What’s Up With Ivermectin?

[Hipsman]

Each ivermectin dose should be taken on an empty stomach with a full (8 oz) glass of water.

A recent pharmacokinetics study reports that following a high-fat meal absorption was significantly higher (about 2.5 times) than in the fasted state.

I would guess in original studies it was used on an emply stomach, but resent studies showed better absorbtion if taken with food. Maybe take it 5-10min before high-fat meal?

 

[nerd]

A pharmacokinetic calculation I did showed that in order to get antiviral effects from ivermectin in vivo, you would have to take an incredibly large dose of around 30 grams, which might be toxic†. Ivermectin normally comes in 3 mg tablets, and at these normal doses you will not get any appreciable antiviral effect.

The article linked to in the first post performs a similar calculation and comes to the same conclusion. And so does this study.

So I don't think ivermectin will have any antiviral effect against coronavirus, at all normal doses.

However, it is possible some immunomodulatory effects of ivermectin could be of benefit for COVID.



† The LD50 of ivermectin for dogs is 80 mg/kg, 1 suggesting that a lethal dose for humans will be around 3 grams.

Your study also states the limitation of their calculation.

Nevertheless these agents have enormous apparent volumes of distribution and presumably disproportionally larger tissue levels relative to the plasma concentrations, which makes the translation of the in vitro data plausible

Especially lung tissue seems to store Ivermectin well (10.1016/s0304-4017(99)00175-2).

But even without a broad-spectrum antiviral potential of Ivermectin, the supporting factor with viral diseases can not be overlooked. In such a case, Ivermectin had to be assessed individually with every virus due to its variety of modulating factors that can intervene with viral pathogenesis. Highly pathogenic viruses usually have an immune-suppressive incubation phase that allows them to spread unnoticed. This is where Ivermectin could already intervene even without anti-viral efficacy. This study shows Ivermectin's variety of potential mechanisms with all kinds of pathogens (10.1002/jcp.30055). It also includes various herpes viruses. This is just theoretical because it doesn't show which plasma levels you need for each mechanism. You don't necessarily need an EC50 or IC50 to get significant treatment results because the immune system also supports the antiviral response given sufficient time without suppression. I assume it will depend on the virus and the stage of viral infection whether Ivermectin helps significantly or not.

For COVID-19, it helps significantly as the meta-analysis of the FLCCC and other researchers show. It's just unclear what particular mechanisms of the many mechanisms it is that make IVM so potent. Possibly, it's multiple of them at the same time.

 

[nerd]

It's quite interesting that journals repeatedly refuse the assessment of peer reviewers in their publication process. Legally, the journal editors' supervisors and management are permitted to do so because journals are still journalistic organizations. But I doubt that this benefits the credibility of these journals.

 

[nerd]

As miserable as I feel for the long-haulers of COVID, I actually feel (...) all (...) the patients in history who've had this syndrome from other viruses and other infections, because it's not uncommon - EBV causes this (...), even patients with lyme talk about this (...). Patients are distressed because physicians don't listen to them. You know why? There are very few objective signs. It's all a constellation of symptoms. And so physicians are unsatisfied. There are no good treatments. So everyone gets frustrated with the plight of the long hauler.

 

[Hipsman]

The ivermectin protocol is being updated frequently, to find the latest PDF click on USA flag on this page - https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-plus-protocol/

 

[Hipsman]

Found this on drugs.com today:

Also found this on drugs.com today:

The safety and pharmacokinetic properties of ivermectin were further assessed in a multiple-dose clinical pharmacokinetic study involving healthy volunteers. Subjects received oral doses of 30 to 120 mg (333 to 2000 mcg/kg) ivermectin in a fasted state or 30 mg (333 to 600 mcg/kg) ivermectin following a standard high-fat (48.6 g of fat) meal. Administration of 30 mg ivermectin following a high-fat meal resulted in an approximate 2.5-fold increase in bioavailability relative to administration of 30 mg ivermectin in the fasted state.

The "professional" tab is pretty lit.

 

[Judee]

The "professional" tab is pretty lit.

Sorry, bad brain fog day. Does "lit" mean legitimate or something else?

 

[bensmith]

Lit is cool i believe.

 

[Hipsman]

Yep, lit means cool. Also, it’s worth registering on the deugs.com, it’s free.

When registered, the site allows you add 3 or more drugs to the drug intreraction menu and you can also create profiles for yourself and family where you can write all the meds they are taking and see if there is any interaction between them.

 

[Bronc]

Professor Satoshi Omura, who won the Nobel Prize in 2015, for discovering the antiparasitic drug Ivermectin has had a paper recently published that concludes: "clinical trial results have been and continue to be accumulated showing that ivermectin is effective in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, ''

Yet apex medical authorities continue to inject fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding the efficacy of Ivermectin for treating Coivd-19. Professor Omura takes up these issues in his paper:

"Regulators argue that existing data on the efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19 are biased in its study plans and methods, and are insufficient to determine validity. A meta-analysis of 14,906 patients in the 42 clinical trials101) described above has shown sufficient efficacy of ivermectin, with a 1 in 4 trillion chance of the conclusion being a mistake. Yet, it is still considered insufficient evidence. Randomized controlled trials are regarded important by regulators. There are 21 trials employing 2,869 patients out of 42 studies. If regulators argue that studies of this magnitude are inadequate to allow the clinical use of ivermectin in COVID-19, then legitimate and compelling explanations for such judgements should be required.''

Sadly, the NIH, WHO and other apex health bodies, which are beholden to the big pharma approach to medicine, provide the flimsiest evidence to support their dismissal of Ivermectin. Thankfully, doctors around the world are putting patients first and following the science. The decision of India's Institute of Medical Science to allow doctors to prescribe Ivermectin is very welcome.

Professor Omura's paper, Global trends in clinical studies of ivermectin in COVID-19 can be found on the link below:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-...nese-Journal-of-Antibiotics-March-10-2021.pdf

 

[Marylib]

Not sure if this is already mentioned, but there was a trial in Bangladesh. Seems the Australian guy advocates a triple-therapy:
https://www.nps.org.au/ivermectin-and-covid-19

 

[nerd]

I begin to believe that there is some truth in Kory's theory that there is a mass disinformation campaign regarding anything speaking pro early treatment.

c19early.com, the renowned meta-analysis framework for various early treatment options, got their Twitter account blocked already late last year, about when the evidence for Ivermectin began to spread. YouTube also removed the first upload of the senate hearing of Kory. And any link to his videos is blocked on Facebook and Twitter. Even the Brazilian Ministry of Health got flagged when asking Brazilian residents to ask for early treatment. Censoring Trump's lies was one thing, but this, I can not understand. It's like they don't want any discussion or transparency and let western governments and agencies dictate anything relating to the pandemic. This is not how societies are supposed to work. When you begin removing such things that don't fit into the narrative, when do you reach the end of it?

 

[TiredBill]

Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consu...-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

 

[TiredBill]

• No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
• No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
• A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

 

[Hipsman]

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consu...-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

good for me, if everyone started using it the price would skyrocket lol

 

[5vforest]

I'm not really capable of digging into the arguments point by point like Hip and Nerd have done a great job doing.

But it really does seem like at the very least, there is enough data to suggest that Ivermectin may be useful, and that it's a scientific debate that is worth having.

I am saddened to see that it's turned "political", so to speak, and that various internet companies have started to censor some of the information around it, and include warnings next to user-posted content on Facebook, Twitter, etc.

The parallels to ME/CFS should not be hard to draw. We all know that until recently, the CDC recommended CBT/GET for people with ME/CFS. Imagine if every time someone posted about those topics on Twitter, there was a warning saying "The CDC recommends graded exercise therapy for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome."

(Basically I am just restating what Nerd has already posted above.)

I am not really convinced one way or the other re: Ivermectin, nor do I have any reason to be emotionally invested in the debate. But my level of trust in the FDA & Merck is basically the same as my level of trust in the information presented on https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/

 

[TiredBill]

CLAIM: The antiparasitic drug ivermectin “has a miraculous effectiveness that obliterates” the transmission of COVID-19 and will prevent people from getting sick.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. There’s no evidence ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9768999400

 

[Hipsman]

All these anti invermectin articles make me happy, I just saw the price of this drug went down in the place I usually buy it in, so now it’s more affordable, witch is good since when you got 4 people in a family it gets X4 more pricy then if you just take it yourself.

 

[nerd]

All these anti invermectin articles make me happy, I just saw the price of this drug went down in the place I usually buy it in, so now it’s more affordable, witch is good since when you got 4 people in a family it gets X4 more pricy then if you just take it yourself.

Ivermectin can be produced basically in unlimited quantities at any location. This isn't a vaccine. Prices wouldn't be affected very long.

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

Merck has a great financial interest in a competitive drug. Of course, they spread any information that suits their narrative. You could ask any vaccine manufacturer and they would make the same claims. These are just claims, after all, since they can't show any evidence to support these claims.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consu...-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

The FDA hasn't reviewed the data. They have received anecdotal reports of people taking equine Ivermectin. Since they don't provide any verifiable source, it's unclear if these people overdosed (by taking the equine dose) or took equine products that contain other antiparasitic agents or unsafe additives that can only be used in animals. Same story as with Merck. A list of claims without any evidence. By the way, this isn't even an official recommendation. This is posted in their News Updates section. This means any FDA official could have posted this and no scientific committee had to approve this article.

False. There’s no evidence ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19.

That is if you don't count 27 RCTs evidence, which consistently show that Ivermectin is safe and has positive endpoints. An interesting interpretation of what "no evidence" means, after all. But the media can post whatever they want. Their articles don't have to be approved by peer review. The only evidence the media thinks they need is a single claim from a single prominent researcher, no matter who funds them and what their conflicting interests are. If a researcher doesn't support your narrative, you just go on and find someone else. They aren't obliged to mention other opinions. And for any unknown reason, the word of this arbitrary researcher has more weight than the word of Dr. Kory and his colleagues.

 

[Hipsman]

Ivermectin can be produced basically in unlimited quantities at any location. This isn't a vaccine. Prices wouldn't be affected very long.

I suspect the same. I just try to find something positive in this shitshow situation...