Jump to content

Ivermectin?


Recommended Posts

I don't know much about him, but to speak with so much absolutism about anything can be dangerous. "If you take it, you will not get sick." Hmmm. I'm not discounting him, but he uses a lot of hyperbolic speech. 

I don't have time to look at it but I believe this is the manuscript he was talking about that he and FLCCC prepared.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf

Edited by TheFatMan
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ivermectin thing is being pushed hard but a couple camps, lost all credibility when it came up on the EVMS protocol (Paul Marik's shop). 😁

With that being said, there was a retrospective obs study out of FL showing a mortality benefit, several others looking at a reduction in symptom duration and prophylaxis for uninfected individuals.

Will be interesting to see an actual RCT which I believe is in the works, there was one out of Iraq but I have no comment on its quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ventana said:

I was reading on covid treatment and the EVMS protocol came up

lots of vitamins and stuff

is this real??

Right? A bunch of the hospitalists I work with AND one of the intensivists in our group will do:

Loratadine 

Famotidine 

Melatonin 

ASA 

Atorvastatin 

Vitamin C 

Vitamin D 

Zinc 

For EVERY patient. Argument is low risk potential benefit. Sigh.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doctor is a clown and should have his medical license revoked.

Look, ivermectin in EXTREMELY HIGH concentrations can kill COVID.  But so what?  The concentrations required to kill COVID in-vivo are so high that it would be a lethal dose for a human.

But this clown doens't mention that.  There's been at least 5 studies showing that ivermectin in NORMAL doses does nothing to curb COVID infection.

The only positive data are from in-vitro trials and animal trials that have doses of ivermectin that are 10-100 times higher than the doses used in humans.

It's time for the medical boards to start shutting down these quacks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2020 at 10:13 AM, TheFatMan said:

I don't know much about him, but to speak with so much absolutism about anything can be dangerous. "If you take it, you will not get sick." Hmmm. I'm not discounting him, but he uses a lot of hyperbolic speech. 

I don't have time to look at it but I believe this is the manuscript he was talking about that he and FLCCC prepared.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf

 

Exactly.  When Dr David Ho first pioneered the triple cocktail that essentially cured HIV, he was very careful in his statements that it was "promising" but that further data needed to be collected.

When a doctor or scientist uses a small amount of  in-vitro data to extrapolate to human trials and says "I've got the cure!" you should be skeptical, VERY skeptical.

 

Edited by TexasPA28
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting literature on Ivermectin and COVID: 

Dec 2 2020: https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)32506-6/fulltext

Ivermectin may be effective for the treatment of early-onset mild Covid-19 in adult patients. Early viral clearance of SARS-CoV-2 was observed in treated patients.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32251768/

We report here that Ivermectin, an FDA-approved anti-parasitic previously shown to have broad-spectrum anti-viral activity in vitro, is an inhibitor of the causative virus (SARS-CoV-2), with a single addition to Vero-hSLAM cells 2 h post infection with SARS-CoV-2 able to effect ~5000-fold reduction in viral RNA at 48 h. Ivermectin therefore warrants further investigation for possible benefits in humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

to put this to rest

 

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

Ivermectin

  • The Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIII).

 

 

 

Honestly I don't need any more then this - some quack MD trying all sorts of stuff and then claiming it works is akin to the snake oil salesman

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ventana said:

to put this to rest

 

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

Ivermectin

  • The Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIII).

 

 

 

Honestly I don't need any more then this - some quack MD trying all sorts of stuff and then claiming it works is akin to the snake oil salesman

Well you forgot this part- 

That recommendation is a “strong expert opinion.” It is not based on any clinical studies or RCTs. So basically you’ve got two “strong expert opinions,” one-pro and one-against. 

I don’t know the answer myself; just presenting the information. 

 

B44D2A24-109B-4D6F-AA47-4C38787B2678.jpeg

Edited by deltawave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
9 hours ago, deltawave said:

Well you forgot this part- 

That recommendation is a “strong expert opinion.” It is not based on any clinical studies or RCTs. So basically you’ve got two “strong expert opinions,” one-pro and one-against. 

I don’t know the answer myself; just presenting the information. 

 

B44D2A24-109B-4D6F-AA47-4C38787B2678.jpeg

 

 

well with out experts we have nothing

 

nothing is proven with covid - does that mean we do nothing??

I am most concerned with trying to follow the experts in the field, the ones that you can quote when you get sued for a bad outcome and the judge will understand you did everything you could, not believed some quack that is obviously out to lunch....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, deltawave said:

Well you forgot this part- 

That recommendation is a “strong expert opinion.” It is not based on any clinical studies or RCTs. So basically you’ve got two “strong expert opinions,” one-pro and one-against. 

I don’t know the answer myself; just presenting the information. 

 

B44D2A24-109B-4D6F-AA47-4C38787B2678.jpeg

I'm sorry, I missed who the strong expert opinion in favor of ivermectin useage was? 

Panel of experts versus a single individual. The panel reviews the evidence and then makes a decision. What this means is that the evidence is not strong enough in the "pro" category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MediMike said:

I'm sorry, I missed who the strong expert opinion in favor of ivermectin useage was? 

Panel of experts versus a single individual. The panel reviews the evidence and then makes a decision. What this means is that the evidence is not strong enough in the "pro" category.

Expert opinion from a panel of critical care providers represented by our friend in the OP video, reportedly.

Versus the panel of experts at NIH.

I don't know for sure either way. The argument I have heard from people (medical and non-medical) is that the medical community has flipped flopped on what works/doesn't so many times, and the experts in the ivory tower who haven't touched a patient in decades aren't listening to the treating providers because this has become injected with politics. That's what I've heard, and I am not sure how I feel about that.

However, since this has been brought to light with purported anecdotes and retrospective analysis that it has benefits for COVID patients and perhaps prophylaxis, I do support more research into it with actual RCTs like we did with Hydroxychloroquine. Being so vehemently for or against it at this point is premature for me, and it is potentially dangerous. Let's let the science do what science does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, deltawave said:

Expert opinion from a panel of critical care providers represented by our friend in the OP video, reportedly.

Versus the panel of experts at NIH.

I don't know for sure either way. The argument I have heard from people (medical and non-medical) is that the medical community has flipped flopped on what works/doesn't so many times, and the experts in the ivory tower who haven't touched a patient in decades aren't listening to the treating providers because this has become injected with politics. That's what I've heard, and I am not sure how I feel about that.

However, since this has been brought to light with purported anecdotes and retrospective analysis that it has benefits for COVID patients and perhaps prophylaxis, I do support more research into it with actual RCTs like we did with Hydroxychloroquine. Being so vehemently for or against it at this point is premature for me, and it is potentially dangerous. Let's let the science do what science does.

Got to define expert I guess. I've worked critical care for 5 years and have met some idiots. Simply practicing in the field doesn't make you an expert. What does? Good question.

Your ivory tower people continue to have clinical duties and take care of patients. The medical "community" may have flip flopped by the big bruisers who make guidelines haven't for the most part. You look at the NIH, to let knowledge never recommended hydroxychloroquine, never recommended tocilizumab, waited for preemptive results from the remdesivir trials before recommending it.

The reason there and been so much back and forth is the social media propagation of preprint papers from medRxiv. People latch onto something that was never peer reviewed and may never be published with crap methodology and then blast it across the Twitter sphere like it's gospel.

100% agree with letting science do its thing, nobody is trying to hold ivermectin back, just waiting to see some well done data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, ‘who are the experts’ is a great question. 
 

The desperation to find a solution is part of the reason people latch on so tightly to something. I concur, a dangerous and premature ideology prior to proper research and peer review.  
 

Side note-  WHO says no benefit to mortality with remdesiver. Sometimes even the science can’t agree.

Edited by deltawave
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, deltawave said:

Indeed, ‘who are the experts’ is a great question. 
 

The desperation to find a solution is part of the reason people latch on so tightly to something. I concur, a dangerous and premature ideology prior to proper research and peer review.  
 

Side note-  WHO says no benefit to mortality with remdesiver. Sometimes even the science can’t agree.

NIH didn't recommend it for mortality benefit, rather for the decreased LOS and course of symptoms.

The World Health Organization makes recommendations for...the World. As in if there's no mortality benefit why should a poor country without resources pay $$$ for it? Money could be better spent elsewhere.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, deltawave said:

I do support more research into it with actual RCTs like we did with Hydroxychloroquine. Being so vehemently for or against it at this point is premature for me, and it is potentially dangerous. Let's let the science do what science does.

I agree, lets do some RCTs, but to come out and emphatically say "if you take this you will not get sick," is irresponsible.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Physician Assistant Forum! This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn More