This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In Isiolo(Kenya)there has been an outbreak of an unknown disease that is killing camels without any symptoms. The animals dying are normally very healthy, either lactating or pregnant. Since the Minstry of livestock has not been able to diagonise the problem, Farmers are trying all sorts of medicines. Some farmers have tried the IVOMEC and are claiming to have stopped the deaths. 41.223.57.34 11:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)JAMES MACHARIA KARANI P .O. BOX 277 ISIOLO e-mail adress jamesmkarani@yahoo.com
I am very concerned about the content in this article that advises dog owners of how to treat their pets with Ivermectin intended for cattle. The average citizen is not skilled in calculating drug dosages or administering drugs and could easily overdose their pet dog. Also, Ivermectin should not be administered for heartworm prevention unless the dogs are known to be currently free of heartworm disease. If a pet owner reads this information and administers Ivermectin to a dog that is infected with heartworms, it would cause a massive die-off of the microfilarial lifestage, which could cause kidney failure, respiratory distress, and an acute immune reaction by the dog. Basically, people could easily kill their pets by following the advice on this page. Also, it is illegal for a non-veterinarian to use veterinary drugs off-label, such as using a drug labelled for cattle in a dog. Please, for the safety of our pets, remove this off-label dosing information from this webpage. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." 03:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Someone who cares
This article ought to mention Heartgard to explain why it redirects here. ~ Booya Bazooka 18:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
See http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/758988?src=cmemp - I don't have time to re-format the "Arthropods" section of the article. Paulburnett ( talk) 21:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
There should be information in the article on contraindications, I'll find some info and try to add a section. Thanks. 152.38.65.133 ( talk) 15:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Hey, it's the guy from above. I just made an account, and added some information. Hopefully, I can pull some people and information and expand the section a bit more. Cfowla ( talk) 16:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Potentially dangerous contraindication reported in grapefruit juice in humans. Source - http://www.everydayhealth.com/drugs/ivermectin - though some are suggesting it is good to use grapefruit juice as the extension of half life is a desired effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80A3:96D0:3E07:54FF:FE35:7D81 ( talk) 04:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Where does the high toxicity information come from? It contridicts the previous paragraph that states it low toxocity in mamammals and gives a contradictory LD50. I am removing the high toxicity paragraph. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
In the Use in Humans paragraph, you mention that Ivermectin can be used for "certain scabies". I thought there was one species of scabies -- how many species of scabies are there, and which ones are not affected by Ivermectin? Margaret now 13:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Since when is an iPod nano a credible unit of measurement? This wikipedia entry paid for by Steve Jobs?
As of December 23, 2014, an Ivermectin cream called Soolantra has apparently been approved by the FDA for rosacea, per this press release. This information should probably be put into the article in some form. — BarrelProof ( talk) 00:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Per the Carter Center:
"The Carter Center's Onchocerciasis Elimination Program for the Americas (OEPA) works to end illness and transmission of onchocerciasis in Brazil, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Venezuela, and Colombia....
As of September 2015, a total of 11 foci of the 13 endemic areas have eliminated or interrupted transmission as a result of health education and mass drug administration (MDA) with Mectizan®. Colombia (2007) and Ecuador (2009) became the first countries in the world to halt river blindness transmission through health education and semiannual distribution of Mectizan..... Thanks to these achievements, the Americas region will soon permanently free itself from the threat of this debilitating disease.
http://www.cartercenter.org/health/river_blindness/oepa.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.132.47 ( talk) 18:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
We don't need a MEDRS compliant source for the inventorship of avermectin, as MEDRS covers biomedical information only. Per MEDRS:
Historical details of individual contributions to research is not medical content.
Omura's webpage states:
The Nobel Prize Committe Press release states that
Please don't tell me you are suggesting that the Nobel Committee didn't do its research and that the co-Laureate is lying.
Annual Reviews in Pharmacology and Toxicology, 1992, 32:537 unambiguously states:
There's your MEDRS source if you require one.
73.162.132.47 (
talk) 00:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
One of the revisions introduced a lot of passive voice into it, but looks ok now. Are you sure about Campbell and Omura "discovering the avermectin family of compounds". I got the impression that was mostly Omura, and that Campbell did the extraction of avermectin after getting samples from Omura. Later research at Merck developed ivermectin, which is what pharmcos do, to improve properties and make something they can patent. ~ juanTamad ( talk) 03:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there any reason for this long list of international brand names in the introduction? There are so many more important things about ivermectin than its brand name in Canada or Nepal. I would keep the one or two most common brand names in the introduction, and move the rest to a section headed "Marketing," if we include it at all.
(Valeant is one of the companies that buys up small-volume drugs and raises their prices, so it might be interesting to find out whether they did the same to ivermectin.) -- Nbauman ( talk) 00:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have hidden the Chemical data section of the infobox because something in there is breaklng the page and causing it to fill my browser window. It appears that {{ nowrap}} templates are responsible, but I can't fix the error so I'll leave the section hidden. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 02:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
After some searches it looks like the FDA has not approved any medication for deworming in Humans in the USA. The article recommends this formula, but it can only be found available for horses, dogs and cattle. It should be discussed whether formulations for other animals can be taken by Humans as last resort and what are the dangers of doing do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.56.204 ( talk) 08:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a social aspects section could be added to discuss material such matters as donation of ivermectin by Merck, support for MDA by Carter Center, etc. This should be brief with link to main river blindness article (for example) as the prevention, treatment, and control of river blindness involves many other issues, such as vector control, treatment of water sources, and multiple drugs. Detailed discussion of social aspects ought to be in the river blindness article, rather than in this ivermectin article. The donations of ivermectin by Merck, support by the Gates Foundation, Carter Center, actions of WHO, national public health actions, etc are relevant. It didn't seem to me that this ought to be put in the medical uses section, though. Sbelknap ( talk) 06:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
We need a ref that ivermectin is used as a treatment. I am seeing nothing. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
This ref says "Importance of avoiding contact with eyes; if contact occurs, gently flush eyes with water." [2] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I fail to see why we have the price in the article, let alone in the lede. Pricing is typically a NOT and POV violation. Placing it in the lede moreso. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.The price of this drug is not mentioned in the article, and even if it were mentioned, I doubt it would be one of the "most important points" unless there are sources which show that this drug's pricing is unusually noteworthy. So, I would say that the price should not be in the lead. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 18:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
So basically we have one opinion in each direction... Have added it to the body of the text aswell. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
That article on medications and procedures contain prices is common practiceIf this comment was intended to further the discussion or was in response to any concerns, then I don't know what it refers to. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention.Putting it in the article at all ignores the need for "commentary" rather than "passing mention". Putting it in the lede suggests that it is somehow related to it's notability. -- Ronz ( talk) 14:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Except in the cases where the sources note the significance of the pricing (which did have consensus), there is no consensus to add the pricing to the articles-- Ronz ( talk) 14:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.-- Ronz ( talk) 22:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The isopropyl group in B1b (rightmost functional group) cannot have a chiral centre, the dashed line must be a solid line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.212.126.195 ( talk) 18:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a cleanup tag that says "Infobox/article is about two different chemicals, but many infobox fields are specific to only one of them." However, looking at one of the links shows that Invermectin is a mixture of both B1a and B1b so this is not a discrepancy. currently ref1 (used several times). RJFJR ( talk) 17:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I’m not seeing it in mobile browser. Technophant ( talk) 21:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
"Ivermectin is sometimes used as an acaricide in reptiles, both by injection and as a diluted spray. While this works well in some cases, care must be taken, as several species of reptiles are very sensitive to ivermectin. Use in turtles is particularly contraindicated" = It doesn't explain why. And the toxic schock caused by worms' toxines, and the method to avoid this (there are some). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 ( talk) 12:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3570270
The research is being conducted this moment...and it is more than merely "notable"...the cautions and advisories of the FDA, etc. targeted to the civilian population who might misuse their dog medicine on themselves is valid, but equally valid is this emerging scientific data on the utilization of Ivermectin (interfacing naturally, the empirical issue of proper dosage metrics) against human Coronovirus… The above paper is only one among many recent "investigational' (but no less 'legitimate') papers re: Ivermectin and COVID2; experimental attempts by certain doctors and scientists to deploy the drug as "transliterated" into (safe, effective) human terms, are appearing every day, literally... Simply because an FDA-stamped, formalistic-bureaucratic decade-long clinical trial has not been done, given the pathogen is literally only a few months old as de novo, does not mean the efforts of these persons should be so thoughtlessly omitted, as in the current article... If anyone doubts top-level scientists, doctors, etc. are experimentally deploying Ivermectin in relation to the current Corona-pandemic, the most shoddy search engine can disillusion confused or ignorant minds here...
Um, there is no subjectivist delusion here. Currently, Ivermectin is being INTENSIVELY studied in relation to the Covid Pandemic and, in terms of human medicine, the entire medical world agrees the existing data more than warrant further attention and ideally, rigorous empirical application. The complexities involved in the unknown dosage metrics inevitable in humanly-transitioned testing (not touching upon for the moment the fallacious "FDA-Americanist legitimation theory") are daunting, and the ethical component is definitely serious, but the ENTIRE MEDICAL PLANETARY COMMUNITY IN TOTO minimally STRONGLY encourages future, ethically-grounded research apropos Ivermectin. "Investigational" trials not constricted by American, FDA regulatory shackles are actively being undertaken, popping up every day, gathering positivistic results, creating a wealth of empiricism of medicinal hard granitic brute datum, globally; and even in America, "unofficially," by independent-minded doctors and scientists, and more covertly, internal American governmental forces.
Do I really need to cite more, clog the article, etc.? The information regarding the subject is so exhaustively copious, one does not even know where to begin... YET, the little posted was hyper-aggressively deleted...so...what is really happening here...?
OKAY, HERE IS ONLY ONE OF THE MANY REAL-WORLD PHENOMENA THE ARTICLE COULD THEORETICALLY NOT SUPPRESS MENDACIOUSLY -
The French biotech/pharm company MedinCell has been directed (in syndicalist co-operative union) by the Bill Gates Foundation to divert millions of dollars originally intended for anti-malarial research, in the context of the present Corona-virus situation, to channel these millions into the utilization of Ivermectin (per MedinCell, in injectable form) in the "war" against the chaotic virus, to name only one of the most obvious examples...
https://invest.medincell.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/PR_MedinCell-Covid19-EN.pdf
As said, the information as relating to the subject-matter is so abundant, one is perplexed as to where to begin... The previous information was bizarrely deleted for unknown reasons. That was only one single, random "investigational" piece of the picture - its strangely rapid, schizoid and irrational deletion undermines the credibility of the editorial staff here seriously, to say the least...
I mean, are you...ahem..."editorial personages"...really doing your job here...? Wikipedia reports as significant the American FDA advisory against the consumption of veterinary heartworm, etc. medicine by the intellectually regressed American populace, but the deeper background and context of the whole subject, is going to be militantly censored? This is pure mischief, not scholarship. Who are these mysteriously motivated editorial activists...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:8CD9:B248:72C8:B9E0 ( talk) 10:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
It also has been promoted as a treament by dubious sources such as Surgisphere. [6] I tagged the article for the COVID-19 WikiProject so more interested editors may notice it. — Paleo Neonate – 07:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The section on ivermectin's antiviral effects needs a major revision. Messy, inaccurate (SARS-COV-2 is a positive-sense RNA virus, not negative), and in general trying to get ahead of the research being done. In my mind, the most important point is that so far, no study has found clinical efficacy for ivermectin against any virus in human patients - all the promising results have been in cell culture or animal models. We must use caution when interpreting these results. Shiokla ( talk) 08:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Hipal ( talk) requests that the following article content in section Ivermectin#SARS-CoV-2 be made less promotional in line with WP:SOAP, WP:MEDRS guidelines. Please assist. Many thanks. -- Sdesalas ( talk) 00:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
On 10 June 2020, Florida Broward Health released results of front-line clinical study of 280 hospital patients showing an association between Ivermectin and lower mortality in confirmed COVID-19 infections. The study showed that the mortality of patients with severe pulmonary disease treated with ivermectin was less than half (38.8% instead of 80%) that of patients that did not receive the treatment. [1]
References
The mention of Sklice in the lead looks a bit like advertising. I can't see why a particular brand should be given prominence in this way. Arcturus ( talk) 23:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Magnovvig is edit warring [7] [8] unreliable health claims into the article. Of particular concern is the re-insertion of a claim directly into the lede that "A five day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of the illness", sourced to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.191 which is a primary source and therefore unreliable for this claim per WP:MEDRS. The user is aware of general sanctions in this area which they are now in direct breach of. Pinging RexxS as an admin actively considering applications of these sanctions, to review this. In the mean time I suggest a self-revert, Magnovvig, may be in order. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
"In November 2020 a meta-analysis found only weak evidence of benefit.[89]"
I propose changing this vague and ambiguous sentence to, "In November 2020 a meta-analysis found a 47% reduction in mortality (statistically significant) for Ivermectin-treated Covid-19 patients, however, due to a relatively small sample size (629 patients) the evidence is considered weak. [9]
AussiePete56 ( talk) 04:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry - I put this in the wrong place AussiePete56 ( talk) 04:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
I submit that vagueness and ambiguity in an encyclopedia should never be accepted. Taking your comments on board, I propose changing the sentence to, "In November 2020 a meta-analysis found a 47% reduction in mortality for Ivermectin-treated Covid-19 patients, however, due to a relatively small sample size (629 patients) the evidence is officially deemed to be in the "weak" category" AussiePete56 ( talk) 13:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I am responding to the request for a third opinion. My initial take looking over the edits is that there is large interest in information about experimental Covid treatments and there is interesting, sourced content to present here; however, presenting that information in a suitably circumspect way seems to be the key issue. Teishin ( talk) 22:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Teishin. My feeling is that Alexbrn is not complying with Wikipedia's prohibition on information suppression, and is not bringing a NPOV to his edits. The phrase "weak evidence of benefit" is both vague (exactly what is the benefit?) and ambiguous (a layperson could easily confuse this with "evidence of weak benefit") I fixed this dual problem with a single sentence. In response, Alexbrn said, "That's not a summary". It undisputedly is a summary of the meta-analysis, and I maintain, a better one than the original. He says that the phrase "officially deemed" is "strange" and misleading. It is a normal use of the English language and not misleading at all. However, I would accept deleting the phrase, "officially deemed to be". The charge of using scare quotes is false, since the word "weak" is indeed a direct quote and is therefore allowed under the guidelines. Alexbrn then goes on to write, "Absent new sources, we are done here." What new sources could he be referring to? I'm just trying to improve a vague and ambiguous sentence. He then closes down further discussion which is not helpful.
As a result of all this, I'm concerned that Alexbrn is ideologically committed to suppressing any information which favors the view that Ivermectin might turn out to be a safe and effective treatment for Covid 19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussiePete56 ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I see that Alexbrn's change is not any kind of compromise, but a doubling down on the suppression of the most important part of the study - the 47% reduction in mortality. He then goes to the trouble of stating that Ivermectin only showed benefit for people with mild symptoms - that there is no evidence that it works on more serious symptoms. In fact, of the 629 patients included in the study, 161 of them were moderate to severe cases, two-thirds of which were in the Ivermectin treated group. He then goes on to state that, "The World Health Organization and National Institute of Health abandoned trials of ivermectin for use treating COVID-19, because of a lack of promising evidence" and he gives a link to a study which says no such thing. It is hydroxychloroquine which was abandoned by the WHO and NIH.
Due to all these factors, I suggest that Alexbrn be encouraged to stand down as the editor of the Ivermectin page due to ongoing evidence of information suppression and a lack of NPOV. AussiePete56 ( talk) 23:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you DMacks, Teishin and Alexbrn. DMacks said, "we wait for review articles to illustrate what is significant". Sir, the article in question is a review article - it is labelled "a systematic review and meta-analysis." It is a secondary source, not a primary source. You wrote, "Every time you say [some number, therefore it's a significant effect and therefore we should report it], you are engaging in WP:OR analysis of the signifiance of primary-sourced data." That is simply not true. The "47% reduction in mortality" figure is the RESULT of the secondary-sourced meta-analysis - it is the "answer" to the question, the object of the whole exercise. It is far and away the most important part of the entire meta-analysis, and it is a figure that has not been mentioned even once in any version of the summary that Alexbrn has so far produced. (By the way, that figure rises to 50% when the authors included a late-arriving study that missed their original deadline -see page three of the report)
Alexbrn takes up this argument when he wrote, "it would not be fair or encyclopedic to tease out an individual figure and re-frame it to give it more significance than the cited secondary source does." This is ironic on a couple of different levels. Firstly, How can I "reframe" that number when it hasn't been "framed" (mentioned) in the first place? The fact of this figure's suppression (inadvertent or deliberate) is the whole point of my argument. Secondly, earlier, Alexbrn objected to my inclusion of the phrase "statistically significant" (taken straight from the report) which he called "confusing", (see above), yet here he is apparently arguing that the phrase, "an OR of 0.53" is preferable to the phrase, "a 47% reduction in mortality." Obviously you can't argue both contradictory points at the same time. I suspect that not one person in a hundred would even know that "OR" stands for "Odds Ratio", or would know how to interpret an OR figure. I solved that problem by using the phrase, "a 47% reduction in mortality" which is the exactly correct interpretation of "an OR of 0.53 for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality".
Alexbrn has not addressed the issue of the falseness of his claim that Ivermectin's benefit is "for people with mild symptoms from COVID-19; there is no evidence for people with more serious symptoms". In fact, 31.2% of the study participants had moderate to severe symptoms. So I assume that deletion of this section of Alexbrm's current summary is non-controversial.
My suggestion for the replacement of the current summary is, "The first systematic review and meta-analysis of Ivermectin's therapeutic potential as an add-on treatment for Covid 19 revealed a 47% reduction in all-cause mortality - however the authors cautioned that the quality of evidence was very low." AussiePete56 ( talk) 10:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I have delayed replying to give DMacks and Teishin a chance to contribute, but I guess they have given up. The meta-analysis was written for a reader who has the ability to understand the concept of Odds Ratio and how to interpret OR numbers - Wikipedia is not. To explain here what an Odds Ratio of 0.53 means is perfectly reasonable, unless you want this detail to remain obscure to Wikipedia readers, which I suspect is the case with Alexbrn. He says that Ivermectin is falsely being portrayed as some kind of wonder drug, and he wants to push back against that. I'm in favour of clearly and accurately reporting the results of this meta-analysis, which can't possibly be reasonably described as "subtly misleading".
In the spirit of compromise, I have this suggestion to replace the current summary, "The first meta-analysis of Ivermectin's effect on Covid 19 patients found a modest utility of Ivermectin in reducing all-cause mortality and improving clinical outcomes" This is a direct quote from the "Conclusion" paragraph of the study. AussiePete56 ( talk) 23:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Which part do you think was too complicated - the "modest utility" phrase? Would you prefer, "The first meta-analysis of Ivermectin's effect on Covid 19 patients found that Ivermectin reduced all-cause mortality by 47% and improved clinical outcomes by 98%"? I agree that's better, but Alexbrn wants to down-play effectiveness and emphasise unreliability, so I'm trying to compromise. AussiePete56 ( talk) 01:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
but Alexbrn wants to down-play effectiveness and emphasise unreliability,
My feeling is that Alexbrn is not complying with Wikipedia's prohibition on information suppression, and is not bringing a NPOV to his edits.and
which I suspect is the case with Alexbrn. Refactoring them would be helpful. Editing Wikipedia requires collaboration with fellow editors. -- Hipal ( talk) 02:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Once again, you raise the issue of "more sources" which makes no sense in relation to the task of how to summarise the meta-analysis. You want to shut the discussion down because you are losing every argument. How immature. The study didn't "find a suggestion" - it "supports the finding of the effectiveness of Ivermectin as an add-on therapy for patients with Covid 19" and "suggests the modest utility of ivermectin in reducing all-cause mortality and improving clinical outcomes."
Here is another compromise suggestion for the summary: "The first meta-analysis of Ivermectin's effect on Covid 19 patients supports recent observational studies which have reported the effectiveness of this drug as add-on therapy in patients with COVID-19, and suggests the modest utility of ivermectin in reducing all-cause mortality and improving clinical outcomes." AussiePete56 ( talk) 02:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Hipal, do you have any suggestions on how to collaborate with someone who shut down the discussion before the issue is resolved? AussiePete56 ( talk) 02:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Jcozzy, who is aware [10] of the general sanctions is trying to add non- WP:MEDRS content to the article, specifically in this [11] edit despite being previously told [12] that PMID 33234158 is not a reliable source. I am pinging RexxS and DMacks as administrators who have been actively considering how the COVID-19 sanctions might apply, to consider this. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems like there are false statements on this page? "there is no evidence for people with severe disease.[85]" -> there is plenty of evidence at least:
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v2 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1579212920302792?via%3Dihub https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)34898-4/fulltext - this notes that "Ivermectin treatment was associated with lower mortality during treatment of COVID-19, especially in patients with severe pulmonary involvement. "
This is a very strong statement to make "there is no evidence" -> could we replace it with something less contraversial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.55.125 ( talk) 22:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
the complication rate and mortality amongst patients with severe disease have been reported to be very high. In such patients the effectiveness of add on ivermectin has not yet been explored
Actually, I think you are misinterpreting the source. The quote you include is followed by a footnote number (22) which, (if you look at the last line of the publication) refers to a study published in the Lancet back in March. It is not a reference to this meta-analysis. 161 "moderate to severe" patients were included in this meta-analysis, but they were not segregated into two separate categories, hence the comment, " In such patients (severe) the effectiveness of add on ivermectin has not yet been explored." AussiePete56 ( talk) 12:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Contradiction is not rebuttal AussiePete56 ( talk) 14:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what prompts you write that. The article has an entire page of references (page eight) which correspond to the footnote numbers scattered throughout the article, 20 such references in the Introduction alone. The reference number in question (22) is located between the last and second-last sentence in that paragraph. AussiePete56 ( talk) 22:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
You're suggesting adding the word "good" in the sentence, "there is no evidence for people with severe disease"? I agree that that would be an improvement. Removing any reference to Ivermectin not being useful to people with severe disease would be better, since there are nine studies showing benefits for people with late stage Covid 19 disease - (average reduction in mortality - 75%) Even the NIH's own Ivermectin page references one such study. AussiePete56 ( talk) 14:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
This sentence seems to be a regurgitation of mainstream media propaganda: In December 2020, American politician Ron Johnson used a Senate hearing to promote fringe theories about COVID-19.[72] Among the witnesses was Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care doctor, who erroneously described ivermectin as "miraculous" and as a "wonder drug" to be used against COVID-19. Video footage of his statements went viral on social media, receiving over one million views.[73]
Where are the reputable scientific studies referenced to prove that they were promoting "fringe theories" about covid? There is a large scientific body of evidence (including the meta-analysis already referenced by this wiki) that shows the effectiveness of Ivermectin. How is that a Fringe Theory?
For this to be an impartial wiki entry (instead of a politicization of treatment for a pandemic) the statement should be:
In December 2020, American politician Ron Johnson used a Senate hearing to promote public discussion about possible early and prophylactic treatment of COVID to try and save lives and reduce stress on the public health system by early treatment, since the late phase of the disease is extremely difficuly to manage.[72] Among the witnesses was Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care doctor representing a group of highly published critical care specialists from major academic medical centers with collectively over 1,000 medical publications. Critical Care Specialist Pierre Kory was so excited about the potential benefits of prophylactic and early treatment with ivermectin that he described the drug as "miraculous" and as a "wonder drug" to be used against COVID-19. Video footage of his statements went viral on social media, receiving over one million views.[73] Mainstream media fact checking sites have jumped on his use of the word "miraculous" and "wonder drug" to discredit everything that he said, while one can argue that a drug that could have saved only 10% of the over 1,800,000 worldwide deaths (i.e 180,000 lives) could be classified as a miracle or wonder drug, Ivermectin has actually been shown to be much more effective than that in some studies, with not a single study not showing at least some benefit, one can easily make an argument for the use of Miraculous and Wonder Drug, especially considering it is widely available, cheap and safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriaandh ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
"We work from reliable sources here on Wikipedia..." So why are we referencing an article written by a reporter with no medical training? AussiePete56 ( talk) 16:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Given the impossibility of defining "miraculous", why does Wikipedia waste its time trying to disprove it? Stating that the use of the word "miraculous" was an error makes no sense. It was a piece of rhetorical hyperbole in a spontaneous unprepared speech to the Senate committee. Instead of looking at the data behind Professor Kory's claims, there is meaningless focus on that single word. Citing an article written by an un-named reporter who allegedly asked the opinion of a couple of alleged experts about the speech, falls short of Wikipedia's standards on verifiability and NPOV. AussiePete56 ( talk) 14:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Although I don't agree with the "miracle" claim, Alexbrn calling it "quackery", and defacto "erroneous" the claims of Dr Kory is unwarranted and may be biased. Especially in view of mounting evidence (not conclusive albeit ok) for the positive effect of IVM in both prophylaxis and therapy of covid-19. It is so because Alex accepts the view of 2 journalists and an oncologist as fact (!), against Dr Korry view (who is a proven, highly published lung specialist with already important and universally accepted contributions in covid therapy). I am humbled by the amount of research the team of Dr Marik (the FLCCC protocol is a collaboration under Dr Marik) has published in peer review journals. I give below just some indicative publication statistics:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/P.-Marik/3887524 756 pubs, 32900+ citations(!!) In particular covid research: 10+ publications, with already close to 100 citations and 3 highly influential ones.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/P.-Kory/3462977 79 pubs and 826 citations, 10's of highly influential ones. (I didn't bother to check the credentials of the oncologist in COVID therapy, but I'm sure his opinion is much less important, (As for the AP journalists: I reserve my comment for maybe later) Therfore I ask a moderator to replace the "erroneous" with disputed, and to reference the credentials of Dr Marik's team. Artemon ge ( talk) 12:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello and best wishes for the new year.
We must also remember that it was official policy of the South Africa, and for many years, that AIDS is NOT(!)caused by HIV. So I would be extremely cautious
here ,see:
AIDS/HIV denialism. The Peru case is more interesting.
In
WP:RSCONTEXT
WP:EXCEPTIONAL,
WP:MEDRS and
WP:PARITY I did not see a mention for research results published in
clinicaltrials.gov: Is it a reliable source?
Artemon ge (
talk) 01:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It's ironic that the South African regulatory authority quoted safety concerns for the banning of Ivermectin - after 3.7 billion doses taken over 40 years, the one thing Ivermectin indisputably has going for it is its safety. Even the WHO declares it to safe [ [15]]
Prof. Kory was called a quack back in May when he gave his first address to the Senate committee recommending the use of corticosteroids against Covid 19 - that is now standard practise
If we are going to use an unnamed Associated Press reporter as a source of criticism of Prof. Kory's comments, then it should be balanced with a refutation of the same AP article. [ [16]] AussiePete56 ( talk) 06:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
It is really amazing that an APNews article written by a reporter with zero medical background without any references is fine to use as evidence that can shape medical treatment/narrative about a pandemic by wikipedia, but reviews of medical studies by experts in their fields are not. Read URGENT COVID-19 information. Another reputable scientific source stating that Ivermectin is a miracle drug in the context of this pandemic. The thousands of people that could have been saved since this information has been made public is keeping me up at night. I had a certain level of faith in the media and especially in sources like Wikipedia to actually be impartial and not reinforce clearly political hit jobs and smear campaigns against serious medical professions trying to save people's lives. In a few weeks time there will be nowhere to hide anymore and the mainstream media and public health authorities will be forced to accept the facts. All of these news sources that slandered these doctors's good names should make public apologies when that happens, but they won't. They will just act as though all of this is wonderful new information, that the science finally came in blah blah. This singular topic has opened my eyes to the state of the public discourse and so called "reliable" sources of information in the world today. This wikipedia page is shameful and unethical and contributing to unnecessary loss of life. Feel free to delete all of my comments on wikipedia and delete my account since I will not waste my time anymore trying to shape the information contained on these pages for it is clearly a fruitless and meaningless endeavor. I am glad I tried though, as now I know not to trust any of these pages. Perhaps I will come looking for reliable information in the Talk pages if ever I find a requirement to use wikipedia in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriaandh ( talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I edited the section Research/COVID-19 which was reverted by Alexbrn. There were two parts to the edit. The first part of the edit was simply to give the date for that the NIH guidelines on ivermectin were released. That information is on the NIH website. I will insist on my edit unless it incorrect or misleading in some way.
My edit:
The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use ivermectin for COVID-19,[86] in Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines released on August 27, 2020.
Alexbrn version:
The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use ivermectin for COVID-19.[86]
The second part of my edit was related to a meta-analysis of clinical trials on ivermectin.
My contribution was:
A meta-analysis funded by the World Health Organization showed an 83% reduction in mortality in hospitalized patients treated by ivermectin. A presentation of the work by Andrew Hill was given at "Ivermectin Against COVID-19 Collaborative Workshop", December 15-17, 2020, sponsored by MedinCell, S.A..
The contribution was removed in Alexbrn's version
The explanation give by Alexbrn was: "Unreliable source per WP:MEDRS, and misrepresented to boot". The source of information was a talk at a scientific conference on COVID-19. Unless there is a more specific justification of removal of this contribution I am going to insist that it is included. What exactly is "unreliable" and was is "misrepresented"? -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 21:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Again, the material that was posted refers to a presentation at a scientific meeting. Is there a specific prohibition against such a reference? On the other hand, the guidelines specifically encourage references to meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. That was exactly the subject matter that I referred to. The quote from the quidelines is as follows:
The best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[12]-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 00:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The addition that I made and was deleted by Alexbrn was:
A meta-analysis funded by the World Health Organization showed an 83% reduction in mortality in hospitalized patients treated by ivermectin. A presentation of the work by Andrew Hill was given at "Ivermectin Against COVID-19 Collaborative Workshop", December 15-17, 2020, sponsored by MedinCell, S.A..
The reason for this entry is that the description of this pharmaceutical is missing important information in this Wikipedia article.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 01:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I presume your question is rhetorical, but no, the meta-analysis presented at that conference is unpublished. Are you implying that presentations at scientific conferences are categorically prohibited as sources? I don't think anyone is questioning the authenticity of the video.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 04:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials you say is "unreliable", but a since-debunked anonymous-reporter's AP article criticising Prof. Kory is OK?
If "On October 12, 2020 Peru withdrew its authorization to use ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as COVID-19 treatments." is a worthwhile inclusion here, then why is, "In December 2020 the Central American country of Belize announced that it had begun using convalescent plasma and Ivermectin to treat patients of Covid 19 with severe symptoms." [ [17]] not also a worthwhile inclusion? AussiePete56 ( talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
This comment is in response to the last comment of Alexbrn:
"It's unreliable (and, as Hill sets out, based on poor quality data - which is why they are waiting for better data ..."
In fact the investigator on the meta-analysis of the ivermectin studies never states or implies that his work is based on "poor quality data". That is a false statement. The investigator gives two reasons for including additional studies. The first reason is that there is the potential for publication bias (at 9:09 in the video). The second reason is to match the number of total patients in a previous clinical trial of Remdesivir in Covid-19 (at 10:24 in the video). Neither reason is based on any known limitation of the current study, but just based on general prudence to include as many studies as is reasonable.
My suggestion is that the reference to this scientific presentation be reinstated in this Wikipedia article. If necessary, the wording can be changed to make it clear that the investigator recommends that additional study be completed before ivermectin use is adopted.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 17:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I modified the statement referring to the NIH guidelines on ivermectin in Covid-19 to be the following:
The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use ivermectin for COVID-19, in Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines released on August 27, 2020.
This edit was removed by Alexbrn who states: "Rmv. as gives false impression guideline is not current. The date is in the reference."
The date is of central importance for these guidelines and should not be disclosed in a reference that most readers will not view. Providing relevant factual information should not be considered controversial. Wikipedia should allow readers to decide for themselves if a given publication date is relevant.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 19:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
There should not be a requirement to provide supporting documentation to disclose facts in a Wikipedia article. The relevance of the date is that the majority of clinical research in the use of ivermectin in Covid-19 was completed after the publication of the NIH guidelines.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 19:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
There should not be a requirementBut there are. -- Hipal ( talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The use of the Neutral-Point-of-View policy to suppress a publication date from the body of a Wikipedia article is a perversion of the review process. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 20:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
You do not have any evidence that the guidelines are under "constant review". That is the implicit bias in the article as it stands. There should not be any presumption about the inner workings of the NIH. Wikipedia should be simply reporting on the known facts.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 20:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Just a general philosophical comment. NIH is made up of men and women just like the rest of us with competing interests and biases. To be a little more concrete, consider the recent failures of review at Lancet and NEJM - what you might call "major health organizations". The NIH should not be somehow immune to criticism as Alexbrn would have it. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 21:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I will make this final comment. As it stands this Wikipedia article is deceptive as it leaves the Wikipedia reader with the impression that the use of Ivermectin in Covid-19 is a lost cause. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 00:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia mentions dates for all sorts of things. Dates are facts. I don't see how there can be a policy-based reason for excluding such a fact. Teishin ( talk) 01:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
What is the policy-based reason for EXCLUDING the fact of Belize adding Ivermectin to their list of approved treatments for Covid 19, but INCLUDING the fact of Peru discontinuing Ivermectin?
I support the comments of Vrtlsclp. Certain moderators here have abandoned the principle of a Neutral Point of View on this subject. Points against Ivermectin are deliberately emphasised and highlighted, while points in favour are suppressed and minimised. AussiePete56 ( talk) 01:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
In the lede there is a very scary sentence that could do with some tiny adjustment so that the subject is clear. I am not getting involved but figured there are others who have the reference handy and can see if just adding the words "of the parasite" after the bold text would be an acceptable addition.
"It works by causing the parasite's cell membrane to increase in permeability, resulting in paralysis and death.[3]"
Idyllic press ( talk) 09:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
This is one of the most popular pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine's scope. Very few editors watch WT:VET's pages, which means that questions may not be answered in a timely manner. If you are an active editor and interested in animals or veterinary medicine, please put WT:VET on your watchlist. Thank you, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Jdphenix: - Why did you remove the edit I made? The edit is below
References
I provided the reason for my revert in the edit summary. Feel free to continue to add bulk to this article in a section that already has an open RfC on how that very section is presented. (Sarcasm should be duly noted. I don't support adding any mention of this source or related content.) Jdphenix ( talk) 21:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I think this is better than it was a few days ago for sure. I'd advocate for letting this (single article) sit for a few days to see what other editors' takes on it are. There has been a significant amount of discussion on this one and letting others catch a breath and read up would be in order. Jdphenix ( talk) 14:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article states that the National Institutes of Health recommend against the use of Ivermectin against COVID-19. Should the publication date of the NIH guidelines be included in the body of the Wikipedia article?-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 15:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 19:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I propose this language instead: "The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 that were published on August 27. 2020. Changes to the NIH recommendation were considered by the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel on January 6,2021. No date has been provided for making the determination." The second and third sentences are responsive to Alexbrn's conditions. The goalpost here is resolution of the language and we can only get there through proposal and counter-proposal.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 21:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Making a stand against mentioning a straightforward fact like a date doesn't seem reasonable. Teishin ( talk) 00:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
AussiePete56 ( talk) 04:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Adriaandh and support his suggestion, which is similar to Vrtlsclpl's AussiePete56 ( talk) 05:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
That is an unreasonable objection. Such a meeting is in itself an uncontroversial event, and if three separate medical-news outlets reported it, common sense [ [22]] allows it to be accepted as fact. AussiePete56 ( talk) 03:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Respectfully, I am going to summarize progress on this RfC to this point with the intent to close this discussion if there is no objection in the next day or so. Of course the general discussion can continue outside of the RfC. I thank contributors for their input. I count two explicit "NO" votes, three explicit "YES" votes. I note two contributors with comments but without explicit votes. I also note that one contributor, Alexbrn, has made a proposal, (paraphrased) that the date of the last meeting of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel can be included but with context. Hopefully there is consensus for the following: The date of the last meeting of that panel is added to the body of the Wikipedia article. If others prefer, they can add in context to accompany that date.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 17:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The time course of an RfC is not constrained by Wikipedia but I will leave the RfC open. On the comment by Ajpolino that Wikipedia should represent the mainstream view. Agreed. Essentially, the question we are trying to resolve is "What is the mainstream view?". I think that editor may be equating the mainstream view with the view of the US government and the World Health Organization. Other governments view this issue differently. The government of Uttar Pradesh, a large province in India distributed this drug widely for COVID-19. There is also widespread use of this drug against Covid-19 in latin america with official government support in the Dominican Republic and Belize. The province of Chiapas in Mexico has distributed this widely to the population. The "mainstream view" should not be defined to be synonymous with the view of the most powerful organizations.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 19:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The comment above states that the government of Belize authorized the use of Ivermectin to "...head off people dangerously self-medicating..." That is not supported by their second reference. Here is an extended quote from the reference in that comment:
Regarding the inclusion of a statement on use in different countries: I hate to drop such a strong card - to include a date in a Wikipedia article is almost the definition of verifiable and relevant. However, if there is consensus around exact language that's fine with me. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 21:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
" we need to avoid a shopping list of countries (/states!?) that approve or ban ivermectin... (I notice the ivermectin boosters are quiet about Australia and South Africa)" - Alexbrn.
I heard that for quite some time, South Africa had an official policy that AIDS was not caused by the HIV virus, so their recent decision to ban ivermectin for Covid 19 treatment is perhaps not surprising. As far as Australia is concerned, doctors here are already free to prescribe ivermectin to treat Covid 19, as it is the right of every doctor to treat their patients as they see fit, taking into account the most recent medical evidence. [ [26]] If doctors in the USA are more hesitant to venture away from the official policies of the NIH, CDC, FDA etc, it could be less about concern for patient welfare and more about America's notorious litigious culture. If Wikipedia's official policy regarding medical issues is to report "official" guidelines while ignoring latest research, it could be just following down the rabbit-hole this culture which has resulted in the highest per-capita spend on medicine in the world, whilst delivering vastly inferior results compared to many other countries. [ [27]]
Apparently you have an aversion to comparing countries, let alone states, on their decisions about ivermectin and Covid 19, but this one example illustrates why your anti-ivermectin position is so very wrong. Only one of Mexico's dozens of states used ivermectin to treat Covid 19 - see if you can guess which line in this chart represents that state... [ [28]]
AussiePete56 ( talk) 16:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
AussiePete56 ( talk) 01:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
FYI, we've made significant changes to the section in question for this RfC. This diff shows those changes. Jdphenix ( talk) 14:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
References
One week after Dr. Paul Marik and Dr. Pierre Kory – founding members of the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) – along with Dr. Andrew Hill, researcher and consultant to the World Health Organization (WHO), presented their data before the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel, the NIH removed their previous guidance recommending against using Ivermectin, replacing it with neutral guidance which states "The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19." Thank you Alexbrn for removing the biased and inaccurate "Misinformation" section, but I believe it's appropriate to add the fact that the NIH issued updated guidance to the COVID-19 research section. The FLCCC Alliance characterized the situation by saying "Their recommendation has now been upgraded to the same level as those for widely used monoclonal antibodies & convalescent plasma, which is a “neither for nor against” recommendation. The significance of this change is that the NIH has decided to no longer recommend against the use of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 by the nation’s health care providers. A consequence of this change is that ivermectin has now been made a clear therapeutic option for patients." A better summary of the state of COVID-19 Ivermectin research, including a mention of the best peer-reviewed RCTs and the observational studies in areas where Ivermectin is widely used would be appropriate (given that this section is labeled "Research", and that we would not be reaching any conclusions). Tvaughan1 ( talk) 06:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
As Tvaughan1 seems to be stating, the update to the NIH guidelines is an extraordinary development. As Wikipedia editors, hopefully we can make a positive contribution by helping the public better understand this therapy. As always we would welcome further editors - especially those with more hard-core clinical expertise -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 15:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the first appropriate step in response to the NIH decision would be to add a section to this article titled: "Medical Uses/COVID-19". Since there have been contentious discussions on editing this article I will first ask for consensus on addition of that section and also for some baseline text.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 15:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
By the way, the editor mentions "regulatory agencies". The editor needs to be more specific. Which regulatory agency in which country? -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 06:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
These very recent articles might be helpful to people who are trying to get current information into the article:
This is a complete list of all the MEDRS-compliant articles indexed at PubMed for the current month. In terms of what they say, a brief glance suggests that they converge on two key points:
I think it would be a good idea to have this article reflect these recent research papers. This would probably be best done by having one or more of the interested editors sit down and read these papers in full, and then update the article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I am supportive of adding references to this article. I took a look at the first two articles you proposed. They seem pretty reasonable. I wasn't able to access the third because of a broken link at the NLM. One thing, between the two articles I looked at, the emphasis is relatively pre-clinical. It might be good to add an article with a more clinical emphasis. Please consider adding this one:
Also, you may have noticed in another thread that there is interest, by other editors, in consolidating a couple of related articles on Ivermectin in Covid-19 but that shouldn't affect your proposal in general. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 03:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I took a closer look at Kaur et al [1] cited above. It is fairly impressive. I would suggest just including an excerpt from their conclusion:
As far a McCullough et al, [2] I would need to know more about the Wikipedia thresholds for inclusion/exclusion.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 16:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Careful! There is so much activity in this area that it's important to always check for outdated information, which in the case of ivermectin for Covid is generally anything over a few months old. Any reviews used must include recent studies in its remit; WP:MEDDATE notes, "editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written" I just noticed the first source was written back in September, and accepted in November...
That rules out the first two sources WhatamIdoing found. Still reviewing...
Apropos removal of the controversy section:
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
-- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 22:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Can I suggest this article published on the NIH's website, "A COVID-19 prophylaxis? Lower incidence associated with prophylactic administration of ivermectin" [ [29]] AussiePete56 ( talk) 01:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn, that comment (from a parasitologist) was specifically related to the theoretical effectiveness of ivermectin against the virus itself, referring to the original research which used far stronger concentrations of ivermectin than has subsequently been found to be needed to be effective in practise. Also, the mode of death in Covid 19 is that the virus provokes an over-reaction from the body's immune system, creating a a cytokine storm which leads to sepsis, pneumonia, multiple organ failure, etc. [ [30]] Ivermectin acts as a potent inhibitor of both cytokine production and the transcription of nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB), the most potent mediator of inflammation, so even if ivermectin was found to not kill the virus at normal dosage levels (which is not the case) it's anti-inflammatory benefits qualify it as still "clinically relevant" for Covid 19 treatment. AussiePete56 ( talk) 04:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
On January 14, 2021, the NIH changed their recommendation on the use of Ivermectin in COVID-19. The updated recommendation states "...currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19." This recommendation is now the same as for the widely used monoclonal antibodies & convalescent plasma. Is it appropriate to add a section entitled Medical_uses#COVID-19 ?-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 16:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDRS:
Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be cited to imply wide acceptance. For example, results of an early-stage clinical trial would not be appropriate in the Treatment section on a disease because future treatments have little bearing on current practice. The results might – in some cases – be appropriate for inclusion in an article specifically dedicated to the treatment in question or to the researchers or businesses involved in it. Such information, particularly when citing secondary sources, may be appropriate in Research sections of disease articles. To prevent misunderstanding, the text should clearly identify the level of research cited (e.g., “first-in-human safety testing”)
While this particular use is still in the early stages of research/clinical trials, it does not belong in the Medical uses section. If the NIH guidelines made a recommendation for use, that would be another beast entirely. A non-recommendation either way does not warrant mention. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 07:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Honestly? We need to stop opening RfCs every time a study comes out or something gets updated. We're not trying to be in sync with current events. We're not trying to provide a glossary of all studies done on this drug or any drug. We're just trying to be an informative neutral resource.
The round and round discussion that goes the same way, again and again, seems awfully pointy. Are we wikilawyering? I think we are. Jdphenix ( talk) 03:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDRS, the updated information does not warrant a new section in Medical Uses. A lack of a recommendation is not noteworthy. Additionally, there are sound concerns about the dangers of overdose and inappropriate administration of veterinary formulations of this medication.
As such, I propose that there are no changes made to imply that ivermectin has a medical use for COVID-19. Jdphenix ( talk) 04:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 10,000 fold number mentioned in the COVID19 research section is incorrect. It should be 70-80 at most. The number is a miscalculation. The max lung concentration is about 0.082 micromolar, while the IC100 is 5.6 micromolar. 5.6/0.082 is 68.3. From: https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/cpt.1889 "Even with the high lung homogenate:plasma ratio, ivermectin is unlikely to reach the IC50 of 2 μM in the lungs after single oral administration of the approved dose (predicted lung concentra-tion: 0.0873 μM) or at doses 10× higher that the approved dose administered orally (predicted lung concentration: 0.820 μM; " 32.210.242.73 ( talk) 03:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I removed a link from the COVID-19 section to an article on misinformation since it implies that the potential application of Ivermectin to COVID-19 is misinformation. @ Fvasconcellos: stated that there was consensus to have a link from the COVID-10 section to an article on misinformation. We can survey again but I don't believe that there was consensus. In any case, the link is no longer appropriate since the NIH has just recently removed their recommendation against the use of this therapy in COVID-19. [32]-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 06:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Dr Kory of the FLCCC Alliance presented evidence on 8 December 2020 before the US Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on "Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution, Part II". It is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq8SXOBy-4w&feature=youtu.be, and a longer and fuller version is here https://vimeo.com/490351508. Dr Kory asked the Hearing to request the NIH to review the data urgently. The NIH has done so and the link is not to the Congressional hearing but to a Press Release which reads that the FLCCC "presented their data before the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel, the NIH has upgraded their recommendation on ivermectin, making it an option for use in COVID-19." Far from it being an "unreliable source" it is the very source {the FLCCC} upon which the NIH changed its recommendation to approve the use of Ivermectin. The sentence should be reverted, although it could have been better worded to read: "the NIH now approves Ivermectin as a therapeutic option." Ergateesuk ( talk) 21:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The recent update to the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines could be described as a "neutral" recommendation. It is also important to understand it's significance. As I have explained in the Talk section at Coronavirus disease 2019, the significance of the update to the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines can be accurately summarized as follows: "NIH has removed its recommendation against the use of Ivermectin in COViD-19". That is a fair description because the recommendation confers on Ivermectin the same status as two other therapies in wide use in the US: Baricitinib and Convalescent Plasma. All have US FDA approval. Most importantly, this is an earth-shattering development for those who have insisted that Ivermectin for COVID-19 is the domain of fringe conspiracy theorists. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 15:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Your word against Peter McCullough's, Vice Chief of Internal Medicine, Baylor University Medical Center. I interviewed him by email and I share that below without editing except to remove contact information and to highlight one sentence. He was aware that the purpose of the interview was for updating this article so there is not a problem with sharing it publicly. I am disclosing my name so that there are less concerns about conflict of interest and that I stand behind my views in a real sort of way.
Snipped private communication
|
---|
Removed private communication from talk page. To paraphrase, it was a private exchange between a Wikipedia editor and the author or a source from this article. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrtlsclpl ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
No copyright/disclosure issues. Please focus on the issue at hand.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 21:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
There are now two published statements that explicitly recommend that physicians should now consider prescribing Ivermectin for patients with COVID-19: [33] and [34]. Wikipedia is now taking an extraordinarily controversial position to imply that Ivermectin use in COVID-19 is misinformation and elsewhere has made the decision to exclude Ivermectin from the COVID-19 treatment options. Here are minimal remedies:
OR
In general, Wikipedia tries to stay away from giving medical advice. The absence of Ivermectin from the COVID-19 medicatons list might suggest to the reader that this medication is less acceptable than those that are on the list. To be a little more specific, in the comparison between Ivermectin and Baricitinib, two medications with the same NIH recommendation: why is Ivermectin is excluded from the medications list while Baricitinib is included? I am agnostic about the latter two options but obviously the current state is not neutrality. It is full blown advocacy.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 22:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
BTW, I noticed that the email interview with Peter McCullough I attached has been hidden. It appears as a collapsed green box. Is there any way to undo that?-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 11:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the full text of the email interview. I echo concerns about copyright. There's no indication that Dr. McCullough agreed to contribute this material under WP's licensing. Jdphenix ( talk) 04:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm hoping to go through this article to update it and smooth out the writing in the choppier sections (i.e. it flows poorly now). I'll be working in small bursts as I can find some free time. In the meantime, pardon my dust. If you see any issues or have suggestions, feel free to bring them up here. Thanks and happy new year! Ajpolino ( talk) 07:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ajpolino - in the "Misinformation" section of "Society and Culture", can I suggest replacing the word "erroneously" with "controversially"? Given the vagueness of the term "miracle" it seems wrong for an encylopedia to state that a claim of "miraculousness" is an "error" under any circumstances, let alone when there are at least thirty separate studies that support Professor Kory's claims of ivermectin's "miraculous" effect on Covid 19. [ [35]] For the same reason, I suggest that the link to the Associated Press article with the clearly false headline, "No Evidence that Ivermectin is a miracle drug against Covid 19" should be removed as those thirty studies represent a lot of evidence. The article has received criticism for errors in argumentation and fact. [ [36]]
AussiePete56 ( talk) 15:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Unless you're claiming that "miraculous" MUST MEAN an actual "Jesus-level" miracle, then the word has to be arguably reasonable in the light of evidence that ivermectin results in an average 85% improvement in a supposedly untreatable illness, according to those THIRTY-ONE studies. Since you are the one making the claim of "an error", the onus is on you to prove that those studies are all wrong. Saying that the claim is "controversial" is being polite - your claim of an "error" is plainly an opinion and shouldn't be a part of an encyclopedia. AussiePete56 ( talk) 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This is the "Society and Culture" section of the Ivermectin page. You are reporting what Professor Kory said at the Senate Committee meeting. His statement that Ivermectin has a "miraculous" effect on Covid 19 is undeniably controversial, but not "certainly" an error - therefore an encyclopedia should not report it as such. Very straight-forward. To accept that thirty-one properly conducted scientific studies provides significant corroborating evidence for his statement is reasonable. AussiePete56 ( talk) 16:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
"Pseudoscience" is defined by Wikipedia as, "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field." It doesn't define it as "not reflecting the policy position of slow-moving bureaucratic Advisory Boards." Thirty-one properly conducted scientific studies all saying the same thing clearly constitutes, "an idea that is broadly supported by scholarship in its field." AussiePete56 ( talk) 00:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Ajpolino. Actually, I have been unable to get Alexbrn to allow any changes to this page - even the addition of a factual date is too "misleading" to allow. You seem confident, so best wishes! AussiePete56 ( talk) 00:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Another thing Ajpolino... I agree with others that the main place for discussion of Ivermectin's role in treating Covid 19 should be the Covid 19 pages themselves... I notice that there is very little mention of Ivermectin there, even on the "Covid 19 Drug Repurposing Research" page, despite appearing to be far and away the most promising candidate to date for such effective repurposing. I could write something myself but I'm confident that it would be removed. Do you think you could come up with a contribution yourself? AussiePete56 ( talk) 01:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I propose removing the link the the wiki about misinformation with regard to Ivermectin and COVID since it contains misleading information without medical sourcing. For promoting the false claims of misinformation it seems to be allowed to use any type of reporting, but no counter points are permitted. Thus it will remain purely an archive or purported claims of misinformation without any discussion or validation of these claims. The first thing people reading about COVID and Ivermectin on the Ivermectin page sees is this link to misinformation which creates a totally false narrative without scientific backing around it. Adriaandh ( talk) 17:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change “Common side effects include red eyes, dry skin, and burning skin” to => “Common side effects when used externally for head lice include red eyes, dry skin, and burning skin” to match source. -- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 09:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
???
|
---|
:Could you link or quote the exact source you're referring to? I couldn't find anything on head lice after glancing at the two sources directly above.
TimSmit (
talk) 01:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "Based on this data, however, doses much higher than the maximum approved or safely achievable for use in humans would be required for an antiviral effect". Fails WP:MEDRS. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext is a better source for WP:V info on ivermectin. The Lancet. -- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 09:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, at https://www.ft.com/content/e7cb76fc-da98-4a31-9c1f-926c58349c84, the WHO-funded ivermectin stats researcher is quoted:
“ | “The purpose of this report is to forewarn people that this is coming: get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve it,” Dr Hill said. “We need to be ready.” | ” |
That's apropos https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-148845/v1_stamped.pdf.
6 meta analyses, 53 studies - listed at https://c19ivermectin.com/ - and all have positive findings - but we're still calling claims that it stops covid-19, "misinformation". Tantamount to mass murder - more and more so the longer this goes on. Even the NIH has changed its view to say ivermectin use against covid is acceptable - even though it appears to me it had to lie about the data in order to avoid coming out even more strongly in favor of ivermectin.-- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 09:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the Chaccour trial, wording "patients who received ivermectin" should be rewritten as "patients who received a single dose of ivermectin"; most other studies administer several doses of ivermectin. Then, why do you write "no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load", while they observed lower viral load actually? "A marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia, a reduction of cough and a tendency to lower viral loads and lower IgG titers". And finally, the authors conclude "This pilot points towards a potential use of ivermectin in COVID-19" but this section impresses quite the opposite. Is it some anti-ivermectin prejudice or what? Vlpast2 ( talk) 20:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
There's adequate specificity. I.e. Regarding the Chaccour trial, wording "patients who received ivermectin" should be rewritten as "patients who received a single dose of ivermectin"; most other studies administer several doses of ivermectin.-- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 01:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
In the Covid 19 section the last sentence reads, "the government of Peru rescinded a previous recommendation for the use of ivermectin (alongside azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine) in hospitalized patients." A couple of days ago, it was reported that the government of Peru decided to reverse its position and once again include ivermectin in its kit for patients with Covid 19 [ [37]] AussiePete56 ( talk) 15:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, it would undermine the falsehood that ivermectin is only being used in research at the moment - aren't we supposed to publish truth without bias? AussiePete56 ( talk) 00:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Not done:
It wasn't "a doctor" making the decision, it was the collective decisions of the Peruvian Ministry of Health and the Peruvian Government's Social Health Insurance Scheme. Jdphenix's decision to leave the reference to the original outdated since-reversed decision is obviously preposterous. Since certain editors here have an ideological commitment to never mentioning any positive association between ivermectin and Covid 19 treatment, I suggest just remove the entire sentence. The mistake needs to be corrected both here and in the "drug-repurposing" area. AussiePete56 ( talk) 08:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The headline of the article clearly indicates a "reversal of position" [ [38]] so I propose that the sentence which currently reads, "and the government of Peru rescinded a previous recommendation for the use of ivermectin (alongside azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine) in hospitalized patients" should have added to it, "although ivermectin is still prescribed for outpatient use." AussiePete56 ( talk) 16:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
We now have multiple concurrent discussions on ivermectin in COVID-19 across the talk pages of multiple articles, and conflicting information in each of those articles. While this use remains experimental, the core of our content should remain at the Ivermectin section of COVID-19 drug repurposing research. I have thus transcluded that content into the Research section of the present article in the hope of centralizing discussion and avoiding duplication of efforts/information conflicts. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 07:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, folks, its use against covid is already standard practice, not experimental, in much of the world, though clearly that makes some people angry and even in denial. Don't be US-blindered.
And I'll add: I'm not here to edit an article on the topic of misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic to the encyclopedia, or a section of this article on that topic. So don't tell me I have to. Don't tell me I have to anything - that's not how we are supposed to talk to each other.
This
edit request to
ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The idea that animal use is primary is absurd. About 3.7 billion human doses. Prevents millions of cases of river blindness, malaria (partially), covid (according to people who aren't ignorant)... Please revert Fvasconcellos last edit.
-- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 08:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
"A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 24 patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors found no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load between patients who received ivermectin and those given placebo, thus failing the primary outcome of the study.[75]"
This addition was recently added to the Covid 19 section of the ivermectin page. When I have proposed mentioning other Randomised Controlled Trials investigating ivermectin's potential use in treating Covid 19, I have been reminded that it is against Wikipedia's ban on Original Research [ [39]]. What is the difference here? . AussiePete56 ( talk) 08:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
"consistent with the secondary sourcing...". What "secondary sourcing" are you referring to? The meta-analysis which found "weak evidence of benefit"? How is "no effect" consistent with "evidence of benefit"?
Also, the phrase, "no difference found in viral load" is not supported by the study, which says, "the ivermectin group had non-statistically significant lower viral loads at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) and day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) post treatment as well as lower IgG titers at day 21 post treatment (p = 0·24)." This was repeated in the "Interpretation" - "(the ivermectin treated group showed) a tendency to lower viral loads and lower IgG titers" as well as "a marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia, and a reduction of cough" . AussiePete56 ( talk) 17:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
There is this statement
Ivermectin, although still an investigational drug, has become the drug of choice for onchocer-ciasis (river blindness). Ivermectin intensifies GABA-mediated neurotransmission in nematodes and causes immobilization of parasites, facilitating their removal by the eticuloendothelial system. Selective toxicity results because in humans GABA is a neurotransmitter only in the CNS, and ivermectin does not cross the blood-brain barrier.
Im wondering regarding the recent large-scale human use of Ivermectin in central europe: where are the patient reported rejuvenating/stimulant effects coming from? Is it the action of Ivermectin on the intestines or other body parts, or is it a direct action of a minute/trace amounts acting in the brain? Since some other antihelminthic was being metabolised to amphetamine, and is added to all south-american cocaine production, is it possible that Ivermectin has a similar effect on a selected group of patients? How can it make some people feel better, stronger? Or is it just because they have slept better, because of the effect on GABA?
Another barrier is due to membrane transporters, which actively export drugs from the cellular or tissue compartment back into the blood (Chapter 5). A well-known example is the P-glycoprotein. Although the octanol-water partition coefficient would favor lipophilic molecules to transverse across cell barriers, P-glycoprotein exports structurally unrelated amphiphilic and lipophilic molecules of 3-4 kDa, reducing their effective penetration. Examples of antimicrobial agents that are P-glycoprotein substrates include HIV protease inhibitors, the antiparasitic agent ivermectin, the anti-bacterial agent telithromycin, and the antifungal agent itraconazole. [1]
There are notes on other pages saying that ivermectin is severely neurotoxic to mice that have some genes knocked out, and on another page that the lack of neurotoxicity in humans may be precisely because of the P-glycoprotein membrane transporters, which would mean that some of it WILL exhibit GABA action in humans. You can find those by searching in the 2108-page pdf for ivermectin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.19.60 ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 12:44, May 14, 2021 - «Restored revision 1023063928 by DMacks talk): Let the software do the work; forcing width mucks up the appearance»
- 10:27, May 14, 2021 - «Undid revision 1023063928 by DMacks talk) At 100% width references are completely unreadable. Let's make it more consistent with the rest of Wiki.»
- 04:15, May 14, 2021 - «Making the columns 50% narrower than standard makes this worse and not better. Undid revision 1023014905 by Alexander Davronov talk)»
- 20:35, May 13, 2021 - «References»
I propose to change the width of the {{
reflist}} to 20em
. Currently it's unreadable. Some good examples:
Egalitarianism#References,
Dendrite#Notes,
Gdańsk#References --
AXONOV
(talk)
⚑ 19:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 09:21, May 15, 2021 - «COVID-19 misinformation: Witnesses making statements at the hearing - the context makes this sufficiently clear.»
- 07:51, May 15, 2021 - «COVID-19 misinformation: Reword and cite EMA per talk.»
- 09:50, May 15, 2021 - «COVID-19 misinformation: See Talk:Ivermectin#Misinfo: Pierre Kory»
- 10:03, May 15, 2021 - «Undid revision 1023252048 by Alexander Davronov talk) Let's do it in a right way.»
@ Brunton: See WP:DONTREVERT and WP:DETAG. The problem is that Pierre Kory is not mentioned in the NYC article cited before so I'm going to place failed verification tag if you don't mind. Please provide a quote if you can so I can remove it. Thanks. -- AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The lead paragraph has this sentence tacked on to it :
> There exists no evidence that the drug works for COVID-19.
Now I'm not interested in arguing the case regarding Ivermectin and Covid at all. What is wrong with this sentence being in the lede is that it is completely out of place. We do not summarise a drug by saying what diseases and afflictions it has so far not shown evidence to treat. So why is this sentence here? I suspect that, as is increasingly the case on Wikipedia, certain ppl want to push an agenda.
Yes, I have not written this dispassionately but I am getting really tired of faux 'enlightened' individuals pushing agendas on wikipedia. Please treat this project as an encyclopedia, not a place to push agendas. This is directed at the person who just reverted my edit removing this rubbish and to all others who can't leave well enough alone. Oska ( talk) 04:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Calling putting the sentence at this place "completely moronic", but that looked clumsy to me, and I did not expect you to make such a drama about such a minor difference. It does not change my point one bit. My point was "it does not help that you are doing this", and, surprise, surprise, calling putting the sentence at that place "completely moronic" is every bit as disingenious as calling the sentence itself "completely moronic" would have been. I don't know why I expected a drive-by ranter like you to be reasonable enough to recognize this as a non-difference.
I don't have a bee in my bonnet about Ivermectin and Covid, despite people trying to colour this discussion that wayNobody did. Look carefully at what Alexbrn and I wrote. You are the only person here who is colouring anything.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Kory, Pierre; Meduri, Gianfranco Umberto; Varon, Joseph; Iglesias, Jose; Marik, Paul E. (April 22, 2021). "Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19". American Journal of Therapeutics. 28 (3): e299–e318. doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001377. ISSN 1075-2765. PMC 8088823.
- "EMA advises against use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outside randomised clinical trials". March 22, 2021.
{{ cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status ( link)
-- AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
...a Frontiers! ...Frontiers claims that the article didn't review controlled trials meanwhile there were 18 controlled ones (I've checked at least 2). [45]
... WP:MEDRS exists to prevent Wikipedia from spreading ...Don't cite guidelines arbitrarely. Reviews are acceptable as they are secondary. Considering that WP:MEDRS is highly abused guideline I would like to see exact provisions ( WP:BMI?) forbidding the first source above.
... which is the main source of the information in this meta-analysis. ...Are you saying that the first source is somehow compromised by Brazilian or any other govt? I'm fully aware of politicization over Covid-19 drugs over here but given WP:RS I don't think this opinion has a great weight. Review in Nature says that Ivermectin is promising in treating Covid-19 and should be investigated. [50]
... Wikipedia should not suggest, by providing what looks like a credible scientific source to lay readers, ...You oppose to cite both and let the readers to decide which they trust the most? It would be nice to balance each other per WP:NPOV/ WP:WEIGHT. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS isn't an abused guideline ... "Whatever. Unless it turns out in provision - it's clear abuse.
... you have not cited any review in Nature.Nature which says that the drugs poses some effectiveness in combating viruses, including COVID-19 (second paragraph in conclusion section): NATURE ARTICLE. In light of this I don't think the WP:REDFLAG makes up a case here. We are obliged to mention the first source under WP:WEIGHT I think. I propose to put it under COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research#Ivermectin section. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
... Please do not put quackery ...There is no evidence for that. SCImago rates it higher than Frontiers: [51] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Review in Nature says that Ivermectin is promising in treating Covid-19 and should be investigated.June 2020. Research has come a long way since then. We can write at the top of Review / Evidence something like "In June 2020, a review suggested that ivermectin was promising. However, later results found weak evidence." This presents the information (which in fact I find relevant when narrating how the controversy started and unfolded) in the appropriate tone.
Are you saying that the first source is somehow compromised by Brazilian or any other govt?Very likely. If it were in fact neutral, reliable and of high quality, it would have been sent for review by a more reputable publisher, such as Nature, and we would see interest from other important health organizations such as EMA and WHO. But that is not happening at all.
You oppose to cite both and let the readers to decide which they trust the most?Yes, because there is no evidence, because WP:MEDRS exists to prevent the relativizing truths and facts in ways that could harm laypeople, and because the debate around it is currently tainted by economic and political interests, especially in Brazil. If it can cause injury by incorrectly modulating risky behaviours, leave the debate to experts and trusted health organizations.
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Since May of 2021, a paper on Ivermectin was Peer Reviewed by The American Journal of Therapeutics and published, Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Pierre Kory, MD,1* Gianfranco Umberto Meduri, MD,2 Joseph Varon, MD,3 Jose Iglesias, DO,4 and Paul E. Marik, MD5. Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Now Scientific Fact that Ivermectin is a Preventative & Treatment for Covid 19. Also, see the FLCCC ALLIANCE https://covid19criticalcare.com/ for further details and the latest updates. Also, see Dr. Tess Lawrie, https://medicalupdateonline.com/speciality/Dr-Tess-Lawrie/ Johnlark2095 ( talk) 23:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
n March 2021, both the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued guidance that ivermectin should not be used to treat or prevent COVID-19.[79][80] After reviewing the evidence on ivermectin the EMA said that "the available data do not support its use for COVID-19 outside well-designed clinical trials".[80] Ivermectin is not authorized for use to treat COVID-19 within the European Union.[80] In the United Kingdom, the national COVID-19 Therapeutics Advisory Panel determined that the evidence base and plausibility of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment were insufficient to pursue further investigations.[81] The WHO says that ivermectin should not be used to treat COVID-19 except in a clinical trial.[82]
Since May of 2021, a paper on Ivermectin was Peer Reviewed by The American Journal of Therapeutics and published, Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Pierre Kory, MD,1* Gianfranco Umberto Meduri, MD,2 Joseph Varon, MD,3 Jose Iglesias, DO,4 and Paul E. Marik, MD5. Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Now Scientific Fact that Ivermectin is a Preventative & Treatment for Covid 19. Also, see the FLCCC ALLIANCE https://covid19criticalcare.com/ for further details and the latest updates. Also, see Dr. Tess Lawrie, https://medicalupdateonline.com/speciality/Dr-Tess-Lawrie/. Johnlark2095 ( talk) 00:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The characterization of the Chaccour et al study appears to be an example of the subjective and selective point of view currently conveyed by this article. I will not question the methodology, findings, or relevance of the paper here, as it has already been deemed relevant and reliable enough for inclusion in the article.
For reference, the text I am responding to is as follows:
"A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 24 patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors found no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load between patients who received ivermectin and those given placebo, thus failing the primary outcome of the study." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:8C96:D3CD:38B2:2270 ( talk) 23:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Point 1: Omission of symptom reduction as a finding of the paper
The study itself, entitled "The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with non-severe COVID-19: A pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial", finds a strong significant difference in symptom reduction in the patient group using ivermectin vs placebo group. While the procedure did specify a negative PCR test as the primary pass/fail metric, a significant symptom reduction is relevant to the substance of the Wikipedia article, and was seemingly relevant enough to the authors of the paper for them to include the subject in the title.
Point 2: Inaccurate claim of no difference in viral loads
The Wikipedia article states that the study "found no difference...in viral load." This is directly contradicted by the paper itself, which states "the ivermectin group had non-statistically significant lower viral loads at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) and day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) post treatment as well as lower IgG titers at day 21 post treatment (p = 0·24)." The paper did not find "no difference," it found a non-statistically significant difference. To be clear, these findings are closer to "significant difference" than "significant no difference."
Point 3: Overall mismatch between tone of study and characterization of it in article
The authors characterize their study as a "pilot [that] points towards a potential use of ivermectin in COVID-19 which warrants further exploration under larger trials." This is not communicated by the Wikipedia article, which portrays it as one data point of many which illustrate ivermectin's ineffectiveness.
2600:1700:7CC0:4770:8C96:D3CD:38B2:2270 ( talk) 23:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
To all editors: This page is not available for general discussion. It is subject WP:GS/COVID19 and an uninvolved administrator such as myself should prevent meandering conversations that waste time and energy of other editors. Any further comments should contain an actionable proposal to improve the article based on WP:MEDRS. Other comments may be removed and anyone repeatedly restoring them will be blocked. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In Isiolo(Kenya)there has been an outbreak of an unknown disease that is killing camels without any symptoms. The animals dying are normally very healthy, either lactating or pregnant. Since the Minstry of livestock has not been able to diagonise the problem, Farmers are trying all sorts of medicines. Some farmers have tried the IVOMEC and are claiming to have stopped the deaths. 41.223.57.34 11:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)JAMES MACHARIA KARANI P .O. BOX 277 ISIOLO e-mail adress jamesmkarani@yahoo.com
I am very concerned about the content in this article that advises dog owners of how to treat their pets with Ivermectin intended for cattle. The average citizen is not skilled in calculating drug dosages or administering drugs and could easily overdose their pet dog. Also, Ivermectin should not be administered for heartworm prevention unless the dogs are known to be currently free of heartworm disease. If a pet owner reads this information and administers Ivermectin to a dog that is infected with heartworms, it would cause a massive die-off of the microfilarial lifestage, which could cause kidney failure, respiratory distress, and an acute immune reaction by the dog. Basically, people could easily kill their pets by following the advice on this page. Also, it is illegal for a non-veterinarian to use veterinary drugs off-label, such as using a drug labelled for cattle in a dog. Please, for the safety of our pets, remove this off-label dosing information from this webpage. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." 03:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Someone who cares
This article ought to mention Heartgard to explain why it redirects here. ~ Booya Bazooka 18:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
See http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/758988?src=cmemp - I don't have time to re-format the "Arthropods" section of the article. Paulburnett ( talk) 21:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
There should be information in the article on contraindications, I'll find some info and try to add a section. Thanks. 152.38.65.133 ( talk) 15:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Hey, it's the guy from above. I just made an account, and added some information. Hopefully, I can pull some people and information and expand the section a bit more. Cfowla ( talk) 16:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Potentially dangerous contraindication reported in grapefruit juice in humans. Source - http://www.everydayhealth.com/drugs/ivermectin - though some are suggesting it is good to use grapefruit juice as the extension of half life is a desired effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80A3:96D0:3E07:54FF:FE35:7D81 ( talk) 04:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Where does the high toxicity information come from? It contridicts the previous paragraph that states it low toxocity in mamammals and gives a contradictory LD50. I am removing the high toxicity paragraph. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
In the Use in Humans paragraph, you mention that Ivermectin can be used for "certain scabies". I thought there was one species of scabies -- how many species of scabies are there, and which ones are not affected by Ivermectin? Margaret now 13:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Since when is an iPod nano a credible unit of measurement? This wikipedia entry paid for by Steve Jobs?
As of December 23, 2014, an Ivermectin cream called Soolantra has apparently been approved by the FDA for rosacea, per this press release. This information should probably be put into the article in some form. — BarrelProof ( talk) 00:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Per the Carter Center:
"The Carter Center's Onchocerciasis Elimination Program for the Americas (OEPA) works to end illness and transmission of onchocerciasis in Brazil, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Venezuela, and Colombia....
As of September 2015, a total of 11 foci of the 13 endemic areas have eliminated or interrupted transmission as a result of health education and mass drug administration (MDA) with Mectizan®. Colombia (2007) and Ecuador (2009) became the first countries in the world to halt river blindness transmission through health education and semiannual distribution of Mectizan..... Thanks to these achievements, the Americas region will soon permanently free itself from the threat of this debilitating disease.
http://www.cartercenter.org/health/river_blindness/oepa.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.132.47 ( talk) 18:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
We don't need a MEDRS compliant source for the inventorship of avermectin, as MEDRS covers biomedical information only. Per MEDRS:
Historical details of individual contributions to research is not medical content.
Omura's webpage states:
The Nobel Prize Committe Press release states that
Please don't tell me you are suggesting that the Nobel Committee didn't do its research and that the co-Laureate is lying.
Annual Reviews in Pharmacology and Toxicology, 1992, 32:537 unambiguously states:
There's your MEDRS source if you require one.
73.162.132.47 (
talk) 00:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
One of the revisions introduced a lot of passive voice into it, but looks ok now. Are you sure about Campbell and Omura "discovering the avermectin family of compounds". I got the impression that was mostly Omura, and that Campbell did the extraction of avermectin after getting samples from Omura. Later research at Merck developed ivermectin, which is what pharmcos do, to improve properties and make something they can patent. ~ juanTamad ( talk) 03:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there any reason for this long list of international brand names in the introduction? There are so many more important things about ivermectin than its brand name in Canada or Nepal. I would keep the one or two most common brand names in the introduction, and move the rest to a section headed "Marketing," if we include it at all.
(Valeant is one of the companies that buys up small-volume drugs and raises their prices, so it might be interesting to find out whether they did the same to ivermectin.) -- Nbauman ( talk) 00:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have hidden the Chemical data section of the infobox because something in there is breaklng the page and causing it to fill my browser window. It appears that {{ nowrap}} templates are responsible, but I can't fix the error so I'll leave the section hidden. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 02:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
After some searches it looks like the FDA has not approved any medication for deworming in Humans in the USA. The article recommends this formula, but it can only be found available for horses, dogs and cattle. It should be discussed whether formulations for other animals can be taken by Humans as last resort and what are the dangers of doing do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.56.204 ( talk) 08:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a social aspects section could be added to discuss material such matters as donation of ivermectin by Merck, support for MDA by Carter Center, etc. This should be brief with link to main river blindness article (for example) as the prevention, treatment, and control of river blindness involves many other issues, such as vector control, treatment of water sources, and multiple drugs. Detailed discussion of social aspects ought to be in the river blindness article, rather than in this ivermectin article. The donations of ivermectin by Merck, support by the Gates Foundation, Carter Center, actions of WHO, national public health actions, etc are relevant. It didn't seem to me that this ought to be put in the medical uses section, though. Sbelknap ( talk) 06:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
We need a ref that ivermectin is used as a treatment. I am seeing nothing. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
This ref says "Importance of avoiding contact with eyes; if contact occurs, gently flush eyes with water." [2] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I fail to see why we have the price in the article, let alone in the lede. Pricing is typically a NOT and POV violation. Placing it in the lede moreso. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.The price of this drug is not mentioned in the article, and even if it were mentioned, I doubt it would be one of the "most important points" unless there are sources which show that this drug's pricing is unusually noteworthy. So, I would say that the price should not be in the lead. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 18:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
So basically we have one opinion in each direction... Have added it to the body of the text aswell. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
That article on medications and procedures contain prices is common practiceIf this comment was intended to further the discussion or was in response to any concerns, then I don't know what it refers to. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention.Putting it in the article at all ignores the need for "commentary" rather than "passing mention". Putting it in the lede suggests that it is somehow related to it's notability. -- Ronz ( talk) 14:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Except in the cases where the sources note the significance of the pricing (which did have consensus), there is no consensus to add the pricing to the articles-- Ronz ( talk) 14:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.-- Ronz ( talk) 22:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The isopropyl group in B1b (rightmost functional group) cannot have a chiral centre, the dashed line must be a solid line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.212.126.195 ( talk) 18:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a cleanup tag that says "Infobox/article is about two different chemicals, but many infobox fields are specific to only one of them." However, looking at one of the links shows that Invermectin is a mixture of both B1a and B1b so this is not a discrepancy. currently ref1 (used several times). RJFJR ( talk) 17:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I’m not seeing it in mobile browser. Technophant ( talk) 21:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
"Ivermectin is sometimes used as an acaricide in reptiles, both by injection and as a diluted spray. While this works well in some cases, care must be taken, as several species of reptiles are very sensitive to ivermectin. Use in turtles is particularly contraindicated" = It doesn't explain why. And the toxic schock caused by worms' toxines, and the method to avoid this (there are some). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 ( talk) 12:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3570270
The research is being conducted this moment...and it is more than merely "notable"...the cautions and advisories of the FDA, etc. targeted to the civilian population who might misuse their dog medicine on themselves is valid, but equally valid is this emerging scientific data on the utilization of Ivermectin (interfacing naturally, the empirical issue of proper dosage metrics) against human Coronovirus… The above paper is only one among many recent "investigational' (but no less 'legitimate') papers re: Ivermectin and COVID2; experimental attempts by certain doctors and scientists to deploy the drug as "transliterated" into (safe, effective) human terms, are appearing every day, literally... Simply because an FDA-stamped, formalistic-bureaucratic decade-long clinical trial has not been done, given the pathogen is literally only a few months old as de novo, does not mean the efforts of these persons should be so thoughtlessly omitted, as in the current article... If anyone doubts top-level scientists, doctors, etc. are experimentally deploying Ivermectin in relation to the current Corona-pandemic, the most shoddy search engine can disillusion confused or ignorant minds here...
Um, there is no subjectivist delusion here. Currently, Ivermectin is being INTENSIVELY studied in relation to the Covid Pandemic and, in terms of human medicine, the entire medical world agrees the existing data more than warrant further attention and ideally, rigorous empirical application. The complexities involved in the unknown dosage metrics inevitable in humanly-transitioned testing (not touching upon for the moment the fallacious "FDA-Americanist legitimation theory") are daunting, and the ethical component is definitely serious, but the ENTIRE MEDICAL PLANETARY COMMUNITY IN TOTO minimally STRONGLY encourages future, ethically-grounded research apropos Ivermectin. "Investigational" trials not constricted by American, FDA regulatory shackles are actively being undertaken, popping up every day, gathering positivistic results, creating a wealth of empiricism of medicinal hard granitic brute datum, globally; and even in America, "unofficially," by independent-minded doctors and scientists, and more covertly, internal American governmental forces.
Do I really need to cite more, clog the article, etc.? The information regarding the subject is so exhaustively copious, one does not even know where to begin... YET, the little posted was hyper-aggressively deleted...so...what is really happening here...?
OKAY, HERE IS ONLY ONE OF THE MANY REAL-WORLD PHENOMENA THE ARTICLE COULD THEORETICALLY NOT SUPPRESS MENDACIOUSLY -
The French biotech/pharm company MedinCell has been directed (in syndicalist co-operative union) by the Bill Gates Foundation to divert millions of dollars originally intended for anti-malarial research, in the context of the present Corona-virus situation, to channel these millions into the utilization of Ivermectin (per MedinCell, in injectable form) in the "war" against the chaotic virus, to name only one of the most obvious examples...
https://invest.medincell.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/PR_MedinCell-Covid19-EN.pdf
As said, the information as relating to the subject-matter is so abundant, one is perplexed as to where to begin... The previous information was bizarrely deleted for unknown reasons. That was only one single, random "investigational" piece of the picture - its strangely rapid, schizoid and irrational deletion undermines the credibility of the editorial staff here seriously, to say the least...
I mean, are you...ahem..."editorial personages"...really doing your job here...? Wikipedia reports as significant the American FDA advisory against the consumption of veterinary heartworm, etc. medicine by the intellectually regressed American populace, but the deeper background and context of the whole subject, is going to be militantly censored? This is pure mischief, not scholarship. Who are these mysteriously motivated editorial activists...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:8CD9:B248:72C8:B9E0 ( talk) 10:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
It also has been promoted as a treament by dubious sources such as Surgisphere. [6] I tagged the article for the COVID-19 WikiProject so more interested editors may notice it. — Paleo Neonate – 07:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The section on ivermectin's antiviral effects needs a major revision. Messy, inaccurate (SARS-COV-2 is a positive-sense RNA virus, not negative), and in general trying to get ahead of the research being done. In my mind, the most important point is that so far, no study has found clinical efficacy for ivermectin against any virus in human patients - all the promising results have been in cell culture or animal models. We must use caution when interpreting these results. Shiokla ( talk) 08:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Hipal ( talk) requests that the following article content in section Ivermectin#SARS-CoV-2 be made less promotional in line with WP:SOAP, WP:MEDRS guidelines. Please assist. Many thanks. -- Sdesalas ( talk) 00:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
On 10 June 2020, Florida Broward Health released results of front-line clinical study of 280 hospital patients showing an association between Ivermectin and lower mortality in confirmed COVID-19 infections. The study showed that the mortality of patients with severe pulmonary disease treated with ivermectin was less than half (38.8% instead of 80%) that of patients that did not receive the treatment. [1]
References
The mention of Sklice in the lead looks a bit like advertising. I can't see why a particular brand should be given prominence in this way. Arcturus ( talk) 23:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Magnovvig is edit warring [7] [8] unreliable health claims into the article. Of particular concern is the re-insertion of a claim directly into the lede that "A five day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of the illness", sourced to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.191 which is a primary source and therefore unreliable for this claim per WP:MEDRS. The user is aware of general sanctions in this area which they are now in direct breach of. Pinging RexxS as an admin actively considering applications of these sanctions, to review this. In the mean time I suggest a self-revert, Magnovvig, may be in order. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
"In November 2020 a meta-analysis found only weak evidence of benefit.[89]"
I propose changing this vague and ambiguous sentence to, "In November 2020 a meta-analysis found a 47% reduction in mortality (statistically significant) for Ivermectin-treated Covid-19 patients, however, due to a relatively small sample size (629 patients) the evidence is considered weak. [9]
AussiePete56 ( talk) 04:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry - I put this in the wrong place AussiePete56 ( talk) 04:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
I submit that vagueness and ambiguity in an encyclopedia should never be accepted. Taking your comments on board, I propose changing the sentence to, "In November 2020 a meta-analysis found a 47% reduction in mortality for Ivermectin-treated Covid-19 patients, however, due to a relatively small sample size (629 patients) the evidence is officially deemed to be in the "weak" category" AussiePete56 ( talk) 13:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I am responding to the request for a third opinion. My initial take looking over the edits is that there is large interest in information about experimental Covid treatments and there is interesting, sourced content to present here; however, presenting that information in a suitably circumspect way seems to be the key issue. Teishin ( talk) 22:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Teishin. My feeling is that Alexbrn is not complying with Wikipedia's prohibition on information suppression, and is not bringing a NPOV to his edits. The phrase "weak evidence of benefit" is both vague (exactly what is the benefit?) and ambiguous (a layperson could easily confuse this with "evidence of weak benefit") I fixed this dual problem with a single sentence. In response, Alexbrn said, "That's not a summary". It undisputedly is a summary of the meta-analysis, and I maintain, a better one than the original. He says that the phrase "officially deemed" is "strange" and misleading. It is a normal use of the English language and not misleading at all. However, I would accept deleting the phrase, "officially deemed to be". The charge of using scare quotes is false, since the word "weak" is indeed a direct quote and is therefore allowed under the guidelines. Alexbrn then goes on to write, "Absent new sources, we are done here." What new sources could he be referring to? I'm just trying to improve a vague and ambiguous sentence. He then closes down further discussion which is not helpful.
As a result of all this, I'm concerned that Alexbrn is ideologically committed to suppressing any information which favors the view that Ivermectin might turn out to be a safe and effective treatment for Covid 19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussiePete56 ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I see that Alexbrn's change is not any kind of compromise, but a doubling down on the suppression of the most important part of the study - the 47% reduction in mortality. He then goes to the trouble of stating that Ivermectin only showed benefit for people with mild symptoms - that there is no evidence that it works on more serious symptoms. In fact, of the 629 patients included in the study, 161 of them were moderate to severe cases, two-thirds of which were in the Ivermectin treated group. He then goes on to state that, "The World Health Organization and National Institute of Health abandoned trials of ivermectin for use treating COVID-19, because of a lack of promising evidence" and he gives a link to a study which says no such thing. It is hydroxychloroquine which was abandoned by the WHO and NIH.
Due to all these factors, I suggest that Alexbrn be encouraged to stand down as the editor of the Ivermectin page due to ongoing evidence of information suppression and a lack of NPOV. AussiePete56 ( talk) 23:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you DMacks, Teishin and Alexbrn. DMacks said, "we wait for review articles to illustrate what is significant". Sir, the article in question is a review article - it is labelled "a systematic review and meta-analysis." It is a secondary source, not a primary source. You wrote, "Every time you say [some number, therefore it's a significant effect and therefore we should report it], you are engaging in WP:OR analysis of the signifiance of primary-sourced data." That is simply not true. The "47% reduction in mortality" figure is the RESULT of the secondary-sourced meta-analysis - it is the "answer" to the question, the object of the whole exercise. It is far and away the most important part of the entire meta-analysis, and it is a figure that has not been mentioned even once in any version of the summary that Alexbrn has so far produced. (By the way, that figure rises to 50% when the authors included a late-arriving study that missed their original deadline -see page three of the report)
Alexbrn takes up this argument when he wrote, "it would not be fair or encyclopedic to tease out an individual figure and re-frame it to give it more significance than the cited secondary source does." This is ironic on a couple of different levels. Firstly, How can I "reframe" that number when it hasn't been "framed" (mentioned) in the first place? The fact of this figure's suppression (inadvertent or deliberate) is the whole point of my argument. Secondly, earlier, Alexbrn objected to my inclusion of the phrase "statistically significant" (taken straight from the report) which he called "confusing", (see above), yet here he is apparently arguing that the phrase, "an OR of 0.53" is preferable to the phrase, "a 47% reduction in mortality." Obviously you can't argue both contradictory points at the same time. I suspect that not one person in a hundred would even know that "OR" stands for "Odds Ratio", or would know how to interpret an OR figure. I solved that problem by using the phrase, "a 47% reduction in mortality" which is the exactly correct interpretation of "an OR of 0.53 for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality".
Alexbrn has not addressed the issue of the falseness of his claim that Ivermectin's benefit is "for people with mild symptoms from COVID-19; there is no evidence for people with more serious symptoms". In fact, 31.2% of the study participants had moderate to severe symptoms. So I assume that deletion of this section of Alexbrm's current summary is non-controversial.
My suggestion for the replacement of the current summary is, "The first systematic review and meta-analysis of Ivermectin's therapeutic potential as an add-on treatment for Covid 19 revealed a 47% reduction in all-cause mortality - however the authors cautioned that the quality of evidence was very low." AussiePete56 ( talk) 10:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I have delayed replying to give DMacks and Teishin a chance to contribute, but I guess they have given up. The meta-analysis was written for a reader who has the ability to understand the concept of Odds Ratio and how to interpret OR numbers - Wikipedia is not. To explain here what an Odds Ratio of 0.53 means is perfectly reasonable, unless you want this detail to remain obscure to Wikipedia readers, which I suspect is the case with Alexbrn. He says that Ivermectin is falsely being portrayed as some kind of wonder drug, and he wants to push back against that. I'm in favour of clearly and accurately reporting the results of this meta-analysis, which can't possibly be reasonably described as "subtly misleading".
In the spirit of compromise, I have this suggestion to replace the current summary, "The first meta-analysis of Ivermectin's effect on Covid 19 patients found a modest utility of Ivermectin in reducing all-cause mortality and improving clinical outcomes" This is a direct quote from the "Conclusion" paragraph of the study. AussiePete56 ( talk) 23:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Which part do you think was too complicated - the "modest utility" phrase? Would you prefer, "The first meta-analysis of Ivermectin's effect on Covid 19 patients found that Ivermectin reduced all-cause mortality by 47% and improved clinical outcomes by 98%"? I agree that's better, but Alexbrn wants to down-play effectiveness and emphasise unreliability, so I'm trying to compromise. AussiePete56 ( talk) 01:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
but Alexbrn wants to down-play effectiveness and emphasise unreliability,
My feeling is that Alexbrn is not complying with Wikipedia's prohibition on information suppression, and is not bringing a NPOV to his edits.and
which I suspect is the case with Alexbrn. Refactoring them would be helpful. Editing Wikipedia requires collaboration with fellow editors. -- Hipal ( talk) 02:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Once again, you raise the issue of "more sources" which makes no sense in relation to the task of how to summarise the meta-analysis. You want to shut the discussion down because you are losing every argument. How immature. The study didn't "find a suggestion" - it "supports the finding of the effectiveness of Ivermectin as an add-on therapy for patients with Covid 19" and "suggests the modest utility of ivermectin in reducing all-cause mortality and improving clinical outcomes."
Here is another compromise suggestion for the summary: "The first meta-analysis of Ivermectin's effect on Covid 19 patients supports recent observational studies which have reported the effectiveness of this drug as add-on therapy in patients with COVID-19, and suggests the modest utility of ivermectin in reducing all-cause mortality and improving clinical outcomes." AussiePete56 ( talk) 02:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Hipal, do you have any suggestions on how to collaborate with someone who shut down the discussion before the issue is resolved? AussiePete56 ( talk) 02:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Jcozzy, who is aware [10] of the general sanctions is trying to add non- WP:MEDRS content to the article, specifically in this [11] edit despite being previously told [12] that PMID 33234158 is not a reliable source. I am pinging RexxS and DMacks as administrators who have been actively considering how the COVID-19 sanctions might apply, to consider this. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems like there are false statements on this page? "there is no evidence for people with severe disease.[85]" -> there is plenty of evidence at least:
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v2 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1579212920302792?via%3Dihub https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)34898-4/fulltext - this notes that "Ivermectin treatment was associated with lower mortality during treatment of COVID-19, especially in patients with severe pulmonary involvement. "
This is a very strong statement to make "there is no evidence" -> could we replace it with something less contraversial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.55.125 ( talk) 22:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
the complication rate and mortality amongst patients with severe disease have been reported to be very high. In such patients the effectiveness of add on ivermectin has not yet been explored
Actually, I think you are misinterpreting the source. The quote you include is followed by a footnote number (22) which, (if you look at the last line of the publication) refers to a study published in the Lancet back in March. It is not a reference to this meta-analysis. 161 "moderate to severe" patients were included in this meta-analysis, but they were not segregated into two separate categories, hence the comment, " In such patients (severe) the effectiveness of add on ivermectin has not yet been explored." AussiePete56 ( talk) 12:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Contradiction is not rebuttal AussiePete56 ( talk) 14:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what prompts you write that. The article has an entire page of references (page eight) which correspond to the footnote numbers scattered throughout the article, 20 such references in the Introduction alone. The reference number in question (22) is located between the last and second-last sentence in that paragraph. AussiePete56 ( talk) 22:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
You're suggesting adding the word "good" in the sentence, "there is no evidence for people with severe disease"? I agree that that would be an improvement. Removing any reference to Ivermectin not being useful to people with severe disease would be better, since there are nine studies showing benefits for people with late stage Covid 19 disease - (average reduction in mortality - 75%) Even the NIH's own Ivermectin page references one such study. AussiePete56 ( talk) 14:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
This sentence seems to be a regurgitation of mainstream media propaganda: In December 2020, American politician Ron Johnson used a Senate hearing to promote fringe theories about COVID-19.[72] Among the witnesses was Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care doctor, who erroneously described ivermectin as "miraculous" and as a "wonder drug" to be used against COVID-19. Video footage of his statements went viral on social media, receiving over one million views.[73]
Where are the reputable scientific studies referenced to prove that they were promoting "fringe theories" about covid? There is a large scientific body of evidence (including the meta-analysis already referenced by this wiki) that shows the effectiveness of Ivermectin. How is that a Fringe Theory?
For this to be an impartial wiki entry (instead of a politicization of treatment for a pandemic) the statement should be:
In December 2020, American politician Ron Johnson used a Senate hearing to promote public discussion about possible early and prophylactic treatment of COVID to try and save lives and reduce stress on the public health system by early treatment, since the late phase of the disease is extremely difficuly to manage.[72] Among the witnesses was Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care doctor representing a group of highly published critical care specialists from major academic medical centers with collectively over 1,000 medical publications. Critical Care Specialist Pierre Kory was so excited about the potential benefits of prophylactic and early treatment with ivermectin that he described the drug as "miraculous" and as a "wonder drug" to be used against COVID-19. Video footage of his statements went viral on social media, receiving over one million views.[73] Mainstream media fact checking sites have jumped on his use of the word "miraculous" and "wonder drug" to discredit everything that he said, while one can argue that a drug that could have saved only 10% of the over 1,800,000 worldwide deaths (i.e 180,000 lives) could be classified as a miracle or wonder drug, Ivermectin has actually been shown to be much more effective than that in some studies, with not a single study not showing at least some benefit, one can easily make an argument for the use of Miraculous and Wonder Drug, especially considering it is widely available, cheap and safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriaandh ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
"We work from reliable sources here on Wikipedia..." So why are we referencing an article written by a reporter with no medical training? AussiePete56 ( talk) 16:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Given the impossibility of defining "miraculous", why does Wikipedia waste its time trying to disprove it? Stating that the use of the word "miraculous" was an error makes no sense. It was a piece of rhetorical hyperbole in a spontaneous unprepared speech to the Senate committee. Instead of looking at the data behind Professor Kory's claims, there is meaningless focus on that single word. Citing an article written by an un-named reporter who allegedly asked the opinion of a couple of alleged experts about the speech, falls short of Wikipedia's standards on verifiability and NPOV. AussiePete56 ( talk) 14:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Although I don't agree with the "miracle" claim, Alexbrn calling it "quackery", and defacto "erroneous" the claims of Dr Kory is unwarranted and may be biased. Especially in view of mounting evidence (not conclusive albeit ok) for the positive effect of IVM in both prophylaxis and therapy of covid-19. It is so because Alex accepts the view of 2 journalists and an oncologist as fact (!), against Dr Korry view (who is a proven, highly published lung specialist with already important and universally accepted contributions in covid therapy). I am humbled by the amount of research the team of Dr Marik (the FLCCC protocol is a collaboration under Dr Marik) has published in peer review journals. I give below just some indicative publication statistics:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/P.-Marik/3887524 756 pubs, 32900+ citations(!!) In particular covid research: 10+ publications, with already close to 100 citations and 3 highly influential ones.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/P.-Kory/3462977 79 pubs and 826 citations, 10's of highly influential ones. (I didn't bother to check the credentials of the oncologist in COVID therapy, but I'm sure his opinion is much less important, (As for the AP journalists: I reserve my comment for maybe later) Therfore I ask a moderator to replace the "erroneous" with disputed, and to reference the credentials of Dr Marik's team. Artemon ge ( talk) 12:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello and best wishes for the new year.
We must also remember that it was official policy of the South Africa, and for many years, that AIDS is NOT(!)caused by HIV. So I would be extremely cautious
here ,see:
AIDS/HIV denialism. The Peru case is more interesting.
In
WP:RSCONTEXT
WP:EXCEPTIONAL,
WP:MEDRS and
WP:PARITY I did not see a mention for research results published in
clinicaltrials.gov: Is it a reliable source?
Artemon ge (
talk) 01:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It's ironic that the South African regulatory authority quoted safety concerns for the banning of Ivermectin - after 3.7 billion doses taken over 40 years, the one thing Ivermectin indisputably has going for it is its safety. Even the WHO declares it to safe [ [15]]
Prof. Kory was called a quack back in May when he gave his first address to the Senate committee recommending the use of corticosteroids against Covid 19 - that is now standard practise
If we are going to use an unnamed Associated Press reporter as a source of criticism of Prof. Kory's comments, then it should be balanced with a refutation of the same AP article. [ [16]] AussiePete56 ( talk) 06:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
It is really amazing that an APNews article written by a reporter with zero medical background without any references is fine to use as evidence that can shape medical treatment/narrative about a pandemic by wikipedia, but reviews of medical studies by experts in their fields are not. Read URGENT COVID-19 information. Another reputable scientific source stating that Ivermectin is a miracle drug in the context of this pandemic. The thousands of people that could have been saved since this information has been made public is keeping me up at night. I had a certain level of faith in the media and especially in sources like Wikipedia to actually be impartial and not reinforce clearly political hit jobs and smear campaigns against serious medical professions trying to save people's lives. In a few weeks time there will be nowhere to hide anymore and the mainstream media and public health authorities will be forced to accept the facts. All of these news sources that slandered these doctors's good names should make public apologies when that happens, but they won't. They will just act as though all of this is wonderful new information, that the science finally came in blah blah. This singular topic has opened my eyes to the state of the public discourse and so called "reliable" sources of information in the world today. This wikipedia page is shameful and unethical and contributing to unnecessary loss of life. Feel free to delete all of my comments on wikipedia and delete my account since I will not waste my time anymore trying to shape the information contained on these pages for it is clearly a fruitless and meaningless endeavor. I am glad I tried though, as now I know not to trust any of these pages. Perhaps I will come looking for reliable information in the Talk pages if ever I find a requirement to use wikipedia in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriaandh ( talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I edited the section Research/COVID-19 which was reverted by Alexbrn. There were two parts to the edit. The first part of the edit was simply to give the date for that the NIH guidelines on ivermectin were released. That information is on the NIH website. I will insist on my edit unless it incorrect or misleading in some way.
My edit:
The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use ivermectin for COVID-19,[86] in Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines released on August 27, 2020.
Alexbrn version:
The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use ivermectin for COVID-19.[86]
The second part of my edit was related to a meta-analysis of clinical trials on ivermectin.
My contribution was:
A meta-analysis funded by the World Health Organization showed an 83% reduction in mortality in hospitalized patients treated by ivermectin. A presentation of the work by Andrew Hill was given at "Ivermectin Against COVID-19 Collaborative Workshop", December 15-17, 2020, sponsored by MedinCell, S.A..
The contribution was removed in Alexbrn's version
The explanation give by Alexbrn was: "Unreliable source per WP:MEDRS, and misrepresented to boot". The source of information was a talk at a scientific conference on COVID-19. Unless there is a more specific justification of removal of this contribution I am going to insist that it is included. What exactly is "unreliable" and was is "misrepresented"? -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 21:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Again, the material that was posted refers to a presentation at a scientific meeting. Is there a specific prohibition against such a reference? On the other hand, the guidelines specifically encourage references to meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. That was exactly the subject matter that I referred to. The quote from the quidelines is as follows:
The best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[12]-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 00:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The addition that I made and was deleted by Alexbrn was:
A meta-analysis funded by the World Health Organization showed an 83% reduction in mortality in hospitalized patients treated by ivermectin. A presentation of the work by Andrew Hill was given at "Ivermectin Against COVID-19 Collaborative Workshop", December 15-17, 2020, sponsored by MedinCell, S.A..
The reason for this entry is that the description of this pharmaceutical is missing important information in this Wikipedia article.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 01:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I presume your question is rhetorical, but no, the meta-analysis presented at that conference is unpublished. Are you implying that presentations at scientific conferences are categorically prohibited as sources? I don't think anyone is questioning the authenticity of the video.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 04:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials you say is "unreliable", but a since-debunked anonymous-reporter's AP article criticising Prof. Kory is OK?
If "On October 12, 2020 Peru withdrew its authorization to use ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as COVID-19 treatments." is a worthwhile inclusion here, then why is, "In December 2020 the Central American country of Belize announced that it had begun using convalescent plasma and Ivermectin to treat patients of Covid 19 with severe symptoms." [ [17]] not also a worthwhile inclusion? AussiePete56 ( talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
This comment is in response to the last comment of Alexbrn:
"It's unreliable (and, as Hill sets out, based on poor quality data - which is why they are waiting for better data ..."
In fact the investigator on the meta-analysis of the ivermectin studies never states or implies that his work is based on "poor quality data". That is a false statement. The investigator gives two reasons for including additional studies. The first reason is that there is the potential for publication bias (at 9:09 in the video). The second reason is to match the number of total patients in a previous clinical trial of Remdesivir in Covid-19 (at 10:24 in the video). Neither reason is based on any known limitation of the current study, but just based on general prudence to include as many studies as is reasonable.
My suggestion is that the reference to this scientific presentation be reinstated in this Wikipedia article. If necessary, the wording can be changed to make it clear that the investigator recommends that additional study be completed before ivermectin use is adopted.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 17:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I modified the statement referring to the NIH guidelines on ivermectin in Covid-19 to be the following:
The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use ivermectin for COVID-19, in Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines released on August 27, 2020.
This edit was removed by Alexbrn who states: "Rmv. as gives false impression guideline is not current. The date is in the reference."
The date is of central importance for these guidelines and should not be disclosed in a reference that most readers will not view. Providing relevant factual information should not be considered controversial. Wikipedia should allow readers to decide for themselves if a given publication date is relevant.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 19:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
There should not be a requirement to provide supporting documentation to disclose facts in a Wikipedia article. The relevance of the date is that the majority of clinical research in the use of ivermectin in Covid-19 was completed after the publication of the NIH guidelines.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 19:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
There should not be a requirementBut there are. -- Hipal ( talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The use of the Neutral-Point-of-View policy to suppress a publication date from the body of a Wikipedia article is a perversion of the review process. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 20:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
You do not have any evidence that the guidelines are under "constant review". That is the implicit bias in the article as it stands. There should not be any presumption about the inner workings of the NIH. Wikipedia should be simply reporting on the known facts.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 20:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Just a general philosophical comment. NIH is made up of men and women just like the rest of us with competing interests and biases. To be a little more concrete, consider the recent failures of review at Lancet and NEJM - what you might call "major health organizations". The NIH should not be somehow immune to criticism as Alexbrn would have it. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 21:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I will make this final comment. As it stands this Wikipedia article is deceptive as it leaves the Wikipedia reader with the impression that the use of Ivermectin in Covid-19 is a lost cause. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 00:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia mentions dates for all sorts of things. Dates are facts. I don't see how there can be a policy-based reason for excluding such a fact. Teishin ( talk) 01:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
What is the policy-based reason for EXCLUDING the fact of Belize adding Ivermectin to their list of approved treatments for Covid 19, but INCLUDING the fact of Peru discontinuing Ivermectin?
I support the comments of Vrtlsclp. Certain moderators here have abandoned the principle of a Neutral Point of View on this subject. Points against Ivermectin are deliberately emphasised and highlighted, while points in favour are suppressed and minimised. AussiePete56 ( talk) 01:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
In the lede there is a very scary sentence that could do with some tiny adjustment so that the subject is clear. I am not getting involved but figured there are others who have the reference handy and can see if just adding the words "of the parasite" after the bold text would be an acceptable addition.
"It works by causing the parasite's cell membrane to increase in permeability, resulting in paralysis and death.[3]"
Idyllic press ( talk) 09:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
This is one of the most popular pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine's scope. Very few editors watch WT:VET's pages, which means that questions may not be answered in a timely manner. If you are an active editor and interested in animals or veterinary medicine, please put WT:VET on your watchlist. Thank you, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Jdphenix: - Why did you remove the edit I made? The edit is below
References
I provided the reason for my revert in the edit summary. Feel free to continue to add bulk to this article in a section that already has an open RfC on how that very section is presented. (Sarcasm should be duly noted. I don't support adding any mention of this source or related content.) Jdphenix ( talk) 21:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I think this is better than it was a few days ago for sure. I'd advocate for letting this (single article) sit for a few days to see what other editors' takes on it are. There has been a significant amount of discussion on this one and letting others catch a breath and read up would be in order. Jdphenix ( talk) 14:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article states that the National Institutes of Health recommend against the use of Ivermectin against COVID-19. Should the publication date of the NIH guidelines be included in the body of the Wikipedia article?-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 15:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 19:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I propose this language instead: "The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 that were published on August 27. 2020. Changes to the NIH recommendation were considered by the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel on January 6,2021. No date has been provided for making the determination." The second and third sentences are responsive to Alexbrn's conditions. The goalpost here is resolution of the language and we can only get there through proposal and counter-proposal.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 21:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Making a stand against mentioning a straightforward fact like a date doesn't seem reasonable. Teishin ( talk) 00:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
AussiePete56 ( talk) 04:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Adriaandh and support his suggestion, which is similar to Vrtlsclpl's AussiePete56 ( talk) 05:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
That is an unreasonable objection. Such a meeting is in itself an uncontroversial event, and if three separate medical-news outlets reported it, common sense [ [22]] allows it to be accepted as fact. AussiePete56 ( talk) 03:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Respectfully, I am going to summarize progress on this RfC to this point with the intent to close this discussion if there is no objection in the next day or so. Of course the general discussion can continue outside of the RfC. I thank contributors for their input. I count two explicit "NO" votes, three explicit "YES" votes. I note two contributors with comments but without explicit votes. I also note that one contributor, Alexbrn, has made a proposal, (paraphrased) that the date of the last meeting of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel can be included but with context. Hopefully there is consensus for the following: The date of the last meeting of that panel is added to the body of the Wikipedia article. If others prefer, they can add in context to accompany that date.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 17:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The time course of an RfC is not constrained by Wikipedia but I will leave the RfC open. On the comment by Ajpolino that Wikipedia should represent the mainstream view. Agreed. Essentially, the question we are trying to resolve is "What is the mainstream view?". I think that editor may be equating the mainstream view with the view of the US government and the World Health Organization. Other governments view this issue differently. The government of Uttar Pradesh, a large province in India distributed this drug widely for COVID-19. There is also widespread use of this drug against Covid-19 in latin america with official government support in the Dominican Republic and Belize. The province of Chiapas in Mexico has distributed this widely to the population. The "mainstream view" should not be defined to be synonymous with the view of the most powerful organizations.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 19:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The comment above states that the government of Belize authorized the use of Ivermectin to "...head off people dangerously self-medicating..." That is not supported by their second reference. Here is an extended quote from the reference in that comment:
Regarding the inclusion of a statement on use in different countries: I hate to drop such a strong card - to include a date in a Wikipedia article is almost the definition of verifiable and relevant. However, if there is consensus around exact language that's fine with me. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 21:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
" we need to avoid a shopping list of countries (/states!?) that approve or ban ivermectin... (I notice the ivermectin boosters are quiet about Australia and South Africa)" - Alexbrn.
I heard that for quite some time, South Africa had an official policy that AIDS was not caused by the HIV virus, so their recent decision to ban ivermectin for Covid 19 treatment is perhaps not surprising. As far as Australia is concerned, doctors here are already free to prescribe ivermectin to treat Covid 19, as it is the right of every doctor to treat their patients as they see fit, taking into account the most recent medical evidence. [ [26]] If doctors in the USA are more hesitant to venture away from the official policies of the NIH, CDC, FDA etc, it could be less about concern for patient welfare and more about America's notorious litigious culture. If Wikipedia's official policy regarding medical issues is to report "official" guidelines while ignoring latest research, it could be just following down the rabbit-hole this culture which has resulted in the highest per-capita spend on medicine in the world, whilst delivering vastly inferior results compared to many other countries. [ [27]]
Apparently you have an aversion to comparing countries, let alone states, on their decisions about ivermectin and Covid 19, but this one example illustrates why your anti-ivermectin position is so very wrong. Only one of Mexico's dozens of states used ivermectin to treat Covid 19 - see if you can guess which line in this chart represents that state... [ [28]]
AussiePete56 ( talk) 16:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
AussiePete56 ( talk) 01:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
FYI, we've made significant changes to the section in question for this RfC. This diff shows those changes. Jdphenix ( talk) 14:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
References
One week after Dr. Paul Marik and Dr. Pierre Kory – founding members of the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) – along with Dr. Andrew Hill, researcher and consultant to the World Health Organization (WHO), presented their data before the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel, the NIH removed their previous guidance recommending against using Ivermectin, replacing it with neutral guidance which states "The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19." Thank you Alexbrn for removing the biased and inaccurate "Misinformation" section, but I believe it's appropriate to add the fact that the NIH issued updated guidance to the COVID-19 research section. The FLCCC Alliance characterized the situation by saying "Their recommendation has now been upgraded to the same level as those for widely used monoclonal antibodies & convalescent plasma, which is a “neither for nor against” recommendation. The significance of this change is that the NIH has decided to no longer recommend against the use of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 by the nation’s health care providers. A consequence of this change is that ivermectin has now been made a clear therapeutic option for patients." A better summary of the state of COVID-19 Ivermectin research, including a mention of the best peer-reviewed RCTs and the observational studies in areas where Ivermectin is widely used would be appropriate (given that this section is labeled "Research", and that we would not be reaching any conclusions). Tvaughan1 ( talk) 06:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
As Tvaughan1 seems to be stating, the update to the NIH guidelines is an extraordinary development. As Wikipedia editors, hopefully we can make a positive contribution by helping the public better understand this therapy. As always we would welcome further editors - especially those with more hard-core clinical expertise -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 15:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the first appropriate step in response to the NIH decision would be to add a section to this article titled: "Medical Uses/COVID-19". Since there have been contentious discussions on editing this article I will first ask for consensus on addition of that section and also for some baseline text.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 15:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
By the way, the editor mentions "regulatory agencies". The editor needs to be more specific. Which regulatory agency in which country? -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 06:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
These very recent articles might be helpful to people who are trying to get current information into the article:
This is a complete list of all the MEDRS-compliant articles indexed at PubMed for the current month. In terms of what they say, a brief glance suggests that they converge on two key points:
I think it would be a good idea to have this article reflect these recent research papers. This would probably be best done by having one or more of the interested editors sit down and read these papers in full, and then update the article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I am supportive of adding references to this article. I took a look at the first two articles you proposed. They seem pretty reasonable. I wasn't able to access the third because of a broken link at the NLM. One thing, between the two articles I looked at, the emphasis is relatively pre-clinical. It might be good to add an article with a more clinical emphasis. Please consider adding this one:
Also, you may have noticed in another thread that there is interest, by other editors, in consolidating a couple of related articles on Ivermectin in Covid-19 but that shouldn't affect your proposal in general. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 03:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I took a closer look at Kaur et al [1] cited above. It is fairly impressive. I would suggest just including an excerpt from their conclusion:
As far a McCullough et al, [2] I would need to know more about the Wikipedia thresholds for inclusion/exclusion.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 16:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Careful! There is so much activity in this area that it's important to always check for outdated information, which in the case of ivermectin for Covid is generally anything over a few months old. Any reviews used must include recent studies in its remit; WP:MEDDATE notes, "editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written" I just noticed the first source was written back in September, and accepted in November...
That rules out the first two sources WhatamIdoing found. Still reviewing...
Apropos removal of the controversy section:
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
-- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 22:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Can I suggest this article published on the NIH's website, "A COVID-19 prophylaxis? Lower incidence associated with prophylactic administration of ivermectin" [ [29]] AussiePete56 ( talk) 01:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn, that comment (from a parasitologist) was specifically related to the theoretical effectiveness of ivermectin against the virus itself, referring to the original research which used far stronger concentrations of ivermectin than has subsequently been found to be needed to be effective in practise. Also, the mode of death in Covid 19 is that the virus provokes an over-reaction from the body's immune system, creating a a cytokine storm which leads to sepsis, pneumonia, multiple organ failure, etc. [ [30]] Ivermectin acts as a potent inhibitor of both cytokine production and the transcription of nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB), the most potent mediator of inflammation, so even if ivermectin was found to not kill the virus at normal dosage levels (which is not the case) it's anti-inflammatory benefits qualify it as still "clinically relevant" for Covid 19 treatment. AussiePete56 ( talk) 04:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
On January 14, 2021, the NIH changed their recommendation on the use of Ivermectin in COVID-19. The updated recommendation states "...currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19." This recommendation is now the same as for the widely used monoclonal antibodies & convalescent plasma. Is it appropriate to add a section entitled Medical_uses#COVID-19 ?-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 16:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDRS:
Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be cited to imply wide acceptance. For example, results of an early-stage clinical trial would not be appropriate in the Treatment section on a disease because future treatments have little bearing on current practice. The results might – in some cases – be appropriate for inclusion in an article specifically dedicated to the treatment in question or to the researchers or businesses involved in it. Such information, particularly when citing secondary sources, may be appropriate in Research sections of disease articles. To prevent misunderstanding, the text should clearly identify the level of research cited (e.g., “first-in-human safety testing”)
While this particular use is still in the early stages of research/clinical trials, it does not belong in the Medical uses section. If the NIH guidelines made a recommendation for use, that would be another beast entirely. A non-recommendation either way does not warrant mention. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 07:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Honestly? We need to stop opening RfCs every time a study comes out or something gets updated. We're not trying to be in sync with current events. We're not trying to provide a glossary of all studies done on this drug or any drug. We're just trying to be an informative neutral resource.
The round and round discussion that goes the same way, again and again, seems awfully pointy. Are we wikilawyering? I think we are. Jdphenix ( talk) 03:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDRS, the updated information does not warrant a new section in Medical Uses. A lack of a recommendation is not noteworthy. Additionally, there are sound concerns about the dangers of overdose and inappropriate administration of veterinary formulations of this medication.
As such, I propose that there are no changes made to imply that ivermectin has a medical use for COVID-19. Jdphenix ( talk) 04:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 10,000 fold number mentioned in the COVID19 research section is incorrect. It should be 70-80 at most. The number is a miscalculation. The max lung concentration is about 0.082 micromolar, while the IC100 is 5.6 micromolar. 5.6/0.082 is 68.3. From: https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/cpt.1889 "Even with the high lung homogenate:plasma ratio, ivermectin is unlikely to reach the IC50 of 2 μM in the lungs after single oral administration of the approved dose (predicted lung concentra-tion: 0.0873 μM) or at doses 10× higher that the approved dose administered orally (predicted lung concentration: 0.820 μM; " 32.210.242.73 ( talk) 03:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I removed a link from the COVID-19 section to an article on misinformation since it implies that the potential application of Ivermectin to COVID-19 is misinformation. @ Fvasconcellos: stated that there was consensus to have a link from the COVID-10 section to an article on misinformation. We can survey again but I don't believe that there was consensus. In any case, the link is no longer appropriate since the NIH has just recently removed their recommendation against the use of this therapy in COVID-19. [32]-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 06:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Dr Kory of the FLCCC Alliance presented evidence on 8 December 2020 before the US Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on "Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution, Part II". It is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq8SXOBy-4w&feature=youtu.be, and a longer and fuller version is here https://vimeo.com/490351508. Dr Kory asked the Hearing to request the NIH to review the data urgently. The NIH has done so and the link is not to the Congressional hearing but to a Press Release which reads that the FLCCC "presented their data before the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel, the NIH has upgraded their recommendation on ivermectin, making it an option for use in COVID-19." Far from it being an "unreliable source" it is the very source {the FLCCC} upon which the NIH changed its recommendation to approve the use of Ivermectin. The sentence should be reverted, although it could have been better worded to read: "the NIH now approves Ivermectin as a therapeutic option." Ergateesuk ( talk) 21:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The recent update to the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines could be described as a "neutral" recommendation. It is also important to understand it's significance. As I have explained in the Talk section at Coronavirus disease 2019, the significance of the update to the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines can be accurately summarized as follows: "NIH has removed its recommendation against the use of Ivermectin in COViD-19". That is a fair description because the recommendation confers on Ivermectin the same status as two other therapies in wide use in the US: Baricitinib and Convalescent Plasma. All have US FDA approval. Most importantly, this is an earth-shattering development for those who have insisted that Ivermectin for COVID-19 is the domain of fringe conspiracy theorists. -- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 15:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Your word against Peter McCullough's, Vice Chief of Internal Medicine, Baylor University Medical Center. I interviewed him by email and I share that below without editing except to remove contact information and to highlight one sentence. He was aware that the purpose of the interview was for updating this article so there is not a problem with sharing it publicly. I am disclosing my name so that there are less concerns about conflict of interest and that I stand behind my views in a real sort of way.
Snipped private communication
|
---|
Removed private communication from talk page. To paraphrase, it was a private exchange between a Wikipedia editor and the author or a source from this article. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrtlsclpl ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
No copyright/disclosure issues. Please focus on the issue at hand.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 21:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
There are now two published statements that explicitly recommend that physicians should now consider prescribing Ivermectin for patients with COVID-19: [33] and [34]. Wikipedia is now taking an extraordinarily controversial position to imply that Ivermectin use in COVID-19 is misinformation and elsewhere has made the decision to exclude Ivermectin from the COVID-19 treatment options. Here are minimal remedies:
OR
In general, Wikipedia tries to stay away from giving medical advice. The absence of Ivermectin from the COVID-19 medicatons list might suggest to the reader that this medication is less acceptable than those that are on the list. To be a little more specific, in the comparison between Ivermectin and Baricitinib, two medications with the same NIH recommendation: why is Ivermectin is excluded from the medications list while Baricitinib is included? I am agnostic about the latter two options but obviously the current state is not neutrality. It is full blown advocacy.-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 22:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
BTW, I noticed that the email interview with Peter McCullough I attached has been hidden. It appears as a collapsed green box. Is there any way to undo that?-- Vrtlsclpl ( talk) 11:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the full text of the email interview. I echo concerns about copyright. There's no indication that Dr. McCullough agreed to contribute this material under WP's licensing. Jdphenix ( talk) 04:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm hoping to go through this article to update it and smooth out the writing in the choppier sections (i.e. it flows poorly now). I'll be working in small bursts as I can find some free time. In the meantime, pardon my dust. If you see any issues or have suggestions, feel free to bring them up here. Thanks and happy new year! Ajpolino ( talk) 07:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ajpolino - in the "Misinformation" section of "Society and Culture", can I suggest replacing the word "erroneously" with "controversially"? Given the vagueness of the term "miracle" it seems wrong for an encylopedia to state that a claim of "miraculousness" is an "error" under any circumstances, let alone when there are at least thirty separate studies that support Professor Kory's claims of ivermectin's "miraculous" effect on Covid 19. [ [35]] For the same reason, I suggest that the link to the Associated Press article with the clearly false headline, "No Evidence that Ivermectin is a miracle drug against Covid 19" should be removed as those thirty studies represent a lot of evidence. The article has received criticism for errors in argumentation and fact. [ [36]]
AussiePete56 ( talk) 15:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Unless you're claiming that "miraculous" MUST MEAN an actual "Jesus-level" miracle, then the word has to be arguably reasonable in the light of evidence that ivermectin results in an average 85% improvement in a supposedly untreatable illness, according to those THIRTY-ONE studies. Since you are the one making the claim of "an error", the onus is on you to prove that those studies are all wrong. Saying that the claim is "controversial" is being polite - your claim of an "error" is plainly an opinion and shouldn't be a part of an encyclopedia. AussiePete56 ( talk) 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This is the "Society and Culture" section of the Ivermectin page. You are reporting what Professor Kory said at the Senate Committee meeting. His statement that Ivermectin has a "miraculous" effect on Covid 19 is undeniably controversial, but not "certainly" an error - therefore an encyclopedia should not report it as such. Very straight-forward. To accept that thirty-one properly conducted scientific studies provides significant corroborating evidence for his statement is reasonable. AussiePete56 ( talk) 16:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
"Pseudoscience" is defined by Wikipedia as, "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field." It doesn't define it as "not reflecting the policy position of slow-moving bureaucratic Advisory Boards." Thirty-one properly conducted scientific studies all saying the same thing clearly constitutes, "an idea that is broadly supported by scholarship in its field." AussiePete56 ( talk) 00:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Ajpolino. Actually, I have been unable to get Alexbrn to allow any changes to this page - even the addition of a factual date is too "misleading" to allow. You seem confident, so best wishes! AussiePete56 ( talk) 00:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Another thing Ajpolino... I agree with others that the main place for discussion of Ivermectin's role in treating Covid 19 should be the Covid 19 pages themselves... I notice that there is very little mention of Ivermectin there, even on the "Covid 19 Drug Repurposing Research" page, despite appearing to be far and away the most promising candidate to date for such effective repurposing. I could write something myself but I'm confident that it would be removed. Do you think you could come up with a contribution yourself? AussiePete56 ( talk) 01:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I propose removing the link the the wiki about misinformation with regard to Ivermectin and COVID since it contains misleading information without medical sourcing. For promoting the false claims of misinformation it seems to be allowed to use any type of reporting, but no counter points are permitted. Thus it will remain purely an archive or purported claims of misinformation without any discussion or validation of these claims. The first thing people reading about COVID and Ivermectin on the Ivermectin page sees is this link to misinformation which creates a totally false narrative without scientific backing around it. Adriaandh ( talk) 17:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change “Common side effects include red eyes, dry skin, and burning skin” to => “Common side effects when used externally for head lice include red eyes, dry skin, and burning skin” to match source. -- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 09:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
???
|
---|
:Could you link or quote the exact source you're referring to? I couldn't find anything on head lice after glancing at the two sources directly above.
TimSmit (
talk) 01:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "Based on this data, however, doses much higher than the maximum approved or safely achievable for use in humans would be required for an antiviral effect". Fails WP:MEDRS. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext is a better source for WP:V info on ivermectin. The Lancet. -- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 09:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, at https://www.ft.com/content/e7cb76fc-da98-4a31-9c1f-926c58349c84, the WHO-funded ivermectin stats researcher is quoted:
“ | “The purpose of this report is to forewarn people that this is coming: get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve it,” Dr Hill said. “We need to be ready.” | ” |
That's apropos https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-148845/v1_stamped.pdf.
6 meta analyses, 53 studies - listed at https://c19ivermectin.com/ - and all have positive findings - but we're still calling claims that it stops covid-19, "misinformation". Tantamount to mass murder - more and more so the longer this goes on. Even the NIH has changed its view to say ivermectin use against covid is acceptable - even though it appears to me it had to lie about the data in order to avoid coming out even more strongly in favor of ivermectin.-- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 09:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the Chaccour trial, wording "patients who received ivermectin" should be rewritten as "patients who received a single dose of ivermectin"; most other studies administer several doses of ivermectin. Then, why do you write "no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load", while they observed lower viral load actually? "A marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia, a reduction of cough and a tendency to lower viral loads and lower IgG titers". And finally, the authors conclude "This pilot points towards a potential use of ivermectin in COVID-19" but this section impresses quite the opposite. Is it some anti-ivermectin prejudice or what? Vlpast2 ( talk) 20:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
There's adequate specificity. I.e. Regarding the Chaccour trial, wording "patients who received ivermectin" should be rewritten as "patients who received a single dose of ivermectin"; most other studies administer several doses of ivermectin.-- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 01:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
In the Covid 19 section the last sentence reads, "the government of Peru rescinded a previous recommendation for the use of ivermectin (alongside azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine) in hospitalized patients." A couple of days ago, it was reported that the government of Peru decided to reverse its position and once again include ivermectin in its kit for patients with Covid 19 [ [37]] AussiePete56 ( talk) 15:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, it would undermine the falsehood that ivermectin is only being used in research at the moment - aren't we supposed to publish truth without bias? AussiePete56 ( talk) 00:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Not done:
It wasn't "a doctor" making the decision, it was the collective decisions of the Peruvian Ministry of Health and the Peruvian Government's Social Health Insurance Scheme. Jdphenix's decision to leave the reference to the original outdated since-reversed decision is obviously preposterous. Since certain editors here have an ideological commitment to never mentioning any positive association between ivermectin and Covid 19 treatment, I suggest just remove the entire sentence. The mistake needs to be corrected both here and in the "drug-repurposing" area. AussiePete56 ( talk) 08:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The headline of the article clearly indicates a "reversal of position" [ [38]] so I propose that the sentence which currently reads, "and the government of Peru rescinded a previous recommendation for the use of ivermectin (alongside azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine) in hospitalized patients" should have added to it, "although ivermectin is still prescribed for outpatient use." AussiePete56 ( talk) 16:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
We now have multiple concurrent discussions on ivermectin in COVID-19 across the talk pages of multiple articles, and conflicting information in each of those articles. While this use remains experimental, the core of our content should remain at the Ivermectin section of COVID-19 drug repurposing research. I have thus transcluded that content into the Research section of the present article in the hope of centralizing discussion and avoiding duplication of efforts/information conflicts. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 07:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, folks, its use against covid is already standard practice, not experimental, in much of the world, though clearly that makes some people angry and even in denial. Don't be US-blindered.
And I'll add: I'm not here to edit an article on the topic of misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic to the encyclopedia, or a section of this article on that topic. So don't tell me I have to. Don't tell me I have to anything - that's not how we are supposed to talk to each other.
This
edit request to
ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The idea that animal use is primary is absurd. About 3.7 billion human doses. Prevents millions of cases of river blindness, malaria (partially), covid (according to people who aren't ignorant)... Please revert Fvasconcellos last edit.
-- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 08:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
"A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 24 patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors found no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load between patients who received ivermectin and those given placebo, thus failing the primary outcome of the study.[75]"
This addition was recently added to the Covid 19 section of the ivermectin page. When I have proposed mentioning other Randomised Controlled Trials investigating ivermectin's potential use in treating Covid 19, I have been reminded that it is against Wikipedia's ban on Original Research [ [39]]. What is the difference here? . AussiePete56 ( talk) 08:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
"consistent with the secondary sourcing...". What "secondary sourcing" are you referring to? The meta-analysis which found "weak evidence of benefit"? How is "no effect" consistent with "evidence of benefit"?
Also, the phrase, "no difference found in viral load" is not supported by the study, which says, "the ivermectin group had non-statistically significant lower viral loads at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) and day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) post treatment as well as lower IgG titers at day 21 post treatment (p = 0·24)." This was repeated in the "Interpretation" - "(the ivermectin treated group showed) a tendency to lower viral loads and lower IgG titers" as well as "a marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia, and a reduction of cough" . AussiePete56 ( talk) 17:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
There is this statement
Ivermectin, although still an investigational drug, has become the drug of choice for onchocer-ciasis (river blindness). Ivermectin intensifies GABA-mediated neurotransmission in nematodes and causes immobilization of parasites, facilitating their removal by the eticuloendothelial system. Selective toxicity results because in humans GABA is a neurotransmitter only in the CNS, and ivermectin does not cross the blood-brain barrier.
Im wondering regarding the recent large-scale human use of Ivermectin in central europe: where are the patient reported rejuvenating/stimulant effects coming from? Is it the action of Ivermectin on the intestines or other body parts, or is it a direct action of a minute/trace amounts acting in the brain? Since some other antihelminthic was being metabolised to amphetamine, and is added to all south-american cocaine production, is it possible that Ivermectin has a similar effect on a selected group of patients? How can it make some people feel better, stronger? Or is it just because they have slept better, because of the effect on GABA?
Another barrier is due to membrane transporters, which actively export drugs from the cellular or tissue compartment back into the blood (Chapter 5). A well-known example is the P-glycoprotein. Although the octanol-water partition coefficient would favor lipophilic molecules to transverse across cell barriers, P-glycoprotein exports structurally unrelated amphiphilic and lipophilic molecules of 3-4 kDa, reducing their effective penetration. Examples of antimicrobial agents that are P-glycoprotein substrates include HIV protease inhibitors, the antiparasitic agent ivermectin, the anti-bacterial agent telithromycin, and the antifungal agent itraconazole. [1]
There are notes on other pages saying that ivermectin is severely neurotoxic to mice that have some genes knocked out, and on another page that the lack of neurotoxicity in humans may be precisely because of the P-glycoprotein membrane transporters, which would mean that some of it WILL exhibit GABA action in humans. You can find those by searching in the 2108-page pdf for ivermectin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.19.60 ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 12:44, May 14, 2021 - «Restored revision 1023063928 by DMacks talk): Let the software do the work; forcing width mucks up the appearance»
- 10:27, May 14, 2021 - «Undid revision 1023063928 by DMacks talk) At 100% width references are completely unreadable. Let's make it more consistent with the rest of Wiki.»
- 04:15, May 14, 2021 - «Making the columns 50% narrower than standard makes this worse and not better. Undid revision 1023014905 by Alexander Davronov talk)»
- 20:35, May 13, 2021 - «References»
I propose to change the width of the {{
reflist}} to 20em
. Currently it's unreadable. Some good examples:
Egalitarianism#References,
Dendrite#Notes,
Gdańsk#References --
AXONOV
(talk)
⚑ 19:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 09:21, May 15, 2021 - «COVID-19 misinformation: Witnesses making statements at the hearing - the context makes this sufficiently clear.»
- 07:51, May 15, 2021 - «COVID-19 misinformation: Reword and cite EMA per talk.»
- 09:50, May 15, 2021 - «COVID-19 misinformation: See Talk:Ivermectin#Misinfo: Pierre Kory»
- 10:03, May 15, 2021 - «Undid revision 1023252048 by Alexander Davronov talk) Let's do it in a right way.»
@ Brunton: See WP:DONTREVERT and WP:DETAG. The problem is that Pierre Kory is not mentioned in the NYC article cited before so I'm going to place failed verification tag if you don't mind. Please provide a quote if you can so I can remove it. Thanks. -- AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The lead paragraph has this sentence tacked on to it :
> There exists no evidence that the drug works for COVID-19.
Now I'm not interested in arguing the case regarding Ivermectin and Covid at all. What is wrong with this sentence being in the lede is that it is completely out of place. We do not summarise a drug by saying what diseases and afflictions it has so far not shown evidence to treat. So why is this sentence here? I suspect that, as is increasingly the case on Wikipedia, certain ppl want to push an agenda.
Yes, I have not written this dispassionately but I am getting really tired of faux 'enlightened' individuals pushing agendas on wikipedia. Please treat this project as an encyclopedia, not a place to push agendas. This is directed at the person who just reverted my edit removing this rubbish and to all others who can't leave well enough alone. Oska ( talk) 04:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Calling putting the sentence at this place "completely moronic", but that looked clumsy to me, and I did not expect you to make such a drama about such a minor difference. It does not change my point one bit. My point was "it does not help that you are doing this", and, surprise, surprise, calling putting the sentence at that place "completely moronic" is every bit as disingenious as calling the sentence itself "completely moronic" would have been. I don't know why I expected a drive-by ranter like you to be reasonable enough to recognize this as a non-difference.
I don't have a bee in my bonnet about Ivermectin and Covid, despite people trying to colour this discussion that wayNobody did. Look carefully at what Alexbrn and I wrote. You are the only person here who is colouring anything.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Kory, Pierre; Meduri, Gianfranco Umberto; Varon, Joseph; Iglesias, Jose; Marik, Paul E. (April 22, 2021). "Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19". American Journal of Therapeutics. 28 (3): e299–e318. doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001377. ISSN 1075-2765. PMC 8088823.
- "EMA advises against use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outside randomised clinical trials". March 22, 2021.
{{ cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status ( link)
-- AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
...a Frontiers! ...Frontiers claims that the article didn't review controlled trials meanwhile there were 18 controlled ones (I've checked at least 2). [45]
... WP:MEDRS exists to prevent Wikipedia from spreading ...Don't cite guidelines arbitrarely. Reviews are acceptable as they are secondary. Considering that WP:MEDRS is highly abused guideline I would like to see exact provisions ( WP:BMI?) forbidding the first source above.
... which is the main source of the information in this meta-analysis. ...Are you saying that the first source is somehow compromised by Brazilian or any other govt? I'm fully aware of politicization over Covid-19 drugs over here but given WP:RS I don't think this opinion has a great weight. Review in Nature says that Ivermectin is promising in treating Covid-19 and should be investigated. [50]
... Wikipedia should not suggest, by providing what looks like a credible scientific source to lay readers, ...You oppose to cite both and let the readers to decide which they trust the most? It would be nice to balance each other per WP:NPOV/ WP:WEIGHT. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS isn't an abused guideline ... "Whatever. Unless it turns out in provision - it's clear abuse.
... you have not cited any review in Nature.Nature which says that the drugs poses some effectiveness in combating viruses, including COVID-19 (second paragraph in conclusion section): NATURE ARTICLE. In light of this I don't think the WP:REDFLAG makes up a case here. We are obliged to mention the first source under WP:WEIGHT I think. I propose to put it under COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research#Ivermectin section. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
... Please do not put quackery ...There is no evidence for that. SCImago rates it higher than Frontiers: [51] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Review in Nature says that Ivermectin is promising in treating Covid-19 and should be investigated.June 2020. Research has come a long way since then. We can write at the top of Review / Evidence something like "In June 2020, a review suggested that ivermectin was promising. However, later results found weak evidence." This presents the information (which in fact I find relevant when narrating how the controversy started and unfolded) in the appropriate tone.
Are you saying that the first source is somehow compromised by Brazilian or any other govt?Very likely. If it were in fact neutral, reliable and of high quality, it would have been sent for review by a more reputable publisher, such as Nature, and we would see interest from other important health organizations such as EMA and WHO. But that is not happening at all.
You oppose to cite both and let the readers to decide which they trust the most?Yes, because there is no evidence, because WP:MEDRS exists to prevent the relativizing truths and facts in ways that could harm laypeople, and because the debate around it is currently tainted by economic and political interests, especially in Brazil. If it can cause injury by incorrectly modulating risky behaviours, leave the debate to experts and trusted health organizations.
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Since May of 2021, a paper on Ivermectin was Peer Reviewed by The American Journal of Therapeutics and published, Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Pierre Kory, MD,1* Gianfranco Umberto Meduri, MD,2 Joseph Varon, MD,3 Jose Iglesias, DO,4 and Paul E. Marik, MD5. Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Now Scientific Fact that Ivermectin is a Preventative & Treatment for Covid 19. Also, see the FLCCC ALLIANCE https://covid19criticalcare.com/ for further details and the latest updates. Also, see Dr. Tess Lawrie, https://medicalupdateonline.com/speciality/Dr-Tess-Lawrie/ Johnlark2095 ( talk) 23:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
n March 2021, both the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued guidance that ivermectin should not be used to treat or prevent COVID-19.[79][80] After reviewing the evidence on ivermectin the EMA said that "the available data do not support its use for COVID-19 outside well-designed clinical trials".[80] Ivermectin is not authorized for use to treat COVID-19 within the European Union.[80] In the United Kingdom, the national COVID-19 Therapeutics Advisory Panel determined that the evidence base and plausibility of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment were insufficient to pursue further investigations.[81] The WHO says that ivermectin should not be used to treat COVID-19 except in a clinical trial.[82]
Since May of 2021, a paper on Ivermectin was Peer Reviewed by The American Journal of Therapeutics and published, Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Pierre Kory, MD,1* Gianfranco Umberto Meduri, MD,2 Joseph Varon, MD,3 Jose Iglesias, DO,4 and Paul E. Marik, MD5. Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Now Scientific Fact that Ivermectin is a Preventative & Treatment for Covid 19. Also, see the FLCCC ALLIANCE https://covid19criticalcare.com/ for further details and the latest updates. Also, see Dr. Tess Lawrie, https://medicalupdateonline.com/speciality/Dr-Tess-Lawrie/. Johnlark2095 ( talk) 00:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The characterization of the Chaccour et al study appears to be an example of the subjective and selective point of view currently conveyed by this article. I will not question the methodology, findings, or relevance of the paper here, as it has already been deemed relevant and reliable enough for inclusion in the article.
For reference, the text I am responding to is as follows:
"A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 24 patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors found no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load between patients who received ivermectin and those given placebo, thus failing the primary outcome of the study." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:8C96:D3CD:38B2:2270 ( talk) 23:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Point 1: Omission of symptom reduction as a finding of the paper
The study itself, entitled "The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with non-severe COVID-19: A pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial", finds a strong significant difference in symptom reduction in the patient group using ivermectin vs placebo group. While the procedure did specify a negative PCR test as the primary pass/fail metric, a significant symptom reduction is relevant to the substance of the Wikipedia article, and was seemingly relevant enough to the authors of the paper for them to include the subject in the title.
Point 2: Inaccurate claim of no difference in viral loads
The Wikipedia article states that the study "found no difference...in viral load." This is directly contradicted by the paper itself, which states "the ivermectin group had non-statistically significant lower viral loads at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) and day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) post treatment as well as lower IgG titers at day 21 post treatment (p = 0·24)." The paper did not find "no difference," it found a non-statistically significant difference. To be clear, these findings are closer to "significant difference" than "significant no difference."
Point 3: Overall mismatch between tone of study and characterization of it in article
The authors characterize their study as a "pilot [that] points towards a potential use of ivermectin in COVID-19 which warrants further exploration under larger trials." This is not communicated by the Wikipedia article, which portrays it as one data point of many which illustrate ivermectin's ineffectiveness.
2600:1700:7CC0:4770:8C96:D3CD:38B2:2270 ( talk) 23:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
To all editors: This page is not available for general discussion. It is subject WP:GS/COVID19 and an uninvolved administrator such as myself should prevent meandering conversations that waste time and energy of other editors. Any further comments should contain an actionable proposal to improve the article based on WP:MEDRS. Other comments may be removed and anyone repeatedly restoring them will be blocked. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)