re: WSJ: Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?

quote:

---

This may be why people were calling you a dumbass. How does your gigabrain think that you are going to obtain doses of Ivermectin to "stash"?

---

FWIW my brother got a years supply from the frontline doctor tele health yesterday.

That’s a promising link. Thanks for sharing.

I mean ivermectin is readily available

Okay so here's a disclaimer: I'm a fan of Bret Weinstein and have been encouraged by the promising effects of Ivermectin. I'm glad the WSJ is reporting about it. That said, it seems that Ivermectin should be used in places that don't have access to vaccines and/or to treat long-haul covid when all other options have been tried, but shouldn't be used as a vaccine replacement as some have hopefully suggested. Perhaps more (better) information will come out that will indicate more efficacy across large groups, but I was disappointed to learn that the studies touted by the likes of Weinstein, Pierre Kory, Tess Lawrie, etc. had major flaws. Here is an article explaining some of the study flaws: Medium

quote:

---

Somehow, it gets even worse. It turns out that the authors uploaded the actual data they used for the study onto an online repository. While the data is locked, our hero Jack managed to guess the password to the file — 1234 — and get access to the anonymous patient-level information that the authors used to put this paper together.
The data file is still online, and you can download it for $9 (+tax) US to peruse yourself. I’ve got a copy, and it’s amazing how obvious the flaws are even at a casual glance. For example, the study reports getting ethical approval and beginning on the 8th of June, 2020, but in the data file uploaded by the authors onto the website of the preprint fully 1/3 of the people who died from COVID-19 were already dead when the researchers started to recruit their patients. Unless they were getting dead people to consent to participate in the trial, that’s not really possible.

---

I think this is an interesting rebuttal to the WSJ piece (ignore the holier than thou attitude of its author):

quote:

---

Oh boy oh boy oh boy. It's not every day I get to take down a completely un-researched, un-fact-checked @opinionwsj piece. But this, Twitter, is a *doozy*. It's clear the authors have read ZERO of the literature on ivermectin (IVM). Thread incoming:

First, the authors use the trope that "ivermectin won a Nobel Prize" [for parasites], so I guess that means it's good? Several drugs have won Nobels: Artemisinin; propranolol. Should they be used for COVID? (They should not.)

Next, they quote the pro-IVM group FLCCC saying ivermectin is very safe. And in the doses used for parasites, I agree. But the doses the FLCCC recommends are about 12x higher than what is given for parasitic infections. There's no safety data known yet.

(Now we're getting to the good stuff.) They tell us that IVM kills COVID. Wow! They link to research. But for some reason, they leave out that this was
a) in a petri dish, not in an animal
b) lots of things kill COVID in a petri dish (bleach, soap, a microwave) and...
c) The concentrations required to kill COVID aren't easily or safely possible in humans even taking very high dosages, as reported by many, MANY scientists (links to studies):
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(21)00535-X/fulltext
https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cpt.1889
https://d197for5662m48.cloudfront.net/documents/publicationstatus/34100/preprint_pdf/ccd805fd2383b5a138b3724ed98a8c5d.pdf
https://d197for5662m48.cloudfront.net/documents/publicationstatus/34103/preprint_pdf/b47c0e4b659e60e08dda603b06ba11b3.pdf

The Approved Dose of Ivermectin Alone is not the Ideal Dose for the Treatment of COVID-19 Caly et al.


https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cpt.1889
(They then refer to 70 trials for ivermectin, but don't link to a reference; they ignore that one of the larger trials just got retracted for possible fraud; they do not report that the trials are generally very low quality.)

Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns:
The preprint endorsing ivermectin as a coronavirus therapy has been widely cited, but independent researchers find glaring discrepancies in the data
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns

Now it gets WEIRD: They cite a study (but don't link to it; I will) that is one of the worst IVM studies to cite. It says it is a "retrospective study" that enrolled patients and gave them IVM. (You cannot do that unless you have a time machine.) ??

https://www.archbronconeumol.org/en-ivermectin-treatment-may-improve-prognosis-articulo-S030028962030288X?newsletter=true&coronavirus#:~:text=This%20study%20shows%20that%20ivermectin,7%E2%80%9312%20days13

2nd, The study was not randomized at all, which means there's lots of possible bias.

3rd, The study only gave 1, relatively low-dose of IVM (12mg once), IVM proponents talk a lot about higher doses being "better." We don't really even know what a "right" dose even is.

4th, OF COURSE the IVM patients did better, they weren't as sick! 10% vs 46% needed oxygen even before they got ivermectin. So OF COURSE fewer of them needed the ICU and fewer died. And so OF COURSE you're gonna stay in the hospital longer if you're in the ICU.

Then they cite but again don't link to a paper by Shouman in Egypt suggesting IVM prevented family transmission of COVID but with many issues, including the fact that they didn't actually confirm people had COVID, just had COVID symptoms instead.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ProvidedDocs/61/NCT04422561/Prot_SAP_000.pdf

Now it just gets awkward. They discuss a trial that reported in 200 healthcare workers, "only 2% of those given ivermectin developed Covid-19." This study, crazy enough, was retracted last week (see Guardian link, above). How can these authors not have known this?!?

I'm surprised that they then promote the idea that ivermectin is safe in pregnant women, when the only data I've seen essentially concludes "we don't know," and *especially* we don't know in the dosages recommended by the FLCCC. Very irresponsible.

Safety of oral ivermectin during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
There is insufficient evidence to conclude on the safety profile of ivermectin during pregnancy. Treatment campaigns should focus additional efforts on preventing inadvertent treatment of pregnant wom…
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(19)30453-X/fulltext

This whole thing is seriously weird. The authors conclude by questioning the FDA mentioning masking, distancing, hand washing, and avoiding crowds, and then imply that these things shouldn't be done unless "double-blind studie[d]." Or at least that there's a double standard.

And very extremely ironically, despite mentioning multiple studies in their poorly-researched Op-Ed for the WSJ, not a single one of them in double-blinded. (+100 irony points, the best double-blind RCT of IVM showed no benefit.)

Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19
This randomized trial compares the effects of ivermectin vs placebo on time to symptom resolution within 21 days among patients with mild COVID-19.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389

Finally: The Cochrane Group, a highly respective research collaborative came out with its ivermectin meta-analysis today, without suggestion of benefit at this time. Pretty damning.

---

quote:

---

Despite the FDA’s claims, ivermectin is safe at approved doses

---

Per a physician that posts here it has zero antiviral properties at the approved doses and the doses required to produce antiviral properties are not safe.

quote:

---

Per a physician that posts here it has zero antiviral properties at the approved doses and the doses required to produce antiviral properties are not safe.

---

Then the bodies should be piling up, right?

quote:

---

I think this is an interesting rebuttal to the WSJ piece (ignore the holier than thou attitude of its author):

---

Not possible.

quote:

---

It’s not an opinion article.

---

The content of the article might be 100% spot on, but that's exactly what this is

quote:

---

Not possible.

---

ok then click on the Medium article linked at the top of my post. It's a lot more respectful but also interestingly points out a lot of flaws in the big Ivermectin study used in the pro-Ivermectin meta analyses.