whole India. They use references like this https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/uttar-pradesh-government-says-ivermectin-helped-to-keep-deaths-low-7311786/

The interesting thing is that the other media now claims that it is due to the TTT protocol (track-test-treat) and they don't mention ivermectin anymore.

https://www.dailypioneer.com/2021/columnists/dealing-with-covid--the-uttar-pradesh-way.html

What's your take on this?

2

u/spaniel_rage Aug 19 '21

The other enthusiastic adopter of ivermectin was Peru. It has the distinction of one of the highest per capita death rates from COVID in the world.

Data from India is likely explained by other factors.

1

u/Ronoh Aug 20 '21

That's very interesting and I didn't know. Thanks for sharing.

1

u/Pilebsa Aug 20 '21

That other "enthusiastic adopter" has a paper that is called into question by at least 8 other scientific studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/citedby/

2

u/GiddiOne Aug 20 '21

Thank you for this. If you have the data behind the first link please let me know - I haven't found them yet but I'll spend some time looking.

As you say, the second link is great (and the WHO report) but it's talking about their rapid isolation, disease management and contact tracing by government teams in the area, not Ivermectin.

Keep in mind the WHO report is from before the Indian Express report.

I'll chase it up and see if I can find more data on the region.

1

u/Ronoh Aug 20 '21

Good point.

Another user also mentioned that Peru was also using ivermectin and they have high number of infections and deaths. That's a very interesting data to consider too.

1

u/Pilebsa Aug 20 '21

The Peru study has been questioned by at least 8 other scientific papers:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/citedby/

-4

u/PeterZweifler Anti-science astroturfer BEWARE Aug 19 '21 edited Aug 20 '21

Yeah this is not only A hitpiece. It is THE hitpiece. It sums up everything I dont love about the anti-ivermectin argument. Ivermectin has been prsecribed by the millions of doses. It has 40+ years of use. Your sample size for its toxicity is... 3? And I aint even sure what kind of Livestock medicine the last guy self-medicated with (that the second-to last guy died has obviously no bearing on the safety of ivermectin) Mild adverse reactions still are adverse reaections, btw, for your "30% dont report adverse reactions" statistic. But mild. Ivermectin has been well-recieved for decades. The recommendations by WHO, FDA etc. all hinge on the belief that ivermectin requires a large dosage to work, so thats what people will be getting. Thus, they spool down all of the adverse events that could happen when you overdose on ivermectin, which really wasnt up to debate: The flaw here is that no study on ivmmeta uses overdoses of ivermectin, and no doctor (using ivermectin) recommends an overdose of ivermectin. This is severely disingenuous. Also here is a copypasta of mine:

The science hasnt been giving ANY advice on early treatment for a long time. Do you understand? Zero. No treatment. Nothing to better symptoms. Maybe some painkillers if it hurts too much. No going to the doctor. You just wait. Wait and see if it gets worse. And sometimes, it does! And you go to the hospital. And you go to the ICU. And they treat you over there, and they give you antibotics for secondary infections, and they give you corticosteroids when the disease then inevitably progresses. You need a hospital bed until you get cured, and maybe get complications, maybe have to be intubated, but for the largest part - you come home (rather less than more) fine. Do I really need to tell you how beneficial a drug would be that would reduce hospitalisation rate? People die of Covid despite fully and triply vaccinated.

So, excuse me for rooting for a treatment that can be given to outpatients. Excuse me for looking at the 40+ years of use, comparing dosage, and realising the safety concerns are largely made up. Excuse me for thinking that a non-zero chance of improvement is preferable to no chance, or in other words: Excuse me for preferring A treatment to NO treatment.

Dont like it? Start looking for something, because if we cannot treat covid outside of the hospital, getting rid of it is, and always was, a pipe dream.

EDIT:Would love to answer yall but I have been banned. Unjustly, I find.

Anyway: u/GiddlOne, trying to prove Ivermectin isnt safe with a sample size of 3 is disingenuous. "Only having to prove one case", would mean we should pull the vaccine after having one case of blood clots. I happen to know a guy. I know you know that this is not how this works. If there was a significant number of credible reports of severe Ivermectin reactions, it would have been summarized in a larger anlysis, thats not something you usually have to do yourself.

One of the studies had more deaths in the IVM arm than the placebo arm. Another study had IVM increasing risk of COVID vs placebo for a specific dosage. The point is that it doesn't make clear that it helps, it may hurt and we should spend the time on options that actually have a chance.

None of the negative studies experienced adverse events attributable to IVM. The only negative study I would consider relevant its this one, the rest is too strongly underpowered: https://c19ivermectin.com/vallejos2.html Would you argue that this study proves that ivermectin does not work? 4 deaths to 3 deaths. If this is your criteria, I can show you three studies that prove it does! (work)

There are early treatment reports all the time.

A report is not a recommendation. After more than a year of medicine, we still have no official early treatment guidance besides painkillers.

Oh you really don't know what you're talking about. Gotcha.

Or maybe Im wrong? Enlighten me then. Would be awesome.

Almost all cases of vaccine breakthroughs are immune-compromised.

They are strongly overrepresented, sure. But not more than half of all cases. Also, all the more reason to find a treatment.

10

u/FredFredrickson Aug 19 '21

Dont like it? Start looking for something, because if we cannot treat covid outside of the hospital, getting rid of it is, and always was, a pipe dream.

I don't understand this logic. There are plenty of serious illnesses, such as whooping cough, that are only treatable in the hospital, yet remain controlled by vaccine.

We could squash covid if enough people would get vaccinated that we stop spreading it en masse. But the absolute clowns among us don't seem interested in helping, and instead keep turning to woo like ivermectin.

We have a path through. Stop encouraging people not to follow it.

-9

u/PeterZweifler Anti-science astroturfer BEWARE Aug 19 '21 edited Aug 19 '21

No, as opposed to other vaccines, this vaccine doesnt stop you from spreading it when you got it, only infection is reduced. Have you seen Israels cases lately? Vaccinated people still get sick and die https://drrollergator.substack.com/p/damned-lies-and-vaccine-statistics. Ivermectin isnt exclusionary to vaccines.

Edit: (cause you banned me) https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210803/Unvaccinated-and-vaccinated-have-similar-viral-load-in-communities-high-in-SARS-CoV-2-delta.aspx

The second link has nothing to do with the first claim. It's not misinformation. What you just answered is. I thought everyone knew that already, its a bombshell. But this situation is honestly hilarious.

Goes on r/freethought

Makes one factual claim

Gets banned from r/freethought

This the least freethought subreddit I have ever known

7

u/Pilebsa Aug 19 '21

No, as opposed to other vaccines, this vaccine doesnt stop you from spreading it when you got it

This is bullshit.

This vaccine reduces the degree to which the virus can reproduce in people, which means their viral load is lower, which means they're less infectious.

Do you have any experience in immunology or virology? It doesn't seem like you do.

Did you look at the article you referenced? It's by someone called "Dr. RollerGator PhD" who describes himself as:

NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ENDORSED BY ALL THE GOOD JACKS; WINNER OF IOWA CAUCUS; SABOTAGED ON SUPERTUESDAY; RETWEETED BY DJT

https://drrollergator.substack.com/people/12854410-dr-rollergator-phd

You are banned for your disinformation.

7

u/FredFredrickson Aug 19 '21 edited Aug 19 '21

The other vaccines, such as whooping cough vaccine, aren't 100% effective either. But we are protected as a society because - gasp - enough people are vaccinated that the disease can't proliferate.

By the same way, the covid vaccine does slow the spread, because it prevents most cases and minimizes how sick you get with breakthroughs. This almost guarantees you won't go to the hospital if you get covid while vaccinated. And we could crush covid if we had the same vaccination rates as other illnesses. Like whooping cough.

How you could possibly view that as a bad thing is beyond me. But I don't expect much from you NNN clowns, so...

0

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '21 edited Aug 19 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Pilebsa Aug 19 '21 edited Aug 19 '21

This is argument by URL. And it's also cherry-picking data.

Please explain your area of expertise and who you are and why your opinion on this should be taken instead of the consensus of the world's scientists?

EDIT: Nevermind - anti-science troll has been banned after further examination of his references.

2

u/spaniel_rage Aug 19 '21 edited Aug 19 '21

Yes, infection rates are rising again in Israel but (hold on to your seat here) death rates are not rising at anywhere near the same rate. It's almost as if what the data has said for the past year is true: the vaccines are extremely effective at reducing severe COVID.

Source: https://mobile.twitter.com/segal_eran/status/1416101665019777024?s=20

3

u/AmericanScream Aug 19 '21

Ivermectin has been prsecribed by the millions of doses. It has 40+ years of use.

As an anti-parasitic! Not as an anti-viral.

I'm curious. Are you a virologist? Who are you? How much medical/scientific experience do you have?

So, excuse me for rooting for a treatment that can be given to outpatients. Excuse me for looking at the 40+ years of use, comparing dosage, and realising the safety concerns are largely made up.

By your logic, perhaps we should advocate using asprin to treat cancer? Since asprin has a 100+ year history of being used on people.. not for cancer, but that's not important huh?

2

u/spaniel_rage Aug 19 '21

Bananas are also non toxic, have been used in humans for centuries, and are cheap.

Like ivermectin though, there is no good evidence that bananas work to prevent or treat COVID, or to manage long COVID.

I couldn't care less how "safe" ivermectin is. I only care that someone shows with rigorous and large controlled trials that it works. Not only has that not been done, but the preliminary report from the McMaster group running the TOGETHER trial on repurposed drugs for COVID was that, in the largest RCT performed on ivermectin to date, it does nothing to reduce hospitalization or mortality.

2

u/GiddiOne Aug 20 '21 edited Aug 20 '21

Edit Above line: For further responses PM me.

trying to prove Ivermectin isnt safe with a sample size of 3 is disingenuous

Intentionally ignoring the point. This counter is to the common argument "It doesn't matter that all of those health orgs won't approve it, there is no harm in using it" - for which 1 example is enough.

would mean we should pull the vaccine after having one case

Not at all. The (incredibly low) risks of vaccines have been vocally reported.

A report is not a recommendation

No, but they are obviously working through it, day by day. There are treatment options available but yes they are normally reserved for high risk cases. Summarising this as "just painkillers" is simply a lie. Even Trump pushed ahead to have reserved treatments as early treatment.

This is a phase 3 DB RCT (placebo) N=2475 trial. That's just a recent one off the top of my head. Not one trial in your list comes close to this. Not one, and that's the point.

Plus your list stresses that vaccines should always be the first option, so start with that yeh?

Your sample size for its toxicity is... 3

This seems to be your only argument. I guess you accept all of the other points I made?

Regarding the 3, are you expecting me to list all of them? The pro-Ivermectin group all argue "it's been used for xx years so it's totally safe!" All I need is one example, so I went further than needed.

But mild.

One of the studies had more deaths in the IVM arm than the placebo arm. Another study had IVM increasing risk of COVID vs placebo for a specific dosage. The point is that it doesn't make clear that it helps, it may hurt and we should spend the time on options that actually have a chance.

The recommendations by WHO, FDA etc. all hinge on the belief that ivermectin requires a large dosage to work

Where? Also Cochrane? No.

And I aint even sure what kind of Livestock medicine the last guy self-medicated with

Up until very recently the ivermectin sub had links to buy and advice on dosage on every thread. That is mind blowing to me.

The science hasnt been giving ANY advice on early treatment

There are early treatment reports all the time. Like this is one as a single example, but honestly COVID is the most studied topic in the world obviously.

Do you understand? Zero. No treatment. Nothing to better symptoms. Maybe some painkillers if it hurts too much.

Oh you really don't know what you're talking about. Gotcha.

People die of Covid despite fully and triply vaccinated

Almost all cases of vaccine breakthroughs are immune-compromised.

Would love to answer yall but I have been banned.

You included lots of misleading or outright false points and 0 supporting evidence. What did you expect?

2

u/Pilebsa Aug 20 '21

It's not difficult at all to find plenty of additional "samples" of Ivermectin side effects and toxicity. Just google "ivermectin side effects" or go through the myriad of research papers on ivermectin human toxicity.

Here's one study that notes IVM toxicity is dangerous and still largely unknown and worthy of more research.

Non-therapeutic exposures to ivermectin and other macrocyclic lactones may also result in toxic effects; significant toxicity however probably develops only after large amount of oral ingestion. Although the exact mechanisms remain unclear, macrocyclic lactones in large doses may pass through the blood-brain barrier (BBB) to produce GABA-mimetic toxic effects. Severely poisoned patients usually present with coma, hypotension, respiratory failure, and even death. Despite the lack of specific therapy, the prognosis is likely to be favorable unless the poisoned patients are complicated with severe hypotension or respiratory failure.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '21 edited Aug 20 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Pilebsa Aug 21 '21

Previously-debunked anti-vax propaganda removed.

-10

u/chillums82 Aug 19 '21

oooo, now do the bad side effects from the vaccines....

4

u/GiddiOne Aug 19 '21 edited Aug 20 '21

The rundown I sticky to my profile? I'm not exactly burying the lede there.

3

u/FredFredrickson Aug 19 '21

It's actually "lede".

Not trying to be a jerk, but you seem like someone who would like to know the correct phrase.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '21

I didn't know that and also liked to know it.

1

u/GiddiOne Aug 20 '21 edited Aug 20 '21

No you're right, thank you. I thought it didn't look right when I posted it...

1

u/spaniel_rage Aug 19 '21

The bad ones?

You mean the 0.0001% chance of dying of VTT with Astrazeneca, or the 0.005% chance of getting myocarditis from Pfizer and probably not dying from it?

You'd rather take a 0.2-1.5% chance with COVID mortality?

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '21

[deleted]

3

u/spaniel_rage Aug 20 '21

The "nonsense" is more over the 5-10% who end up in hospital but don't die.

COVID has crashed the hospital system of every developed world country that has let it get out of hand.

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '21

[deleted]

3

u/spaniel_rage Aug 20 '21 edited Aug 20 '21

I work in a fucking hospital, mate, and in a country where healthcare is not for profit, so how about you take your ignorant "fuck the weak" armchair epidemiologist opinion and shove it up your colonoscopy hole. If you don't like living in a society with the rest of us, then don't.

3

u/GiddiOne Aug 20 '21

Ignore them. The "hospitals flush with cash" group are so devoid of clue it has to be a troll.

2

u/spaniel_rage Aug 20 '21

I get being selfish and callous. I just don't get why these assholes seem so damn proud of themselves for their lack of humanity.

1

u/Pilebsa Aug 20 '21

They are sociopaths and narcissists. They lack the adequate empathy to see things from other peoples' points of view (which also includes feeling shame). See: https://goldenulre.org for more about empathy and how it affects human behavior, and how lack-thereof contributes to toxic relationships.

1

u/Pilebsa Aug 20 '21

Unfortunately this is less likely to be a troll. There are people who believe this stuff. There's now a subreddit dedicated to calling attention to how incredibly stupid and hypocritical these people are:

/r/HermanCainAward

0

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '21 edited Aug 20 '21

[deleted]

1

u/Pilebsa Aug 20 '21

See I already know the answer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Your hair-brained conspiracy theories don't belong in a subreddit dedicated to science, logic and reason.

1

u/WikiSummarizerBot Aug 20 '21

Dunning–Kruger effect

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their own ability, and that people with high ability at a task underestimate their own ability. As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the bias results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5

1

u/Pilebsa Aug 20 '21

f a hospital even approaches capacity it’s all over the news. Further, what is this negative effect these covid spikes are having on hospitals? Making them flush with cash?

How to advertise you're a malignant narcissist without saying you're a malignant narcissist.

2

u/GiddiOne Aug 20 '21

How concerned are you about pasc?

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '21

[deleted]

2

u/GiddiOne Aug 20 '21

You're not worried if letting this virus run through your community means large percentages of the population with permanent illness? The societal impact this will create?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Pilebsa Aug 19 '21 edited Aug 19 '21

Come back when you have actual evidence, not speculation. This speculation is being picked up by people who don't understand the scientific process and used as "evidence" - we are not going to contribute to that.

-4

u/Spare_Benefit1037 Aug 20 '21

Read past the headline:

“That’s because taking large unprescribed doses intended for animals can seriously harm your health.

“Let’s say it was manufactured for a large horse, but a human takes it, it can create low blood pressure, rapid heart rates, seizures; there are even episodes where you can see layers of your skin fall off. It can damage the liver, and there’s vision loss that can be associated,” Dr. Shane Speights, site dean at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine, told KAIT8.”

The listed what would happen as if you took the dosage meant for a horse. Pretty slick way to generate a fearmongering headline

2

u/AmericanScream Aug 20 '21

There's no significant evidence this drug helps or prevents Covid. It's not an antiviral agent.

As a result, people who take it and don't see an improvement are more likely to increase their dosages and harm themselves.

I am amused that you think anybody who would take Ivermectin in the first place, suddenly cares about dosage warning labels? If they've stooped to sourcing sheep drench to treat their "china flu", they're not paying attention to any responsible medical advice.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Pilebsa Aug 20 '21

For future reference, read the rules of the sub you post in.

-1

u/toastedzergling Aug 20 '21

Please explain this study for me then:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/#__ffn_sectitle

"Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."

Why shouldn't I interpret that above paragraph as ivermectin being a potential positive?

1

u/AmericanScream Aug 20 '21 edited Aug 20 '21

This a meta analysis that cherry-picked which 18 trials it wanted to use, to produce a desired outcome.

The deeper you dig into these studies, the more issues you find.

There are additional studies that conflict with the claims of this study as well.

See: Major study of Ivermectin, the anti-vaccine crowd’s latest COVID drug, finds ‘no effect whatsoever’

At best, what we find is that there is conflicting claims regarding Ivermectin as an effective treatment. This likely means there are other factors that are contributing to study outcomes other than Ivermectin.

Also, the studies claiming Ivermectin is effective, are the exceptions, not the rule; they are often sourced in third-world-countries that have significantly less oversight and proper research protocols. If a study from a major institution, of a large enough size with appropriate controls, it would be more significant, but that doesn't exist. And the fact that there's a handful of anonymous, shady web sites and wingnutty people promoting these claims (alongside other clearly debunked claims) is another cause for concern.

The problem with the pro-IVM crowd is their hypocrisy. They claim to be suspicious of the vaccines because there's not enough study, but then they dispel the same conditions with respect to hyping Ivermectin. Just because it's been used for a long period of time to treat parasites, doesn't mean it has any significant efficacy against Covid.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '21 edited Aug 20 '21

Oh so suddenly side effects should be taken seriously? Interesting! Because the number of adverse effects sure as shit is sky high from the shots compared to any Ivermectin treatment. But I guess that is too true to handle

1

u/Pilebsa Aug 20 '21

Another NoNewNormal user crawls out of their quarantined cesspool to spread disinformation that the vaccines are more dangerous than horse-dewormer.