TarponChaser said:

---

There is also substantial data as to its efficacy and why it works.

---

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/

Quote:

---

Recommendation
There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.

---

ea1060 said:

---

Ive had long haul covid symptoms for 14 months. Ive tried every medication imaginable and the only thing that helped treat my symptoms was ivermectin. I immediately felt better after taking it.

My PCP wouldn't prescribe it to me so I went to push health and found an online doctor that would prescribe it. She told me that ivermectin is a very clean drug with little to no side effects. I'm the type that if I take antibiotics or steroid paks then I will get a huge stomach ache and feel horrible the entire day. But with ivermectin I felt fine. Not one side effect.

---

YOU DONT NEED A PRESCRIPTION to buy invermectim.. walk into tractor supply and buy all you want .. injectable, paste, or pour on skin type.. my brothers are farmers, they keep 1500 to 2000 mils on hand for working their cows quarterly .. they buy it all the time. My brother says he has been wiping his hands with the pour on once or twice a week for the hell of it. He told me one of the local auctions has buyers passing a 500 mil bottle around with people taking 5 mils in the mouth.. I know red necks but they are doing this already .. ivermectin has been used in poor countries d
For years .. I don't think I would be taking like some of these people are but I'm just passing this on. I don't know If it works or not but seems harmless if you need it ? Just a thought

Somebody tell me why these guys are wrong? Is it because they haven't fully completed these fully randomized, double-blind studies?

What I don't get is the resistance to off-label, non-FDA approved use of a medicine that is showing great promise and has been safely in use for 45+ years. Especially when there's not near this level of demonization of other medicines used for off-label purposes.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/

It's not that they're wrong, it's that they're doing crappy analysis.

I know it's mind-numbingly boring, but look at the summary of those papers above. You have different countries with different types of patients (outpatient, inpatient, mild / severe covid) studying different endpoints (reduction in duration of symptoms, mortality, time in icu, etc) with different controls (placebo, standard of care, others) and different medicine under test (different dosing, different drug combinations) and different study styles (open label, blind / not blind, observational, etc).

When you do that, it's *really hard* to compare apples to apples. That's what a meta-analysis tries to do, take all of the differences out to say ok, even though these things are different, this other group of things are the same, and adjusting for the differences you can draw this conclusion with some confidence.

These sites don't make any effort to explain that. How do we know that those 26 early treatment trials are the same? What does 74% improvement mean? Was that versus placebo, or observational?

The other issue is publication bias. People have an incentive to publish good results, so sometimes the result determines whether or not a study is published.

The reason this matters is because what if those 26 early treatment trials also have 20 unpublished studies where it didn't work? You can use statistical analysis to see whether or not the scatter of results suggest unpublished research. They make no effort to check. They may only be showing you all the studies where it worked, and none of the one where it didn't.

The third is the quality of the studies that go into your meta-analysis. If within that 26 studies you have 25 crap studies saying it works great and 1 saying it doesn't, but the 1 saying it doesn't is a huge, fantastically done, gold-standard study... that means you should listen to the 1. They don't present the information in this way.

Its kind of like if you have something that is between 1/4 and 1/8 of an inch, and you have 25 researchers all over the globe measuring with rulers 30 times but one place decides to do a thousand measurements with a tenths OD micrometer (something that can measure down to a tenth of a thousandth of an inch). If all the ruler studies averaged say the thing is .15" but the OD mic study finds that it is .1355" and the go/no go is 0.150" which are you going to listen to? The one good study is way more reliable than the 25 less powerful ones.

The last thing is the author's bias. Meta-analyses have inherent judgment about them, they're fundamentally subjective because you have to do work to try to ferret out those differences. A good researcher like John Ionnadis (who's made a career out of this type of thing) discloses bias and tries really, really hard to check and double check for not only his potential bias but also the bias of the authors. Just like placebo, there's a real science placebo effect in that researchers tend to find whatever they're looking for. Including meta-analysis researchers. These sites aren't reviewed, they aren't published, and they are anonymous. We have no idea what bias the authors have, what their intent is, or their motivation. They may be pure as the driven snow, they may be CCP propaganda. We have no idea. So proceed with caution.

Zobel said:

---

It's not that they're wrong, it's that they're doing crappy analysis.

I know it's mind-numbingly boring, but look at the summary of those papers above. You have different countries with different types of patients (outpatient, inpatient, mild / severe covid) studying different endpoints (reduction in duration of symptoms, mortality, time in icu, etc) with different controls (placebo, standard of care, others) and different medicine under test (different dosing, different drug combinations) and different study styles (open label, blind / not blind, observational, etc).

When you do that, it's *really hard* to compare apples to apples. That's what a meta-analysis tries to do, take all of the differences out to say ok, even though these things are different, this other group of things are the same, and adjusting for the differences you can draw this conclusion with some confidence.

These sites don't make any effort to explain that. How do we know that those 26 early treatment trials are the same? What does 74% improvement mean? Was that versus placebo, or observational?

The other issue is publication bias. People have an incentive to publish good results, so sometimes the result determines whether or not a study is published.

The reason this matters is because what if those 26 early treatment trials also have 20 unpublished studies where it didn't work? You can use statistical analysis to see whether or not the scatter of results suggest unpublished research. They make no effort to check. They may only be showing you all the studies where it worked, and none of the one where it didn't.

The third is the quality of the studies that go into your meta-analysis. If within that 26 studies you have 25 crap studies saying it works great and 1 saying it doesn't, but the 1 saying it doesn't is a huge, fantastically done, gold-standard study... that means you should listen to the 1. They don't present the information in this way.

Its kind of like if you have something that is between 1/4 and 1/8 of an inch, and you have 25 researchers all over the globe measuring with rulers 30 times but one place decides to do a thousand measurements with a tenths OD micrometer (something that can measure down to a tenth of a thousandth of an inch). If all the ruler studies averaged say the thing is .15" but the OD mic study finds that it is .1355" and the go/no go is 0.150" which are you going to listen to? The one good study is way more reliable than the 25 less powerful ones.

The last thing is the author's bias. Meta-analyses have inherent judgment about them, they're fundamentally subjective because you have to do work to try to ferret out those differences. A good researcher like John Ionnadis (who's made a career out of this type of thing) discloses bias and tries really, really hard to check and double check for not only his potential bias but also the bias of the authors. Just like placebo, there's a real science placebo effect in that researchers tend to find whatever they're looking for. Including meta-analysis researchers. These sites aren't reviewed, they aren't published, and they are anonymous. We have no idea what bias the authors have, what their intent is, or their motivation. They may be pure as the driven snow, they may be CCP propaganda. We have no idea. So proceed with caution.

---

This is why every adult should have a relationship with a doctor. Trust your doctor! It is amazing how many adults don't have a personal doctor. Instead they get their medical knowledge from the internet. Good grief! A lot of people have no trust for doctors but will believe everything they read on the internet if it fits their bias. Find a doctor, build a relationship, and trust that they are trying to save your life. They are the professional. If the doctor gives advice that seems off, then get a second opinion and check their credentials. What professional organizations are they a part of? You might find they are a quack, but move on and find a better doc.

I agree with this in general, but we are in strange times. Many doctors, including my normal PCP, will not even consider any treatment not on the CDC approved list of covid-19 remedies. Some will not even give steroid shots or IV fluids to treat severe sore throat and dehydration from Covid symptoms because it is not "approved".

Other doctors are willing to try off label things or use their medical experience to administer steroids, prescription drugs and fluids as necessary. When it comes to COVID, the response is very doctor dependent. So it's tough to just way "trust your doctor" when the doctor next door may have a completely different protocol that could be more beneficial.

Skillet Shot said:

---

I agree with this in general, but we are in strange times. Many doctors, including my normal PCP, will not even consider any treatment not on the CDC approved list of covid-19 remedies. Some will not even give steroid shots or IV fluids to treat severe sore throat and dehydration from Covid symptoms because it is not "approved".

Other doctors are willing to try off label things or use their medical experience to administer steroids, prescription drugs and fluids as necessary. When it comes to COVID, the response is very doctor dependent. So it's tough to just way "trust your doctor" when the doctor next door may have a completely different protocol that could be more beneficial.

---

That is why you need to have a relationship with them. Ask for explanations for decisions. If you are still skeptical then get a second opinion. I'm not sure using a teledoc that will just prescribe what you want is the right answer. Every adult should have a trusted relationship with a professional doctor. That relationship should have started way before Covid was a thing. If a person is becoming an adult in the times of Covid then they should seek out a trusted family doctor on the advice of their own family.

Zobel said:

---

It's not that they're wrong, it's that they're doing crappy analysis.

I know it's mind-numbingly boring, but look at the summary of those papers above. You have different countries with different types of patients (outpatient, inpatient, mild / severe covid) studying different endpoints (reduction in duration of symptoms, mortality, time in icu, etc) with different controls (placebo, standard of care, others) and different medicine under test (different dosing, different drug combinations) and different study styles (open label, blind / not blind, observational, etc).

When you do that, it's *really hard* to compare apples to apples. That's what a meta-analysis tries to do, take all of the differences out to say ok, even though these things are different, this other group of things are the same, and adjusting for the differences you can draw this conclusion with some confidence.

These sites don't make any effort to explain that. How do we know that those 26 early treatment trials are the same? What does 74% improvement mean? Was that versus placebo, or observational?

The other issue is publication bias. People have an incentive to publish good results, so sometimes the result determines whether or not a study is published.

The reason this matters is because what if those 26 early treatment trials also have 20 unpublished studies where it didn't work? You can use statistical analysis to see whether or not the scatter of results suggest unpublished research. They make no effort to check. They may only be showing you all the studies where it worked, and none of the one where it didn't.

The third is the quality of the studies that go into your meta-analysis. If within that 26 studies you have 25 crap studies saying it works great and 1 saying it doesn't, but the 1 saying it doesn't is a huge, fantastically done, gold-standard study... that means you should listen to the 1. They don't present the information in this way.

Its kind of like if you have something that is between 1/4 and 1/8 of an inch, and you have 25 researchers all over the globe measuring with rulers 30 times but one place decides to do a thousand measurements with a tenths OD micrometer (something that can measure down to a tenth of a thousandth of an inch). If all the ruler studies averaged say the thing is .15" but the OD mic study finds that it is .1355" and the go/no go is 0.150" which are you going to listen to? The one good study is way more reliable than the 25 less powerful ones.

The last thing is the author's bias. Meta-analyses have inherent judgment about them, they're fundamentally subjective because you have to do work to try to ferret out those differences. A good researcher like John Ionnadis (who's made a career out of this type of thing) discloses bias and tries really, really hard to check and double check for not only his potential bias but also the bias of the authors. Just like placebo, there's a real science placebo effect in that researchers tend to find whatever they're looking for. Including meta-analysis researchers. These sites aren't reviewed, they aren't published, and they are anonymous. We have no idea what bias the authors have, what their intent is, or their motivation. They may be pure as the driven snow, they may be CCP propaganda. We have no idea. So proceed with caution.

---

"Garbage in, garbage out" is typically how we describe meta-analyses that try to lump together studies with poor methodology and/or high risk of bias. Nevertheless, it would be a disservice to formal meta-analyses everywhere to call these websites "meta-analyses".

I want to applaud you for all the effort you have put into this thread. I've tried discussing how to interpret various studies, and the shortcomings of various study types with regard to determining treatment efficacy on here before, but it can be difficult to get through to others that don't have much background in medical research.

Physicians are not refusing to prescribe ivermectin because of Trump, or because they are getting kickbacks from big pharma, or because they hate conservatives. They are for the large part refusing because there is a lack of reliable evidence of efficacy, and for the high quality evidence that is available, ivermectin has been demonstrated to be ineffective. That is all ignoring the lack of bioplausibility of efficacy at standard dosages.

It works! And it's stupid cheap which is why all the non doctors who think they are smart because they read partisan articles don't like it and are doing everything in their power to discount it.

If you get Covid, take ivermectin immediately. Then laugh at the experts as you quickly get better.

mazag08 said:

---

It works! And it's stupid cheap which is why all the non doctors who think they are smart because they read partisan articles don't like it and are doing everything in their power to discount it.

If you get Covid, take ivermectin immediately. Then laugh at the experts as you quickly get better.

---

Why aren't the non-doctors arguing against the use of dexamethasone do you think? It's inexpensive as well if I recall.

mazag08 said:

---

It works! And it's stupid cheap which is why all the non doctors who think they are smart because they read partisan articles don't like it and are doing everything in their power to discount it.

If you get Covid, take ivermectin immediately. Then laugh at the experts as you quickly get better.

---

Why would a doctor care about it being cheap?

i'm fascinated by how IVM rose to the status it has among the vaccine hesitant. as others have pointed out, if it were held to the same evidentiary standard they're applying to the vaccines, no one would take it as a covid treatment.

based on what i've read here and elsewhere, for a portion of these folks faith in its efficacy as a covid treatment is a tangential proxy for other things like their distrust in pharmaceutical companies, frustration at the politicization of the virus at their expense, and rebellion against the perceived elitism of the medical community.

i guess it shouldn't be surprising that the placebo effect of IVM is significant for some of these people, if their belief in its efficacy is that closely tied to other strongly held convictions.

It got hyped pretty good in India. Not by the vaccine hesitant but the vaccine not possible to get people.

All I know is that it was the only thing that worked for me as a 14 month covid long hauler. I would recommend it to any other long hauler looking for something that will Make them feel better.

I think doctors have zero clue how to treat us. Also, I don't think people understand how bad it sucks to literally get sick every single week for over a year straight. At this point, Most are willing to try anything to feel better.

Old McDonald said:

---

i'm fascinated by how IVM rose to the status it has among the vaccine hesitant. as others have pointed out, if it were held to the same evidentiary standard they're applying to the vaccines, no one would take it as a covid treatment.

based on what i've read here and elsewhere, for a portion of these folks faith in its efficacy as a covid treatment is a tangential proxy for other things like their distrust in pharmaceutical companies, frustration at the politicization of the virus at their expense, and rebellion against the perceived elitism of the medical community.

i guess it shouldn't be surprising that the placebo effect of IVM is significant for some of these people, if their belief in its efficacy is that closely tied to other strongly held convictions.

---

Because it worked.

Proof is in results, not a bunch of random words written by nobodies on the internet.

Sorry bub.

JFrench said:

---

It got hyped pretty good in India. Not by the vaccine hesitant but the vaccine not possible to get people.

---

And was subsequently bunked and not used anymore

Charpie said:

---

JFrench said:

---

It got hyped pretty good in India. Not by the vaccine hesitant but the vaccine not possible to get people.

---

And was subsequently bunked and not used anymore

---

It was? I do quite a bit of business in India. News to them I suppose

mazag08 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

i'm fascinated by how IVM rose to the status it has among the vaccine hesitant. as others have pointed out, if it were held to the same evidentiary standard they're applying to the vaccines, no one would take it as a covid treatment.

based on what i've read here and elsewhere, for a portion of these folks faith in its efficacy as a covid treatment is a tangential proxy for other things like their distrust in pharmaceutical companies, frustration at the politicization of the virus at their expense, and rebellion against the perceived elitism of the medical community.

i guess it shouldn't be surprising that the placebo effect of IVM is significant for some of these people, if their belief in its efficacy is that closely tied to other strongly held convictions.

---

Because it worked.

Proof is in results, not a bunch of random words written by nobodies on the internet.

Sorry bub.

---

Agree (the proof in results part - especially the randomized controlled variety). Which is why this article is unfortunate and perhaps indicative of our times.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

see the post below yours.

mazag08 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

i'm fascinated by how IVM rose to the status it has among the vaccine hesitant. as others have pointed out, if it were held to the same evidentiary standard they're applying to the vaccines, no one would take it as a covid treatment.

based on what i've read here and elsewhere, for a portion of these folks faith in its efficacy as a covid treatment is a tangential proxy for other things like their distrust in pharmaceutical companies, frustration at the politicization of the virus at their expense, and rebellion against the perceived elitism of the medical community.

i guess it shouldn't be surprising that the placebo effect of IVM is significant for some of these people, if their belief in its efficacy is that closely tied to other strongly held convictions.

---

Because it worked.

Proof is in results, not a bunch of random words written by nobodies on the internet.

Sorry bub.

---

based on your posting history, you seem to fall in the group I'm describing. thus your protestations against the information shared by the medical professionals in this thread ring hollow.

I'm putting this in a pie

winmck said:

---

I'm putting this in a pie

---

Willllbuuurrr, I don't wanna get Covid! Or intestinal worms!

That paper used the Elgazzar paper out of Egypt that was since retracted for fraud and plagiarism. It was the third largest sample size in their study.

aggierogue said:

---

94chem said:

---

ea1060 said:

---

All I know is that it was the only thing that worked for me as a 14 month covid long hauler. I would recommend it to any other long hauler looking for something that will Make them feel better.

I think doctors have zero clue how to treat us. Also, I don't think people understand how bad it sucks to literally get sick every single week for over a year straight. At this point, Most are willing to try anything to feel better.

---

Do you think it may have cleared up some intestinal worms and made you more able to fight Covid? Some of these parasites are quite resilient, especially if you grew up in Asia or South America, or maybe swim a lot in fresh water with open wounds.

---

Ivermectin Research

---

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w/

Like groundhog day around here.

94chem said:

---

ea1060 said:

---

All I know is that it was the only thing that worked for me as a 14 month covid long hauler. I would recommend it to any other long hauler looking for something that will Make them feel better.

I think doctors have zero clue how to treat us. Also, I don't think people understand how bad it sucks to literally get sick every single week for over a year straight. At this point, Most are willing to try anything to feel better.

---

Do you think it may have cleared up some intestinal worms and made you more able to fight Covid? Some of these parasites are quite resilient, especially if you grew up in Asia or South America, or maybe swim a lot in fresh water with open wounds.

---

This is so freaking hilarious.

Ivermectin works, and you people still try to find excuses. You can't just admit that you've been lied to.

It works really well. If that fact hurts you, then you are a partisan hack. The end.

mazag08 said:

---

94chem said:

---

ea1060 said:

---

All I know is that it was the only thing that worked for me as a 14 month covid long hauler. I would recommend it to any other long hauler looking for something that will Make them feel better.

I think doctors have zero clue how to treat us. Also, I don't think people understand how bad it sucks to literally get sick every single week for over a year straight. At this point, Most are willing to try anything to feel better.

---

Do you think it may have cleared up some intestinal worms and made you more able to fight Covid? Some of these parasites are quite resilient, especially if you grew up in Asia or South America, or maybe swim a lot in fresh water with open wounds.

---

This is so freaking hilarious.

Ivermectin works, and you people still try to find excuses. You can't just admit that you've been lied to.

It works really well. If that fact hurts you, then you are a partisan hack. The end.

---

What's hard to admit is how they were so easily manipulated with the promise of some safety in exchange for a little bit of freedom.