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 .
What "study"? Pub Med is just a central clearinghouse for medical and scientific papers. It is provided as a public service, giving access to a database of medical journals Pub and related publications. It does not conduct clinical trials of medications or do actual research studies if that is what you are stating.
I guess we need to bring Pub Med up every 25 postings or so for the late comers in these Covid forums:) I went through a list of 32 studies on Ivermectin earlier in the pandemic. And even I, with only 6 credits in research methodology a long time ago, could pick most of these "studies" apart. One had an n of only 5 and it made it into Pub Med. But I got fooled before my first time there with the fancy title and it says NIH somewhere at the top. But if you don't go into it depends enough to read the disclaimer, you would have no idea that these aren't reviewed by anybody, much less peers. It's an easy mistake for a beginner to make.
Specializes in Family Medicine, Obesity, Nutrition.
As you see below, not the 'Silver Bullet' to COVID19 but also not 'Rat Poison' when used responsibly. Shows very modest to no benefit yet seems well tolerated and not detrimental. Really needs multiple large RCTs to truly understand its benefits or lack thereof. Most current studies are too small or too biased to even begin trying to suggest use for or against it. So it's strange to me there are so many one-sided arguments.
Directly from Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)
The evidence from RCTs failed to show a reduction or increase in mortality among persons with COVID-19 (RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.42; low CoE). In addition, the evidence from non-randomized studies cannot exclude no meaningful reduction in mortality among persons treated with ivermectin with COVID-19 (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37, 0.97, very low CoE). Persons receiving treatment with ivermectin rather than no ivermectin failed to demonstrate a beneficial or detrimental effect on symptom resolution or viral clearance at day seven (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.69, 1.65; very low CoE and RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.72, 2.15; very low CoE, respectively).
Outpatients
The evidence is very uncertain, but ivermectin may reduce the time to recovery among outpatients with COVID-19 (mean difference: 3.46 days fewer; 95% CI: 5.40 to 1.52 days fewer; very low CoE). However, treatment with ivermectin failed to demonstrate a beneficial or detrimental effect on mortality, avoidance of progression to severe disease, or viral clearance at day seven (RR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.13, 1.76; very low CoE, RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.26, 1.54; very low CoE, and RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.79, 1.62; very low CoE, respectively).
Harms
In doses typically used for the treatment of parasitic infections, ivermectin is well-tolerated. We are unable to exclude the potential for adverse events in hospitalized and serious adverse events in non-hospitalized persons with COVID-19 treated with ivermectin rather than no ivermectin, (RR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.39, 1.64; low CoE and RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.14, 6.96; low CoE, respectively).
...at this time non-benificial and non-detrimental.
Well-designed, adequately powered, and well-executed clinical trials are needed to inform decisions on treating COVID-19 with ivermectin.
Specializes in Travel Nurse, All ICU specialties and ED.
7 hours ago, Jtveal said:
As you see below, not the 'Silver Bullet' to COVID19 but also not 'Rat Poison' when used responsibly. Shows very modest to no benefit yet seems well tolerated and not detrimental.
Thank you for the data! My issue isn't with Ivermectin or it's efficacy/safety. It's that there are safe and effective vaccines for Covid. Sure, let's study Ivermectin in the infected, but by encouraging people that this is an effective treatment many have been discouraged from getting the vaccine.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 hours ago, Jtveal said:
In doses typically used for the treatment of parasitic infections, ivermectin is well-tolerated. We are unable to exclude the potential for adverse events in hospitalized and serious adverse events in non-hospitalized persons with COVID-19 treated with ivermectin rather than no ivermectin, (RR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.39, 1.64; low CoE and RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.14, 6.96; low CoE, respectively).
...at this time non-benificial and non-detrimental.
Self treating using veterinary preparations and guessed dosing definitely puts these patients in the category of "unable to exclude possibility of harm".
Gambling with livestock worming paste and a deadly virus to avoid a human vaccine is risky behavior.
Specializes in Family Medicine, Obesity, Nutrition.
On 9/2/2021 at 3:10 AM, Tenebrae said:
I don't understand how a drug that is designed to treat parasites could be remotely effective against a virus. I mean the method of action is completely different
At this time, I don't recommend the use of ivermectin (IVM) for the treatment of COVID19 outside of clinical trials. The use of the veterinarian form of the medication in humans is absolutely tragic and disheartening. However, IVM's biomolecular interaction on viruses has its value and merits further investigation. This is why the medication is even being considered/investigated for the treatment of COVID19 by medical institutions.
Ivermectin is an orally bioavailable macrocyclic lactone derived from Streptomyces avermitilis, with antiparasitic and potential anti-viral activities. Upon administration, ivermectin exerts its anthelmintic effect through binding and activating glutamate-gated chloride channels (GluCls) expressed on nematode neurons and pharyngeal muscle cells. This causes increased permeability of chloride ions, causing a state of hyperpolarization and results in the paralysis and death of the parasite. Ivermectin may exerts its antiviral effect, including its potential activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), by binding to the importin (IMP) alpha/beta1 heterodimer, which is responsible for the nuclear import of viral proteins such as the integrase (IN) protein. This inhibits nuclear import of host and viral proteins and may inhibit viral replication.
Specializes in Family Medicine, Obesity, Nutrition.
20 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:
Self treating using veterinary preparations and guessed dosing definitely puts these patients in the category of "unable to exclude possibility of harm".
Gamblingwith livestock worming paste and a deadly virus to avoid a human vaccine is risky behavior.
Agreed, I would assume this is common sense. However, it seems 'sense' is not so common anymore.
44 minutes ago, Charlcie said:
Thank you for the data! My issue isn't with Ivermectin or it's efficacy/safety. It's that there are safe and effective vaccines for Covid. Sure, let's study Ivermectin in the infected, but by encouraging people that this is an effective treatment many have been discouraged from getting the vaccine.
Well you know what. We are all entitled to do our own research. I did mine found the info that I was seeking and clearly everyone did there's and found the information they were seeking. My only concern is that people are being treated and recovering.
Continue to be the best nurse that you can possibly be. I'm done with this conversation. Have a wonderful time. You can check back with me next year after your booster and daily pill.
You are "concerned" that people are recovering? We have no idea if they are "recovering" from the Ivermectin or they were just going to get better any - like the large majority of people do. I am concerned about what you are reading that says this is an effective product. It certainly isn't well researched studies because there aren't any.
What "study"? Pub Med is just a central clearinghouse for medical and scientific papers. It is provided as a public service, giving access to a database of medical journals and related publications. It does not conduct clinical trials of medications or do actual research studies if that is what you are stating.
True. The FDA is doing a study, so guess we will know then
Self treating using veterinary preparations and guessed dosing definitely puts these patients in the category of "unable to exclude possibility of harm".
Gambling with livestock worming paste and a deadly virus to avoid a human vaccine is risky behavior.
You know full well the drug being discussed is not the livestock one for animals but the ones meant for humans and NO I am not saying you should use the drug to treat COVID, I am saying you are talking about the wrong one.
3 minutes ago, RKM2021 said:
You know full well the drug being discussed is not the livestock one for animals but the ones meant for humans and NO I am not saying you should use the drug to treat COVID, I am saying you are talking about the wrong one.
I am dumbfounded why you keep bring up the livestock one when everyone here talking about it is talking about the one meant for humans from the doctor
subee, MSN, CRNA
1 Article; 6,115 Posts
I guess we need to bring Pub Med up every 25 postings or so for the late comers in these Covid forums:) I went through a list of 32 studies on Ivermectin earlier in the pandemic. And even I, with only 6 credits in research methodology a long time ago, could pick most of these "studies" apart. One had an n of only 5 and it made it into Pub Med. But I got fooled before my first time there with the fancy title and it says NIH somewhere at the top. But if you don't go into it depends enough to read the disclaimer, you would have no idea that these aren't reviewed by anybody, much less peers. It's an easy mistake for a beginner to make.