447 replies to this topic

[Gal220]

Why? What would be the rationale for studying ivermectin for COVID?

 

People taking it did not get sick? It does have anti viral properties according to some, you dont have to agree with them - Video antiviral discussion

 

However I am not saying other drugs shouldnt have been studied first, there are quite a few extracts like licorice, egcg, quercetin, curcumin, and beta glucans that I would like to see studies on, BUT

 

Our NIH QUIT when they had their Vax dollars secured in May 2020.

[Hip]

People taking it did not get sick? It does have anti viral properties according to some,  

 

Nobody was taking ivermectin before it entered the spotlight, so we had no data at all. 

 

So why did attention suddenly focus on ivermectin? What was the rationale for trying it? I will tell you:

 

Ivermectin got into the spotlight because it was shown via in vitro studies to be antiviral for coronavirus. And in vitro, ivermectin is a good antiviral. However, nobody checked to see if ivermectin might actually work as an antiviral in vivo, which was negligent, and so people started assuming it would work in vivo, especially in backwards third world countries. So people started experimenting with it.

 

It was soon demonstrated (by the study I mentioned earlier) that ivermectin could not work as an antiviral in vivo, but by then this drug started to develop a cult status on social media, as a result of the fake and fraudulent third world studies which claimed it had miraculous effects. 

 

So ivermectin got into the spotlight as a result of neglecting to check whether it would work in vivo, and by third world fraudulent research.

 

But basically, there is no theoretical reason to believe ivermectin will help COVID, it was just an accident that it entered the spotlight.

[geo12the]

Do you know of any viral infection which can be successfully treated with supplements? I mean, there are hundreds of different human viruses; can you give any example of a viral infection which can be effectively treated with supplements?  

 

 

 

I've been saying this here for a while: Viruses are not easy to treat. The idea that an HCQ or Ivermectin or some other supplement will be a miracle cure (people here have scolded me "we are not saying it's a miracle cure!". Actually yes, that is exactly what many here are saying) is not believable. Not saying there might not be some effect but it's looking like not enough to make a difference, regardless of what one or two quacks might say.

[geo12the]

My favorite new Ivermectin story was the whole Joe Rogan story. FWIW I listen to his podcast occasionally and he is sometimes insightful and spot on about stuff, sometimes not. Rogan is a ripped beast in better shape than 99% of humans. He is a sight to behold, see here and here.  He works out and does naked yoga every day and takes supplements and eats well. He is exactly the kind of person you would expect would quickly get over COVID. He gets COVID and takes Ivermectin and wants people to believe he got better from Ivermectin and not the fact that he is supper fit and healthy? Sorry Joe, love you but I just don't buy it.  

[lancebr]

Interesting update on the most recent IMASK protocol:

 

https://covid19criti...col-ENGLISH.pdf

 

They have Nigella Sativas as an alternative for Ivermectin for the prevention protocol.

 

 

Some interesting info about Nigella Sativas:

 

Possible zinc ionophore:  https://www.scienced...210803320300531

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC8204995/

 

https://onlinelibrar...0.1002/ptr.6895

 

https://link.springe...332-021-00787-y

 

https://www.eurekase...r-docking-study

 

https://www.indiatvn...nfection-724093

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by lancebr, 18 October 2021 - 01:16 AM.

[lancebr]

lancebr, on 17 Oct 2021 - 8:15 PM, said:

Possible zinc ionophore:  https://www.scienced...210803320300531

 

That paper seems to be more third-rate science from the third world. The study says nigellimine from Nigella sativa might work a zinc ionophore, but then it provides no references, data or explanations as to why it says that.

 

I could find no information online about nigellimine being a zinc ionophore, so I have no idea where this study got the idea that it might be.

 

The journal is the "Journal of Herbal Medicine", so pretty wishy-washy to start with, and then the single author is based in a dentistry department, which is not where you would expect to find expertise in virology and antiviral compounds.

 

That is why I used the word "Possible" in front of zinc ionophore in my post.

 

Maybe you missed that point when reading the post.

 

And to help you better understand.....the definition of "possible" can mean "being something that may or may not occur"

Edited by lancebr, 19 October 2021 - 07:01 PM.

[geo12the]

Interesting perspectives on Ivermectin and Metanalysis:

 

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/ivermectin-debacle-exposes-flaws-in-meta-analysis-methodology/4014477.article

https://www.nature.c...591-021-01535-y

 

"There’s not a single randomised control trial which reliably says ivermectin saves lives"

"Meanwhile, large-scale clinical trials such as Remap-Cap, which evaluates multiple repurposed interventions, are continuing and may yet show a benefit from ivermectin. But for now, there is no evidence showing that it works for Covid-19, and strong evidence for many early trials being untrustworthy."

 

UK Scientist Andrew Hill received death threats for being vaccinated and retracting his metanalysis:

 

https://www.theguard...-death-threats 

 

"In March 2021, I received my first vaccine dose and posted a photo on Twitter from the clinic. Within minutes I was receiving strange messages: “Why would you do that?”, “not safe”, “why not use ivermectin instead”, “you are paid by the Gates Foundation”. One person even sent a link to a suction device to remove the vaccine fluid from my arm. Any message I sent promoting the benefits of vaccines led to threats and abuse."

 

"However, we then found several examples of medical fraud in the clinical trials of ivermectin: some of the databases had been simply made up by unscrupulous doctors. When we filtered out all the poor-quality clinical trials, there was no longer any clinical benefit for ivermectin.After we reported on the medical fraud in July 2021, the abuse became much worse. I was sent images of Nazi war criminals hanging from lamp-posts, Voodoo images of swinging coffins, vivid threats that my family were not safe, that we would all burn in hell. This was happening most days – I opened my laptop in the morning to be confronted with a sea of hate and disturbing threats. Twitter did nothing after I reported these threats. So I had to shut down social media."

[Gal220]

Maybe you might like to provide your own analysis here, rather than relying on the analysis of others.

 

Im not saying it is of no value, what if the concentration to slow it down + anti inflammation is much less than that needed to kill the virus.

 

Varon's survival rate nearly 5x better than most hospitals, if it isnt the IVM, it is still criminal his protocol isnt copied so everyone else reaches that mark.  

 

McCullough and others also call out hospitals for not using enough of certain drugs and while they continue to use remdesivir.  its really sickening.

[DanCG]

Here is a basic science paper that shows how ivermectin can have a clinical benefit without necessarily reducing viral load.

From the summary:

The clinical presentation is directly linked to inflammation and not necessarily to viral load.

• A chemical therapy by ivermectin induces a sex-dependent and compartmentalized response, preventing clinical deterioration and reducing olfactory deficit.

• Ivermectin limits the response of several signaling pathways related to that of type I/III interferon, cytokines activation and inflammatory cells population in infected lungs.

• A reduced Il-6/Il-10 ratio in the lung might account for a more favorable clinical presentation.

• Ivermectin-treated animals presented a M2 polarization of myeloid cells recruited to the lung.

 

[Daniel Cooper]

We're deviating significantly from discussing Ivermectin. I've been guilty as well. Lets try to get back on topic. 

 

I don't like to delete posts but this thread was supposed to be the definitive thread on Ivermectin protocols and research (pro and con). I may elect to clean this thread at some point. Just giving fair warning.

 

 

moderation note:
Well, the warning did not work. I have now split off dozens of posts prior to and after this one.
Longecity does not exist to give people a place to dump their thoughts. Off-topic posting degrades the purpose of this forum to serve as an information resource.
Hence it is is a violation of or forum etiquette and user agreement. We will need to start banning persistent offenders, even if their posting is otherwise well-meaning or even informative. -caliban

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by caliban, 02 November 2021 - 12:08 PM.
note

[Gal220]

From Dr Syed

 

My experience using ivermectin and fluvoxamine in 4000 acute COVID-19 patients: 5 hospitalized. 0 dead. 4000 recovered. 5 pharmacist threats. 1 medical board complaint. 1 lawyer retained. Hundreds of medication transfers for pharmacist refusals.

Don't wait til you get sick with COVID-19 to find a doctor and get a prescription and hope the pharmacy fills it. Do what congressmen and billionaires do: get the meds before you get sick and keep them in the medicine cabinet with a printout of the directions.

 

Steve Kirsch also believes in combo therapy

https://www.skirsch....in-100-success/

[Hip]

Judging by his Twitter account, Dr Syed Haider looks rather dubious. Why are all the people who promote ivermectin so anti-establishment, so anti-vaccine, and subscribers to conspiracy theories? That's what I get from reading his Twitter feed. In one tweet he suggests the vaccines are ineffectual, which is misinformation.

 

If you are anti-vaccine, you are a promoter of falsities; so all statements from anti-vaxxers will be unreliable. Haider's comments on the efficacy of ivermectin we can therefore assume are dubious, and take with a large pinch of salt.

 

Dr Syed Haider makes money out of prescribing ivermectin. He has a website selling ivermectin right across America. Thus he has a conflict of interest, and we cannot trust his statements.

 

 

[Gal220]

Judging by his Twitter account, Dr Syed Haider looks rather dubious. Why are all the people who promote ivermectin so anti-establishment, so anti-vaccine, and subscribers to conspiracy theories? That's what I get from reading his Twitter feed. In one tweet he suggests the vaccines are ineffectual, which is misinformation.

 

If you are anti-vaccine, you are a promoter of falsities; so all statements from anti-vaxxers will be unreliable. Haider's comments on the efficacy of ivermectin we can therefore assume are dubious, and take with a large pinch of salt.

 

Dr Syed Haider makes money out of prescribing ivermectin. He has a website selling ivermectin right across America. Thus he has a conflict of interest, and we cannot trust his statements.

 

Perhaps the misinformation is claiming there are no harmful side effects, like death, from the Vax?  Strange how no one ever seems to mention how the VAERs AND Eudra Vigilance DB confirm a large amount of injury, more than all other Vaccines combined for 20+ years.

 

I guess he messed up publishing this data where IVM can be bought,.

https://t.co/DRRTlKIpWA?amp=1

https://twitter.com/...345062839963653

Edited by Gal220, 22 October 2021 - 02:18 AM.

[Gal220]

Reposting based on thread trim warning

 

Where IVM can be bought

https://t.co/DRRTlKIpWA?amp=1

 

Also worth noting Dr.Syed and Fareed both recommending Fluvoxamine either with or without IVM(especially if no Mono antibodies)

[Mind]

People don't believe the FDA, CDC, WHO, because they have grossly mismanaged this pandemic, and because they do shady things, like retroactively change their official statements on Ivermectin, without notice.

[Hip]

People don't believe the FDA, CDC, WHO, because they have grossly mismanaged this pandemic, and because they do shady things, like retroactively change their official statements on Ivermectin, without notice.

 

Zero Hedge is a nutty extreme right source whose factual veracity has been measured as LOW, and which has been measured as STRONG on conspiracy theory and pseudoscience. 

 

I expect much of its readership will have schizotypy and a propensity to believing in conspiracy theories.

[DanCG]

Zero Hedge is a nutty extreme right source whose factual veracity has been measured as LOW, and which has been measured as STRONG on conspiracy theory and pseudoscience. 

 

I expect much of its readership will have schizotypy and a propensity to believing in conspiracy theories.

Have you ever heard of the genetic fallacy? Apparently not, because you repeatedly commit it, and you have done so here. In logic, the genetic fallacy reasons that one can accurately judge or assess something as good or bad based on where it originates from. So in this case, you judge the source, Zerohedge, to be bad and so you think you have proven that everything the article says can be dismissed out of hand. It’s called a fallacy because it avoids actually engaging the argument or evidence put forth by the source. Did you actually read the link or did you just see the source and post a knee-jerk reaction? I urge you to actually read the article and point out how it is inaccurate, or engages in conspiracy theories. You might find that it is a reasoned and reasonable account.

Edited by DanCG, 23 October 2021 - 01:21 AM.

[Gal220]

"Have you ever heard of the genetic fallacy?"

 

Its rampant all over twitter and other msg boards...  Mercola is a quack(and maybe so) but he easily had the best covid page in 2020.

 

However it has nothing to do with that, its just a brain washing technique to try and convince other dim witted readers from even checking the article out, lest they read the truth...

[Hip]

So in this case, you judge the source, Zerohedge, to be bad and so you think you have proven that everything the article says can be dismissed out of hand. 

 

I don't think I have proven that the article in Zero Hedge is wrong. I just would not waste my time reading such low quality sources. I get annoyed by idiocy and mediocrity, and so try to avoid writers who have those qualities. 

Edited by Hip, 23 October 2021 - 02:59 AM.

[Hip]

New study shows unvaccinated Americans are more likely to die of non-COVID causes.

 

Deaths due to causes unrelated to COVID were up to 3 times more frequent in unvaccinated people compared to those who got the Pfizer or Moderna COVID vaccines.

 

The original study is here. 

 

 

My interpretation of why the unvaccinated are dying much more is because they are not as smart as the vaccinated, so are more prone to having silly accidents; and I think the unvaccinated probably make poor health decisions in general, and don't look after their health as well as those who were sensible enough to get the vaccine.

Edited by Hip, 23 October 2021 - 03:09 AM.

[lancebr]

New study shows unvaccinated Americans are more likely to die of non-COVID causes.

 

 

Reading the comments from that article are very interesting...seems like the majority think the study is laughable.

 

 

Here are a few of the comments from other people:

 

"According to the CDC study, in paragraph two; "Non-COVID deaths were those that did not occur within 30 days of an incident COVID--19 diagnosis or receipt of a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2..." It can take up to ten weeks after exposure to die, if you're one of the unlucky who dies (counting a possible 14 day incubation period). It seems like the study excluded many individuals who took longer to die from COVID."

 

"What a completely bogus "study." First, they lump 12 year olds who have almost zero risk from covid with 85 year olds who are the most at risk together. Then they contradict themselves by saying vaccinated are at a lower risk, oh and the vaccinated tend to be more healthy as well. Guess what, the healthy are also at a lower risk regardless of vaccinated or not. This is a pandemic of the old and/or obese."

 

"Well, this is stupid. The vaxxed took the vaccine and the "unvaxxed" took the flu shot. Why do they keep gaming the numbers. More people died in the Pfizer trial who were jabbed than were not jabbed. 20 to 14. So during the Pfizer trial itself, the vaxxed died of all causes at a 30% greater rate than the unjabbed. The CDC and FDA likes to hide that fact. But its there if you read the Pfizer information."

 

"This study is a comparison between Covid and flu vaccine recipients, not a general population study. Also data is pulled from hospital and doctors input reporting to a database. The really healthy people are not in the health care databases. And young people don't often take flu or Covid vaccines. Seems skewed to me. No age data breakdown as well. "

 

""This article says: "For example, a May 2021 study found lower rates of deaths from all causes among unvaccinated nursing home residents than those who were vaccinated.""

 

"Any reputable scientist - anyone with a background in rudimentary statistical analysis, for that matter - could blow this 'study' clean out of the water in under five minutes."

 

"Correlation doesn't mean there is actual evidence of causation. Meaning, just because they appear to be correlated doesn't mean their suggested finding is true. This is beyond bunk BS."

 

"Actually might make sense, vaccinated people are scared of leaving their homes or living life, while unvaxed are out living life."

 

"Could it be because Vax-queens cower in fear instead of living life?"

Edited by lancebr, 23 October 2021 - 03:36 AM.

[DougClean]

Don't know why people are down on Ivermectin? Its now been used over 500 Million times around the world for Covid19

It works good when taken early along with other drugs like Asprin, Doxycycline and some also add Hydroxycloriquin and many others.

 

Here is a fun fact.. Ivermectin also works on the regular Flu.

 

Just for that reason alone I bought some so the next time the bug visits my house I wont be sick for 7 days and have my lungs all inflamed.

 

I already had Covid19 last year so I am not worried about catching it again....

 

If it didn't kill me last time it has even less of a chance next time but my Mom and others I know have not got it yet so I bought some just to be safe.

My brother had Covid last month and after taking Ivermectin he got better in 3-4 days even tho he did not take the correct amount witch for delta is 12-23mg for a average man at 160LB.

So get some Ivermectin even if you have been vaxed since the vaccine has a 40-60% failure rate better safe than sorry.

 

PS: The vaccine has killed at least 9,000 people...... Ivermectin deaths in 2021= 0

[Hip]

Reading the comments from that article are very interesting...seems like the majority think the study is laughable.

 
The Daily Mail is a good newspaper to read if you want to hear the opinions of the world's scientifically uneducated, because a lot of them congregate in the comments section of that newspaper. So I would take the comments with a pinch of salt. 
 
I have not yet looked at the actual CDC study, I just posted a link to it before I went to bed last night.



 

Ivermectin also works on the regular Flu

No it does not. Being antiviral in vitro for influenzavirus does not mean it is antiviral in vivo. 

 

Many people on Longecity do not seem to understand the difference between in vitro and in vivo.

 

 

 

[geo12the]

Have you ever heard of the genetic fallacy? Apparently not, because you repeatedly commit it, and you have done so here. In logic, the genetic fallacy reasons that one can accurately judge or assess something as good or bad based on where it originates from. So in this case, you judge the source, Zerohedge, to be bad and so you think you have proven that everything the article says can be dismissed out of hand. It’s called a fallacy because it avoids actually engaging the argument or evidence put forth by the source. Did you actually read the link or did you just see the source and post a knee-jerk reaction? I urge you to actually read the article and point out how it is inaccurate, or engages in conspiracy theories. You might find that it is a reasoned and reasonable account.

 

I fully agree it's good to expose oneself and take in different views. 100%.  But where is the line between "different views" and "ridiculous nonsense" ? Should we read and judge the National Enquirer for realistic news? Is saying that about the National Enquirer "Knee jerk"? Must we evaluate every single unproven claim made be fringe docs who many hear follow like sheep?  Must one read and evaluate every slanted politically extreme news source like Zero Hendge for insights on a medical pandemic? Is not listening to and evaluating medical advice from Tucker Carlson "knee-jerk". Yes, all people should break out of their news and social media filter bubbles and read any evaluate different information sources. But forgive me if you think it's knee-jerk that I will not trust something as obviously slanted and agenda driven as Zerohedge.    

 

People on the right are politicizing this pandemic. (disclaimer: I am not right or left, I actually think about things). People here participate in that politicization, by posting (in conversions about the pandemic) from news sources that push agenda-driven stories meant to push peoples' buttons.  Then someone questions that and they are accused of genetic fallacy. I don't buy it.

Edited by geo12the, 23 October 2021 - 05:52 PM.

[lancebr]

People on the right are politicizing this pandemic. (disclaimer: I am not right or left, I actually think about things). People here participate in that politicization, by posting (in conversions about the pandemic) from news sources that push agenda-driven stories meant to push peoples' buttons.  Then someone questions that and they are accused of genetic fallacy. I don't buy it.

 

 

I get a big laugh when I read comments like this. 

 

From day one both the left and right have been politicizing this pandemic to benefit themselves.

 

Anyone who says it is just the right politicizing this pandemic is just being dishonest.

Edited by lancebr, 23 October 2021 - 06:53 PM.

[geo12the]

I get a big laugh when I read comments like this.

From day one both the left and right have been politicizing this pandemic to benefit themselves.

Anyone who says it is just the right politicizing this pandemic is just being dishonest.

I don’t think the left is politicizing it as much as the right but we can agree to disagree. I don’t see people here posting from Rachel Maddow or Morher Jones. But lots of posts that link to Tucker Carlson and the famous epidemiologist Steve Bannon’s website.

[Hip]

I get a big laugh when I read comments like this. 

 

From day one both the left and right have been politicizing this pandemic to benefit themselves.

 

Anyone who says it is just the right politicizing this pandemic is just being dishonest.

 

The right wing population tends to be poor on science understanding, so when they try to enter into scientific debate, their comments are never about science, but only about politics. They do not understand the science, and thus they cannot engage in scientific discussion, so instead try to shift the debate into the political arena. That's the tactic they use. If you can't win the argument on the enemy's territory, then you try to drag the argument into your territory. 

 

In that way, the right tends to politicize the science, as a tactic to cover up their embarrassing lack of scientific understanding. 

 

Also, because the right wing has less ability to understand the scientific issues, they often turn to conspiracy theories or indulge in promoting misinformation, just as a way to fight the liberals who do understand science. 

 

We see the same tactic taking place on Longecity threads about COVID, where those with poor scientific understanding try to make themselves look smart by talking about conspiracy theories etc.

 

The liberal population in the US tends to be good on science understanding, so when they enter into scientific debate, they have a distinct advantage over right wingers, and can actually discuss and understand the complex scientific issues. 

 

 

 

But the right wing does do good things. They are the only people who are trying to counter the tyranny of liberal woke snowflake political correctness, which is detrimental to our society. Comedians cannot make decent jokes now, because the liberal political correctness police will come down on them like a ton of bricks. So I can forgive the right wing's lack of scientific nous, because they do a good job in bringing common sense into many debates. 

Edited by Hip, 23 October 2021 - 07:46 PM.

[geo12the]

"Have you ever heard of the genetic fallacy?"

 

Its rampant all over twitter and other msg boards...  Mercola is a quack(and maybe so) but he easily had the best covid page in 2020.

 

However it has nothing to do with that, its just a brain washing technique to try and convince other dim witted readers from even checking the article out, lest they read the truth...

 

You say "brainwashing" yet you only approve of treatments once they are approved by your gurus. Is it the people who question the gurus (the Mercolas the Syeds tec.) who are brainwashed or the people who follow them? Does "Genetic fallacy" hold for those who are ant-vax and refuse to read any of the studies that highlight how safe and effective they are? Or is "genetic fallacy" only apply to those who question quacks like Mercola and those who dare question conspiracy theories?

Edited by geo12the, 24 October 2021 - 12:06 AM.

[joesixpack]

Don't know why people are down on Ivermectin? Its now been used over 500 Million times around the world for Covid19

It works good when taken early along with other drugs like Asprin, Doxycycline and some also add Hydroxycloriquin and many others.

 

Here is a fun fact.. Ivermectin also works on the regular Flu.

 

Just for that reason alone I bought some so the next time the bug visits my house I wont be sick for 7 days and have my lungs all inflamed.

 

I already had Covid19 last year so I am not worried about catching it again....

 

If it didn't kill me last time it has even less of a chance next time but my Mom and others I know have not got it yet so I bought some just to be safe.

My brother had Covid last month and after taking Ivermectin he got better in 3-4 days even tho he did not take the correct amount witch for delta is 12-23mg for a average man at 160LB.

So get some Ivermectin even if you have been vaxed since the vaccine has a 40-60% failure rate better safe than sorry.

 

PS: The vaccine has killed at least 9,000 people...... Ivermectin deaths in 2021= 0

 

Don't forget that India issued Ivermectin to everyone, and stopped the surge in its tracks. Japan authorized its use, which ended it's surge, and lifted all restrictions. Plenty of evidence that it is effective in most cases. 

 

One thought on the political shut down of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloriquine might be the push to vaccinate. The vaccines have never been "fully approved" as the media and politicians claim. If you read the letter that was issued by the FDA it only renewed the expiring EUA, it did not grant full approval of the vaccines. I believe the EUA for a vaccine can only be issued if there is no effective therapeutic treatment. Admitting there are therapeutic treatments might require the FDA to withdraw the EUA.

 

Just my opinion.

[Fred C. Dobbs]

There are many studies showing Ivermectin to be effective against cancer and that the mechanism is an increase in intracellular and mitochondrial Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS). At least one study indicates that Ivermectin increases ROS preferentially in cancer cells compared to normal cells. But most studies are silent (as far as I can tell) regarding the ROS increase inside healthy cells.

 

Should we be concerned about Ivermectin generating free radicals? Maybe we should use Hydroxychloroquine+Zinc as a preventive and save Ivermectin for an active case. 

 

Ivermectin has New Application in Inhibiting Colorectal Cancer Cell Growth

https://www.frontier...021.717529/full

"ivermectin increased both total ROS and mitochondrial ROS in a dose-dependent manner."

 

 

The antiparasitic agent ivermectin induces chloride-dependent membrane hyperpolarization and cell death in leukemia cells

https://ashpublicati...rmectin-induces

"ivermectin induces cell death in leukemia cells via . . .  increasing levels of intracellular ROS"

 

 

Ivermectin induces cell cycle arrest and apoptosis of HeLa cells via mitochondrial pathway

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC6496724/

"It is well known that intracellular ROS are involved in the regulation of apoptosis, cell cycle and participate in various signal transduction pathways in cells. We found that IVM can significantly increase intracellular ROS content."

 

 

Antibiotic ivermectin preferentially targets renal cancer through inducing mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative damage

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/28847725/  (full article is on sci-hub)

"We found that ivermectin at 5, 10 and 15 mM significantly inhibited proliferation and induced apoptosis of all tested RCC [renal cell carcinoma] cell lines in a dose dependent manner, with the IC50 range 3e10 mM (Fig. 1). In contrast, we found that ivermectin at 15 mM but not 5 or 10 mM significantly inhibited proliferation and induced apoptosis of HRPT, HRE and HRCE cells [normal kidney cells] with IC50 higher than 15 mM (Fig. 1). These results demonstrate that ivermectin was preferentially cytotoxic to the RCC cells, compared with normal kidney cells."

<snip>

"In conclusion, we report for the first time that anti-parasitic drug ivermectin preferentially targets RCC. The anti-RCC activity of ivermectin is attributed to its ability in impairing mitochondrial functions and inducing oxidative stress. The selective efficacy of ivermectin in RCC is due to higher metabolic activity of RCC and that inducing mitochondrial dysfunctions represents a novel way of targeting RCC."