Video re Ivermectin TWULR

[Pen]

https://youtu.be/BLWQtT7dHGE

TWULR  : take what’s useful leave rest

(John Campbell  video )

 

[Pen]

It does have ads for people wanting to avoid that or supporting someone with ads

[Pen]

What is confusing in re confused face emoji?

 

[Laurie]

Thank you, Pen.  I just heard about ivermectin a few days ago and wanted to learn more about it.   I heard Dr. Pierre Kory talking about it on two radio shows and he sounded like a very credible source to me.   (The first show I heard was late at night when I was already in bed.  I wondered how I would remember the drug name in the morning since I didn't want to get out of bed to find paper/pen.   For anyone who knows the Seattle area, I used "Ivar's Acres of Clams" to help me remember, and it worked!)  

Anyway, thanks again.  Dr. Campbell's video was helpful to me.  

[catz]

studies needed.  Other drugs that have showed promise in a Petri dish did not pan out.  
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9768999400

[Jean in Newcastle]

If you can get a licensed medical doctor to PRESCRIBE a human appropriate dose and MONITOR it, then go for it.  Otherwise, be aware that it can be dangerous.  This is a prescribed medication for a reason.  Do NOT use animal products that you get from the feed store etc. 

[popmom]

4 hours ago, FuzzyCatz said:

studies needed.  Other drugs that have showed promise in a Petri dish did not pan out.  
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9768999400

He makes this pretty clear in the beginning of the video. Actually he points this out more than once. But to say that there is zero evidence that this could potentially be an efficacious treatment is just not true. There is clearly enough evidence to do further studies. 

Edited December 14, 2020 by popmom

[Laurie]

Here is the transcript of Dr. Pierre Kory's testimony before the Homeland Security committee:  https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Kory-2020-12-08.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

[Laurie]

1 hour ago, popmom said:

He makes this pretty clear in the beginning of the video. Actually he points this out more than once. But to say that there is zero evidence that this could potentially be an efficacious treatment is just not true. There is clearly enough evidence to do further studies. 

I thought this quote from Dr. Kory's testimony was especially interesting:

"Recognize that the amount of evidence that I have presented far exceed the level required for a compassionate use authorization as defined by the FDA. That happened for Remdesivir, a drug with far far less supportive evidence and much much higher cost."

[catz]

8 hours ago, Laurie said:

I thought this quote from Dr. Kory's testimony was especially interesting:

"Recognize that the amount of evidence that I have presented far exceed the level required for a compassionate use authorization as defined by the FDA. That happened for Remdesivir, a drug with far far less supportive evidence and much much higher cost."

Just because one doctor out of Milwaukee says this doesn’t mean it is true.  There are a lot of issues with the document he published, I’m on a mobile device  so I can not go on and on.  For instance this is a quote from his document

“RCTs are very valuable and minimize potential bias, however they are neither necessary or sufficient..”  

eta RCT refers to randomized control trials

What!?  Randomized trials are the gold standard of drug study.  This went around with Hydroxychloroquine.  If you give a reasonably safe drug to a bunch of people who are going to recover anyway, it’s going to look favorable.   There is still no data that drug is effective and I notice it’s kind of dropped off the radar.  The dosing used to show efficacy in Petri dishes were much much higher than you can dose to a real human for both these drugs.  There are large randomized studies being pursued and then we should wait and see.  In the meantime, work with a trusted medical professional and don’t act like it is a conspiracy theory that drugs need to go through trials or have some compelling evidence for compassionate use.   Just because someone makes some pretty charts with out actual numbers and methods doesn’t mean there is compelling data.  

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by FuzzyCatz

[catz]

For those who are interested this is some decent background info from a researcher.   In vitro data on ivermectin was based on exposure what would be with 60X MORE than what is a current safe dose for river blindness to get to a 50% reduction in viral replication.  Some researchers didn’t even think this worthy information of a clinical trial.   That would be like taking 120 Advil for your bad headache.

https://www.isglobal.org/en/healthisglobal/-/custom-blog-portlet/questions-and-answers-about-ivermectin-and-covid-19/2877257/0

 

Could ivermectin have a role in the treatment or prevention of COVID-19?

Perhaps, but the answer is not straightforward.

The in vitro experiments by Caly et al. were done by adding ivermectin into a cellular culture infected with the virus on a petri dish. The concentrations shown to reduce the viral replication by 50% and 99% in these experiments were 2.8 and 5 microMolar respectively.

To put this into perspective, the maximum concentration achieved in the blood after a single oral dose of 200 mcg/kg (the usual dose for river blindness) is of 40 ng/ml. 2.8 microMolar is the equivalent of 2,450 ng/ml, i.e. 60-fold higher than the maximum concentration after usual doses or 10-fold the maximum concentration observed in the high-dose Guzzo study.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by FuzzyCatz

[Corraleno]

This was a small RCT done in Iraq (preprint, not peer reviewed) with 70 patients in each group. It was randomized, but the groups were only matched for age and sex, not any comorbities. It was also not blind, and assessment of efficacy is based on somewhat subjective factors — how sick is the patient to begin with, and have they gotten better or worse? There was a difference in morbidity (2/22 in the treatment group vs 6/22 in the placebo group) but those numbers are very small and there was no matching of comorbidities (e.g. the placebo group could have had more obese people or diabetics or whatever). 

This Spanish study is supposed to be fully blinded and matched, but it has only 24 total subjects.  It uses a single dose, and is supposed to end on 12/31. Given the huge number of cases in Spain, I don't understand why they would choose such a tiny number of subjects for a very simple, single-dose trial??

There are more, but I don't have time to go through them now.

I think it would be awesome if ivermectin is truly effective as a treatment, since it's cheap and widely available, but I think the fact that it's being promoted in the same way, and by many of the same people, as HCQ — with a big helping of "Big Pharma and the Deep State are trying to keep the cure away from us so they can force us to vaccinate with microchips!" — does not promote confidence and may discourage the kind of large-scale, well-funded, fully blinded RCTs that we need.

[Corraleno]

39 minutes ago, kand said:

I’m noticing this odd pattern with coronavirus treatments that certain treatments are developing very cult-like followings for some reason. People become fanatical about them, and I’m not sure why that is happening. First it was HCQ. Now it’s ivermectin, and many of the “ivermectin is a miracle cure” folks are also still promoting HCQ with azithromycin. I understand very much the interest in something that might turn out to be helpful, but I don’t understand the latching on to something as a wonder drug before it’s even had enough testing to warrant widespread use.

For anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers, believing there is a cheap, effective cure for covid validates their belief that masks and vaccines are unnecessary and therefore "proves" they are part of a Big Pharma/Deep State/Bill Gates conspiracy to microchip us and make us accept socialism. For those who have claimed from the beginning that covid is "just a cold" and less deadly than the flu, belief in a cheap effective cure means they can say "well it would have been just a cold if the bad guys didn't prevent us from having the cure!" instead of admitting they were terribly, disastrously wrong. 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Corraleno

[catz]

kand - I was thinking about the same thing.  It's like a segment of the population would prefer to think there is a big pharama conspiracy theory with THOUSANDS of people involved that would keep an effective treatment away from the masses without evidence.  While saying they won't get the vaccine which is being tracked in thousands with a control group in an RCT?  It boggles the mind really.

The reason this drug isn't getting a lot of hoopla and attention is because the small amounts of data that exist really are not very compelling at this point.  I'm even more convinced about it since watching part of the OP's video and reading around on the individual studies.  These are very small studies, mostly not randomized, and the people saying how great this drug is I notice don't talk about how these studies were conducted or what size groups were involved.   But they're happy to throw out words associated with this drug  like "wonder drug".  

ETA and to be clear, if this was shown to a gold standard for treatment via larger scale randomized trial and I develop covid, I would very happily take it prescribed by a doctor.  

Edited December 14, 2020 by FuzzyCatz

[BeachGal]

The way a pharmaceutical company brings a drug/device to market or controls the market or pricing is often through lobbying. Many of the pharma lobbyists are former members of Congress or former staff at the White House, etc. It is often about profit or control but doesn't mean that the scientists or MDs are corrupt. It's a part of a process that occurs either without much transparency or is so convoluted, that it's difficult to figure out the facts. My husband, now retired, worked with politicians and lobbyists and testified before committees from both Houses throughout his career, where he scrutinized statistics and had to troubleshoot foreseeable future problems. Up close and personal this is a very messy and ugly process that is often driven by the desire to make a profit.

Cheap drugs or treatments that work well are not studied like they should be because the studies are expensive. Also, drug makers do compete with one another and will view a cheaper drug as their competition and potential threat. They then might choose to hire or use their lobbyist to keep their drug on the market and find ways to prevent their competitor from moving in on their turf. This happens more often than you might realize. Much of what transpires occurs out of the public eye. Even with Covid this has been happening in the US. If you do searches, you can read articles about it. Here's one from Google.

I don't know about Ivermectin or HCQ but high dose IV vitamin C is being used in other countries, such as China, to treat cytokine storm from Covid. It's cheap and fairly easy to administer. We should be using it in IV form as well but as far as I know, it's not widely used in US hospitals.

Edited December 14, 2020 by BeachGal
deleted a sentence