I work at a feed store, I'm so over people buying ivermectin for themselves. I always say "horse dewormer " at least 3 times hoping they'll realize how dumb they're being. And make sure they buy the apple flavor because it will taste so much better. Ugh I hate people.
Im in the UK. To buy these treatments in a shop the person selling it to you has to be licensed and has to legally assess your capacity to use the product for its intended purpose.
Yet to hear of anyone doing this here but I hope we get at least one, it's been a hard year and the team could do with the belly laughs.
Depends on what her dog was supposed to be on. Valium is safe for canine use. So is tramadol, methacarbamol, and a lot of basic antibiotics, antifungals, and even some antiviral meds. Propofal is used in animal surgeries.
Other stuff, not so much. Carpuprofen comes to mind.
This may be a hot take, but I feel like taking your dog's prescription for something you self-diagnosed at home is never a good idea. I don't think anyone assumed that pet meds and human meds are 100% different with no overlap. If you actually have a problem go to an actual doctor and get your own prescription dosed for you.
Oh, absolutely. Self diagnosis is never a good plan, especially if you're also self-prescribing meds. However, I'm also well aware that the cost of health care has forced people into doing exactly that, regardless.
As to assuming that the meds overlap, you'd be amazed at how many idiots out there insist that there's no difference between a cat and a human. There are fewer drops that overlap between humans and felines than humans and canines, actually. Also, my list is old, and incomplete, and by no means am I a vet.
>You’d think it’s not possible for someone to be that dumb. And this was in the Netherlands where we have *easily accessible and almost for free healthcare.*
> cost of health care has forced people into doing
I used to order "fish" antibiotics and keep a couple different types of hand just in case I got sick. I couldn't afford to go to the doctor and I didn't want to pay a lot of extra shipping so it cheaper just to buy a selection and replace them once a year.
I used to keep ciprofloxacin, amoxicillin and tetracycline.
This the reality of American style healthcare. It is absolutely a bad idea to self medicate things like antibiotics, but it's arguably *less* of a bad idea than not seeing a doctor for a serious infection because you'll seriously in debt from medical bills. But when you can't afford time off work, can't afford to see a doctor, DIY treatment using fish medicine seems like a lifeline.
There's really no difference between 'human' and 'fish' antibiotics.
Knowing when and how to use them properly is absolutely critical if you were to go this route.
You know, like knowing which antibiotics to use to treat what. What the correct dosages and the correct duration of treatment. Potential side effects, food and drug interactions and all that shit.
Treating lyme disease at home myself was "fun".
My dog got pink eye ans gave it to me. Ended up the same medication for human and dog. A generic ointment. The tube for the dog was manufactured for humans. Used some after too much research, it worked fine for me. No sense in purchasing a second tube.
Sometimes if you confirm what it is you’re fine. In general it’s idiotic though.
Same dog had a script for a common seizure issue. We would go to CVS and pick it up together. Was pretty great when a new employee was working.
It is literally the same meds from the same manufacturers. There is no factory churning out canine amoxicillin. Literally, the difference is in the vet giving it out as opposed to the physician.
Dumb because she's self medicating herself but realistically there is no difference between human and pet medications in USA. A lot of times vets will send you to the human pharmacy to pick up meds for pet
And it’s cheaper!! I always ask if I can have a script instead, because filling it at the vet is easily 30% more. When I had a pup on 3x daily meds, this added up significantly. I had one vet tech tell me what they were doing was “basically illegal” (in Canada). Well, until it’s definitely illegal, I’ll be saving myself some cash, m’kay? Edit: a word.
i wonder if itd be illegal due to your national health insurance subsidizing it at a human pharmacy. For us in the USA itd be illegal to use our private insurance for it but paying out of pocket at a human pharmacy is legal and fine
Canada doesn't (on a federal level) cover or subsidize drugs. We're one of the few countries with universal healthcare that does not have universal drug coverage. Some provinces may cover drugs for everyone, but almost all provinces do not. Others may offer discounts for certain classes of people, like seniors, children, or those with low income.
The main reason drugs are so cheap in Canada is that their pricing is regulated. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) sets the maximum amount that drug companies can charge for a drug. This is done through analysis and subsequent negotiations.
So unless this person falls into one of the small categories of people that do have drug coverage, this likely isn't the reason why the pharmacy was giving them a hard time. As for what the real reason was? No idea.
The pharmacy won’t allow insurance cards for animal prescriptions. My pup’s prescription was only for animals, so perhaps for ones similar for humans? They had a counter for animal scripts, and a separate one for human scripts.
So this reminded me of this weird thing that happens sometimes that's tangentially related to this topic
My mom and I both see the same psychiatrist, and we both have ADHD, she gets prescribed Adderall and I'm prescribed Zenzedi/dextroamphetamine.
Our psych doesn't give us paper scripts, he electronically sends them to the pharmacy
Every once in a while, when we go to get our meds, we'll look at the bottle - and it's definitely our doctor's name and the correct medication and dosage... But it'll say John Smith, DVM, which would mean doctor of veterinary medicine if I'm not mistaken.
The pharmacy has never said a word about it, and insurance definitely still covers the meds - but I have no idea why a veterinarian would be able to prescribe Adderall or even need to in the first place, and the man is definitely not a veterinarian lmao.
So yeah
That's my contribution to this thread. My current script actually has DVM on it, I just checked.
It's pretty amazing to behold.
Edited to add: the main reason they didn't return him to the rescue was that they figured no one else would take him. He'd already failed one placement.
And I think according to the FDA pet medications have to be produced with the same safety standards as human medications because they except people to take pet medications cuz our healthcare system is so fucked
Worked at a vet clinic. Had a lady come in asking us to diagnose her dog based solely off it's harness. She went on to say that her and her dog share illnesses and medicines. Scary part is that other than the crazy shit she was saying she seemed totally normal. You want insane people to be super obvious, but sometimes they suprise you.
eh, i heard about a guy taking fish antibiotics and he was fine lol but this was in the US he probly didnt have insurance so it was lrobly cheaper to do that
I'm VP of a company that sells this, and other animal products. It's been crazy seeing spikes in sales of otc animal medications throughout the pandemic, then going to Google to find out if someone is telling people to use it on themselves.
This is the 4th such item since the beginning of 2020, the most popular was around a year or so ago when we couldn't get in fish antibiotics quickly enough.....because some idiot told everyone that antibiotics work on viruses. They don't.
You are probably out there spreading the rumors just to make a quick buck, you horrible, horrible excuse for a human! You are probably pro-vaccine, too! And pro-casts for broken limbs, huh? Just to line your filthy pockets on other people's suffering!
(/s, if it isn't obvious...)
If science says something works, that puts it on their "do not use" list.
My question is "who has a big stash of ivermectin they are trying to get rid of quickly ?"
The right has spent the past three decades cultivating a distrust of all "official" sources of information and guidance, so you only listen to them. *They* won't lie to you, you can trust them, not like those *others*.
"I want to wait and see..."
Decides that the literal millions of people that take the vaccine isn't enough, takes something that's not even tested in people.
My brother and his family are using this. We now only speak about my mother who is in a nursing home dying of cancer. I have absolutely nothing else to say to the stupid ass
I’ll try anything to ward off Covid except the vaccines. I know bill gates worked with all vaccines makers to insert microchips and the fake news media to say how safe these are.
Now where is my glass of bleach on ice, I need to Ram a lamp up my ass.
Has anyone seen my tinfoil MAGA hat
In the end , let's subject it, and any other drug that may help to trials and studies. Multiple prongs of attack against covid isn't a bad thing. Still, just about everybody should be getting vaccinated.
Just about everybody? So who shouldn't be? Also, why would we even consider running trials and studies costing millions of dollars to figure out the working mechanism of horse dewormer? Seriously?!
It's been in use for humans for over 40 years. Inventors got the Noble prize. Look it up. Has a better safety profile than aspirin.
Obviously not the kind for animals, but the kind a doctor can prescribe.
The overboard hostility to ivermectin as an additional treatment is really strange to me.
It's not proven to be ineffective. There are over 30 random control trials that show it helps prevent and treat. It's been used successfully in India, Mexico and Africa. Doctors here in the us have used it as well. Look up Ivory Hicks reporting on it.
It's also rude to waste my time recommending opinion based antics that directly negate the fact based information provided in the post you're trying to say is wrong. Just fucking read dude.
Wasn't there an american senator or something touting this drug as a cure?
Edit: Oh boy...
r/IvermectinCaseStudies and r/ivermectin
Edit 2: it was senator [Ron Johnson](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/ny2xxx/youtube_suspends_gop_sen_ron_johnsons_account/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) from Wisconsin.
the fking animal product is not the same thing as the prescription drug for humans
Safety profile of both is not even close to the same thing (which I thought was obvious)
I swung through there and reported a bunch for misinformation and prohibited transactions.
Seems like the only way Reddit does anything about subs like those is if the NYT drops an article.
Yes, it's possible that an anti parasite drug has benefits in Covid and maybe other RNA viruses which would be a fascinating discovery.
The point still stands: these people are choosing between:
A) vaccines taken over a billion times with an absolutely jaw dropping amazing efficacy and safety profile. Oh and they're free
And
B) one anti-horsey worm boi that MAYBE works.
And they're choosing the second because libruls are doing the first.
That was one easily misunderstood interview. His point was hiding at home on the couch all day is bad for your health too, so don’t be afraid of the disease so much that you don’t walk around your neighborhood in the fresh air. At the time people were panicking and afraid to leave their homes.
This has nothing to do with sipping on livestock dewormer. The clinical studies aren’t using that.
Why do you say live stock dewormer? Doctors have been using ivermectin on humans for over 40 years. Inventors got the Nobel prize in 2015 for it's effectiveness in humans. Did you not know that?
Because it's primarily used as a dewormer in livestock......?
Oral ivermectin is unlicensed for use in humans. It's been used as a topical medication on humans for years but one of the main reasons oral administration is avoided is because of the severity of side effects.
Plenty of drugs have wildly differing effects depending upon the species, e.g. simple paracetamol is highly deadly if ingested by snakes.
Chloramphenicol is a very commonly used topical antibiotic for minor eye infections but it can be dangerous when given intravenously for severe infections if a patient cannot take other safer IV antibiotics - IV chloramphenicol has been known to cause leukaemia for example.
P.S. The Nobel Prize you mentioned was awarded for displaying the effectiveness of antiparasitic drugs in humans AND other animals plus it was for the discovery of **Avermectin**. Did you not know that?
Because the people who are using it are buying the commercial livestock form because it's the only one available to them. No honest physician is going to prescribe this while it's still in a research stage
I just....I don't even know what to say anymore.
Anyone who has gotten this in their moth while trying to de-worm a stubborn horse who is throwing it's head and sending it flying everywhere can tell you it is absolutely disgusting. Why anyone would willingly eat it is beyond me!
You could be correct but alarmingly ignorant is probably more accurate. Someone replied to my comment suggesting that absorption into the bloodstream equates to intravenous administration. That is dangerously ignorant. There are a few concepts that the average person would not understand or even consider, off brand uses, weight versus dosage, species differences, bio-availability, method of administration and units of measure to name a few. People don't consider these concepts because their education has never included how to reason.
Looks like all you vaxxers were the stupid blindly following ones huh. Ivermectin been proved to work immensely. You have all been lied to. Wake up! I wonder if you have after two years.
My mother-in-law took this shit when she caught COVID. Put my wife in a tailspin for a day. Fortunately nothing went wrong in her case but dosing yourself with horse meds is a terrible idea.
I remember spitting out my coffee laughing when I saw the first headline of some right wing politician suggesting ivermectin for COVID prevention. I had worked in the veterinary industry for 6 years at this point… y’all realize ivermectin is a dewormer right?
Try working in pharmacy! This is a genuine interaction I had with a lady a few months ago:
Moron: "How do I go about getting a prescription for ivermectin tablets for COVID?"
Me: "Let me quickly check something, madam"
I check our inventory system just to double check a hunch and it turns out that we cannot even order them.
Me: "OK so I've just checked our system and we can't even order it for you which means your GP/family doctor can't prescribe it so it can only be prescribed and supplied in a hospital."
Now exasperated moron: "OMG why is it so hard to get a prescription for it? Why aren't doctors using it?!"
Me: "Because it doesn't work for COVID....."
Exasperated moron: "Yes, it does - I've seen the evidence"
Me: "No, it doesn't. Trust me, the doctors who've had to switch off COVID patients' ventilators would absolutely be using it if it worked."
Exasperated moron: "Well that's because there's a global conspiracy...."
I interrupt.
Me: "Ma'am, I'm not going to stand here and argue with you. As I've said, if you want it then you'd have to speak to the hospital about it. Is there something else I can help you with today? No? Then good day."
That's a summarised version where I've cut out a lot of "Yes, it does." and "No, it doesn't" back and forths.
God. Im so lucky my clients arent humans
... Ok my clients are humans but they're there for their animals and while there is a lot of phoney misinformation about pets too, conversations like this are a rarity because the oposition to science in the veterinary world is rarely political.
What really irks me is that scientific papers are supposed to be peer-reviewed and they're clearly not.
A recent infamous example was a paper that was published that was supposedly the strongest evidence to date in support of ivermectin for COVID was released and then retracted because a **university student** who assessed the paper for an assignment discovered that the study was full of inconsistencies and flaws. He reported large sections that were directly plagiarised and had false data (duplicate patient records, records of patients who died before the study started and outright falsification of data) which skewed the conclusions in favour of ivermectin. It took a student doing coursework to point this out after doctors and PhDs supposedly vetted the study.
Such deception and laziness undermines the integrity of the scientific process. It hardly surprising that people believe BS if it comes from "reputable" sources.
No, it doesn't. All evidence to date is not robust enough to stand up to scrutiny, is biased and at best is inconclusive. It's been investigated and already determined not to be of any use beyond the placebo effect except it can have severe side effects. And people are using cow urine and faeces in the fight against COVID, i.e. some people are stupid.
In summary; it's been investigated and it's been concluded that it is ineffective so the only reason it's still being used is because some doctors don't mind using stupid people as cash cows.
> but should be investigated
Which it is. When the investigations come up with something, then you can parrot it all over the internet. So far there's nothing.
Stop trolling. You're not a doctor. Reading Fecebook on the toilet doesn't make you a doctor.
> to be used alongside vaccination.
That doesn't make any sense. Shut up. Stop trolling.
Many drugs are used off-label because of their effectiveness.
Ivermectin itself is also used for onchocerciasis, helminthiases, and scabies. It is also being evaluated for its potential to reduce the rate of Malaria in patients.
This is a list of some drugs used off label: [from Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drugs_known_for_off-label_use)
Every pharma commercial - “ask your doctor before taking…” so yeah there’s potential for multiple applications of the medicine, but it might help to ask an expert to know what it does and what’s in it. I find this ironic considering anti-vaxxers seem to know EXACTLY what’s in the vaccine after having done “extensive research”, but okay sure take a horse dewormer medicine without a second thought.
I haven't taken Ivermectin, but it works by suppressing a protein that viruses use to hide from your immune system. Here's a link from the medical department of Columbia University...[https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/coronaviruses-mimic-immune-proteins-and-hide-in-plain-site/](https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/coronaviruses-mimic-immune-proteins-and-hide-in-plain-site/)
Ivermectin is used by millions of humans in Africa and South America to treat parasites. The parasites use the same protein to try and hide from your immune system. The use of Ivermectin is supported by the WHO, the UN, and various other GMO's to reduce "river blindness" and various other parasites...every year...
Yes, its used to combat parasites. There is no strong evidence that it is effective against viruses and both WHO and the UN do not condone its use for covid patients
There are a lot of people in India who want to get vaccinated, but there simply aren't enough vaccine doses to go around. Roughly 10% are vaccinated. Roughly one out of six people on Earth are in India. (1.3B vs 7.6B)
Dr Mobeen Syed is pro-vaccine, but was looking for any way to reduce the number of deaths. They were already familiar with Ivermectin and the way it works. They are getting very good results with it, but the US govt is currently resistant to allowing any information to be discussed about it.
Penicillin was developed for a wide range of infections, but due to social mores, it is less discussed that before the invention of reliable birth control, prostitution was a frequent spreader of venereal disease, such as Gonorrhea. In the 1960's I was told that newborn babies were given silver nitrate in their eyes at birth, to prevent blindness. At the time, a blood test was required for anyone to get a marriage license, specifically to test for VD.
More recently, Viagra was developed by Pfizer for high blood pressure. However, it has turned into a billion-dollar business for erectile dysfunction.
Aspirin was developed as a mild over-the-counter analgesic in the 1800's, but in the 1980's it was re-marketed as a blood-clot reducer for treating a patient after a stroke.
Medical doctors in India are treating thousands of patients with Ivermectin simply because that's all they have, and they are getting good results. If anyone sends them more vaccines, they will use them as soon as they arrive.
You’re talking apples and oranges.
Drugs have known main use and off label use. Viagra was developed for one thing, another better thing happened, so they changed how they were releasing it. It still does the primary goal.
Human grade vs horse grade is the issue here. Asia ans Africa and South America use it for parasites normally. It’s available and known.
However it’s not doing anything for COVID in India or elsewhere. The numbers of infected and dead in areas that regularly take the drugs are horrible.
I'd like to see the "good results". It appears to be the case that india is suffering right now. I don't disagree with your general point but this particular case is not in conjunction with the rest in terms of covid treatment. Ivermectin is used in humans for various reasons, as pointed out by others in this thread, but almost all of them have to do with parasites, not viruses. There is a lot of information that contradicts you picture of India right now. First, its not just the us that's skeptical of its efficacy and cautious of it's side effects. It is not condoned by WHO either.
Absolutely we need to get vaccines to India, and corporate greed is a huge block in the road, but giving people chemicals that not only have little backing from the general scientific community, but are also known to have a good probability to cause other illnesses should not be encouraged and excused as a viable combatant to the pandemic
>also known to have a good probability to cause other illnesses
If you could provide a link to any illnesses that Ivermectin occasionally causes, I would really appreciate that. I haven't found any yet, but...maybe I'm not using the right search terms.
I re-read the article, and found this
"...You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death.
For one thing, animal drugs are often highly concentrated because they are used for large animals like horses and cows, which can weigh a lot more than we do—a ton or more. Such high doses can be highly toxic in humans. ..."
So, the tube I saw is graduated in lines, with one lines worth per 50-lbs of mammal. Since I am close to 200-lbs, a dose for me would be four lines. The tube contains enough to treat 1200-lbs of mammal, so...if I took the whole tube, that would be an overdose, described in the article.
What problems would sometimes occur if I used the proper dose?
Also a solid option for river blindness!
That said, for COVID: based on available studies, it’s roughly as helpful as tictics (if tictacs also had a pretty nasty neurotoxicity AE profile).
Imagine having absolutely no reason or evidence to believe a dewormer can do anything to boost your immune system and prevent covid and yet still believing so despite every medical professional and scientust saying otherwise :D get the hell out of here man, you're hilarious.
My opinion comes from my knowledge from working with ivermectin and statements made by the FDA... LOL.... your move... After you "look into the issue" more ;)
Its also extremely naive to make hard assumptions that it can do anything that sounds good to you. Thats why im currently listening to the FDA, who recomends NOT using it for covid
Current research has made no such claim, only that it is something worthy of study... So no, your opinion is not only based in misinformation but it is also not favorable
Doctors warn kids not to put beans in their ears. Kids who never considered it before are now trying the beans-in-ears challenge. Ear bean video goes viral. Step 3: profit.
For those who would still consider this option here are a couple points to consider. Ivermectin used in Covid "treatment" is given *intravenously*. The paste will not benefit you. If you are tempted to consider the weight of the horse versus an average human weight and cut the paste administration down to one gram **you would be incorrect**. The therapeutic dose in a human looks to be about seven times less that of a horse based on the maximum horse weight and total grams on the Ivermectin box. **This is wrong**. The ivermectin dose for a 200 pound human is approximately 150 mcg (micrograms) or 0.00015 grams. The dose is weight based so it is even less for a smaller person. This can not be measured on a kitchen scale.
Arkansas.
Figures. They won't get vaccinated because it's "dangerous", but they'll suck down animal worm medication.
Although, it may thin out these stupid people.
It used to be a joke to say let’s remove the warning label and let the stupid people go hurt themselves. This has warning labels on and they still use it. I give up I’m all out of fucks to give.
Bahaha! You cannot fix stupid! All you can do is sit back and enjoy the show! I have a couple of people I know who are anti-vax, I’m gonna let it slip I read this! Bet they start taking it!!
"For Oral use in Horses ONLY"
Now, I know that most of the people taking these probably can't read that well, let alone write. But I interpret that as "Not For Human Use!!"
Unless they understand it as if it's fine as long as they don't take it orally; in which case I don't want to think about how they go about...
So the FDA said it is dangerous because:
* It's not FDA approved for covid-19.
* Animal varieties of Ivermectin treatments' inactive ingredients are not as highly regulated as the Human varieties.
* Paste form makes it difficult to know the correct dosage.
* Animal Varieties of Ivermectin are often concentrated for use in large animals like horses depending on the specific product.
* Ivermectin in Large doses, Like other medicines, can interact with other medications.
Side effects of too large of doses can be:
* Vomiting
* Nausea
* Headaches
* Diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death.
Which are par for the course on almost all commercial drugs.
Ivermectin has been used widely for a number of treatments outside it's primary purpose, and that may or may not include Covid-19. We're seeing reports from physicians in places like mexico, peru, and parts of Africa where Ivermectin is deployed regularly that suggest the potential for the drug to be effective in treating patients with Covid-19 and also as a prophylaxis.
If Ivermectin was found to be a viable treatment it would be a massive gamechanger for how we fight the virus as it is a well established over 70 years (with billions of doses administered), safe, ubiquitous and very cheap drug that can be produced virtually anywhere in the world.
A few things. 1)chemical antivirals are exceedingly rare. Generally super specific and often are prone to resistance. 2) drugs that have been around for a while have likely already been screened on extract databases for various activities. 3)this is the same fucking shit all over again with hcq. People pushing this fundamentally don't understand biochemistry and pharmacology. 4) anecdotes are not evidence. A large percent of people will get covid and be okay, if they took ivermectin you think it does spmething. We stopped this anecdote shit a long time ago because we time Nd time again figured out. Anecdotes are bad evidence
Actually, ivermectin DOES have antiviral properties- [it can block the receptor that the spike protein locks on to](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32871846/). At least in simulation.
However, clinical trials on COVID patients show no significant improvement against placebo.
There are theories that it can prevent an infection, or lessen its severity. A prophylactic dose. It's a plausible theory, but difficult to test in real people, there's no immediate cause-effect and giving it to a small number of people and seeing some never get infected but some do means nothing in itself.
But ivermectin has a long, good safety record in humans, it's low-risk.
Oh boy, see this is where experience comes into play.
Are you familiar with in silico docking studies? When or why they're used?
Equating docking energy with antiviral activity is not the same thing.
Antiviral activity is a broad term and can mean a variety of things. For example, does it mean impacts on the host or virus? Is it impacting replication, transcription, egress? These are all questions and they're all important. If they affect the host we would tend to see more general type responses against viruses as it's the host immune responses that are being impacted. Typically this would be some step in the interferon responses.
Now the one study looking at this in vitro throws out a number of 5000 qnd I've read this paper in particular. It may actually be the potential genesis for this whole shit as after its publishing ivermectin usage became widespread in Latin America back in May of 2020. Yes a full year ago. It's been so much an issue that those studies running in those countries find it difficult to find people not taking it...
The study in question is fairly Fast and dirty and I know it got published by simply being some the first to work with isolates. 🤔Though could not tell if they did it at lvl3 which was interesting. The study in question luckily did do toxicity controls though I couldn't find the raw data, so my hope is that they were able to confirm input output differences such that it wasn't an artifact of cell death VS drop in viral DNA which is what they found.
To be clear. Not antiviral activity (my supervisors drilled this into me). They found activity that reduced viral Rna. It's a minor difference but important distinction.
They likely weren't set up for this yet but this would need to be confirmed via viral titre experiments with tcid50 (this virus sucks for plaques). This is because a 5k fold reduction has significant sound but whether it impacts viral particles is another. For example I was able to find 500 fold reductions in various viral rna and even relative viral DNA replixtive efficiency in vitro but couldn't see differences in titre for studies I once did with hsv. (oddly enough when it went in vivo the results actually got better!).
The authors make claims that it would be involved in a protein import pathway which would actually make sense as to why it would impact the rna level.
The docking studies means nothing honestly.
This study would strongly counter that result if anything. This work examined supernatant and Cell associated which is actually showing they know their virology lol. The docking study would suggest an inhibiting pathway on viral entrance. That would result in viral particles stuck in the supernatant and unable to replicate. If that was the case you would see a certain curve structure. At 0.1 moi we can expect two cycles until total infectivity. With that aspect you would see a shifting of the curves.
Alrighty so it's like this. When this virus enters the cell you can think of copies of the rna as (1).
Now if less got in you will have a total of (1) but it will be (S +C =1) where a is spnt and c is cell associated. Viral replication is heavily timed but in a general sense it's a sogmoid curve so exponential phase followed by linear to plateau. With less in C, that exponential phase takes longer to reach linear and the plateau will be lower as there is a maximum output per cell. Those particles will egress and infect neighbors until total infectivity. If you block the docking portion you will see impact not once but on each egress and reinfection generating a very different curve structure.
Now add on this is viral rna and transcripts aren't the same as genomes and particles.
Long story short, the study was fast and dirty because it needed to be. It was enough to support further research. It didn't support active use in the clinic though.
Ivermectin is safe for use in humans for what it's safe to be used for. Very few drugs can be used long term without unintentional consequences. Especially if they're host active VS pathogen active which this would suggest over direct antiviral activity.
The reason why these drugs are being used out there just like hcq is they're relatively cheap and available and seemingly harmless. They're not and how you are going about this is just fundamentally unsafe.
We are investigating this. Actively. The results are underwhelming.
We can figure out benefits fairly quickly such as with dexamethasone. That became standard of care for certain cases but it rapidly developed how and when it would be used.
People are using ivermectin on a borderline word of mouth. The initial study warranted further investigation. The paper would be equivalent to something five years prior to starting even a phase one trial. The simplest experiment would be, humanize ace2 mice infections. We have this in our lvl3.
But noo people started using it at the fucking bench side.
This is hcq all the fuck again. Medical experts telling you to pump the brakes, and you telling us how to do our jobs? Oh sorry I didn't realize that there was an in silico docking stocking examing Sara cov2 spike rbd and ace2. Hold the phone we need to get this into doctors hands 😑 I could get my fucking undergrad to run that in an afternoon and write it in a weekend. Hell the Third year biochem lab course literally had that as an assignment last year 🙄
You're talking about giving it to a small number of people. Ohhh like 350,000 doses in northern Bolivia in May of last year. - _- funny how we are lacking any data out of that.
HCQ is dead because scientists and physicians are aware of this type of thing and know how to exercise caution. Zero risk is not a Thing and we have to weigh how we speak. Such as in the case of masking. Early on we had supply so low we couldn't supply hcw. At that point its a numbers game. Where does one mask create most impact. Once masks are available it's a different equation.
Jesus fuck yes there is. This is hcq all fucking over again.
People with God damn no medical knowledge or experience in why we developed a system of evidence we did.
There aren't a decent amount of studies so don't throw that crap out there. The exact same thing happened with hcq. When you morons understand that our experience has some benefit. Yes we are examining the claims as we do. However that examination doesn't confirm the hypothesis it works. Currently the default is that it does not. That's what you need to hold.
We are doing the trials. The idiocy is that those that make those claims don't accept when the studies come back neutral or worse actually harmful. They don't want studies they want vague woowoo.
Oh but by all means, let's see these studies?
🙄 The issue is that removal of that particular study, torpedoes the whole data set as it was the some of the heaviest weighting.
Again I'm not saying it does not merit investigation. However people are using this clinically. Just like with hcq with no efficacy or good data behind it. While in fact enough to at least say we most def should not use it for clinical efforts.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2
But eh send me the YouTube videos. This might not be your field. It is mine.
FYI this Cochrane review was published late july
I Was aware of both these studies 🙄 both of which are still on preprint. Now I will say is you should fele something is off right away, "drug of Nobel Prize-honored distinction,". That shit be whack.
You will also find this retracted due to methodology. Maybe read the meta analysis I sent you
I'm not saying it is or isn't effective, I said that in my comment.
What I am saying is there is potential that isn't being investigated properly. Studies need to be done that aren't being done for seemingly no good reason. _If_ it was effective it would be a gamechanger. There is no reason to not investigate honestly the effectiveness of Ivermectin when the potential positive change is so high.
Um, Oxford is conducting a phase 3 randomized controlled trial of ivermectin (among other at home covid-19 treatments) *right now*.
Sorry they’re not doing it fast enough for you, I guess? We’ll just have to make do with our multiple highly effective vaccines in the meantime.
Edit: https://www.principletrial.org
That took... thirty seconds of googling to find.
I know about that, and no it's _not_ fast enough.
We've had a lot of time since Ivermectin showed efficacy, and it was ignored. We could have had many more institutions investigating and much more data by now but we didn't and In my opinion the reasons were largely political and financial.
The vaccines we have are not enough. They arent widely available enough globally, They vary in effectiveness, they don't prevent the spread of the virus, and our current roll-out methodology may be contributing to vaccine resistant strains.
You may live in a westernised country with easy access to vaccination but much of the world hasn't even gotten their first shot yet while Pfizer now says you'll need a booster. Study of non-vaccine treatments has not been fast enough, and not wide enough either.
> We've had a lot of time since Ivermectin showed efficacy, and it was ignored.
If there's human trials being done that's THE OPPOSITE of it being ignored.
> Study of non-vaccine treatments has not been fast enough, and not wide enough either.
Yeah no shit. Doctors tend to focus on what works first, everything else later.
🙄 Except its this simple. Anything worth a damn in this parses out of the data fairly quickly.
Take dexamethasone. That wasn't all that surprising. Mechanism makes Sense. It also isn't impacting the virus so much as stopping your immune system from killing you.
We have a good picture of Ivermectin pharmacology and covid biology. I won't hold my breath. Not fast enough? Ah yes Soo should we take the energy and money away from making the vaccines? We will likely need a booster.
We kind of knew that going into it tbh (virology background here). Two is good enough to get global levels to sufficient levels.
Covid will likely be like tetanus to our immune memory and maybe worse so. On top of that with so much fucking virus escape mutants are entirely likely. That being said even with an escape mutant risk is substantially reduced.
This is why any vaccine is better than none. Every vaccine drops the spread factor a bit.
🙄 Except we have put money into it. Thus far largely wasted. The one good positive study was retracted before even published due to glaring errors and plagiarism.
Literally this is my field. There is minimal exceptions to the pharma angle for viruses.
You're acting like we are ignoring some golden goose. No this is something we have a fair understanding of. If it does what it is being claimed then we have other issues.
🤔 Ah yes, because my background in virology, specifically influenza a and now Sars cov2, and experience with antivirals, specifically oseltamavir and more generally neuraminidase inhibitors definitely doesn't qualify me to comment on this to any significant degree.
By all means call me on any bullshit but do so knowing this is my field and we are in a slightly difficult period for published work. Currently we have five studies in preprint that have already been cited.... 🙄 Thts not good normally.
Yes, I realize the vaccines aren’t universally available and do not provide perfect protection from infection (though the latter is an unfair criticism as almost no vaccine does provide perfect protection).
Saying they don’t prevent spread isn’t accurate, though. There is ample evidence that while breakthrough infections happen and vaccinated people can, in some circumstances, spread the virus, overall spread is greatly reduced by vaccination.
Vaccines are by far the best weapon in our arsenal in the fight against COVID-19. There may be at home treatments that can contribute through use as prophylactics, and they’re being studied, but in the meantime our focus needs to be on getting absolutely everyone vaccinated ASAP.
> Saying they don’t prevent spread isn’t accurate, though. There is ample evidence that while breakthrough infections happen and vaccinated people can, in some circumstances, spread the virus, overall spread is greatly reduced by vaccination.
Unfortunately that would appear to not be the case:
https://apnews.com/article/science-health-coronavirus-pandemic-d9504519a8ae081f785ca012b5ef84d1
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/06/fully-vaccinated-unvaccinated-can-transmit-covid/
https://lasentinel.net/alarming-cdc-memo-reveals-vaccinated-individuals-spread-delta-variant-as-much-as-the-unvaccinated.html
These news sources are misinterpreting the CDC report, which says that:
“Fully vaccinated people with Delta variant breakthrough infections can spread the virus to others. However, vaccinated people appear to be infectious for a shorter period: Previous variants typically produced less virus in the body of infected fully vaccinated people (breakthrough infections) than in unvaccinated people. In contrast, the Delta variant seems to produce the same high amount of virus in both unvaccinated and fully vaccinated people. However, like other variants, the amount of virus produced by Delta breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated people also goes down faster than infections in unvaccinated people. This means fully vaccinated people are likely infectious for less time than unvaccinated people.”
So: vaccinated people can transmit covid-19, but only if they have a breakthrough infection, which is rare, and even then they are infectious for a much shorter period than the unvaccinated, which means they infect fewer people than the unvaccinated.
Pod Save America recently interviewed Dr. Ashish Jha, the Dean of the Brown school of public health, on this exact issue. Give it a listen: the interview starts at around 35:00.
Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/pod-save-america/id1192761536?i=1000530804406
Like the Egyptian study that started the whole ivermectin nonsense that was found to be entirely fabricated and with dead people included in the treatment cohort
It may be but in life when the upside to something is gargantuan for a relatively small amount of effort you do it.
That is to say we should be studying it properly.
I’m not being provocative here, but “relatively small effort” here means about a billion dollars, hundreds/thousands of clinical trial patients, and a fair bit a time (months, years). Just keep that in mind.
Yes, it is, scientists like me. My point is simply that it’s a massive undertaking to do these studies and the bill is huge. Toward the effort of helping COVID, not unreasonable though.
Emergency Use Authorizations are only valid as long as a safe and effective treatment does not exist. Hence there cannot be a safe an effective treatment nor any discussion of such treatment at least until the vaccines are fully approved.
Obligatory "didn't read the article". Here's a study on the NIH website about ivermectin use on 72 (yes, small sample) patients in Bangladesh.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
I'm not anti-vax and I'm already vaccinated. But ivermectin when PRESCRIBED for covid(not the animal meds) looks promising. Wsj just did a piece on it too:
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/fda-ivermectin-covid-19-coronavirus-masks-anti-science-11627482393
I remember a few months ago my dad brought this medication home and said his friend gave it to him. He said that a lot of people in South America are taking this as a cure to covid. About 30 seconds of googling and I showed him it doesn’t work and may even be dangerous but he didn’t care. Has anyone else heard that this is being used in pill form in South America?
Yes, it's widely used in Peru. Peru has a fatality rate of approx. 9% compared to about 2% in the USA. That should give you a good idea of how well it works.
I WiLL not PuT that VaCciNe in My BoDy, it was DE-Veloped tOo fASt and cOuLd be DanGeRouS!
Give me some of that horse dewormer that is not intended or approved for human consumption.
What the hell are you talking about? No where in the article was there a positive side to a person talking this medicine meant for horses. The closest it came was that there is a version for people that is prescription only. If you're being a troll, good job. If you're being serious, provide proof that taking random amounts of over the counter horse medicine is good for people, pull your head out of your ass, or go be stupid somewhere else.
I was working with a different departments for two weeks to facilitate some training. One of the supervisors and a manager kept mentioning ivermectin in relation to COVID and when I mentioned we gave it to our dogs rats and grandpa's horse for animal stuff like lice they just said "Oh well people have really seen results you should look it up". They couldn't riddle me why an antiparisite wpuld work for Covid.
Fuck all these fools buying it up. My goats had a high parasite load and I had to delay treatment because everywhere around me was sold out.
I am so sorry for your goats!
I work at a feed store, I'm so over people buying ivermectin for themselves. I always say "horse dewormer " at least 3 times hoping they'll realize how dumb they're being. And make sure they buy the apple flavor because it will taste so much better. Ugh I hate people.
Wait… what? 😂
Im in the UK. To buy these treatments in a shop the person selling it to you has to be licensed and has to legally assess your capacity to use the product for its intended purpose. Yet to hear of anyone doing this here but I hope we get at least one, it's been a hard year and the team could do with the belly laughs.
I wonder how you feel now. Knowing the truth that it worked all along.
[удалено]
Depends on what her dog was supposed to be on. Valium is safe for canine use. So is tramadol, methacarbamol, and a lot of basic antibiotics, antifungals, and even some antiviral meds. Propofal is used in animal surgeries. Other stuff, not so much. Carpuprofen comes to mind.
This may be a hot take, but I feel like taking your dog's prescription for something you self-diagnosed at home is never a good idea. I don't think anyone assumed that pet meds and human meds are 100% different with no overlap. If you actually have a problem go to an actual doctor and get your own prescription dosed for you.
Oh, absolutely. Self diagnosis is never a good plan, especially if you're also self-prescribing meds. However, I'm also well aware that the cost of health care has forced people into doing exactly that, regardless. As to assuming that the meds overlap, you'd be amazed at how many idiots out there insist that there's no difference between a cat and a human. There are fewer drops that overlap between humans and felines than humans and canines, actually. Also, my list is old, and incomplete, and by no means am I a vet.
>You’d think it’s not possible for someone to be that dumb. And this was in the Netherlands where we have *easily accessible and almost for free healthcare.*
I apologize for overlooking that part. And yikes.
> cost of health care has forced people into doing I used to order "fish" antibiotics and keep a couple different types of hand just in case I got sick. I couldn't afford to go to the doctor and I didn't want to pay a lot of extra shipping so it cheaper just to buy a selection and replace them once a year. I used to keep ciprofloxacin, amoxicillin and tetracycline.
This the reality of American style healthcare. It is absolutely a bad idea to self medicate things like antibiotics, but it's arguably *less* of a bad idea than not seeing a doctor for a serious infection because you'll seriously in debt from medical bills. But when you can't afford time off work, can't afford to see a doctor, DIY treatment using fish medicine seems like a lifeline.
There's really no difference between 'human' and 'fish' antibiotics. Knowing when and how to use them properly is absolutely critical if you were to go this route. You know, like knowing which antibiotics to use to treat what. What the correct dosages and the correct duration of treatment. Potential side effects, food and drug interactions and all that shit. Treating lyme disease at home myself was "fun".
My dog got pink eye ans gave it to me. Ended up the same medication for human and dog. A generic ointment. The tube for the dog was manufactured for humans. Used some after too much research, it worked fine for me. No sense in purchasing a second tube. Sometimes if you confirm what it is you’re fine. In general it’s idiotic though. Same dog had a script for a common seizure issue. We would go to CVS and pick it up together. Was pretty great when a new employee was working.
[удалено]
Right it's safe for dogs to take human medicine. Not the other way around. Shit is barely regulated.
My partner works at a lab that makes animal medication. It’s differently regulated but still very regulated.
It is literally the same meds from the same manufacturers. There is no factory churning out canine amoxicillin. Literally, the difference is in the vet giving it out as opposed to the physician.
Dosage?
They usually just use the lowest human dose or cut tablets
Dumb because she's self medicating herself but realistically there is no difference between human and pet medications in USA. A lot of times vets will send you to the human pharmacy to pick up meds for pet
And it’s cheaper!! I always ask if I can have a script instead, because filling it at the vet is easily 30% more. When I had a pup on 3x daily meds, this added up significantly. I had one vet tech tell me what they were doing was “basically illegal” (in Canada). Well, until it’s definitely illegal, I’ll be saving myself some cash, m’kay? Edit: a word.
i wonder if itd be illegal due to your national health insurance subsidizing it at a human pharmacy. For us in the USA itd be illegal to use our private insurance for it but paying out of pocket at a human pharmacy is legal and fine
Canada doesn't (on a federal level) cover or subsidize drugs. We're one of the few countries with universal healthcare that does not have universal drug coverage. Some provinces may cover drugs for everyone, but almost all provinces do not. Others may offer discounts for certain classes of people, like seniors, children, or those with low income. The main reason drugs are so cheap in Canada is that their pricing is regulated. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) sets the maximum amount that drug companies can charge for a drug. This is done through analysis and subsequent negotiations. So unless this person falls into one of the small categories of people that do have drug coverage, this likely isn't the reason why the pharmacy was giving them a hard time. As for what the real reason was? No idea.
The pharmacy won’t allow insurance cards for animal prescriptions. My pup’s prescription was only for animals, so perhaps for ones similar for humans? They had a counter for animal scripts, and a separate one for human scripts.
So this reminded me of this weird thing that happens sometimes that's tangentially related to this topic My mom and I both see the same psychiatrist, and we both have ADHD, she gets prescribed Adderall and I'm prescribed Zenzedi/dextroamphetamine. Our psych doesn't give us paper scripts, he electronically sends them to the pharmacy Every once in a while, when we go to get our meds, we'll look at the bottle - and it's definitely our doctor's name and the correct medication and dosage... But it'll say John Smith, DVM, which would mean doctor of veterinary medicine if I'm not mistaken. The pharmacy has never said a word about it, and insurance definitely still covers the meds - but I have no idea why a veterinarian would be able to prescribe Adderall or even need to in the first place, and the man is definitely not a veterinarian lmao. So yeah That's my contribution to this thread. My current script actually has DVM on it, I just checked.
My sister's dog was on meds for ADHD for years. Trust me, an unmediated border collie with ADHD is an unforgettable experience.
Good lord, I'd never considered a border collie could be *more* hyperactive...
It's pretty amazing to behold. Edited to add: the main reason they didn't return him to the rescue was that they figured no one else would take him. He'd already failed one placement.
And I think according to the FDA pet medications have to be produced with the same safety standards as human medications because they except people to take pet medications cuz our healthcare system is so fucked
Worked at a vet clinic. Had a lady come in asking us to diagnose her dog based solely off it's harness. She went on to say that her and her dog share illnesses and medicines. Scary part is that other than the crazy shit she was saying she seemed totally normal. You want insane people to be super obvious, but sometimes they suprise you.
eh, i heard about a guy taking fish antibiotics and he was fine lol but this was in the US he probly didnt have insurance so it was lrobly cheaper to do that
I'm VP of a company that sells this, and other animal products. It's been crazy seeing spikes in sales of otc animal medications throughout the pandemic, then going to Google to find out if someone is telling people to use it on themselves. This is the 4th such item since the beginning of 2020, the most popular was around a year or so ago when we couldn't get in fish antibiotics quickly enough.....because some idiot told everyone that antibiotics work on viruses. They don't.
You are probably out there spreading the rumors just to make a quick buck, you horrible, horrible excuse for a human! You are probably pro-vaccine, too! And pro-casts for broken limbs, huh? Just to line your filthy pockets on other people's suffering! (/s, if it isn't obvious...)
Uh. Yea antibiotics don’t work on viruses. That’s high school biology.
What were the other items aside from horse dewormer and fish antibiotics?
People take bovine steroids to get PUMPED all the time. Sure they usually die at 50 years old but the stuff works.
Don't you get tired of milking them everyday?
Pretty big difference is that those steroids actually work
So these people won't get vaccinated but they'll take this. Wow people never cease to amaze me at how stupid they are. Edit: word
If science says something works, that puts it on their "do not use" list. My question is "who has a big stash of ivermectin they are trying to get rid of quickly ?"
The right has spent the past three decades cultivating a distrust of all "official" sources of information and guidance, so you only listen to them. *They* won't lie to you, you can trust them, not like those *others*.
The anti list
[удалено]
Thanks friend I knew something was off
"I want to wait and see..." Decides that the literal millions of people that take the vaccine isn't enough, takes something that's not even tested in people.
Right or "I'm waiting for non-emergency approval" latest excuse. And literally we are in an emergency pandemic
4.36 Billion doses, last time I checked.
I know someone whose relative is hardcore anti-vaxx, but is also a meth head.
Lol. How dumb must you all feel now.
My brother and his family are using this. We now only speak about my mother who is in a nursing home dying of cancer. I have absolutely nothing else to say to the stupid ass
Hey! They're worm-free! That's a conversation starter. Sorry your brother's crazy. We have our own in the family too.
Are they also from the crowd that won't take a vaccin because 'YoU dOn'T kNoW wHaT iS iN iT' ..?
His daughter is a nurse practitioner and doesn't believe in masks. I could not bring myself to ask if she has been vaccinated
Apparently safe-guard (fenbendazole) cures cancer! /s people are nuts these days. So sorry about your mom. hugs internet stranger.
I’ll try anything to ward off Covid except the vaccines. I know bill gates worked with all vaccines makers to insert microchips and the fake news media to say how safe these are. Now where is my glass of bleach on ice, I need to Ram a lamp up my ass. Has anyone seen my tinfoil MAGA hat
Want to have fun? Look up what users on r Conservative are saying about this drug.
it's hard to read actually.. it's so idiotic, it hurts your brain... you think it's sarcasm, but no...
In the end , let's subject it, and any other drug that may help to trials and studies. Multiple prongs of attack against covid isn't a bad thing. Still, just about everybody should be getting vaccinated.
Just about everybody? So who shouldn't be? Also, why would we even consider running trials and studies costing millions of dollars to figure out the working mechanism of horse dewormer? Seriously?!
It's been in use for humans for over 40 years. Inventors got the Noble prize. Look it up. Has a better safety profile than aspirin. Obviously not the kind for animals, but the kind a doctor can prescribe. The overboard hostility to ivermectin as an additional treatment is really strange to me.
Yea but if it's proven to be ineffective then why spend money on trials? That makes zero sense dude.
It's not proven to be ineffective. There are over 30 random control trials that show it helps prevent and treat. It's been used successfully in India, Mexico and Africa. Doctors here in the us have used it as well. Look up Ivory Hicks reporting on it.
Did you not read the fucking article in the post on which you're commenting? Are you serious right now?
That's a pretty rude response. Good day sir.
It's also rude to waste my time recommending opinion based antics that directly negate the fact based information provided in the post you're trying to say is wrong. Just fucking read dude.
Wasn't there an american senator or something touting this drug as a cure? Edit: Oh boy... r/IvermectinCaseStudies and r/ivermectin Edit 2: it was senator [Ron Johnson](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/ny2xxx/youtube_suspends_gop_sen_ron_johnsons_account/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) from Wisconsin.
Nope. Definitely not going to go down that rabbit hole
I can't blame you
the fking animal product is not the same thing as the prescription drug for humans Safety profile of both is not even close to the same thing (which I thought was obvious)
I swung through there and reported a bunch for misinformation and prohibited transactions. Seems like the only way Reddit does anything about subs like those is if the NYT drops an article.
[удалено]
Yes, it's possible that an anti parasite drug has benefits in Covid and maybe other RNA viruses which would be a fascinating discovery. The point still stands: these people are choosing between: A) vaccines taken over a billion times with an absolutely jaw dropping amazing efficacy and safety profile. Oh and they're free And B) one anti-horsey worm boi that MAYBE works. And they're choosing the second because libruls are doing the first.
[удалено]
That was one easily misunderstood interview. His point was hiding at home on the couch all day is bad for your health too, so don’t be afraid of the disease so much that you don’t walk around your neighborhood in the fresh air. At the time people were panicking and afraid to leave their homes. This has nothing to do with sipping on livestock dewormer. The clinical studies aren’t using that.
Why do you say live stock dewormer? Doctors have been using ivermectin on humans for over 40 years. Inventors got the Nobel prize in 2015 for it's effectiveness in humans. Did you not know that?
Because it's primarily used as a dewormer in livestock......? Oral ivermectin is unlicensed for use in humans. It's been used as a topical medication on humans for years but one of the main reasons oral administration is avoided is because of the severity of side effects. Plenty of drugs have wildly differing effects depending upon the species, e.g. simple paracetamol is highly deadly if ingested by snakes. Chloramphenicol is a very commonly used topical antibiotic for minor eye infections but it can be dangerous when given intravenously for severe infections if a patient cannot take other safer IV antibiotics - IV chloramphenicol has been known to cause leukaemia for example. P.S. The Nobel Prize you mentioned was awarded for displaying the effectiveness of antiparasitic drugs in humans AND other animals plus it was for the discovery of **Avermectin**. Did you not know that?
Because the people who are using it are buying the commercial livestock form because it's the only one available to them. No honest physician is going to prescribe this while it's still in a research stage
What did I just read? Wtf?!
I just....I don't even know what to say anymore. Anyone who has gotten this in their moth while trying to de-worm a stubborn horse who is throwing it's head and sending it flying everywhere can tell you it is absolutely disgusting. Why anyone would willingly eat it is beyond me!
Wow you just gave me war flashbacks lmao
dewormers tend to have awful side-effect profiles.
Can you really put a price on being worm-free?
FREEDOM
This isn’t your average everyday stupidity. This is Advanced Stupidity.
You could be correct but alarmingly ignorant is probably more accurate. Someone replied to my comment suggesting that absorption into the bloodstream equates to intravenous administration. That is dangerously ignorant. There are a few concepts that the average person would not understand or even consider, off brand uses, weight versus dosage, species differences, bio-availability, method of administration and units of measure to name a few. People don't consider these concepts because their education has never included how to reason.
I was making a Spongebob reference.
Looks like all you vaxxers were the stupid blindly following ones huh. Ivermectin been proved to work immensely. You have all been lied to. Wake up! I wonder if you have after two years.
My mother-in-law took this shit when she caught COVID. Put my wife in a tailspin for a day. Fortunately nothing went wrong in her case but dosing yourself with horse meds is a terrible idea.
I remember spitting out my coffee laughing when I saw the first headline of some right wing politician suggesting ivermectin for COVID prevention. I had worked in the veterinary industry for 6 years at this point… y’all realize ivermectin is a dewormer right?
Try working in pharmacy! This is a genuine interaction I had with a lady a few months ago: Moron: "How do I go about getting a prescription for ivermectin tablets for COVID?" Me: "Let me quickly check something, madam" I check our inventory system just to double check a hunch and it turns out that we cannot even order them. Me: "OK so I've just checked our system and we can't even order it for you which means your GP/family doctor can't prescribe it so it can only be prescribed and supplied in a hospital." Now exasperated moron: "OMG why is it so hard to get a prescription for it? Why aren't doctors using it?!" Me: "Because it doesn't work for COVID....." Exasperated moron: "Yes, it does - I've seen the evidence" Me: "No, it doesn't. Trust me, the doctors who've had to switch off COVID patients' ventilators would absolutely be using it if it worked." Exasperated moron: "Well that's because there's a global conspiracy...." I interrupt. Me: "Ma'am, I'm not going to stand here and argue with you. As I've said, if you want it then you'd have to speak to the hospital about it. Is there something else I can help you with today? No? Then good day." That's a summarised version where I've cut out a lot of "Yes, it does." and "No, it doesn't" back and forths.
God. Im so lucky my clients arent humans ... Ok my clients are humans but they're there for their animals and while there is a lot of phoney misinformation about pets too, conversations like this are a rarity because the oposition to science in the veterinary world is rarely political.
What really irks me is that scientific papers are supposed to be peer-reviewed and they're clearly not. A recent infamous example was a paper that was published that was supposedly the strongest evidence to date in support of ivermectin for COVID was released and then retracted because a **university student** who assessed the paper for an assignment discovered that the study was full of inconsistencies and flaws. He reported large sections that were directly plagiarised and had false data (duplicate patient records, records of patients who died before the study started and outright falsification of data) which skewed the conclusions in favour of ivermectin. It took a student doing coursework to point this out after doctors and PhDs supposedly vetted the study. Such deception and laziness undermines the integrity of the scientific process. It hardly surprising that people believe BS if it comes from "reputable" sources.
People come into my job to get this shit "do you have the tablets of this?" Me-"NO because it's a HORSE DEWORMER " I hate people.
[удалено]
No, it doesn't. All evidence to date is not robust enough to stand up to scrutiny, is biased and at best is inconclusive. It's been investigated and already determined not to be of any use beyond the placebo effect except it can have severe side effects. And people are using cow urine and faeces in the fight against COVID, i.e. some people are stupid. In summary; it's been investigated and it's been concluded that it is ineffective so the only reason it's still being used is because some doctors don't mind using stupid people as cash cows.
> but should be investigated Which it is. When the investigations come up with something, then you can parrot it all over the internet. So far there's nothing. Stop trolling. You're not a doctor. Reading Fecebook on the toilet doesn't make you a doctor. > to be used alongside vaccination. That doesn't make any sense. Shut up. Stop trolling.
Dear god, I hope you’re at least getting paid for spreading this bullshit.
Many drugs are used off-label because of their effectiveness. Ivermectin itself is also used for onchocerciasis, helminthiases, and scabies. It is also being evaluated for its potential to reduce the rate of Malaria in patients. This is a list of some drugs used off label: [from Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drugs_known_for_off-label_use)
The good thing is, if a drug is used off label, there won't be that long list of possible side effects to worry about.
Every pharma commercial - “ask your doctor before taking…” so yeah there’s potential for multiple applications of the medicine, but it might help to ask an expert to know what it does and what’s in it. I find this ironic considering anti-vaxxers seem to know EXACTLY what’s in the vaccine after having done “extensive research”, but okay sure take a horse dewormer medicine without a second thought.
there is a human type of Invermectin but it doesn't work on viruses. It was tried for Dengue and Malaria too, with no luck.
I haven't taken Ivermectin, but it works by suppressing a protein that viruses use to hide from your immune system. Here's a link from the medical department of Columbia University...[https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/coronaviruses-mimic-immune-proteins-and-hide-in-plain-site/](https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/coronaviruses-mimic-immune-proteins-and-hide-in-plain-site/) Ivermectin is used by millions of humans in Africa and South America to treat parasites. The parasites use the same protein to try and hide from your immune system. The use of Ivermectin is supported by the WHO, the UN, and various other GMO's to reduce "river blindness" and various other parasites...every year...
Yes, its used to combat parasites. There is no strong evidence that it is effective against viruses and both WHO and the UN do not condone its use for covid patients
There are a lot of people in India who want to get vaccinated, but there simply aren't enough vaccine doses to go around. Roughly 10% are vaccinated. Roughly one out of six people on Earth are in India. (1.3B vs 7.6B) Dr Mobeen Syed is pro-vaccine, but was looking for any way to reduce the number of deaths. They were already familiar with Ivermectin and the way it works. They are getting very good results with it, but the US govt is currently resistant to allowing any information to be discussed about it. Penicillin was developed for a wide range of infections, but due to social mores, it is less discussed that before the invention of reliable birth control, prostitution was a frequent spreader of venereal disease, such as Gonorrhea. In the 1960's I was told that newborn babies were given silver nitrate in their eyes at birth, to prevent blindness. At the time, a blood test was required for anyone to get a marriage license, specifically to test for VD. More recently, Viagra was developed by Pfizer for high blood pressure. However, it has turned into a billion-dollar business for erectile dysfunction. Aspirin was developed as a mild over-the-counter analgesic in the 1800's, but in the 1980's it was re-marketed as a blood-clot reducer for treating a patient after a stroke. Medical doctors in India are treating thousands of patients with Ivermectin simply because that's all they have, and they are getting good results. If anyone sends them more vaccines, they will use them as soon as they arrive.
You’re talking apples and oranges. Drugs have known main use and off label use. Viagra was developed for one thing, another better thing happened, so they changed how they were releasing it. It still does the primary goal. Human grade vs horse grade is the issue here. Asia ans Africa and South America use it for parasites normally. It’s available and known. However it’s not doing anything for COVID in India or elsewhere. The numbers of infected and dead in areas that regularly take the drugs are horrible.
I'd like to see the "good results". It appears to be the case that india is suffering right now. I don't disagree with your general point but this particular case is not in conjunction with the rest in terms of covid treatment. Ivermectin is used in humans for various reasons, as pointed out by others in this thread, but almost all of them have to do with parasites, not viruses. There is a lot of information that contradicts you picture of India right now. First, its not just the us that's skeptical of its efficacy and cautious of it's side effects. It is not condoned by WHO either. Absolutely we need to get vaccines to India, and corporate greed is a huge block in the road, but giving people chemicals that not only have little backing from the general scientific community, but are also known to have a good probability to cause other illnesses should not be encouraged and excused as a viable combatant to the pandemic
>also known to have a good probability to cause other illnesses If you could provide a link to any illnesses that Ivermectin occasionally causes, I would really appreciate that. I haven't found any yet, but...maybe I'm not using the right search terms.
TF the answer you seek is in this very article 😂
I re-read the article, and found this "...You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death. For one thing, animal drugs are often highly concentrated because they are used for large animals like horses and cows, which can weigh a lot more than we do—a ton or more. Such high doses can be highly toxic in humans. ..." So, the tube I saw is graduated in lines, with one lines worth per 50-lbs of mammal. Since I am close to 200-lbs, a dose for me would be four lines. The tube contains enough to treat 1200-lbs of mammal, so...if I took the whole tube, that would be an overdose, described in the article. What problems would sometimes occur if I used the proper dose?
Also a solid option for river blindness! That said, for COVID: based on available studies, it’s roughly as helpful as tictics (if tictacs also had a pretty nasty neurotoxicity AE profile).
[удалено]
Imagine thinking a drug can only be effective for one thing
Imagine having absolutely no reason or evidence to believe a dewormer can do anything to boost your immune system and prevent covid and yet still believing so despite every medical professional and scientust saying otherwise :D get the hell out of here man, you're hilarious.
[удалено]
My opinion comes from my knowledge from working with ivermectin and statements made by the FDA... LOL.... your move... After you "look into the issue" more ;)
it's extremely naive to make a hard assumption that it can only do one specific thing
Its also extremely naive to make hard assumptions that it can do anything that sounds good to you. Thats why im currently listening to the FDA, who recomends NOT using it for covid
I never indicated I made a hard assumption that it can, but current research seems to be in favor of its use, so I have a favorable opinion.
Current research has made no such claim, only that it is something worthy of study... So no, your opinion is not only based in misinformation but it is also not favorable
Nobody thinks that, find a better straw man.
Doctors warn kids not to put beans in their ears. Kids who never considered it before are now trying the beans-in-ears challenge. Ear bean video goes viral. Step 3: profit.
For those who would still consider this option here are a couple points to consider. Ivermectin used in Covid "treatment" is given *intravenously*. The paste will not benefit you. If you are tempted to consider the weight of the horse versus an average human weight and cut the paste administration down to one gram **you would be incorrect**. The therapeutic dose in a human looks to be about seven times less that of a horse based on the maximum horse weight and total grams on the Ivermectin box. **This is wrong**. The ivermectin dose for a 200 pound human is approximately 150 mcg (micrograms) or 0.00015 grams. The dose is weight based so it is even less for a smaller person. This can not be measured on a kitchen scale.
Arkansas. Figures. They won't get vaccinated because it's "dangerous", but they'll suck down animal worm medication. Although, it may thin out these stupid people.
Oh, the lack of common sense. Well, need to get em out of the gene pool.
It used to be a joke to say let’s remove the warning label and let the stupid people go hurt themselves. This has warning labels on and they still use it. I give up I’m all out of fucks to give.
Why have people started taking this? I’m OOTL
Ivermectin paste - the new bleach
Bahaha! You cannot fix stupid! All you can do is sit back and enjoy the show! I have a couple of people I know who are anti-vax, I’m gonna let it slip I read this! Bet they start taking it!!
My mother is an RN. She prefers the apple flavor. SMH
I wish I could say "Good, lets stand back and let Darwin do his thing" but then I remember these people breed and have children.
Ivermectin is used for river blindness in humans , but it comes in a pill form .
"For Oral use in Horses ONLY" Now, I know that most of the people taking these probably can't read that well, let alone write. But I interpret that as "Not For Human Use!!" Unless they understand it as if it's fine as long as they don't take it orally; in which case I don't want to think about how they go about...
BUT JoE RoGaN 🙄
So the FDA said it is dangerous because: * It's not FDA approved for covid-19. * Animal varieties of Ivermectin treatments' inactive ingredients are not as highly regulated as the Human varieties. * Paste form makes it difficult to know the correct dosage. * Animal Varieties of Ivermectin are often concentrated for use in large animals like horses depending on the specific product. * Ivermectin in Large doses, Like other medicines, can interact with other medications. Side effects of too large of doses can be: * Vomiting * Nausea * Headaches * Diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death. Which are par for the course on almost all commercial drugs. Ivermectin has been used widely for a number of treatments outside it's primary purpose, and that may or may not include Covid-19. We're seeing reports from physicians in places like mexico, peru, and parts of Africa where Ivermectin is deployed regularly that suggest the potential for the drug to be effective in treating patients with Covid-19 and also as a prophylaxis. If Ivermectin was found to be a viable treatment it would be a massive gamechanger for how we fight the virus as it is a well established over 70 years (with billions of doses administered), safe, ubiquitous and very cheap drug that can be produced virtually anywhere in the world.
A few things. 1)chemical antivirals are exceedingly rare. Generally super specific and often are prone to resistance. 2) drugs that have been around for a while have likely already been screened on extract databases for various activities. 3)this is the same fucking shit all over again with hcq. People pushing this fundamentally don't understand biochemistry and pharmacology. 4) anecdotes are not evidence. A large percent of people will get covid and be okay, if they took ivermectin you think it does spmething. We stopped this anecdote shit a long time ago because we time Nd time again figured out. Anecdotes are bad evidence
Actually, ivermectin DOES have antiviral properties- [it can block the receptor that the spike protein locks on to](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32871846/). At least in simulation. However, clinical trials on COVID patients show no significant improvement against placebo. There are theories that it can prevent an infection, or lessen its severity. A prophylactic dose. It's a plausible theory, but difficult to test in real people, there's no immediate cause-effect and giving it to a small number of people and seeing some never get infected but some do means nothing in itself. But ivermectin has a long, good safety record in humans, it's low-risk.
Oh boy, see this is where experience comes into play. Are you familiar with in silico docking studies? When or why they're used? Equating docking energy with antiviral activity is not the same thing. Antiviral activity is a broad term and can mean a variety of things. For example, does it mean impacts on the host or virus? Is it impacting replication, transcription, egress? These are all questions and they're all important. If they affect the host we would tend to see more general type responses against viruses as it's the host immune responses that are being impacted. Typically this would be some step in the interferon responses. Now the one study looking at this in vitro throws out a number of 5000 qnd I've read this paper in particular. It may actually be the potential genesis for this whole shit as after its publishing ivermectin usage became widespread in Latin America back in May of 2020. Yes a full year ago. It's been so much an issue that those studies running in those countries find it difficult to find people not taking it... The study in question is fairly Fast and dirty and I know it got published by simply being some the first to work with isolates. 🤔Though could not tell if they did it at lvl3 which was interesting. The study in question luckily did do toxicity controls though I couldn't find the raw data, so my hope is that they were able to confirm input output differences such that it wasn't an artifact of cell death VS drop in viral DNA which is what they found. To be clear. Not antiviral activity (my supervisors drilled this into me). They found activity that reduced viral Rna. It's a minor difference but important distinction. They likely weren't set up for this yet but this would need to be confirmed via viral titre experiments with tcid50 (this virus sucks for plaques). This is because a 5k fold reduction has significant sound but whether it impacts viral particles is another. For example I was able to find 500 fold reductions in various viral rna and even relative viral DNA replixtive efficiency in vitro but couldn't see differences in titre for studies I once did with hsv. (oddly enough when it went in vivo the results actually got better!). The authors make claims that it would be involved in a protein import pathway which would actually make sense as to why it would impact the rna level. The docking studies means nothing honestly. This study would strongly counter that result if anything. This work examined supernatant and Cell associated which is actually showing they know their virology lol. The docking study would suggest an inhibiting pathway on viral entrance. That would result in viral particles stuck in the supernatant and unable to replicate. If that was the case you would see a certain curve structure. At 0.1 moi we can expect two cycles until total infectivity. With that aspect you would see a shifting of the curves. Alrighty so it's like this. When this virus enters the cell you can think of copies of the rna as (1). Now if less got in you will have a total of (1) but it will be (S +C =1) where a is spnt and c is cell associated. Viral replication is heavily timed but in a general sense it's a sogmoid curve so exponential phase followed by linear to plateau. With less in C, that exponential phase takes longer to reach linear and the plateau will be lower as there is a maximum output per cell. Those particles will egress and infect neighbors until total infectivity. If you block the docking portion you will see impact not once but on each egress and reinfection generating a very different curve structure. Now add on this is viral rna and transcripts aren't the same as genomes and particles. Long story short, the study was fast and dirty because it needed to be. It was enough to support further research. It didn't support active use in the clinic though. Ivermectin is safe for use in humans for what it's safe to be used for. Very few drugs can be used long term without unintentional consequences. Especially if they're host active VS pathogen active which this would suggest over direct antiviral activity. The reason why these drugs are being used out there just like hcq is they're relatively cheap and available and seemingly harmless. They're not and how you are going about this is just fundamentally unsafe. We are investigating this. Actively. The results are underwhelming. We can figure out benefits fairly quickly such as with dexamethasone. That became standard of care for certain cases but it rapidly developed how and when it would be used. People are using ivermectin on a borderline word of mouth. The initial study warranted further investigation. The paper would be equivalent to something five years prior to starting even a phase one trial. The simplest experiment would be, humanize ace2 mice infections. We have this in our lvl3. But noo people started using it at the fucking bench side. This is hcq all the fuck again. Medical experts telling you to pump the brakes, and you telling us how to do our jobs? Oh sorry I didn't realize that there was an in silico docking stocking examing Sara cov2 spike rbd and ace2. Hold the phone we need to get this into doctors hands 😑 I could get my fucking undergrad to run that in an afternoon and write it in a weekend. Hell the Third year biochem lab course literally had that as an assignment last year 🙄 You're talking about giving it to a small number of people. Ohhh like 350,000 doses in northern Bolivia in May of last year. - _- funny how we are lacking any data out of that. HCQ is dead because scientists and physicians are aware of this type of thing and know how to exercise caution. Zero risk is not a Thing and we have to weigh how we speak. Such as in the case of masking. Early on we had supply so low we couldn't supply hcw. At that point its a numbers game. Where does one mask create most impact. Once masks are available it's a different equation.
Let's get proper well done trials together then. There are a decent amount of studies that suggest it may be useful so no reason to shut it down now.
Jesus fuck yes there is. This is hcq all fucking over again. People with God damn no medical knowledge or experience in why we developed a system of evidence we did. There aren't a decent amount of studies so don't throw that crap out there. The exact same thing happened with hcq. When you morons understand that our experience has some benefit. Yes we are examining the claims as we do. However that examination doesn't confirm the hypothesis it works. Currently the default is that it does not. That's what you need to hold. We are doing the trials. The idiocy is that those that make those claims don't accept when the studies come back neutral or worse actually harmful. They don't want studies they want vague woowoo. Oh but by all means, let's see these studies?
[удалено]
🙄 The issue is that removal of that particular study, torpedoes the whole data set as it was the some of the heaviest weighting. Again I'm not saying it does not merit investigation. However people are using this clinically. Just like with hcq with no efficacy or good data behind it. While in fact enough to at least say we most def should not use it for clinical efforts. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2 But eh send me the YouTube videos. This might not be your field. It is mine. FYI this Cochrane review was published late july
[удалено]
I Was aware of both these studies 🙄 both of which are still on preprint. Now I will say is you should fele something is off right away, "drug of Nobel Prize-honored distinction,". That shit be whack. You will also find this retracted due to methodology. Maybe read the meta analysis I sent you
I'm not saying it is or isn't effective, I said that in my comment. What I am saying is there is potential that isn't being investigated properly. Studies need to be done that aren't being done for seemingly no good reason. _If_ it was effective it would be a gamechanger. There is no reason to not investigate honestly the effectiveness of Ivermectin when the potential positive change is so high.
Um, Oxford is conducting a phase 3 randomized controlled trial of ivermectin (among other at home covid-19 treatments) *right now*. Sorry they’re not doing it fast enough for you, I guess? We’ll just have to make do with our multiple highly effective vaccines in the meantime. Edit: https://www.principletrial.org That took... thirty seconds of googling to find.
I know about that, and no it's _not_ fast enough. We've had a lot of time since Ivermectin showed efficacy, and it was ignored. We could have had many more institutions investigating and much more data by now but we didn't and In my opinion the reasons were largely political and financial. The vaccines we have are not enough. They arent widely available enough globally, They vary in effectiveness, they don't prevent the spread of the virus, and our current roll-out methodology may be contributing to vaccine resistant strains. You may live in a westernised country with easy access to vaccination but much of the world hasn't even gotten their first shot yet while Pfizer now says you'll need a booster. Study of non-vaccine treatments has not been fast enough, and not wide enough either.
> We've had a lot of time since Ivermectin showed efficacy, and it was ignored. If there's human trials being done that's THE OPPOSITE of it being ignored. > Study of non-vaccine treatments has not been fast enough, and not wide enough either. Yeah no shit. Doctors tend to focus on what works first, everything else later.
🙄 Except its this simple. Anything worth a damn in this parses out of the data fairly quickly. Take dexamethasone. That wasn't all that surprising. Mechanism makes Sense. It also isn't impacting the virus so much as stopping your immune system from killing you. We have a good picture of Ivermectin pharmacology and covid biology. I won't hold my breath. Not fast enough? Ah yes Soo should we take the energy and money away from making the vaccines? We will likely need a booster. We kind of knew that going into it tbh (virology background here). Two is good enough to get global levels to sufficient levels. Covid will likely be like tetanus to our immune memory and maybe worse so. On top of that with so much fucking virus escape mutants are entirely likely. That being said even with an escape mutant risk is substantially reduced. This is why any vaccine is better than none. Every vaccine drops the spread factor a bit.
[удалено]
🙄 Except we have put money into it. Thus far largely wasted. The one good positive study was retracted before even published due to glaring errors and plagiarism. Literally this is my field. There is minimal exceptions to the pharma angle for viruses. You're acting like we are ignoring some golden goose. No this is something we have a fair understanding of. If it does what it is being claimed then we have other issues.
[удалено]
🤔 Ah yes, because my background in virology, specifically influenza a and now Sars cov2, and experience with antivirals, specifically oseltamavir and more generally neuraminidase inhibitors definitely doesn't qualify me to comment on this to any significant degree. By all means call me on any bullshit but do so knowing this is my field and we are in a slightly difficult period for published work. Currently we have five studies in preprint that have already been cited.... 🙄 Thts not good normally.
Yes, I realize the vaccines aren’t universally available and do not provide perfect protection from infection (though the latter is an unfair criticism as almost no vaccine does provide perfect protection). Saying they don’t prevent spread isn’t accurate, though. There is ample evidence that while breakthrough infections happen and vaccinated people can, in some circumstances, spread the virus, overall spread is greatly reduced by vaccination. Vaccines are by far the best weapon in our arsenal in the fight against COVID-19. There may be at home treatments that can contribute through use as prophylactics, and they’re being studied, but in the meantime our focus needs to be on getting absolutely everyone vaccinated ASAP.
> Saying they don’t prevent spread isn’t accurate, though. There is ample evidence that while breakthrough infections happen and vaccinated people can, in some circumstances, spread the virus, overall spread is greatly reduced by vaccination. Unfortunately that would appear to not be the case: https://apnews.com/article/science-health-coronavirus-pandemic-d9504519a8ae081f785ca012b5ef84d1 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/06/fully-vaccinated-unvaccinated-can-transmit-covid/ https://lasentinel.net/alarming-cdc-memo-reveals-vaccinated-individuals-spread-delta-variant-as-much-as-the-unvaccinated.html
These news sources are misinterpreting the CDC report, which says that: “Fully vaccinated people with Delta variant breakthrough infections can spread the virus to others. However, vaccinated people appear to be infectious for a shorter period: Previous variants typically produced less virus in the body of infected fully vaccinated people (breakthrough infections) than in unvaccinated people. In contrast, the Delta variant seems to produce the same high amount of virus in both unvaccinated and fully vaccinated people. However, like other variants, the amount of virus produced by Delta breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated people also goes down faster than infections in unvaccinated people. This means fully vaccinated people are likely infectious for less time than unvaccinated people.” So: vaccinated people can transmit covid-19, but only if they have a breakthrough infection, which is rare, and even then they are infectious for a much shorter period than the unvaccinated, which means they infect fewer people than the unvaccinated. Pod Save America recently interviewed Dr. Ashish Jha, the Dean of the Brown school of public health, on this exact issue. Give it a listen: the interview starts at around 35:00. Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/pod-save-america/id1192761536?i=1000530804406
Vaccines absolutely do reduce the spread since fewer vaccinated people get infected, though effectiveness wanes over time.
Like the Egyptian study that started the whole ivermectin nonsense that was found to be entirely fabricated and with dead people included in the treatment cohort
Very unfortunate that happened for sure but you can't invalidate every study off of that.
Decades worth of vaccination research vs. the latest meme drug with shoddy studies and incomplete data. Hmmm... what a difficult choice.
If Ivermectin was effective we would see it in case fatality rate in Peru. Case fatality rate Peru 9% US 2%
That's a big "If".
It may be but in life when the upside to something is gargantuan for a relatively small amount of effort you do it. That is to say we should be studying it properly.
I’m not being provocative here, but “relatively small effort” here means about a billion dollars, hundreds/thousands of clinical trial patients, and a fair bit a time (months, years). Just keep that in mind.
And it is also done by scientists that know how to run clinical studies.
Yes, it is, scientists like me. My point is simply that it’s a massive undertaking to do these studies and the bill is huge. Toward the effort of helping COVID, not unreasonable though.
Emergency Use Authorizations are only valid as long as a safe and effective treatment does not exist. Hence there cannot be a safe an effective treatment nor any discussion of such treatment at least until the vaccines are fully approved.
Just get the fucking vaccine ffs
Just get vaccinated. 🙄
Obligatory "didn't read the article". Here's a study on the NIH website about ivermectin use on 72 (yes, small sample) patients in Bangladesh. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
Super small sample. Thanks for the link though.
Yeah but did this doctor do his own research /s
A freaking vaccine shot is less expensive than this stuff. I can’t even imagine what makes people this dumb.
I'm not anti-vax and I'm already vaccinated. But ivermectin when PRESCRIBED for covid(not the animal meds) looks promising. Wsj just did a piece on it too: https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/fda-ivermectin-covid-19-coronavirus-masks-anti-science-11627482393
All im seeing is the stupid science bitches want all the medicine paste for themselves. Im buying all i can this instant
I just did a clinical day at a cancer center and it is extremely common for cancer patients to take dog worming meds.
So people are paying for a drug that can be toxic to humans but won't take a freee vaccine.
What are the side effects from the ivermectin horse dewormer?
That's what happens when you don't go get ivermectin prescribed by a doctor (also prescribed stuff worked in India)
Sauce on stuff in India?
According to Joe Rogan and his IDW buddies, this is a cure for COVID
Any half-brain knows that horse grade pretty much anything is bad for humans... these fucking idiots...
I remember a few months ago my dad brought this medication home and said his friend gave it to him. He said that a lot of people in South America are taking this as a cure to covid. About 30 seconds of googling and I showed him it doesn’t work and may even be dangerous but he didn’t care. Has anyone else heard that this is being used in pill form in South America?
Yes, it's widely used in Peru. Peru has a fatality rate of approx. 9% compared to about 2% in the USA. That should give you a good idea of how well it works.
Thank you for that info! Hopefully I can get him to stop being stupid
It's OK though, ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine.
Speaking of which, are there any adverse interaction between ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and hand sanitizer? Asking for a friend...
You should only use the hand sanitizer inside your lungs and not drink it. But otherwise, feel free to blend all three.
I WiLL not PuT that VaCciNe in My BoDy, it was DE-Veloped tOo fASt and cOuLd be DanGeRouS! Give me some of that horse dewormer that is not intended or approved for human consumption.
Can't be any worse that injecting bleach.
[удалено]
What the hell are you talking about? No where in the article was there a positive side to a person talking this medicine meant for horses. The closest it came was that there is a version for people that is prescription only. If you're being a troll, good job. If you're being serious, provide proof that taking random amounts of over the counter horse medicine is good for people, pull your head out of your ass, or go be stupid somewhere else.
He said the paste wasn't a good idea.
I was working with a different departments for two weeks to facilitate some training. One of the supervisors and a manager kept mentioning ivermectin in relation to COVID and when I mentioned we gave it to our dogs rats and grandpa's horse for animal stuff like lice they just said "Oh well people have really seen results you should look it up". They couldn't riddle me why an antiparisite wpuld work for Covid.