From the beginning of this pandemic, there have been numerous publications devoted to looking for known drugs that can be repurposed to treat COVID-19. Many promising leads have not been followed up on, but one has—Ivermectin. Physician-scientists took bold steps and brave volunteers took part in clinical trials to provide strong evidence that it can significantly reduce risk of infection, serious illness, hospitalization, and death. It is appalling that, so far, the medical establishment has refused to even consider using it. What was the point of all that research? What was gained from the sacrifice of people who suffered or died after being randomized to the placebo arm of a trial?
Different standards of evidence have been applied to get approval of expensive new drugs as compared to cheap old drugs or natural products. If the Ivemection results were like those for remdesivir, we would have forgotten about Ivermection a long time ago. Can anyone here honestly contend that any new drug that had nearly as much evidence in favor of its safety and efficacy as Ivermectin (even granting that there is more to learn) it would not have already been granted emergency use authorization? You can complain that calling attention to all of this is “conspiracy theory” or “demonization” all you want, but these are the historical facts of the situation.
Nobody that I know of is advocating that Ivermectin should be an alternative to vaccines for prophylaxis. The troublesome part is that Ivermectin could have been helping people all along and its use should have been encouraged sooner. It is important that physicians be able to prescribe Ivermectin because the word is out, and people will dangerously self-medicate with veterinary products if they can’t get it under medical supervision.
It is a valid point that using an old drug in a new way may raise safety issues that would not have been seen before. However, we know even less about any new drug than we do about Ivermectin. There isn't any drug currently in use or proposed for use in treating covid that one would want to take longer than necessary. I am sure most of us here would prefer not to take a pharmaceutical at all.
Everything has to be evaluated in terms of risk versus benefit. Here, much of the discussion has been about theoretical risk versus demonstrable benefit. The people who have died for lack of effective treatment are unavailable for comment.
The FLCC protocol for post-exposure prophylaxis is 0.2 mg/kg on day 1, same dose 2 days later. Two doses total. For high risk individuals the protocol calls for:0.2 mg/kg on day 1, same dose 2 days later, then 1 dose every 2 weeks. So, if someone is "dosing several times a week, week after week" [post #2572], they are doing so against the advice of the most ardent advocates of Ivermectin. People who have not been knowingly exposed or are not otherwise at high risk should not be taking it at all.
For people with known infection, the recommendation is 0.2 mg/kg for a maximum of 5 days. For hospitalized patients the dose goes to 0.3 mg/kg for a maximum of 5 days. Is there risk in that? Of course there is! The question is how does that risk weigh against the risk of not doing anything or, at most, taking remdesivir, which is the standard of care at this point. The people who have suffered and died because the medical establishment has refused to even consider a cheap and simple treatment might have an opinion on that risk if they were available for comment.
This topic is locked
