Good grief. America's Frontline Doctors, a group of quacks who claim to know more than actual experts are pushing the use of ineffective parasite med to prevent and or treat COVID.
On a personal note, my hubby works for a farm store and has overheard customers explaining to each other how to dose animal wormer for people. This is in a community that is anti-mask, anti-vaccine, let's just all get infected. Up until, you know, they need hospitalization .
I'm curious what data you came across to support its use vs against. That's all.
Analyzing data and reviewing research papers is way above my level of expertise. I leave that to subject matter experts, such as those at the National Institutes of Health and peer-reviewed academic journals.
I do work in public health and depend on the CDC for guidance. And they have issued this official health advisory:
Analyzing data and reviewing research papers is way above my level of expertise. I leave that to subject matter experts, such as those at the National Institutes of Health and peer-reviewed academic journals.
I do work in public health and depend on the CDC for guidance. And they have issued this official health advisory:
Within this advisory is a link to ongoing clinical trials.
To me, the fact that Merck, the manufacturer, is advising against using ivermectin for treatment of COVID is significant.
Gotcha. What I took from the CDC link is poisonings are occurring in people taking Ivermectin without a prescription and the supervision of a provider.
I was under the impression Ivermectin was recommended for (by particular physicians) and given in acute care settings. I saw a reference to dispensing at pharmacies. So are people getting this prescribed to take at home and getting poisoned too?
Have you seen any information justifying it's use with evidence supporting it was effective?
Gotcha. What I took from the CDC link is poisonings are occurring in people taking Ivermectin without a prescription and the supervision of a provider.
I was under the impression Ivermectin was recommended for (by particular physicians) and given in acute care settings. I saw a reference to dispensing at pharmacies. So are people getting this prescribed to take at home and getting poisoned too?
Have you seen any information justifying it's use with evidence supporting it was effective?
Unrelated to this particular post. You are such popular poster, I may have missed your answer to my earlier question: What kind of nursing do you do, and what is your experience with covid?
1. Gotcha. What I took from the CDC link is poisonings are occurring in people taking Ivermectin without a prescription and the supervision of a provider.
2. I was under the impression Ivermectin was recommended for (by particular physicians) and given in acute care settings. I saw a reference to dispensing at pharmacies. So are people getting this prescribed to take at home and getting poisoned too?
3. Have you seen any information justifying it's use with evidence supporting it was effective?
1. Ivermectin formulated for humans is prescription only. Some are purchasing the animal formulations and self-dosing, but yes, some providers are prescribing it. There is at least one website where people can pay a fee for a "consultation" and then order the ivermectin, online. In my opinion, this does not qualify as being given under the supervision of a provider.
2. No, it is not typically given in a acute care situations, in the US. There has been some recent reporting that courts have ordered its administration against the advice of a patient's hospital based provider.
3. As far as I know, studies justifying its use have been retracted. Again, I rely on experts such as the National Institutes of Health to examine such evidence for validity.
I know, my bad. You would think an evil pharmaceutical company Like Merck would be renaming this and pushing out "talk to your doctor" commercials.
Merck's word is not worth much. A for-profit corporation with a conflict of interest, a 1.2 billion dollar contract for a new anti-viral therapy. (Ivermectin is out of patent, would make little money) They also have a shady history with Vioxx.
"According to internal e-mail traffic released at a later lawsuit, Merck had a list of doctors critical of Vioxx to be "neutralized" or "discredited". "We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live," wrote an employee. A Stanford Medical School professor said that Merck was engaged in intimidation of researchers and infringement upon academic freedom.[144]"
1. Ivermectin formulated for humans is prescription only. Some are purchasing the animal formulations and self-dosing, but yes, some providers are prescribing it. There is at least one website where people can pay a fee for a "consultation" and then order the ivermectin, online. In my opinion, this does not qualify as being given under the supervision of a provider.
2. No, it is not typically given in a acute care situations, in the US. There has been some recent reporting that courts have ordered its administration against the advice of a patient's hospital based provider.
3. As far as I know, studies justifying its use have been retracted. Again, I rely on experts such as the National Institutes of Health to examine such evidence for validity.
Merck's word is not worth much. A for-profit corporation with a conflict of interest, a 1.2 billion dollar contract for a new anti-viral therapy. (Ivermectin is out of patent, would make little money)
Or they are trying to avoid a lawsuit from desperate people who are buying the drug on the internet and self-dosing.
This is an unfortunate example of opposing media outlets using extremism to increase viewership. CNN caters to hard core vaccine supporters, FOX the opposite Balanced discussiob gets thrown to the wayside as people fight to be right about what they think is the best way to deal with this rather than be open minded and consider multiple solutions.
Or they are trying to avoid a lawsuit from desperate people who are buying the drug on the internet and self-dosing.
There is no one to sue if a drug is generic. All the lawsuits on late night TV are for patients who have taken a brand name drug and later serious side effects or even deaths happened from said drug.
This was a poorly researched news story, based on a report from a single source, an Oklahoma physician. I blame the headline editor as much as any one else. It apparently was picked up and promoted by Newsweek and Rolling Stone Magazine, who seem also to have low journalistic standards.
It still doesn't negate the fact that people are dosing themselves with livestock dewormer.
There is no one to sue if a drug is generic. All the lawsuits on late night TV are for patients who have taken a brand name drug and later serious side effects or even deaths happened from said drug.
nursej22, MSN, RN
4,847 Posts
Analyzing data and reviewing research papers is way above my level of expertise. I leave that to subject matter experts, such as those at the National Institutes of Health and peer-reviewed academic journals.
I do work in public health and depend on the CDC for guidance. And they have issued this official health advisory:
https://emergency.CDC.gov/han/2021/pdf/CDC_HAN_449.pdf
Within this advisory is a link to ongoing clinical trials.
To me, the fact that Merck, the manufacturer, is advising against using ivermectin for treatment of COVID is significant.