Posted on 08/13/2021 8:44:21 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Researchers say there is no conclusive evidence that the anti-parasite drug is an effective COVID-19 treatment.
Ivermectin is not approved for COVID-19 prevention or treatment by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has also gone a step further, recommending against its use for COVID-19.
A widely shared Facebook post claims that ivermectin, which has emerged as a controversial drug during the coronavirus pandemic, is effective in treating COVID-19.
"How long after the last day of fever with the Rona should I wait to return to work? I feel fine now just don’t want to get the guys sick," the Facebook user says, with "Rona" being a reference to the coronavirus. "Btw less than a hour after taking Ivermectin paste per my body weight I was mostly symptom free.... Was in bad shape until then! This s*** works I don’t care what anyone else says."
With the post is a photo showing a box and a syringe of ivermectin paste — both labeled "for oral use in horses only."
The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)
In the United States, ivermectin is approved for some uses in humans, but not to prevent or treat COVID-19. While some studies have asserted that the anti-parasite drug might work against COVID-19, researchers who have reviewed numerous ivermectin studies say there is not conclusive evidence that it is effective against the disease.
Since March 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has warned not to use ivermectin — which is often used in the United States to treat or prevent parasites in animals — to prevent or treat COVID-19:
"The FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses.
"FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans. Ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are on-the-skin formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin is not an antiviral — a drug for treating viruses.
"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."
The World Health Organization, in its COVID-19 treatment guidelines, says: "We recommend not to use ivermectin in patients with COVID-19 except in the context of a clinical trial," citing "very low certainty evidence" about the drug.
We rated False a claim that "mountains of data" show ivermectin "basically obliterates" COVID-19 transmission.
Some limited studies suggested that ivermectin can help treat COVID-19; others show no significant impact. Overall, many of the studies had small sample sizes and other limitations. Some researchers have called for more study of the drug.
In June, one meta-analysis — an analysis of results from other studies — arrived at a different conclusion than another one did:
One meta-analysis concluded that "moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin." That study was done by researchers affiliated with a group that is campaigning for ivermectin to be approved for COVID-19 use.
The other meta-analysis found that ivermectin "did not reduce all-cause mortality" when compared to standard of care or placebo. The study concluded that the drug "is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients."
After a preliminary December 2020 study claimed that ivermectin could reduce COVID-19 death rates by more than 90%, the publisher in July 2021 withdrew the non-peer reviewed study "due to an expression of concern communicated directly to our staff. These concerns are now under formal investigation."
Also in July, researchers from Germany and the UK who examined studies on ivermectin and COVID-19 concluded:
"Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials."
Meanwhile, a health economist and a consultant to pharmaceutical companies argued in an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal about ivermectin that "the statistically significant evidence suggests that it is safe and works for both treating and preventing" COVID-19, and so the FDA should give it emergency use authorization for use against COVID-19.
A Facebook post declares that ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19.
Some studies have raised the possibility that the drug might work against COVID-19.
But reviews of numerous studies of ivermectin have found there is no conclusive evidence that it is effective against COVID-19, and public health authorities including the FDA have recommended against using it to treat the virus.
That doesn’t exclude the possibility that ivermectin could work in isolated cases, but the post ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. The post contains only an element of truth. We rate it Mostly False.
“Researchers say there is no conclusive evidence that the anti-parasite drug is an effective COVID-19 treatment.”
This is how they do it. Put in a qualifier. “Conclusive”.
This means there is evidence that it is an effective Covid-19 treatment. Otherwise they don’t need to add “conclusive”.
RE: This means there is evidence that it is an effective Covid-19 treatment. Otherwise they don’t need to add “conclusive”.
What is their criteria to satisfy “conclusive”?
Remdesivir was approved with limited studies ( arguably much less than Ivermectin ), what was in those studies that made Remdesivir “conclusive”?
The corruption of these liars is beyond belief. Western NY has been using Ivermectin in many cases quite successfully for the ChiCom Virus.
So is Peru, Mexico among many other countries.
Just picked up 50 ml of the 1% solution at Tractor Supply. now i need a syringe to measure it out.
There are US doctors who will prescribe it. I would suggest using it.
My body my choice,.......er, wait....
They don’t like that it closes the cells to the damage of the spikes!
Pro-Zap or brand? If so make sure it’s the version for swine @5ml per 100 pounds body mass. Not the bovine or equine formulations.
“What is their criteria to satisfy “conclusive”?”
Good question. It works rhetorically as well as specifically.
Remdesivir was approved with limited studies ( arguably much less than Ivermectin ), what was in those studies that made Remdesivir “conclusive”?”
I don’t know. I do know there needs to be an IND with the FDA under a sponsor to get drug approval. It’s expensive to do the studies. Drug companies will pay for it with a new drug but no one is going to pay for a generic drug no one owns.
Any doctor can prescribe it as an approved drug.
Curious why you chose the 1% solution, rather than the 1.87% paste.
The information seems to indicate it is not a cure, rather another thing to be added to the armamentarium.
They protest too much.
If you get do you want to consult politics to for treatment?
Does not deserve the time of day or to be posted.
The brand has lidocaine in it. The cheaper Pro-Zap does not. It burns like liquid fire. I used to get stuck all the time when we had a large farm. Wrestling angry livestock with a syringe in your hand trying to inject subcutaneous has its risks. I don’t think I will get rabies, foot rot, encephalitis, tetanus, liver flukes, or worm parasites, for the rest of my life.
Adjectives are subjective editorial comments.
Any “scientific” article or headline that uses adjectives is not scientific, it is opinion.
Yeah, “they” love that spike damage.
What’s you theory on why?
Sarah Barnhardt? website has a handy dilution graph, to get the right dosage according to your body weight, (one ml per 110 lbs) using the 1% solution. I was directed to that from another Freerep. thread.
RE: The information seems to indicate it is not a cure, rather another thing to be added to the armamentarium.
__________________________
If I were in charge, here’s what I think should be done based on what I have been observing....
My approach would be to throw everything at the virus — vaccination, Ivermectin, HCQ, Monoclonals. EMPHASIZE AND EDUCATE the public on all of these. If you have a common enemy, use every weapon you have at your disposal.
Alas, What we have now are groups fighting and debating among each other as to whose weapon is the best and trying to undermine the other group’s weapon. Totally unnecessary.
Lockdowns may work but at high cost so I would avoid them. You don’t want to kill everyone’s livelihood over a virus that has 99.8% survivability.
To me the best long term approach is to calm down, do what we can, and make our peace with letting this relatively mild disease play out. To some degree I think it’s going to do what it’s going to do, and what will end it is herd immunity which will be achieved somewhat independent of our actions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.