Use of Ivermectin in Lagos

[Harold Hill]

Moderator note: Split from

Operation Rampdown - UK Covid-19 exit strategy

I can’t quote the whole thing as on phone, but the Daily Mail claims to have seen plans for the UK’s exit strategy from Covid-19: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10198985/Operation-Rampdown-Codename-revealed-Government-papers-dismantle-key-Covid-measures-year.html Operation Rampdown...

www.railforums.co.uk

Bustling Lagos. 1.7% of the population vaccinated everything working in that special Nigerian way. Hardly any deaths. Ivermectin freely available and used as first line treatment.

 

[ainsworth74]

Ivermectin freely available and used as first line treatment.

Horse dewormer? Good news for the horses I guess that they have such easy access to treatment.

 

[Harold Hill]

Horse dewormer? Good news for the horses I guess that they have such easy access to treatment.

They call Ivermectin horse dewormer because it has a use in equine medicine .

But penicillin is suitable for cats, dogs, horses and many other animals.

Same with anaesthetics.

 

[ainsworth74]

They call Ivermectin horse dewormer because it has a use in equine medicine .

But penicillin is suitable for cats, dogs, horses and many other animals.

Same with anaesthetics.

True true. Though I think I'll probably stick to what is recommended by medical professionals for treatment of Covid-19 rather than using a dewormer. Well unless I get really unlucky and have Covid and worms at the same time.

 

[MikeWM]

'First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win'.

Definitely following this pattern with ivermectin. As I see it, the evidence was building up so much that the ignoring/censoring wasn't totally working, so they moved on to the 'laugh at you' stage with the 'horse medicine' stories. Hopefully we can progress onto the other stages quickly and start saving lives that I firmly believe could be saved with this simple and probably effective treatment.

 

[kristiang85]

True true. Though I think I'll probably stick to what is recommended by medical professionals for treatment of Covid-19 rather than using a dewormer. Well unless I get really unlucky and have Covid and worms at the same time.

Well there does seem to be a weird link between African countries that routinely give Ivermectin for parasitic disease prevention and their low COVID case/death rates, as opposed to other African countries that don't which have much higher rates.

Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but it is criminal that it isn't being seriously researched over here.

 

[MikeWM]

Though I think I'll probably stick to what is recommended by medical professionals for treatment of Covid-19

Has that progressed beyond 'take some paracetamol and get some rest, and in a week you'll either be better or in the hospital' yet? I've been waiting for them to come up with something better for almost two years now.

As well as parts of Africa, it appears that India and Japan have recently had quite a bit of success with the use of ivermectin. I fail to see the harm in at least trying it (well, except to the profits of big pharma and the agenda of those pushing vaccine passports).

 

[NeilCr]

Ivermectin is under trial in the UK

Ivermectin to be investigated as a possible treatment for COVID-19 in Oxford’s PRINCIPLE trial

23 June 2021

www.ox.ac.uk

 

[MikeWM]

Ivermectin is under trial in the UK

Hopefully they will handle it better than Oxford handled their trial of hydroxychloroquine last year, where they used it in far too high doses and too late into the progression of the disease, and then announced to loud fanfare that it didn't work.

I do find the lack of urgency interesting (let's leave that at 'interesting', though I could use rather stronger terms) when compared with that thrown at the vaccines. Ivermectin has appears to be very promising for over a year now, eg. see this thread from January.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/total-lack-of-attention-to-treatments.213257/

I don't see anything I wrote in my opening post there that I disagree with now, over 10 months later, and yet we appear to have made zero progress.

 

[Yew]

Ivermectin is under trial in the UK

Ivermectin to be investigated as a possible treatment for COVID-19 in Oxford’s PRINCIPLE trial

23 June 2021

www.ox.ac.uk

I'm excited to see the results, realistically we could see them published relatively soon.

I think HCQ and Ivermectin have suffered from Trump touting them as magical wonder cures; so It's good to see some serious trials of Ivermectin as an early-stage treatment.

Regarding HCQ, I'd be interested to see a similar study in the early stages, where it's the antiviral effect it has shown to have in-vitro could be useful to 'buy time' for the immune response to kick in. However, it was always going to be of limited use in the later stages of disease, as the Oxford trial found.

Either way, it's nice to see some rigorous testing, then we can either use them, or move on.

 

[NeilCr]

Some trial results and comments on previous results here

Better Data on Ivermectin Is Finally on Its Way

Studies have been small and often not great. The best info so far says don’t use it, get vaccinated, and hang in there for the more promising meds being tested.

www.wired.com

Must admit I quite like Wired in general

I’ve got a friend who is an anti vaxxer and huge Ivermectin advocate so I have taken some interest. With regards to Nigeria, at least, ISTR that their testing figures were low and it was considered that Covid was down their list of priorities
- they have conflict and malaria is a big problem. Those don’t mean of course that Ivermectin isn’t helping

But that was a while back and others may know the current situation

Apparently my friend now has Covid and now won’t take the Ivermectin she has (no idea where she got it) until she has spoken to a nurse. That’s second hand, to be fair

 

[kristiang85]

I think HCQ and Ivermectin have suffered from Trump touting them as magical wonder cures; so It's good to see some serious trials of Ivermectin as an early-stage treatment.

As an aside this is something I have found profoundly irritating during this pandemic: science fact seems to have been decided by *who* says it, rather than whether it is right or not. Basically, science has become very politicised, which is a slippery slope to go down.

Imagine if it does turn out Ivermectin is an extremely effective treatment - how much money and lives would have been saved, but for people taking umbridge to who was a proponent of it at first.

 

[Cdd89]

Someone pointed me to this breakdown of the studies posted on the pro-Ivermectin ivnmeta website. It is incredibly long and feels pretty even handed.

The overall conclusion appears to be that any benefit is weak at best, and may be linked to resolving co-morbidities.

I’m personally prepared to accept that it may well have some weak benefit, just as I am prepared to accept the same of cloth face coverings.

But I don’t really understand the ongoing focus on these interventions, when we have vaccines whose efficacy against severe outcomes is visible from space.

 

[Yew]

But I don’t really understand the ongoing focus on these interventions, when we have vaccines whose efficacy against severe outcomes is visible from space.

For drugs and things, whilst a few percentage points here and there might not sound like a lot; but together they can add up to a substantial difference in clinical outcomes for those in hospital, dexamethasone and all the others we have found will help save many people in hospital.

 

[Tomp94]

Ivermectin, if indeed it is effective against COVID (and I suspect it is) will never be available in the UK as a covid treatment.
Government is too far up the big pharma trough. Ivermectin is cheap and very easy to make. No good for big pharma.
What might happen though is that an organisation like Pfizer will change a few molecules in Ivermectin so that they can call it their own, patent it, then western governments will purchase billions of pounds worth of the stuff, and a nice tidy profit for Pfizer, and pats on the back all around.

 

[35B]

As an aside this is something I have found profoundly irritating during this pandemic: science fact seems to have been decided by *who* says it, rather than whether it is right or not. Basically, science has become very politicised, which is a slippery slope to go down.

Imagine if it does turn out Ivermectin is an extremely effective treatment - how much money and lives would have been saved, but for people taking umbridge to who was a proponent of it at first.

Personally, I'm more concerned that where studies have shown strong results for Ivermectin, there has frequently also been strong evidence of fraud. I also understand that the test tube research shows that it is extremely unlikely that Ivermectin could be effective against Covid without requiring dangerously high doses in patients - a major reason why it's manufacturer has recommended against it's use.

Ivermectin, if indeed it is effective against COVID (and I suspect it is) will never be available in the UK as a covid treatment.
Government is too far up the big pharma trough. Ivermectin is cheap and very easy to make. No good for big pharma.
What might happen though is that an organisation like Pfizer will change a few molecules in Ivermectin so that they can call it their own, patent it, then western governments will purchase billions of pounds worth of the stuff, and a nice tidy profit for Pfizer, and pats on the back all around.

In which case, how do you explain the use of Dexamethasone, long out of patent and far from expensive?

 

[MikeWM]

This video from John Campbell explains rather well why Ivermectin is likely to work (and why Pfizer's new drug is likely to work significantly less well).

I'm not a fan of John Campbell - he likes masks too much, for one example, and indeed has a poster saying 'wear your mask' behind him throughout the video! I think it fair to say he's not exactly a skeptic. But this is a good and straightforward (if perhaps over-laboured) presentation of the facts.

 

[NeilCr]

And here's one debunking Campbell (Who I find quite hit and miss)

That's the trouble with this - it's fairly easy to find an expert somewhere to support our own views - or a contrary one. Personally, I find the science far beyond me (understatement) and I have no idea which one of these is right - indeed of either of them is.

As it stands there doesn't seem to have been a credible trial that supports the use of Ivermectin (very open to be linked to one as my knowledge is out of date) so I think it's good that we are running one here.

Any additional weapons against Covid are warmly welcomed

 

[35B]

This video from John Campbell explains rather well why Ivermectin is likely to work (and why Pfizer's new drug is likely to work significantly less well).

I'm not a fan of John Campbell - he likes masks too much, for one example, and indeed has a poster saying 'wear your mask' behind him throughout the video! I think it fair to say he's not exactly a skeptic. But this is a good and straightforward (if perhaps over-laboured) presentation of the facts.

Please remind me what Campbell's credentials are to back this up? As a layman, I share the views of @NeilCr that additional weapons against Covid are to be warmly welcomed, but the information suggesting that Ivermectin is an implausible candidate, combined with the level of fraud in studies supporting it's use, leaves me presuming that it won't work.

 

[MikeWM]

That's the trouble with this - it's fairly easy to find an expert somewhere to support our own views - or a contrary one. Personally, I find the science far beyond me (understatement) and I have no idea which one of these is right - indeed of either of them is.

Well, indeed (and in this case I agree, at this technical level it is well beyond my understanding either) - but this is a rather good example of how science is supposed to happen, with open debate and questioning of conclusions. Despite the efforts of some over the past 2 years, there is no such thing as 'THE' science, that we should follow blindly and without question.

When one side is being censored or shut down, then at the very least science isn't happening (and there may be something rather more sinister). And that is certainly happening - look at the official rules of what you cannot post on YouTube:

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en

• Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19
• Claims that Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19
• Categorical claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19
• Claims that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are safe to use in the treatment COVID-19
• (plus about a billion other things)

Why? Some of the other things listed in that incredibly long list are indeed potentially 'dangerous misinformation' but I ask again - if I get Covid, rather than 'take paracetamol and see what happens' what harm is there in my trying ivermectin to see if that helps? Why should a video that suggests that be banned?

 

[NeilCr]

I am no supporter of censorship but maybe it's because of things like this

HAN Archive - 00449 | Health Alert Network (HAN)

Health Alert Network (HAN). Provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

emergency.cdc.gov

ISTR that in one of the US states a number of people ended up in hospital having taken too much Ivermectin

If you want to take Ivermectin then I guess you can. I know my friend has some so I assume it's gettable over here. Would you btw?

But, as it stands, as I said upthread I have yet to see a credible trial that supports the use of it against Covid. For me, right now, that's the biggie. Hopefully, our trial will report soon so we'll have a clearer idea.

 

[35B]

Well, indeed (and in this case I agree, at this technical level it is well beyond my understanding either) - but this is a rather good example of how science is supposed to happen, with open debate and questioning of conclusions. Despite the efforts of some over the past 2 years, there is no such thing as 'THE' science, that we should follow blindly and without question.

When one side is being censored or shut down, then at the very least science isn't happening (and there may be something rather more sinister). And that is certainly happening - look at the official rules of what you cannot post on YouTube:

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en

• Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19
• Claims that Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19
• Categorical claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19
• Claims that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are safe to use in the treatment COVID-19
• (plus about a billion other things)

Why? Some of the other things listed in that incredibly long list are indeed potentially 'dangerous misinformation' but I ask again - if I get Covid, rather than 'take paracetamol and see what happens' what harm is there in my trying ivermectin to see if that helps? Why should a video that suggests that be banned?

Because, unfortunately, the promotion of Ivermectin has become tied to the dissemination of deliberate misinformation. And that includes some of those promoting it as a cure when there is, presently, no evidence supporting that proposition.

The difficulty for those arguing for extreme free speech is that the right of free speech is being abused by many of their apparent allies to spread lies.

 

[87electric]

Ivermectin is out of patent, which means any company can make it now, so it could be produced at lower cost. Pharma companies are producing their own similar versions to this drug but, of course with a different name, and are granted the standard 20 year patent to make money off it. Follow the money trail and you can see why a product like Ivermectin will be demonized and laughed at. John Campbell explains this quite simply.

 

[bspahh]

Ivermectin is out of patent, which means any company can make it now, so it could be produced at lower cost. Pharma companies are producing their own similar versions to this drug but, of course with a different name, and are granted the standard 20 year patent to make money off it. Follow the money trail and you can see why a product like Ivermectin will be demonized and laughed at. John Campbell explains this quite simply.

This is a Cochrane review on "Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID‐19"

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2

It concludes

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.

The authors of that review are academics, funded by the German and UK governments and EU-funded projects.

If Ivermectin worked as well as its proponents claim, then it would be easy to show that in a randomized clinical trial, and there are plenty of funding sources which would be happy to pay for those.

 

[35B]

Ivermectin is out of patent, which means any company can make it now, so it could be produced at lower cost. Pharma companies are producing their own similar versions to this drug but, of course with a different name, and are granted the standard 20 year patent to make money off it. Follow the money trail and you can see why a product like Ivermectin will be demonized and laughed at. John Campbell explains this quite simply.

The same is true of Dexamethasone. It has proper trials that show it works. Ivermectin doesn’t.

 

[Fragezeichnen]

I find it interesting that the same people who are highly scpetical about vaccinations which have gone through the full clinical trial process, often citing the rapid development and lack of evidence of long term side effects as reasons are extremely positive about alternative treatments which lack much clinical evidence and are not reccomended by the medical establishment.

I don't know whether it's on the basis of "Anything the government and 'experts' reccomend must be bad, and vice versa", or that's it a easier to advocate for something when it's some other hypothetical person that will be taking it and not you.

 

[Yew]

The same is true of Dexamethasone. It has proper trials that show it works. Ivermectin doesn’t.

Indeed, clearly disproving the 'but big Pharma can't make money from it' argument.

 

[MikeWM]

I am no supporter of censorship but maybe it's because of things like this

If you're going to block information about drugs on the basis some people may overdose on them, then you're going to have to block pretty much all drugs. Paracetamol in particular, as it is very easy to overdose on that and the effects of doing so are horrific. Indeed, that seems like an argument *against* censorship to me - if you know people are going to do it anyway, at least make sure they have enough information available to do it safely.

ISTR that in one of the US states a number of people ended up in hospital having taken too much Ivermectin

If you're referring to the story I'm thinking of, it was a lie and had to be retracted (but conveniently enough, not before lots of people had spread it)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rolli...e-after-viral-hospital-ivermectin-story-false
(yes I know, fox news, can't find a better link right now)

If you want to take Ivermectin then I guess you can. I know my friend has some so I assume it's gettable over here. Would you btw?

Unfortunately only via the internet, and I'm reluctant to do so for obvious reasons. But yes, if I could get it in a way I was sure was legitimate, and had symptoms of Covid, I definitely would. It wouldn't do any harm and may well do some good.

Because, unfortunately, the promotion of Ivermectin has become tied to the dissemination of deliberate misinformation. And that includes some of those promoting it as a cure when there is, presently, no evidence supporting that proposition.

The difficulty for those arguing for extreme free speech is that the right of free speech is being abused by many of their apparent allies to spread lies.

That argument appears to boil down to 'if people are mixing true facts in with lies then the true facts have to be censored, even when put forward without mentioning the lies at all'. Is that really what you mean?

I find it interesting that the same people who are highly scpetical about vaccinations which have gone through the full clinical trial process, often citing the rapid development and lack of evidence of long term side effects as reasons are extremely positive about alternative treatments which lack much clinical evidence and are not reccomended by the medical establishment.

The vaccines have not 'gone through the full clinical trial process' until the phase 3 trials are complete. *None* of the Covid vaccines have completed stage 3 trials, and none are due to do so for many months yet.

And yes, in general I would rather take a tried-and-trusted medicine that has been on the market for many years over one that has barely been around for a year. I would also in general prefer to take a medicine than a vaccine in such circumstances - if a medicine gives you bad side-effects, you stop taking it and they usually go away again - that doesn't apply to a vaccine.

 

[NeilCr]

Thanks for the response and the update on the Oklahoma situation. Appreciated

It's still an issue though, in general

Poison Control Centers Are Fielding A Surge Of Ivermectin Overdose Calls

The nation's poison control centers saw a 245% jump in reported exposure cases from July to August as more people take the anti-parasite drug that some falsely claim treats COVID-19.

www.npr.org

As to Paracetamol I think that's a bit different. I am not aware of a number of people spreading false information (sorry information against current medical advice) about the use of it. Or of people becoming ill following such advice.

I don't like censorship any more than you. But there are always going to be boundaries when it will have to be used. We may disagree about where that divide lies - fwiw I am ambivalent about the YT ban - but if (If) it is the case that the misinformation is causing illness and death then I can see the case

I think a lot of this diverts though from the lack of any good quality information from a trial that Ivermectin does actually work against Covid.

 

[MikeWM]

Thanks for the response and the update on the Oklahoma situation. Appreciated

It's still an issue though, in general

Poison Control Centers Are Fielding A Surge Of Ivermectin Overdose Calls

The nation's poison control centers saw a 245% jump in reported exposure cases from July to August as more people take the anti-parasite drug that some falsely claim treats COVID-19.

www.npr.org

As to Paracetamol I think that's a bit different. I am not aware of a number of people spreading false information (sorry information against current medical advice) about the use of it. Or of people becoming ill following such advice.

But that's because most people know what the 'correct' dosage of paracetamol is, or can easily find it by going to 'official' sources.

I've honestly no idea what the dose of ivermectin should be, so I'd have to look it up, and if 'official' sources aren't going to tell me, I'd probably end up looking at unofficial sources, which yes, may be wrong. And as you can't trivially get it in human form, yes people are taking the animal form, which presumably doesn't have the correct information on the box/leaflet as to how much a human should take.

I really think this is an argument *against* censorship.

I think a lot of this diverts though from the lack of any good quality information from a trial that Ivermectin does actually work against Covid.

Yes, I agree. I think it is truly appalling that we don't yet have this information, given how long it has been suggested for that it may be helpful.