This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
In the American Journal of Therapeutics Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines.
"Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."
This appears to refute "During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin was beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19. Such claims are not backed by sound evidence." Comments? Thepigdog ( talk) 05:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
the WHO, Nature, and The Lancet" [do not] "
represent the mainstream" is, in my humble opinion, either being disingenuous (and therefore WP:NOTHERE) or has a serious case of WP:CIR.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
It is truly shocking the lengths taken to suppress information about this potentially life saving treatment for covid. The WHO and CDC have sat on this cheap safe potential treatment since August, meanwhile promoting an unproven expensive vaccine. Why? This is another tool in the toolbox, yet only negative articles are allowed on Wikipedia. When did Wikipedia become so politicized? Is this source good enough for mention? https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04668469 .2mg / kg is a low dosage proven to be safe, not the nonsense stated in this wiki
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4A80:5870:3910:DA7:2204:1AE2 ( talk) 23:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Incoming edits due to https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/coronavirus-australia-ivermectin-antiparasitic-drug-kills-covid19-in-lab/news-story/615c435e56aefc4b704f4fd890bd4c2c for sure.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.116.241.225 ( talk) 14:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Article incorrectly refers to SARS-COV-2 as a negative sense RNA virus. It is a positive sense RNA virus.
On December 8th 2020 Dr Pierre Kory, speaking as a representative of a group of doctors who together have published nearly 2,000 peer-reviewed publications appeared at a meeting of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to plead that the NIH be forced to review the most recent evidence on the use of Ivermectin as a treatment and prophylactic for Sars-Cov-2 and Covid 19. He claimed that the use of Ivermectin on Covid 19 patients had a "miraculous impact", and this description was based on "mountains of evidence that has appeared in the last three months". He pointed out that the NIH's recommendation that Ivermectin not be used outside of controlled trials was made in August 2020, before the "mountains of data" that emerged subsequently. Dr. Kory presented a summary of this data, and the committee chairman Senator Ron Johnson promised to pass this on to the NIH for review.... < https://osf.io/wx3zn/> < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq8SXOBy-4w> AussiePete56 ( talk) 02:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
It is okay to publish the truth about this drug now, and the results it has proven for Covid Treatment. Now that the marxists that control Wikipedia and all the internet have defeated Trump, the truth can come out. https://buffalonews.com/news/local/2nd-wny-hospital-ordered-to-treat-covid-19-patient-with-experimental-drug/article_f32339f0-5d01-11eb-b752-4f8966804581.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.87.50 ( talk) 11:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Here is some more reliable evidence on the effectiveness of Ivermectin in preventing and treating Covid-19 . https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf .
https://c19ivermectin.com/ . AussiePete56 ( talk) 05:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I dispute the claim of "unreliable" by Alexbrn since the two articles are secondary reviews of others' research and therefore qualify as reliable as per the WP:MEDRS guidelines. I notice that the "unreliable" tag was applied to this page three minutes after the links to the two review articles were published - three minutes isn't enough time to read even half of one of the reviews, let alone properly evaluate both. The charge of "unreliable" is therefore itself seemingly unreliable AussiePete56 ( talk) 14:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
My point is that the information being presented in these reviews IS the "best quality source" available - ie, the very latest real-world studies demonstrating life-saving treatments. Alexbrn didn't even read these studies. 6% hospital deaths versus 23% are the results achieved. Some of these studies lack peer-review which typically takes months - time that these 14,000 people who are dying daily no not have. To give priority to ideological purity over thousands of daily deaths is insane and inhumane. To repeat a point that Alexbrm ignores - 3.7 billion doses of Ivermectin has been taken over 40 years. It is safe. There is only potential benefits to using it and strong and growing evidence supports such use. Allowing this information to be available, together with suitable disclaimers, is the appropriate and responsible decision. AussiePete56 ( talk) 23:26, 21 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. [1] AussiePete56 ( talk) 05:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
}}
"The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19". In the interests of full disclosure, I propose amending this to, "The National Institutes of Health recommended against the use ivermectin for COVID-19 in August 2020". Since then, dozens of research reports on Ivermectin and Covis 19 have been released. Putting a date on the recommendation flags for the reader that it does not necessarily encompass the most recent research. AussiePete56 ( talk) 17:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I would accept your suggestion on a "better than nothing" basis. Do you really think that the NIH's position is not outdated Alexbrn? You always exude the attitude that conformity to authority equals virtue. Do you have any theories on why the NIH, CDC and FDA allocated zero public funds to the investigation of re-purposing existing drugs against Covid 19, and instead went "all-in" on developing novel vaccines? I'm not cynical, but cynics would say, "Because that's where the money is." Many billions of dollars. And the vaccines don't work on patients who already have the virus. And it will take about a year for 80% of first-world countries to get vaccinated, and many more years for third-world countries.
So we're up to 15,000 people per day dying from Covid 19 at the moment, most of whom could be saved on the evidence of dozens of studies that the NIH ignores.... AussiePete56 ( talk) 14:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
We should try to avoid turning this into a discussion board, and try to focus on reporting what our sources say. Since regulatory bodies routinely change their positions, their prior positions by their own admission were outdated. Teishin ( talk) 14:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn, you have repeatedly referred to the 28 studies which each independently found that Ivermectin works to alleviate Covid 19 illness as "fake" - that sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. AussiePete56 ( talk) 14:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I have no skin in this game. I just saw this chart stating far lower cumulative deaths from COVID-19 in the Mexican state of Chiapas compared to all the others and how that correlates with it being alone amongst them in using Ivermectin: https://twitter.com/Covid19Critical/status/1347721731272830976 (That mention of Ivermectin brought me here.) The correlation may be something which can be readily verified or disproved as it claims to be from public official data and the outcome mentioned on the main page. ― Ralph Corderoy ( talk) 12:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm late for this discussion. c19early, c19study, c19legacy, c19ivermectin, ivmmeta, c19hcq, hcqmeta, and others, use grossly incorrect methodology, producing biased results with bizarre p-values. They are still being used as "evidence" by political groups in Brazil to spread medical disinformation. [1] ( talk) 01:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Does the recommendation from the ministry of health of India count as a reliable source ? https://www.icmr.gov.in/pdf/covid/techdoc/COVID19_Management_Algorithm_22042021_v1.pdf I hear also IVM is used in Mexico city now https://mexicobusiness.news/health/news/ivermectin-controversial-covid-19-drug-used-mexico-city Isn't it enough to say at least that there is no consensus on efficacy? We don't live in Disneyland, health agencie's recommendations in rich countries account for billions in drug purchasing.How could there be no influence when there are choices like $1000 remdesivir vs $5 hcq or ivermectin ? In countries with lower financial resources there are also bright people, but less pressure not to reuse existing drugs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pweltz ( talk • contribs) 15:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Could we just remove the "misinformation" claim? "A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/ HaraldTheBlue ( talk) 23:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Larger trials will be needed to confirm these preliminary findings.72 participants is quite a small sample indeed. -- Fernando Trebien ( talk) 03:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Note the imprecise wording of the Invermectin COVID-19 Wikipedia entry: "As of January 2021, the U.S. National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines state that the evidence for ivermectin is too limited to allow for a recommendation for or against its use." This wording does not make clear that ivermection is now a treatment option for COVID-19. In fact, the “neither for nor against” NIH classification is the "recommendation given to monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma, both widely used across the nation." [2] Unfortunately, this clarification can not be made because the COVID-19 section is locked down for edits even from autoconfirmed users--which is contrary to the edit notification for that section. I hope this is just a mistake and not a tragic example of "cancel culture" impacting Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisswiss ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
This statement is false: 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. I quote directly from the study: the median viral load for both genes was lower at days 4 and 7 post treatment in the ivermectin group with differences increasing from 3-fold lower at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) to around 18-fold lower at day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N)
The study DID find a difference - it was just not statistically significant based on the threshold chosen. Even the PCR found a difference - RR 0·92. If you want to write something negative based on the results of this extremely small study, then write that it was underpowered to find statistically significant difference. Because every single endpoint found a difference showing benefit of Ivermectin use. Adriaandh ( talk) 09:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The section on Covid seems to be highly subjective and possibly inaccurate. I believe it should be changed to more neutral and objective as Wikipedia standards dictate - removing the word "misinformation" and to change "no reliable evidence exists" to "no large scale studies have been done."
All research that has been performed to my knowledge has shown that ivermectin is effective at treating Covid. A meta-analysis of four papers, accessible through the NIH, shows a .02 p value that adding ivermectin to a treatment regimen leads to improved clinical outcomes.
While they do stipulate that the quality of the individual papers included in the meta-analysis is "very low," they go on to say "currently, many clinical trials are on-going, and definitive evidence for repurposing this drug for COVID-19 patients will emerge only in the future."
As far as I am aware, all subsequent papers have all found that ivermectin was effective in treating Covid. This website that performs a real time meta-analysis of all papers (as of comment, 55 studies) shows a p value of disproving the clinical results as p = 0.000000000000043.
While there are no large scale studies of ivermectin as of yet, there is nothing but positive research (again, as far as I know) that show that it is effective. Therefore, "misinformation" does not objectively apply to this situation. It should only be applied when we have reliable information that the claim is false. On the contrary, the only reliable information we do have is that the claim is true, though I grant that it is far from settled science due to lack of large scale studies.
Further, while any of the smaller studies on their own might not be considered "reliable," surely a meta-analysis of 55 studies demonstrating a remarkably small p-value, could arguably considered reliable. Notwithstanding the lack of a large scale study, the meta-analysis data should disqualify the descriptor "not reliable" from being used by an objective source such as Wikipedia. 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:3CB4:489B:79C1:24A7 ( talk) 08:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
From p. 29 of this MEDRS in one of the best journals (Clinical Microbiology Reviews):
Recently, another FDA-approved drug, ivermectin, was reported to inhibit the in vitro replication of SARS-CoV-2. The findings from this study indicate that a single treatment of this drug was able to induce an 5,000-fold reduction in the viral RNA at 48 h in cell culture. One of the main disadvantages that limit the clinical utility of
ivermectin is its potential to cause cytotoxicity. However, altering the vehicles used in the formulations, the pharmacokinetic properties can be modified, thereby having significant control over the systemic concentration of ivermectin (338). Based on the pharmacokinetic simulation, it was also found that ivermectin may have limited therapeutic utility in managing COVID-19, since the inhibitory concentration that has to be achieved for effective anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity is far higher than the maximum plasma concentration achieved by administering the approved dose (340). However, ivermectin, being a host-directed agent, exhibits antiviral activity by targeting a critical cellular process of the mammalian cell. Therefore, the administration of ivermectin, even at
lower doses, will reduce the viral load at a minor level. This slight decrease will provide a great advantage to the immune system for mounting a large-scale antiviral response against SARS-CoV-2 (341). Further, a combination of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine might have a synergistic effect, since ivermectin reduces viral replication, while hydroxychloroquine inhibits the entry of the virus in the host cell (339). Further, in vivo studies and randomized clinical control trials are required to understand the mechanism as well as the clinical utility of this promising drug
I propose we edit the article to acknowledge that this source says "ivermectin, even at lower doses, will reduce the viral load at a minor level.". Forich ( talk) 02:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Tagging in user:Aaronmhamilton to this discussion about sites like ivvmeta.com. These are not MEDRS, and as has been discussed above several times, the findings on that site are not a legitimate reason for any edit on this page. To restate my reasons for this revert:
When you bring an inappropriately sarcastic and derisive quip like "this ain't it chief" to the table, it is clear that it's personal to you, and honestly, that you haven't evaluated the specific claims of your citations on the matter. I guess I'll revisit this when there are more cold bodies. Aaron Muir Hamilton <aaron@correspondwith.me> ( talk) 03:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Currently there is a Principle trial being ran investigating the effectiveness of ivermectin in treating COVID in over-50s in the UK. The trial currently has over 5,000 volunteers. [1] [2] [3]
It may be appropriate to include this in the lead of the article as the fact that such a large-scale study from a reliable organisation is currently taking place is very notable and will be an extremely useful and reliable source when the study publishes its results, whichever way it goes. Yeah, that's fine. ( talk) 08:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps the paragraph "During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin was beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[14] Such claims are not backed by sound evidence.[15][16][17][18][19]" should now be revised. It appears too harsh. The metadata study reported at [4], appears, at first glance, to show a benefit for treatment and prevention. K012957 ( talk) 13:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
A study from Pasteur Institute on an animal model : [6]-- Mreg93 ( talk) 10:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
> Based on this information, however, doses much higher than the maximum approved or safely achievable for use in humans would be required for an antiviral effect.
This statement links to the following sources, /info/en/?search=Ivermectin#cite_note-COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research_Bray_2020-95, /info/en/?search=Ivermectin#cite_note-96
I can however not find where the papers states that they are not "safely achievable". I just find that they base their statement on the maximum approved standard.
Should be useful, at least until the big trials are complete and their results incorporated in newer reviews. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
unsubstantiated COI accusations and off-topic discussions. We are not here to peer-review.-
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
03:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
personally I agree that asserting this as a legitimate COI makes me question whether Eloyesp is WP:HERE. That's why I asked for clarification, because I didn't believe it at first. It's just obvious baloney. Have you read WP:FLAT? What were your thoughts?-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 12:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
also, wanted to say, it's important to identify when someone is attacking us, vs our arguments. and if multiple people think our argument is baloney, maybe it's time to reassess that argument and admit we were wrong. -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 12:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC) @ Eloyesp: @ Caprilyc: Someone stands to benefit from the continued instigation of such a conspiracy. If you follow the money, you can easily tell who it is; after all, its sale soared. Ivermectin has been tested at various locations by various healthcare professionals at various times during the last 15 months. Being cheap, if it really worked, governments would be scrambling to distribute it, as that would end the pandemic and save trillions of dollars. We don't see that happening, so clearly there is no basis for the claim that any of the existing studies supporting it are proving anything. Do you really think the UK government would be so stupid to let AstraZeneca make money at their expense? What about the US government? Are 600 thousand deaths and a recession worth the profit of some national big pharma company? What we do see rich countries investing in is lockdowns and monoclonal antibodies, the latter being too expensive for large scale use in developing countries. Ivermectin was used in India during last month's peak due to despair but not before that, and it is used in Brazil which is in the middle of a Senate inquiry to investigate corruption while handling the crisis. While ivermectin continues to be used in Brazil for that purpose, you can see in the data there is no significant effect in preventing deaths. -- Fernando Trebien ( talk) 17:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I read the fulltext Roman et al. paper and I am not sure I understand how their conclusions follow from the data. For all cause mortality they report risk with ivermectin 2 per 100 vs 6 per 100 with control; RR 0.37 (0.12 to 1.13) with very low certainty of evidence. This contradicts an earlier version of the paper where all-cause mortality was reported as RR 1.11 (0.16 to 7.65) - their conclusion of "IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 1.11, 95%CI 0.16-7.65, very low QoE)" makes sense for the earlier version but the latest revision just does not make sense. "IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.13, very low QoE)" Can someone please explain how a RR of 0.37 for all-cause mortality is not a reduction? I understand that the confidence interval is wide but based on my reading of the data they present, their conclusions do not follow from the data they present. Caprilyc ( talk) 13:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
|
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove these lines:
By 1986, ivermectin was registered for use in 46 countries and was suministered massively to cattle, sheep and other animals.[62]
Ivermectin was approved for human use in 1988.[63]
Ivermectin earned the title of "wonder drug" for the treatment of nematodes and arthropod parasites, although this title can not be extrapolated for any off label uses of the drug.[64]
Ivermectin has been used safely by hundreds of millions of people to treat river blindness and lymphatic filariasis.[65]
and replace them with a single paragraph:
By 1986, ivermectin was registered for use in 46 countries and was administered massively to cattle, sheep and other animals,[62] and it was approved for human use in 1988.[63] Having been used to treat hundreds of millions of cases of river blindness and lymphatic filariasis,[65] it earned the title of "wonder drug" for the treatment of nematodes and arthropod parasites, although this title cannot be extrapolated for off-label uses.[64]
The content's identical; it will just look better as a single small paragraph. (The only exception is replacing "suministered" with "administered" because it doesn't seem to be an actual word.) Thank you. 64.203.186.79 ( talk) 19:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Also here: I cannot add it, but a new Cochrane report ( PMID 34318930) came to the conclusion that "the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.".-- Julius Senegal ( talk) 08:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Rickyjames, please take a look at the consensus template at the top of this page. Your edit adds content that is of a medical nature, declaring that a treatment is effective, but is not based on WP:MEDRS sources. This is why I reverted. Such content that is against scientific consensus (and editor consensus) must be based on extremely high quality sources. And ivmmeta, as the template at the top of this page describes, is not a reliable source for medical claims.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 02:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Just leaving this here if someone wants to use it as a source.] I don't know if the Post is enough to add some neutrality into that last lead paragraph, please have a look, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Leaving a source here for someone to use. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:15, 6 August 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.
“During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin was beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[14] Such claims are not backed by sound evidence.[15][16][17][18][19]”
This passage assumes that the only evidence of medical efficacy is the conduct of large scale, double-blind trials. This is incorrect. Clinically practicing doctors can detect the efficacy of treatments, and routinely do so. As an extreme example, surgeons generally do not conduct large scale, double-blind trials…people would die if they did. Yet we routinely consider the life-saving surgical practices of surgeons as “sound evidence”, because they demonstrably change the survival rates of patients with certain conditions or injuries. Let’s change this passage to be more accurate…there may not be large-scale double-blind trials, but I do hear compelling evidence that there are practicing physicians who are detecting a beneficial effect. Ivermectin is not known to have serious side-effects, therefore it seems a low-risk alternative that does no harm, and may do some good. We’re at vaccine saturation in the US…why not make a safe treatment acceptable for consideration by doctors, especially since it might pull in a portion of the vaccine skeptical public? Can we tone this down so it highlights that there is one very specific form of evidence that is lacking, while leaving open the question of emerging evidence from clinical practice? BleedingKansas ( talk) 05:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no evidence that BleedingKansas has espoused a "fringe" view. As a rule, wikipedia editors should refrain from base rhetoric such as labelling viewpoints by other editors "fringe". Rather, BleedingKansas has espoused a common sense viewpoint. Where a common sense viewpoint diverges with alleged mainstream sources, giving room for the common sense viewpoint should be considered. In this instance, the alleged mainstream sources have given no rationale for excluding ivermectin from the medical practitioner's toolbox insofar as it is considered a safe drug by the same sources. The line of thinking that the editor collective should rigidly parrot perceived "mainstream sources" would preclude us to inform readers in a Semmelweis moment, and is therefore false. Esperion ( talk) 12:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
This page is in desperate need of correction. There is sound research demonstrating the efficacy of ivermectin in inhibiting viral replication in COVID-19[2], as well as in several other viruses[1]. It could be more correctly described as an anti-parsitic and selective antiviral. Note the last reference here is a double blinded randomised control trial[3]. Please make use of research search engines [7] [8] [9] DevnullNZ ( talk) 09:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I would like to add my voice to the chorus of voices that have been asking for this paragraph to be toned down, at the very least. Does the new meta-analysis by Andrew Hill meet the standards for inclusion here? Hill is a researcher for the WHO. The peer-reviewed analysis is published by the Open Forum of Infectious Diseases, which has a journal impact factor of 3.835. The editorial accompanying the analysis (Mark J. Siedner MD MPH, Harvard Medical School), states the following: "The results are compelling. They identify a clinically significant benefit in pooled estimates for most of their selected outcomes. For example, they estimate a mean reduction in time to viral clearance of 3 days (95%CI 1-5), a reduction in time to clinical recovery of 1.5 days (95%CI 0.4-2.8), a reduction in duration of hospitalization of 4.3 days (95%CI 0.0-8.6) and 56% reduced risk of mortality. Notably, their estimates remain largely similar after excluding studies at high risk of bias. And, although the included studies do not overlap, their results are largely consistent with many (but not all 20) other meta-analytic evaluations of ivermectin conduct by other groups. Even the most ardent skeptic should be given pause by this data."
Clearly, this can no longer be considered only a fringe view, nor can we characterize it as misinformation that is not backed by sound evidence. Meta-analysis is here: https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214 Editorial is here: https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab318/6298585
Shouldn't this count as a source? Meta-analysis of randomized trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. Authored by
The 13th 4postle ( talk) 13:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Many studies included were not peer reviewed and a wide range of doses were evaluated." If this were the only source, then that would be one thing. But we have many other sources saying the opposite, that are more stringent and reliable and include only peer-reviewed studies. Indeed, the IDSA itself (which you reference) does not yet agree that the evidence is robust enough to recommend use. We must defer to the highest quality sources. See the consensus template at the top of the page. Thanks.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Here are 9! Double Blind Randomized Control Trials which suggest that Ivermectin has a positive effect in treating patients with Covid-19. How is this not considered "credible scientific evidence?"
The 13th 4postle ( talk) 12:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Please note, we comment on the content, not users. If you have an issue with user take it to their talk page or wp:ani. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Peak levels from oral dosing in humans occur within 4 to 5 hours. Ivermectin is fat soluble and highly protein bound, with a terminal half-life of 57 hours in adult humans. Almost no original drug appears in the urine. It is Extensive metabolised by hepatic CYP3A4 to many different substances mostly hydroxylated and demethylated metabolites. Ivermectin is contraindicated in people with impaired blood brain barriers (head injury, CNS infections) due to its effects on GABA receptors.
Source: Goodmand and Gilman's Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 11th edition, pages 1086-1087.
In an online presentation during the Ivermectin Global Summit, hosted by the site TrialSite News, uploaded to VIMEO on May 25, 2021 [1], Dr. Kylie Wagstaff, Head of the Nuclear Therapeutics Laboratory, Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Australia, and team leader for the group that published the ivermectin in vitro study using monkey kidney cells [2], indicated that the claim many have made, that while her research team's efforts showed that ivermectin does mitigate the COVID-19 virus, the dosage needed to accomplish this in humans would be "very high" and "toxic", is "a fallacy."
Dr. Wagstaff explained how monkey kidney cells are very different from human tissue and do not produce an immune response, nor do they produce interferon. She went on to point out that because ivermectin accumulates in human lung and other tissues, there is no need for a 1:1 ratio of drug to virus and, consequently, the IC50 of the original monkey-kidney culture does not carry over into humans. She pointed out that ivermectin works with the human immune system to produce a 6-8 fold increase in the IC50 using the 0.2 mg/kg of body weight dosing commonly found in protocols treating SARS-CoV-2, which is within the standard dosage range for treating parasites. [3] -- Bdmurrell ( talk) 01:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a small paragraph discussing how this drug is not proven or certified to be safe and/or effective for treatment of covid-19. Currently it has links to the Covid-19 article and the Covid-19 pandemic, but I think that a link to the COVID-19 misinformation article would be useful as well, as that directly addresses this piece of misinformation. 2601:644:8B80:2690:7093:CDFE:71EE:6AF6 ( talk) 04:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Several cn's are missing in the section below, as well as at least one misplaced footnote. In addition it would be nice to have in the history section reference to this link.
Ivermectin is available as a generic prescription drug in the U.S. in a 3 mg tablet formulation. [1] It is also sold under the brand names Heartgard, Sklice [2] and Stromectol [3] in the United States, Ivomec worldwide by Merial Animal Health, Mectizan in Canada by Merck, Iver-DT [4] in Nepal by Alive Pharmaceutical and Ivexterm in Mexico by Valeant Pharmaceuticals International. In Southeast Asian countries, it is marketed by Delta Pharma Ltd. under the trade name Scabo 6. The formulation for rosacea treatment is sold under the brand name Soolantra. [5] While in development, it was assigned the code MK-933 by Merck. [6]
Albertbelgium ( talk) 11:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
[6] Ongoing Living Update of COVID-19 Therapeutic Options: Summary of Evidence. Rapid Review, 26 August 2021
--TMCk ( talk) 18:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
"Although pooled estimates suggest significant benefits with ivermectin, included studies’ methodological limitations and a small overall number of events results in very low certainty of the evidence. Based on the results reported by the RCTs classified as low risk of bias, ivermectin may not significantly reduce mortality nor mechanical ventilation requirements, and probably does not improve time to symptom resolution. However, ivermectin may reduce hospitalizations in non-severe patients. Further research is needed to confirm or discard these findings."
--TMCk ( talk) 18:33, 2 September 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.
Slatersteven, you reinserted that the claim "ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19" is misinformation (i.e. untrue), citing the BMJ. I don't see where the BMJ source says that ivermectin has been proven to not be beneficial for treating or preventing Covid. Could you maybe quote the specific sentence(s) in the source stating that? Than we could attach the source to the claim you reinserted in the article. -- Distelfinck ( talk) 15:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectintois beneficialfor treating and preventing COVID-19.
misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin has been proven beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.That's what reliable sources say -- the jury is still out if ivermectin is beneficial, but the claim that it has been proven beneficial is false. Would you be okay with me changing it in that way, Slatersteven? -- Distelfinck ( talk) 15:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The BMJ article's title ("Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19") doesn't specify what claim the "Misleading" is referring to. It could be about ivermectin being beneficial, but also could be about other information around that topic. Again, please provide a quote supporting the claim you reinserted into the article. A drug not being beneficial is a biomedial claim and needs a reliable source per WP:MEDRS -- Distelfinck ( talk) 15:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Ivermectin has been researched for anti-Covid benefits, and found to be helpful. s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 Claims of anti-Covid efficacy are not misleading or misinformative. The article header should be updated to remove that statement. 🖖 ChristTrekker 🗣 15:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn None of the sources in that paragraph that you edited state that the claim "ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19" is misinformation, or untrue. Even though, you added this statement to our article with your edit. You added unsourced information. Unsourced information is against Wikipedia policy, in this case. A correction is in order, i.e. you should remove that statement. -- Distelfinck ( talk) 14:52, 6 September 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.
Shibbolethink You are missing the point with your above close. Statements, even if true, if challenged, need a inline citatation (e.g. in a footnote). The statement that "ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19" is misinformation doesn't have an inline citation supporting it. -- Distelfinck ( talk) 15:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Some sources
All are variations on Ivermectin misinformation. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space.
(from
WP:Citing sources).
None of the four sources cited in that intro paragraph support the statement that "ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19" is misinformation.
Even if the statement is true, it is still against policy, because none of the inline citations support it.
-- Distelfinck ( talk) 15:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.and
A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is directly present in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research.You said "That statement is an encyclopedic summary of these sources: ...". But if it's not directly present in at least one ouf the sources, per our policy that's not sufficient.
In the early hours of New Year’s Eve, former Liberal MP Craig Kelly logged on to Facebook to make one of his regular contributions to the global network of misinformation about Covid-19 – this time, to promote the antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a treatment for the virus....For months, Kelly had faced increasing criticism from health experts for promoting the use of drugs such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as coronavirus treatments, against scientific evidence... [23]
"There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. That is wrong," the FDA said... Currently, there are no "mountains of data" to show its benefit. The existing evidence is limited and documents mixed results. We rate the statement False. [24]
a general publication from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) stated that “…ivermectin is incorrectly being used for the treatment of COVID-19, without any scientific evidence of its efficacy and safety for the treatment of this disease.” [25]
Misinformation isFalse. There’s no evidence ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19. [26]
false or inaccurate information. Our statement is an encyclopedic summary of these sources per WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY. Encyclopedic summary is absolutely allowed on wikipedia, in exactly the fashion we have with these statements here. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Its time to close this, and take it to other venues. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
[27] "Why ivermectin should not be used to prevent or treat COVID-19" from the American Medical Association
Is this something that ought to be used, or does it not count as a reliable medical source? It's a few months newer than the sources given at the top of this article, but it's a very different kind of source. 2600:1003:B862:A86D:29BF:4640:593:3900 ( talk) 21:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I added the AMA statement to the misinformation section along with others from the FDA, CDC and WHO. I'm not sure if Merck's press release is reliable enough to use here, although it is mentioned by the AMA for what it's worth. It's not our job to steer folks away from bad medical decisions but I think it serves the reader well to say up front that use for COVID-19 treatment is specifically advised against, rather than using uncertain terms like "no evidence". – dlthewave ☎ 02:25, 5 September 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.
See: WP:NPOV & MOS:TERRORIST
In the Ivermectin#COVID-19_misinformation section the seond paragraph states "Ivermectin became a cause célèbre for right-wing figures promoting it as a supposed COVID treatment." Upon clicking the reference [1] I find no mention of anything related to the "right wing". Can this sentence be reworded or removed altogether? -- Skarz ( talk) 01:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
References
The conservative Australian MP Craig Kelly, who has also promoted the use of the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19 – despite World Health Organization advice that clinical trials show it does not prevent illness or death from the virus – has been among those promoting ivermectin....
Lawrence said what started out as a simple university assignment had led to a comprehensive investigation into an apparent scientific fraud at a time when “there is a whole ivermectin hype … dominated by a mix of right-wing figures, anti-vaxxers and outright conspiracists”— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
mention of anything related to the "right wing"you say you failed to find - in the very first sentence of the source. Why does this need explaining? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Recently found this claim. The validity of this claim needs to be tested. Sharing the links to the claims on some news portals below.
https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1435422132884881411
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/pko3zz/ivermectin_causes_sterilization_in_85_percent_of/
-- Dr. Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 04:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
It turns out that the articls were redacted. Is inclusion of the fact these claimes were made WP:DUE? —blindlynx ( talk) 14:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
There's a sentence in the article that reads "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"." Would somebody with the ability to edit the page please add the full name of the EMA in something like 'European Medicines Agency (EMA)' and/or a link to the EMA page? The words 'European Medicines Agency' currently don't appear anywhere in the text of the article. Thanks in advance. Joe ( talk) 08:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pleaase change "In mammals, ivermectin cannot cross the blood-brain barrier" to "In mammals, glutamate-gated chloride channels only occur in the brain and spinal cord, and ivermectin cannot cross the blood-brain barrier".
The "Mechanism of Action" section currently notes that "In mammals, ivermectin cannot cross the blood-brain barrier", but omits the reason why this is important. After all, mammals also have nerve cells and muscle cells outside the blood-brain barrier. The sentence in the original source referenced is "However, mammals only possess glutamate-gated chloride channels in the brain and spinal cord and as the avermectins have a low affinity for other mammalian ligand-gated channels and do not usually cross the blood–brain barrier, they are very safe for mammals." This may be too much information, hence the suggested correction. It still leavs open the question of why ivermectin does not affect the spinal cord in humans (or perhaps it does?), but that is a problem in the original reference, and thus needs to be left for expert correction. Urilarim ( talk) 00:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I altered your suggested sentence slightly. I replaced the old one with:
"In mammals, however, glutamate-gated chloride channels only occur in the brain and spinal cord and avermectins cannot cross the blood-brain barrier. Therefore, recommended doses of avermectins are unable to kill mammals via tissue paralysis."
Let me know your thoughts on my changes to your edit. Feel free to use my tale page or leave a message here. If you respond here, please ping me using the {{Talkback}} template on my talk page. RFZYNSPY talk 00:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
It is disingenuous to caution against websites that are anonymous (see above “Current consensus”, #3), since WP itself is proud to be anonymous. Niemandsbucht ( talk) 20:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
General philosophizing on the point of the encyclopedia, unrelated to this article. Try
WT:Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
|
---|
Respectfully, what is the point of an encyclopedia, or any ostensible reference or repository for and of information that categorizes itself as an unreliable source? This seems like a liability and accountability measure and it undermines the very nature of the site itself. I say this as a frequent user, paying donor, and someone who is considering a more active role in the editorial process. Zebraboy24 ( talk) 12:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
This would be a great point if at any time I had said that Wikipedia should use itself as a source. What you are essential doing is arguing that Wikipedia is a library and not an encyclopedia; or that libraries are nothing more than third-party stores of information. You understand that there is a difference in say, an auto manufacture stating that their vehicles are reliable forms of transportation and that same manufacture saying that due to internal polling our vehicles are the best forms of transportation available anywhere, correct? An encyclopedia is intended to be a place that localizes information, it is a sum of its parts. How can the information it provides be reliable yet it isn't reliable in and of itself? Wouldn't this same logic extend to any study, or report that uses the work or information of others and didn't rely solely on first person accounting? Zebraboy24 ( talk) 14:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
|
Why does "Stromectol" get top billing at the top of the article? Is this not pure commercial promotion?
200.68.169.188 ( talk) 18:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC) baden k.
I think it is because in pharmacology text book like lippincott that brand is given as an example. Who ever made this may have simply copied it, I do not think there was any malicious intent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.96.247 ( talk) 20:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the claim is made that the use of ivermectin to treat covid is misinformation and theirs no data to backup the claim that ivermectin can be used to treat covid Because of the mechanism of action of ivermectin we know that it will be beneficial to symptoms and certain mechanisms of covid 19 and SARS-CoV-2 Ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response.In addition, ivermectin docking may interfere with the attachment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein to the human cell membrane. Not to mention a study from the American journal of therapeutics Witch concluded that Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ I would like for the the page to be edited to remove the claim that misformation about the effectiveness of ivermectin was spread with no studies to back the claim Their is many studies that show the effectiveness of ivermectin thou as stated above not enough conclusive data for the approval of ivermectin as a covid 19 medication
Thank you for your time and I hope you will view the information given and actually check the relevant information instead of spreading deliberate misinformation 166.182.252.190 ( talk) 20:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. It will help to bring more reliable sources. Please also review the talk page archives for prior discussion about the American Journal of Therapeutics source.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk)
20:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Is there a reason why these studies are excluded from the consensus and what about the FLCCC Alliance? 41.13.254.135 ( talk) 07:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ Al-Andalus: just a note here because I reverted your edits and the rollback tool doesn't allow an edit summary. If I understand correctly, I think you were trying to make clearer the distinction between what ivermectin is approved and widely used for (treating worms and mites) vs. what it is not approved for (treating viruses), since we currently use the word "parasite" which could encompass both? Is that correct? If so, I think we could make that clearer in the article with less clunky wording. Maybe something like "Ivermectin is a medication used to treat worm and arthropod infections in humans and animals"? Though I suppose arthropod is also somewhat jargony... Anyway happy to hear others' thoughts on AA's proposed wording and/or on the idea of "parasite" being imprecise here. Ajpolino ( talk) 13:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add:
As of September 26, 2021, there is 79 clinical studies of Ivermectin as listed at the clinicaltrials.gov website.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=ivermectin&cond=covid%2C+covid19%2C+covid+19&Search=Apply&age_v=&gndr=&type=&rslt= Shawn.rsa ( talk) 12:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Your information on Ivermectin efficacy for early treatment of covid is not factual. See Uttar Pradesh and how they have contained the virus and reduced hospitalizations. When most of the world does not have vaccines or monoclonal antibodies you do the world a disservice by promoting misinformation due to the influence of for-profit pharmaceutical companies. These companies are coming out with their own new early treatments. Some are very similar in chemical composition to Ivermectin. 47.183.226.192 ( talk) 03:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Ivermectin has been pushed by right-wing politicians and activists promoting it as a supposed COVID treatment." This passage needs to strike the partisan political editorial content. People from across the political spectrum have "pushed" this drug. Putting this kind of partisan political editorializing into this article ruins the credibility of this site and feeds conspiracy theories. DanBoomerman ( talk) 15:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC) DanBoomerman ( talk) 15:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The page currently states:
In mammals, however, glutamate-gated chloride channels only occur in the brain and spinal cord and avermectins cannot cross the blood-brain barrier.
This "cannot" should be changed to "does not usually". The claim that it cannot is misleading, inconsistent with the cited paper, and underplays the risks associated with this drug.
Wyatt Childers ( talk) 18:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ivermectin must be capitalized. Below and other places it is not.
"Despite the absence of high-quality evidence to suggest any efficacy and advice to the contrary, some governments have allowed its off-label use for prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Countries that have granted such official approval for ivermectin include the Czech Republic,[120] Slovakia,[120] Mexico,[121] Peru (later rescinded),[122][123] and India[124][125] (later rescinded).[126]" 2600:6C4E:200:BFE0:F8CF:7219:C5CA:756F ( talk) 04:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ivermectin is used globally as a broad base antiparasitic, antibacterial, and antiviral medicine based on its cell replication inhibition properties. With respect to SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) Ivermectin has been shown to be absorbed into the lung tissue for long duration (half-life between 81-91 hours) which allows longer duration antiviral activity which can help reduce respiratory disease duration and patient recovery. The developing and third world areas have the highest use of Ivermectin based on its low cost (5 day course is US$0.60 to US$1.80) and high safety levels for humans with over 3.7 million human patients treated with with 5693 adverse reactions when administered for the various diseases it can be used to treat. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Cschlise ( talk) 23:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
We risk losing neutral tone without being more careful with our words here. ErrantPhilosopher ( talk) 13:59, 16 October 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.
The article says "Such claims are not backed by credible scientific evidence." The two citations following this sentence - one from Politifact and the other from The Guardian - neither of which are peer reviewed medical journals, and also neither of which was written by doctors, appear to be "cherry-picked" to support a predefined conclusion. A paper in the American Journal of Therapeutics (link is below), whose editorial board consists of over two dozen doctors and cites 144 other papers and studies, suggests that this is false. It states "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."
The papers written by actual doctors usually say that some studies suggest it is not useful in treating COVID, or that it has some benefit but more study is needed, or that the drug hasn't been approved for this off-label use. This article is at best misleading, and at worst deliberately lying to readers.
d — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCNorris ( talk • contribs) 03:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Can someone confirm that this source also covers the text of the section after the citation? I cannot access it and its placement should likely be adjusted, or a citation-needed tag added... Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 10:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Take a look at the 4 links posted as "proof against ivmmeta.com", they are complete jokes. Vice news interviewing some unqualified idiot? No, the way science works is by using meta analysis/scientific reviews not opinion pieces, which there are many of ivermectin's dozens of trials, and they almost all show it is highly effective. The stupidity in suggesting that the scientific review of ivermectin is "flawed" and then linking a garbage vice article as proof of "consensus" just shows that the editors here are nowhere near following wikipedia's own policy. Only one single study has been widely criticized by El Gazzar, which in the context of a meta analysis doesn't remotely matter as the results are the same. There are 60+ other trials that still make the prophylactic, early and late treatment effect signal clearly effective against covid 19. From the early in vitro study which showed a 5000 fold reduction in covid 19 within 48 hours, to the dozens of trials, many peer reviewed and published, many double blind rcts, to the population wide studies to the thousands of testimonies of people on deaths door suddenly making a full turnaround, ivermectin is unequivocally proven and anyone saying otherwise is either: a) stupid or b) paid to lie. Reading some random shill who has no credentials vs hundreds of studies from people with zero potential for conflict of interest, gee which is more likely to be true?
Collapse list of weak sources
|
---|
Role of ivermectin in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers in India: A matched case-control study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592050/ Effects of Ivermectin in Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8101859/ https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/on-driving-sars-cov2-extinct Favorable outcome on viral load and culture viability using Ivermectin in early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19 – A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1 Effects of Ivermectin in Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149291821002010 Real-World Evidence: The Case of Peru. Causality between Ivermectin and COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344469305_Real-World_Evidence_The_Case_of_Peru_Causality_between_Ivermectin_and_COVID-19_Infection_Fatality_Rate Sharp Reductions in COVID-19 Case Fatalities and Excess Deaths in Peru in Close Time Conjunction, State-By-State, with Ivermectin Treatments https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3765018 Use of Ivermectin Is Associated With Lower Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 The Ivermectin in COVID Nineteen Study https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)34898-4/fulltext A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness Note: this study was funded by https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/ https://www.jcdr.net/articles/PDF/14529/46795_CE[Ra]_F(Sh)_PF1(SY_OM)_PFA_(OM)_PN(KM).pdf Use of Ivermectin as a Potential Chemoprophylaxis for COVID-19 in Egypt: A Randomised Clinical Trial Antiviral effect of high-dose ivermectin in adults with COVID-19: A proof-of-concept randomized trial https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00239-X/fulltext Crying wolf in time of Corona: the strange case of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Is the fear of failure withholding potential life-saving treatment from clinical use? https://www.signavitae.com/articles/10.22514/sv.2021.043 Global trends in clinical studies of ivermectin in COVID-19 Morimasa Yagisawa, Ph.D.1,2, Patrick J. Foster, M.D.2 Hideaki Hanaki, Ph.D.1 and Satoshi Ōmura, Ph.D.1 https://kitasato-infection-control.info/swfu/d/ivermectin_20210330_e.pdf Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8383101/ Meta-analysis of randomized trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection Andrew Hill, Anna Garratt, Jacob Levi, Jonathan Falconer, Leah Ellis, Kaitlyn McCann, Victoria Pilkington, Ambar Qavi, Junzheng Wang, Hannah Wentzel https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214#.YOSvFH94xL0.twitter 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 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/ Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines (peer reviewed & published June 12, 2021) Bryant, Andrew MSc1,*; Lawrie, Theresa A. MBBCh, PhD2; Dowswell, Therese PhD2; Fordham, Edmund J. PhD2; Mitchell, Scott MBChB, MRCS3; Hill, Sarah R. PhD1; Tham, Tony C. MD, FRCP4 https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ Ivermectin works on all variants: https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2021/05/18/2231755/0/en/Mountain-Valley-MD-Receives-Successful-Results-From-BSL-4-COVID-19-Clearance-Trial-on-Three-Variants-Tested-With-Ivectosol.html "Ivermectin was able to reduce virus replication by a factor of 1,000 even at low concentrations" https://twitter.com/Covid19Crusher/status/1390288935729905670 Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen Fatemeh Heidary & Reza Gharebaghi https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011 https://c19ivermectin.com/caly.html "Rajter et al. summarize the author, noting that “the antiviral activities of ivermectin have been derived from laboratory experiments that largely involve high, generally non physiologic, multiplicities of infection, and cell mono layer cultures, often of cell lines such as Vero cells that are not clinically relevant. The EC50 values should not be interpreted beyond the fact that they reveal robust, dose dependent antiviral activity in the cell model system used, and it would be naive to strive for μM concentrations of ivermectin in the clinic based on them.” [4]." The broad spectrum host-directed agent ivermectin as an antiviral for SARS-CoV-2 ? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006291X20319598?via%3Dihub Ivermectin Docks to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Receptor-binding Domain Attached to ACE2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7652439/ Zimbabwee “The secretary for health and child care has authorized the MCAZ to authorize the importation and use of ivermectin for COVID-19. MCAZ will issue bulk section 75 approval for importation of human formulations of ivermectin manufactured by compliant facilities.” India(some states, with more switching to ivermectin as evidence is overwhelming enough to combat propaganda) https://joannenova.com.au/2021/05/cases-down-in-the-parts-of-india-that-approved-ivermectin-use/ |
Many of these are systemic reviews, they are far higher quality secondary sources than some random opinion pieces which the corrupt mods here put as "consensus". No, the consensus is the meta analysis and it shows unequivocally that ivermectin works in thousands of different examples. There is almost no evidence that it doesnt. Every study that showed poor results used the drug at 7-14 days after symptoms, clearly well past the viral replication stage of covid. Using horrible quality sources as a heading in this section over the actual quality scientific reviews just exposes how many people here need to be removed from power. Asailum ( talk) 05:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
A few weeks ago I inserted
an edit that said: It is considered a very diverse biopharmaceutical product.
. Another editor reverted it with this summary: undue without explaining this is an oldish piece by Ivermectin's inventor, in the context of a parasitology journal which is not reliable for exceptional claims of general use
. During a quick review of the literature I have found a few different and significant mentions of ivermectin being "diverse". For instance, some sources say that it is "broad spectrum", "versatile", or "an old drug with new tricks".
I propose we discuss here the precise meaning of this diversity. Is it:
There is a danger in numerals 2 and 3 above. They can imply that it is normalized to consider ivermectin for treatment of diseases other than parasites. This implication can open the door for POV and fringy views that ivermectin is effective as a prophylactic for COVID-19. So, although the diversity deserves a mention, wording has to be extra careful here to keep things NPOV. Forich ( talk) 03:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Ivermectin has been used for several years to treat many infectious diseases in mammals.. (By the way, the section that opens the introduction is titled: "Ivermectin: a multifaceted medication" keep that in mind for my point below). This description is very different from the current one we are using, which says
Ivermectin is a medication used to treat parasite infestations..
Ivermectin has been used to treat many infectious diseases in mammals.and ii) Inmediately make the distinction between FDA approved uses in humans (this part is not multifaceted) vs the medication's "properties", which pertain to inhibiting diseases in vitro, and include:
What you seem to want to do is cherry-pick the most imprecise and meaningless wording out of sources. To be clear and transparent, if one uses as a google-scholar-search-strategy the terms "allintitle: ivermectin review" and pick the first three results that come up, which the algorithm tends to show the one with most cites, we get these results:
Anthelmintics available through drug donations are being used according to manufacturer recommendations and a large body of experience and knowledge has been gained through their use in millions of individuals. Ivermectin is probably the most remarkable anthelmintic drug owing to its impact on onchocerciasis and LF, with an efficacy and safety that have made it the most relevant tool for the control of those diseases..
Ivermectin is a semisynthetic derivative of avermectin B1 and consists of an 80:20 mixture of the equipotent homologous dehydro B1a and B1b. This antiparasitic agent, developed by Merck & Co., is frequently used in veterinary medicine, due to its broad spectrum of activity, high efficacy and wide margin of safety.
Ivermectin has been used for several years to treat many infectious diseases in mammals. It has a good safety profile with low adverse effects when orally prescribed. Ivermectin was identified in late 1970s and first approved for animal use in 1981. Its potential use in humans was confirmed a few years later. Subsequently, William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura who discovered and developed this medication received the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Studies revealed that ivermectin as a broad-spectrum drug with high lipid solubility possesses numerous effects on parasites, nematodes, arthropods, flavivirus, mycobacteria, and mammals through a variety of mechanisms. In addition to having antiparasitic and antiviral effects, this drug also causes immunomodulation in the host. Studies have shown its effect on inhibiting the proliferation of cancer cells, as well as regulating glucose and cholesterol in animals. Despite diverse effects of this medication, many of its underlying mechanisms are not yet known. Of note, some of these effects may be secondary to toxic effects on cells.
So for our purposes, it's mainly an anti-parasitic. Are you aware that our wording does not include the word "mainly"? I can compromise to including it, seems a fair description. Forich ( talk) 05:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
it seems you somehow think the connotations of general words override specific meanings in texts. I made this proposed wording for the lead: "Ivermectin has been used to treat many infectious diseases in mammals." I apologize if it wasn't clear that this is what I am recommending to include in the article. If you think I am pushing for a general word (I did mention "multifaceted", but not in the proposed text), let me make clear that I understand that including the word "multifaceted" or a similar term in the lead is too general and imprecise and, for that reason, it was not in my proposed text. So to answer directly your comment, I do not think that the connotation of general words should override specific meaning in texts, as my proposal to use the specific meaning "Ivermectin has been used to treat many infectious diseases in mammals." shows. My wording says many infectious diseases, the current text says "parasite infestations" so in this instance mine is more precise. My text says "in mammals" whereas the current words do not specify subjects of treatment, which to me seems like my proposal is more precise. I am not an english native speaker, perhaps that is influencing your perception of me being unclear. You do seem to speak english very well but I don´t mind collaborating with you even if you are not a native speaker. If that becomes a problem I can always ask a native speaker to proof-read my texts, just let me know. Forich ( talk) 05:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Ivermectin is not approved or used widely in any evidence-based sense to treat these other things.Can you comment what part of my interventions led you to think that I want to edit the article to conform to Ivermectin being approved or used widely in other things than parasites? My request to have a secondary sentence following the opening description in which we make an explicit distinction between the FDA approved uses and the other properties seems to fail to make across the point that I understand the distinction exists and should be clear. I believe this back and forth is revealing where is our main point of miscommunication, please bear with me and you'll see where I'm going, we are getting closer I think. Forich ( talk) 06:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I feel an overall lesson of this discussion is that the three of us value the FDA approved uses to come across as the most important message to convey in Wikipedia. I would go as far to say that I do not mind to comply to a wikipolicy that enforces us to use in the first sentence of a drug entry exclusively the FDA approved uses of the drug in the United States. But we should be honest and admit that is the goal guiding us. If I get some time I will look at the articles for other drugs with notable off-label prescriptions to see what do their lead sections look like, maybe it is a de facto pattern to include the FDA-approved uses as the main descriptor and I have missed it. Forich ( talk) 06:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
No, I think any text which says “many infectious diseases” or “many uses” or “diverse uses” is unnecessarily vague and imprecise. For our purposes, the most important thing is that we do not reference its unapproved uses in the same breath as its approved ones. Ever. That’s how we create a false equivalence. Even if we explain it immediately after, it still makes the article worse by unnecessary generalization. I have no interest in changing the current wording to one that changes “anti parasitic” or “treat parasitic diseases” to something that is not parasite specific. The difference in depth of use and context between A) its actual efficacious uses in veterinary medicine and human allopathic medicine versus B) its off label uses and infant research ideas means we should not use generalizing language to refer to both together… — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 10:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Further, the review sources support this. All 3 of those sources you cited put its parasitic uses first. One, the last one, uses vague language which is the result of writing a review about its in vitro data as well. Unlike us, this review is for content experts, so they can get away with this sleight of hand. We cannot. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 10:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The current version of the article does not mention
Trichinosis. According to
MEDRS Ashour (2019), ivermectin has five "clinical uses", with number four being Trichinosis. It also says Although not yet approved, experimental studies with IVM have shown promising effects.
. Given these fact shown in high quality sources, how should we proceed to mention Trichinosis:
Please discuss. Forich ( talk) 03:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that the section Veterinary use is far down in the article, even though this is an important use. I would suggest merging it into the section Medical uses. -- Leyo 16:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
There is nothing in the chemistry section about its total synthesis. I propose to add the following text:
"The total synthesis of ivermectin and related avermectins have been reported by various groups. [1]"
@ 142.157.199.66: It is already mentioned that once avermectin homologues are produced that they separately undergo hydrogenation to give ivermectin. Obama gaming ( talk) 02:35, 27 October 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. |
Change "COVID-19 Misinformation" section to "Treatment of COVID-19" while adding information that supports successful treatment of COVID-19 with ivermectin.
The current article only speak to a very one-sided view on the subject with very dubious support from media references rather than published research. It also maintains that "misinformation" is spread by right-wing politician rather than medical and scientific community. On contrary, there is substantial body of evidence that ivermectin is a medication uniquely suited to treat COVID-19 given its now well-described, potent anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties. The efficacy of ivermectin is supported by results from 64 controlled trials, 32 of them randomized, and 16 of those were double-blinded, the gold standard of research design.
If there is controversy in the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment, such controversy should be reflected in the article based on the very spirit of Wikipedia and must not be blocked from editing. "Wikipedia is an online free content encyclopedia project helping create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. It is supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and based on a model of freely editable content."
A list of research articles can be found here:
Here's an extract:
Glebl1 ( talk) 18:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247163 Otaku00 ( talk) 05:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
If you need a meta analysis, Hill et al. was corrected (70 percent reduction in mild cases): https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/8/11/ofab358/6316214 Otaku00 ( talk) 12:59, 25 November 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.
Words like "suckered in"and "misinformation" like in the article only show that a neutral viewpoint is not given anymore. Your link does not say who decided that this source is "low quality". Was it you? I would therefore be good to explicitly name ALL the only sources that are considered high quality here because otherwise there will always be the same rhetoric answers. Otaku00 ( talk) 15:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
And by the way, you got yourself trapped here because number 2 of those given sources on the top of this page is the same as the one I gave. Otaku00 ( talk) 15:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven: It depends on what you quote, e.g. "Time to clinical recovery and binary clinical recovery showed significant improvement with ivermectin in comparison with SOC." And again, the language of Alexbrn ("quacks", implying as a non-physician that Paul Marik and others are such) confirms a non-neutral viewpoint. There is no "mainstream" reflected here as Ivermectin was given off-label by probably thousands of doctors even outside the named countries, as you can best see in social media, and hear from patient's reports. A good week after the Japanese people bought it (due to a famous physician's recommendation and against official advice), their cases dropped dramatically. Wiki is rather blind to what I'd call "mainstream". Otaku00 ( talk) 15:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I quoted from the meta analysis, the link is above. Otaku00 ( talk) 16:09, 25 November 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.
Let's just hope that if (more likely when) Ivermectin is accepted in the U.S. as effective in treating Covid-19, before or after catching a case, that there has not been even one desperate reader who has actually taken Wikipedia as their main source and given up on seeking out the medicine. No neutral wording has been allowed to stay in the lead, even simple language like "no benefit, which has been disputed..." would be much better. So please add a few words of neutrality. Don't cage this section for awhile, would like to read some comments. Feeling I have to write this, and make an attempt rather than sit by and not at least try, for myself and for the benefit of editors who won't allow it and will have to live with their stance, just as U.S. media, medical personnel, and politicians will have to live with what they've done in their realms of influence. As this page is read worldwide, even in countries where Ivermectin is successfully used for Covid-19 prevention and treatment, the lead violates WP international and reflects a U.S. and other western nation bias. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Ivermectin is successfully used for Covid-19 prevention and treatment? Are there any WP:MEDRS sources for that? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:51, 26 November 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 article needs more medical references for verification or relies too heavily on primary sources.
Omission bias over Japan success using the treatment. Country not mentioned at all
Omission bias over India success using the treatment. Country not mentioned at all
Omission bias over several countries success on using the treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:128:856B:D500:7CA5:29AB:2D67:4857 ( talk) 17:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
This article violates NPOV. From Impartial Tone:
“ Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.”
Presenting the conversation surrounding Ivermectin as “misinformation” is clearly attempting to characterize opposing/contentious viewpoints as “lies” which is incredibly problematic and antithetical to Wikipedia’s values.
Consider changing the article to present both sides of the debate without attempting to authenticate either side. No definite scientific consensus has been reached and it is dishonest for Wikipedia to suggest otherwise. 49.195.100.179 ( talk) 03:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Subsequent to the previous post re: NPOV.
Go to PubMed and search “ivermectin Covid”. You will see study after study finding efficacy of the drug as a treatment against the virus. So there is definitely a debate, at the very least. The previous commenter who responded to the above, sounds highly biased: “science and reality on one side” isn’t that what every person thinks in an argument? It sounds like one side of the debate has got hold of this page, and are using it to push their version of events - instead the article should simply read that “some studies have shown promise of Ivermectin as a treatment(sources), however this is not currently an approved use of this medicine by the FDA or WHO.”
Because anyone can see for themselves that there is a multitude of studies showing effectiveness of this treatment, and very few to the contrary, if you look at journal articles. So there is clearly a lot of research in this space, and to claim, categorically, that there is some kind of overwhelming consensus to the point that Wikipedia needs to violate its own principle of not being biased (the word “misinformation” is incredibly biased), is simply, dishonesty, and undermines this website’s credibility. 121.45.59.35 ( talk) 11:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers says that citing Korey would violate WP:REDFLAG because it's "Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine...."
This raises the question of what is the "prevailing view." Neil deGrasse Tyson would say that the "prevailing view" is what's in the textbooks. When there are still different views, Tyson thinks you should acknowledge that there are different views, because that's the way science works. Covid-19 is so new that it's literally not in the textbooks, and there are lots of conflicting views. (Many of the CDC's statements, like the new rules on quarantining after infection 5 days rather than 10, don't even reflect the consensus.)
When you eliminate the debate over ivermectin, and censor Korey and Mahmud from the discussion, that's censoring the scientific method to make your results look better. It's like Louis Pasteur going over his vaccination data and changing them to make them look better for publication.
-- Nbauman ( talk) 01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
"During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation has been widely spread claiming that ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[18][19] Such claims are not backed by credible scientific evidence.[20][21]
Not true. There's over 40 credible scientific papers by top research scientists stating it is beneficial, including a Monash University study revealing Ivermectin kills COVID within 48 hrs, paper snippet here and National Library of Medicine here which indicates a five day treatment is effective. The media is lying and trying to make Ivermectin look like a controversial medicine when it is even on the WHO list of essential medicines and is considered safe for human use. † Encyclopædius 08:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
You can check https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/r93g4/ and https://osf.io/9egh4 among others for scientific published evidence of the EFFECTIVENESS of Ivermectin against covid19. The statement is not true.
Due to the wave of reporting that ivermectin is only used to treat heart worms in horses, often from sources or in the same articles correctly identifying that ivermectin is not approved for covid treatment, I think this section should have it noted that it is erroneous that ivermectin is not suitable for any human application. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.76.179 ( talk) 14:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I have a question about this: does the article in the American Journal of Therapeutics not comply with the criteria of "Higher Quality Resources for medical claims"? The article appears to be a peer reviewed secondary source within the Wikipedia definition of secondary sources. It appears to be a review article and meta analysis of peer reviewed primary sources. Please can somebody explain. Robscovell ( talk) 01:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be educational to explain why the article in the American Journal of Therapeutics meets the "Red Flag" criteria listed in WP:REDFLAG. On the face of it it appears to be a valid meta-analysis in a reputable peer-reviewed medical journal. I have reviewed the past discussion on the topic in the archives and I haven't found a detailed critique of the article yet. It would help me, and others, if there could be a detailed explanation of the inadequacy of the article. Robscovell ( talk) 00:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I still think it would be highly instructive, from a science education point of view, to provide a critique of the article in the American Journal of Therapeutics by members of the relevant community (who are they?) and in the context of mainstream assumptions (what are the relevant assumptions?). That would help reader to understand the AMA's decision and would also help provide clarity as to the dangers of Ivermectin. Of course, there is a meta-question here: who decides what is the 'relevant community' and what the 'mainstream assumptions' are? Robscovell ( talk) 01:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
In that case, this leads naturally to questions about whether or not Wikipedia's approach is valid or not, which is obviously a much broader topic beyond the limit of this discussion, so I won't pursue it here. It is true that the consensus opinion of major medical organisations is that pro-Ivermectin/COVID research is flawed, so I will leave it there, because that is the highest claim that Wikipedia is constitutionally able to make. Robscovell ( talk) 03:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Missing anti-viral properties as primary description. Ivermectin has known anti-viral properties as well as anti-parasitic properties. Failing to mention it's anti-viral properties in the first paragraph is noteworthy, and is obviously due to the controversy about it's efficacy with the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Regardless of whether this article cites the potential of Ivermectin to treat COVID, the anti-viral properties of Ivermectin are well-established and obvious, as the vast majority of the citations in this article testify to. The first sentence should read "Ivermectin is a medication used to treat parasitic and viral infections". To do otherwise violates Nuetrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:C081:9220:F570:6E02:44A7:32E4 ( talk) 22:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@AlexBrn reverted my edit to the Ivermectin article which provided three references, available from NIH, on the ability of Ivermectin to bind to the COVID-19 spike protein, indicating that it may be useful for treatment of the disease. Clinical trials are ongoing, and it is certainly not yet approved by the various agencies, but I think this information is useful. I think peer-reviewed articles from respectable journals, available at the National Institute of Health website do not qualify as "unreliable/misinformation". Here are the articles: [1] [2] [3] Please let me know if this changes your opinion. PAR ( talk) 20:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
OK, I read the American Journal of Therapeutics review by Korey. Korey says that the largest double-blinded RCT was by Mahmud in J Int Med Res [43]. In other words, that's their best case. This was a 400-patient trial, 200 placebo and 200 treatment. Primary outcome was time to clinical recovery. Secondary outcomes were disease progression and RT-PCR positivity, which reached statistical significance. A secondary outcome, survival, was 3 deaths in the placebo group and 0 deaths in the treatment group -- which they say is statistically significant at p = 0.016. They published it in a peer-reviewed journal on PubMed. You can't change clinical practice on the basis of one study, but they checked all the boxes. It may be that this was just a statistical anomaly. It may be that multiple other studies failed to replicate their result. I'd like to see letters commenting on this study. But otherwise I don't see how we can dismiss a published RCT like this, and/or the review by Korey.
I'm an ivermectin skeptic, and I'd be happy to find well-designed studies debunking it. (That's what I came here for.) But I learned that in science, you have to give all the information supporting your position, and all the information opposing your position. (I just heard Daniel Griffin say that again on TWIV.) Do we all agree on that? -- Nbauman ( talk) 20:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
"all the information opposing your position"← no, sounds intellectually incompetent, and falls right into the trap of the quacks and grifters. In any case, see the top of this page for the consensus from reliable sources. We're not going to be undercutting high-quality sources with obvious crap like the Kory review. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Group assignment was not stratified according to disease severity". This means it is possible that the placebo group could have, by chance, received a slightly sicker set of patients. Well-designed trials overcome this weakness by using a rolling basis model, and assigning patients to the different treatment groups based on maintaining an even proportion of severity, age, comorbidities, etc. in the two groups. So that we can be sure we have removed the influence of these other factors on the outcome.
The trial was registered retrospectively" Meaning they could have run this study as many times or ways as they liked, and registered only the ones that worked.
User:Alexbrn, Daniel Griffin, MD, PhD, and Vincent Racaniello, PhD, are "intellectually incompetent" because they say that a scientist has to give all the information supporting his position, and all the information opposing his position? Do you want to think that over? Nbauman ( talk) 23:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Several new studies are linked in this article on horse medicine that might suggest some updates to this page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougransom ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Shibbolethink So why not mention Mahmud, and say that Deng and Popp rejected it from their systematic review for the reasons given? If I'm reading the literature, and I find an article that makes a claim, it would be valuable for me to know that the article is red-flagged by other authors and why. If I'm debating somebody, and they pull out Mahmud as evidence, it would be valuable for me to already know about Mahmud, and why he's wrong.
If in a Wikipedia article you delete Mahmud and say, "We cleaned up the article, we deleted everything we disagreed with," then you're engaging in the censorship that the pro-ivermectin people are accusing science of doing. -- Nbauman ( talk) 01:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Articles that this page sites as per Ivermetin and COVID-19 are not scholarly articles but "sensational" sources: they are basically periodicals with no scienctific basis. I recommend removing all of them. Big Mouth 1234 ( talk) 17:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
This article fails to mention that ivermectin is a zinc ionophore or discuss the effects of zinc ionophores in medicine. PMID: 34929542 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.112.153 ( talk) 23:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Please subject all three vaccines to the same same standard of testing and review and report your results. That would be an honest and transparent step. 71.212.220.11 ( talk) 09:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The source used (I'm ignoring the BBC article, since that's not a real source on this topic) to support that a lot of research was problematic is simply not supported by the article used as a source. The article mentions that ONE study was problematic and TWO meta studies had used that one study. This is not "a lot" by any stretch of the imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 ( talk) 02:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
In the American Journal of Therapeutics Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines.
"Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."
This appears to refute "During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin was beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19. Such claims are not backed by sound evidence." Comments? Thepigdog ( talk) 05:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
the WHO, Nature, and The Lancet" [do not] "
represent the mainstream" is, in my humble opinion, either being disingenuous (and therefore WP:NOTHERE) or has a serious case of WP:CIR.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
It is truly shocking the lengths taken to suppress information about this potentially life saving treatment for covid. The WHO and CDC have sat on this cheap safe potential treatment since August, meanwhile promoting an unproven expensive vaccine. Why? This is another tool in the toolbox, yet only negative articles are allowed on Wikipedia. When did Wikipedia become so politicized? Is this source good enough for mention? https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04668469 .2mg / kg is a low dosage proven to be safe, not the nonsense stated in this wiki
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4A80:5870:3910:DA7:2204:1AE2 ( talk) 23:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Incoming edits due to https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/coronavirus-australia-ivermectin-antiparasitic-drug-kills-covid19-in-lab/news-story/615c435e56aefc4b704f4fd890bd4c2c for sure.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.116.241.225 ( talk) 14:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Article incorrectly refers to SARS-COV-2 as a negative sense RNA virus. It is a positive sense RNA virus.
On December 8th 2020 Dr Pierre Kory, speaking as a representative of a group of doctors who together have published nearly 2,000 peer-reviewed publications appeared at a meeting of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to plead that the NIH be forced to review the most recent evidence on the use of Ivermectin as a treatment and prophylactic for Sars-Cov-2 and Covid 19. He claimed that the use of Ivermectin on Covid 19 patients had a "miraculous impact", and this description was based on "mountains of evidence that has appeared in the last three months". He pointed out that the NIH's recommendation that Ivermectin not be used outside of controlled trials was made in August 2020, before the "mountains of data" that emerged subsequently. Dr. Kory presented a summary of this data, and the committee chairman Senator Ron Johnson promised to pass this on to the NIH for review.... < https://osf.io/wx3zn/> < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq8SXOBy-4w> AussiePete56 ( talk) 02:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
It is okay to publish the truth about this drug now, and the results it has proven for Covid Treatment. Now that the marxists that control Wikipedia and all the internet have defeated Trump, the truth can come out. https://buffalonews.com/news/local/2nd-wny-hospital-ordered-to-treat-covid-19-patient-with-experimental-drug/article_f32339f0-5d01-11eb-b752-4f8966804581.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.87.50 ( talk) 11:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Here is some more reliable evidence on the effectiveness of Ivermectin in preventing and treating Covid-19 . https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf .
https://c19ivermectin.com/ . AussiePete56 ( talk) 05:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I dispute the claim of "unreliable" by Alexbrn since the two articles are secondary reviews of others' research and therefore qualify as reliable as per the WP:MEDRS guidelines. I notice that the "unreliable" tag was applied to this page three minutes after the links to the two review articles were published - three minutes isn't enough time to read even half of one of the reviews, let alone properly evaluate both. The charge of "unreliable" is therefore itself seemingly unreliable AussiePete56 ( talk) 14:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
My point is that the information being presented in these reviews IS the "best quality source" available - ie, the very latest real-world studies demonstrating life-saving treatments. Alexbrn didn't even read these studies. 6% hospital deaths versus 23% are the results achieved. Some of these studies lack peer-review which typically takes months - time that these 14,000 people who are dying daily no not have. To give priority to ideological purity over thousands of daily deaths is insane and inhumane. To repeat a point that Alexbrm ignores - 3.7 billion doses of Ivermectin has been taken over 40 years. It is safe. There is only potential benefits to using it and strong and growing evidence supports such use. Allowing this information to be available, together with suitable disclaimers, is the appropriate and responsible decision. AussiePete56 ( talk) 23:26, 21 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. [1] AussiePete56 ( talk) 05:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
}}
"The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19". In the interests of full disclosure, I propose amending this to, "The National Institutes of Health recommended against the use ivermectin for COVID-19 in August 2020". Since then, dozens of research reports on Ivermectin and Covis 19 have been released. Putting a date on the recommendation flags for the reader that it does not necessarily encompass the most recent research. AussiePete56 ( talk) 17:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I would accept your suggestion on a "better than nothing" basis. Do you really think that the NIH's position is not outdated Alexbrn? You always exude the attitude that conformity to authority equals virtue. Do you have any theories on why the NIH, CDC and FDA allocated zero public funds to the investigation of re-purposing existing drugs against Covid 19, and instead went "all-in" on developing novel vaccines? I'm not cynical, but cynics would say, "Because that's where the money is." Many billions of dollars. And the vaccines don't work on patients who already have the virus. And it will take about a year for 80% of first-world countries to get vaccinated, and many more years for third-world countries.
So we're up to 15,000 people per day dying from Covid 19 at the moment, most of whom could be saved on the evidence of dozens of studies that the NIH ignores.... AussiePete56 ( talk) 14:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
We should try to avoid turning this into a discussion board, and try to focus on reporting what our sources say. Since regulatory bodies routinely change their positions, their prior positions by their own admission were outdated. Teishin ( talk) 14:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn, you have repeatedly referred to the 28 studies which each independently found that Ivermectin works to alleviate Covid 19 illness as "fake" - that sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. AussiePete56 ( talk) 14:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I have no skin in this game. I just saw this chart stating far lower cumulative deaths from COVID-19 in the Mexican state of Chiapas compared to all the others and how that correlates with it being alone amongst them in using Ivermectin: https://twitter.com/Covid19Critical/status/1347721731272830976 (That mention of Ivermectin brought me here.) The correlation may be something which can be readily verified or disproved as it claims to be from public official data and the outcome mentioned on the main page. ― Ralph Corderoy ( talk) 12:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm late for this discussion. c19early, c19study, c19legacy, c19ivermectin, ivmmeta, c19hcq, hcqmeta, and others, use grossly incorrect methodology, producing biased results with bizarre p-values. They are still being used as "evidence" by political groups in Brazil to spread medical disinformation. [1] ( talk) 01:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Does the recommendation from the ministry of health of India count as a reliable source ? https://www.icmr.gov.in/pdf/covid/techdoc/COVID19_Management_Algorithm_22042021_v1.pdf I hear also IVM is used in Mexico city now https://mexicobusiness.news/health/news/ivermectin-controversial-covid-19-drug-used-mexico-city Isn't it enough to say at least that there is no consensus on efficacy? We don't live in Disneyland, health agencie's recommendations in rich countries account for billions in drug purchasing.How could there be no influence when there are choices like $1000 remdesivir vs $5 hcq or ivermectin ? In countries with lower financial resources there are also bright people, but less pressure not to reuse existing drugs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pweltz ( talk • contribs) 15:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Could we just remove the "misinformation" claim? "A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/ HaraldTheBlue ( talk) 23:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Larger trials will be needed to confirm these preliminary findings.72 participants is quite a small sample indeed. -- Fernando Trebien ( talk) 03:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Note the imprecise wording of the Invermectin COVID-19 Wikipedia entry: "As of January 2021, the U.S. National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines state that the evidence for ivermectin is too limited to allow for a recommendation for or against its use." This wording does not make clear that ivermection is now a treatment option for COVID-19. In fact, the “neither for nor against” NIH classification is the "recommendation given to monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma, both widely used across the nation." [2] Unfortunately, this clarification can not be made because the COVID-19 section is locked down for edits even from autoconfirmed users--which is contrary to the edit notification for that section. I hope this is just a mistake and not a tragic example of "cancel culture" impacting Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisswiss ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
This statement is false: 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. I quote directly from the study: the median viral load for both genes was lower at days 4 and 7 post treatment in the ivermectin group with differences increasing from 3-fold lower at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) to around 18-fold lower at day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N)
The study DID find a difference - it was just not statistically significant based on the threshold chosen. Even the PCR found a difference - RR 0·92. If you want to write something negative based on the results of this extremely small study, then write that it was underpowered to find statistically significant difference. Because every single endpoint found a difference showing benefit of Ivermectin use. Adriaandh ( talk) 09:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The section on Covid seems to be highly subjective and possibly inaccurate. I believe it should be changed to more neutral and objective as Wikipedia standards dictate - removing the word "misinformation" and to change "no reliable evidence exists" to "no large scale studies have been done."
All research that has been performed to my knowledge has shown that ivermectin is effective at treating Covid. A meta-analysis of four papers, accessible through the NIH, shows a .02 p value that adding ivermectin to a treatment regimen leads to improved clinical outcomes.
While they do stipulate that the quality of the individual papers included in the meta-analysis is "very low," they go on to say "currently, many clinical trials are on-going, and definitive evidence for repurposing this drug for COVID-19 patients will emerge only in the future."
As far as I am aware, all subsequent papers have all found that ivermectin was effective in treating Covid. This website that performs a real time meta-analysis of all papers (as of comment, 55 studies) shows a p value of disproving the clinical results as p = 0.000000000000043.
While there are no large scale studies of ivermectin as of yet, there is nothing but positive research (again, as far as I know) that show that it is effective. Therefore, "misinformation" does not objectively apply to this situation. It should only be applied when we have reliable information that the claim is false. On the contrary, the only reliable information we do have is that the claim is true, though I grant that it is far from settled science due to lack of large scale studies.
Further, while any of the smaller studies on their own might not be considered "reliable," surely a meta-analysis of 55 studies demonstrating a remarkably small p-value, could arguably considered reliable. Notwithstanding the lack of a large scale study, the meta-analysis data should disqualify the descriptor "not reliable" from being used by an objective source such as Wikipedia. 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:3CB4:489B:79C1:24A7 ( talk) 08:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
From p. 29 of this MEDRS in one of the best journals (Clinical Microbiology Reviews):
Recently, another FDA-approved drug, ivermectin, was reported to inhibit the in vitro replication of SARS-CoV-2. The findings from this study indicate that a single treatment of this drug was able to induce an 5,000-fold reduction in the viral RNA at 48 h in cell culture. One of the main disadvantages that limit the clinical utility of
ivermectin is its potential to cause cytotoxicity. However, altering the vehicles used in the formulations, the pharmacokinetic properties can be modified, thereby having significant control over the systemic concentration of ivermectin (338). Based on the pharmacokinetic simulation, it was also found that ivermectin may have limited therapeutic utility in managing COVID-19, since the inhibitory concentration that has to be achieved for effective anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity is far higher than the maximum plasma concentration achieved by administering the approved dose (340). However, ivermectin, being a host-directed agent, exhibits antiviral activity by targeting a critical cellular process of the mammalian cell. Therefore, the administration of ivermectin, even at
lower doses, will reduce the viral load at a minor level. This slight decrease will provide a great advantage to the immune system for mounting a large-scale antiviral response against SARS-CoV-2 (341). Further, a combination of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine might have a synergistic effect, since ivermectin reduces viral replication, while hydroxychloroquine inhibits the entry of the virus in the host cell (339). Further, in vivo studies and randomized clinical control trials are required to understand the mechanism as well as the clinical utility of this promising drug
I propose we edit the article to acknowledge that this source says "ivermectin, even at lower doses, will reduce the viral load at a minor level.". Forich ( talk) 02:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Tagging in user:Aaronmhamilton to this discussion about sites like ivvmeta.com. These are not MEDRS, and as has been discussed above several times, the findings on that site are not a legitimate reason for any edit on this page. To restate my reasons for this revert:
When you bring an inappropriately sarcastic and derisive quip like "this ain't it chief" to the table, it is clear that it's personal to you, and honestly, that you haven't evaluated the specific claims of your citations on the matter. I guess I'll revisit this when there are more cold bodies. Aaron Muir Hamilton <aaron@correspondwith.me> ( talk) 03:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Currently there is a Principle trial being ran investigating the effectiveness of ivermectin in treating COVID in over-50s in the UK. The trial currently has over 5,000 volunteers. [1] [2] [3]
It may be appropriate to include this in the lead of the article as the fact that such a large-scale study from a reliable organisation is currently taking place is very notable and will be an extremely useful and reliable source when the study publishes its results, whichever way it goes. Yeah, that's fine. ( talk) 08:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps the paragraph "During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin was beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[14] Such claims are not backed by sound evidence.[15][16][17][18][19]" should now be revised. It appears too harsh. The metadata study reported at [4], appears, at first glance, to show a benefit for treatment and prevention. K012957 ( talk) 13:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
A study from Pasteur Institute on an animal model : [6]-- Mreg93 ( talk) 10:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
> Based on this information, however, doses much higher than the maximum approved or safely achievable for use in humans would be required for an antiviral effect.
This statement links to the following sources, /info/en/?search=Ivermectin#cite_note-COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research_Bray_2020-95, /info/en/?search=Ivermectin#cite_note-96
I can however not find where the papers states that they are not "safely achievable". I just find that they base their statement on the maximum approved standard.
Should be useful, at least until the big trials are complete and their results incorporated in newer reviews. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
unsubstantiated COI accusations and off-topic discussions. We are not here to peer-review.-
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
03:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
personally I agree that asserting this as a legitimate COI makes me question whether Eloyesp is WP:HERE. That's why I asked for clarification, because I didn't believe it at first. It's just obvious baloney. Have you read WP:FLAT? What were your thoughts?-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 12:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
also, wanted to say, it's important to identify when someone is attacking us, vs our arguments. and if multiple people think our argument is baloney, maybe it's time to reassess that argument and admit we were wrong. -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 12:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC) @ Eloyesp: @ Caprilyc: Someone stands to benefit from the continued instigation of such a conspiracy. If you follow the money, you can easily tell who it is; after all, its sale soared. Ivermectin has been tested at various locations by various healthcare professionals at various times during the last 15 months. Being cheap, if it really worked, governments would be scrambling to distribute it, as that would end the pandemic and save trillions of dollars. We don't see that happening, so clearly there is no basis for the claim that any of the existing studies supporting it are proving anything. Do you really think the UK government would be so stupid to let AstraZeneca make money at their expense? What about the US government? Are 600 thousand deaths and a recession worth the profit of some national big pharma company? What we do see rich countries investing in is lockdowns and monoclonal antibodies, the latter being too expensive for large scale use in developing countries. Ivermectin was used in India during last month's peak due to despair but not before that, and it is used in Brazil which is in the middle of a Senate inquiry to investigate corruption while handling the crisis. While ivermectin continues to be used in Brazil for that purpose, you can see in the data there is no significant effect in preventing deaths. -- Fernando Trebien ( talk) 17:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I read the fulltext Roman et al. paper and I am not sure I understand how their conclusions follow from the data. For all cause mortality they report risk with ivermectin 2 per 100 vs 6 per 100 with control; RR 0.37 (0.12 to 1.13) with very low certainty of evidence. This contradicts an earlier version of the paper where all-cause mortality was reported as RR 1.11 (0.16 to 7.65) - their conclusion of "IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 1.11, 95%CI 0.16-7.65, very low QoE)" makes sense for the earlier version but the latest revision just does not make sense. "IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.13, very low QoE)" Can someone please explain how a RR of 0.37 for all-cause mortality is not a reduction? I understand that the confidence interval is wide but based on my reading of the data they present, their conclusions do not follow from the data they present. Caprilyc ( talk) 13:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
|
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove these lines:
By 1986, ivermectin was registered for use in 46 countries and was suministered massively to cattle, sheep and other animals.[62]
Ivermectin was approved for human use in 1988.[63]
Ivermectin earned the title of "wonder drug" for the treatment of nematodes and arthropod parasites, although this title can not be extrapolated for any off label uses of the drug.[64]
Ivermectin has been used safely by hundreds of millions of people to treat river blindness and lymphatic filariasis.[65]
and replace them with a single paragraph:
By 1986, ivermectin was registered for use in 46 countries and was administered massively to cattle, sheep and other animals,[62] and it was approved for human use in 1988.[63] Having been used to treat hundreds of millions of cases of river blindness and lymphatic filariasis,[65] it earned the title of "wonder drug" for the treatment of nematodes and arthropod parasites, although this title cannot be extrapolated for off-label uses.[64]
The content's identical; it will just look better as a single small paragraph. (The only exception is replacing "suministered" with "administered" because it doesn't seem to be an actual word.) Thank you. 64.203.186.79 ( talk) 19:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Also here: I cannot add it, but a new Cochrane report ( PMID 34318930) came to the conclusion that "the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.".-- Julius Senegal ( talk) 08:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Rickyjames, please take a look at the consensus template at the top of this page. Your edit adds content that is of a medical nature, declaring that a treatment is effective, but is not based on WP:MEDRS sources. This is why I reverted. Such content that is against scientific consensus (and editor consensus) must be based on extremely high quality sources. And ivmmeta, as the template at the top of this page describes, is not a reliable source for medical claims.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 02:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Just leaving this here if someone wants to use it as a source.] I don't know if the Post is enough to add some neutrality into that last lead paragraph, please have a look, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Leaving a source here for someone to use. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:15, 6 August 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.
“During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin was beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[14] Such claims are not backed by sound evidence.[15][16][17][18][19]”
This passage assumes that the only evidence of medical efficacy is the conduct of large scale, double-blind trials. This is incorrect. Clinically practicing doctors can detect the efficacy of treatments, and routinely do so. As an extreme example, surgeons generally do not conduct large scale, double-blind trials…people would die if they did. Yet we routinely consider the life-saving surgical practices of surgeons as “sound evidence”, because they demonstrably change the survival rates of patients with certain conditions or injuries. Let’s change this passage to be more accurate…there may not be large-scale double-blind trials, but I do hear compelling evidence that there are practicing physicians who are detecting a beneficial effect. Ivermectin is not known to have serious side-effects, therefore it seems a low-risk alternative that does no harm, and may do some good. We’re at vaccine saturation in the US…why not make a safe treatment acceptable for consideration by doctors, especially since it might pull in a portion of the vaccine skeptical public? Can we tone this down so it highlights that there is one very specific form of evidence that is lacking, while leaving open the question of emerging evidence from clinical practice? BleedingKansas ( talk) 05:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no evidence that BleedingKansas has espoused a "fringe" view. As a rule, wikipedia editors should refrain from base rhetoric such as labelling viewpoints by other editors "fringe". Rather, BleedingKansas has espoused a common sense viewpoint. Where a common sense viewpoint diverges with alleged mainstream sources, giving room for the common sense viewpoint should be considered. In this instance, the alleged mainstream sources have given no rationale for excluding ivermectin from the medical practitioner's toolbox insofar as it is considered a safe drug by the same sources. The line of thinking that the editor collective should rigidly parrot perceived "mainstream sources" would preclude us to inform readers in a Semmelweis moment, and is therefore false. Esperion ( talk) 12:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
This page is in desperate need of correction. There is sound research demonstrating the efficacy of ivermectin in inhibiting viral replication in COVID-19[2], as well as in several other viruses[1]. It could be more correctly described as an anti-parsitic and selective antiviral. Note the last reference here is a double blinded randomised control trial[3]. Please make use of research search engines [7] [8] [9] DevnullNZ ( talk) 09:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I would like to add my voice to the chorus of voices that have been asking for this paragraph to be toned down, at the very least. Does the new meta-analysis by Andrew Hill meet the standards for inclusion here? Hill is a researcher for the WHO. The peer-reviewed analysis is published by the Open Forum of Infectious Diseases, which has a journal impact factor of 3.835. The editorial accompanying the analysis (Mark J. Siedner MD MPH, Harvard Medical School), states the following: "The results are compelling. They identify a clinically significant benefit in pooled estimates for most of their selected outcomes. For example, they estimate a mean reduction in time to viral clearance of 3 days (95%CI 1-5), a reduction in time to clinical recovery of 1.5 days (95%CI 0.4-2.8), a reduction in duration of hospitalization of 4.3 days (95%CI 0.0-8.6) and 56% reduced risk of mortality. Notably, their estimates remain largely similar after excluding studies at high risk of bias. And, although the included studies do not overlap, their results are largely consistent with many (but not all 20) other meta-analytic evaluations of ivermectin conduct by other groups. Even the most ardent skeptic should be given pause by this data."
Clearly, this can no longer be considered only a fringe view, nor can we characterize it as misinformation that is not backed by sound evidence. Meta-analysis is here: https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214 Editorial is here: https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab318/6298585
Shouldn't this count as a source? Meta-analysis of randomized trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. Authored by
The 13th 4postle ( talk) 13:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Many studies included were not peer reviewed and a wide range of doses were evaluated." If this were the only source, then that would be one thing. But we have many other sources saying the opposite, that are more stringent and reliable and include only peer-reviewed studies. Indeed, the IDSA itself (which you reference) does not yet agree that the evidence is robust enough to recommend use. We must defer to the highest quality sources. See the consensus template at the top of the page. Thanks.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Here are 9! Double Blind Randomized Control Trials which suggest that Ivermectin has a positive effect in treating patients with Covid-19. How is this not considered "credible scientific evidence?"
The 13th 4postle ( talk) 12:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Please note, we comment on the content, not users. If you have an issue with user take it to their talk page or wp:ani. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Peak levels from oral dosing in humans occur within 4 to 5 hours. Ivermectin is fat soluble and highly protein bound, with a terminal half-life of 57 hours in adult humans. Almost no original drug appears in the urine. It is Extensive metabolised by hepatic CYP3A4 to many different substances mostly hydroxylated and demethylated metabolites. Ivermectin is contraindicated in people with impaired blood brain barriers (head injury, CNS infections) due to its effects on GABA receptors.
Source: Goodmand and Gilman's Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 11th edition, pages 1086-1087.
In an online presentation during the Ivermectin Global Summit, hosted by the site TrialSite News, uploaded to VIMEO on May 25, 2021 [1], Dr. Kylie Wagstaff, Head of the Nuclear Therapeutics Laboratory, Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Australia, and team leader for the group that published the ivermectin in vitro study using monkey kidney cells [2], indicated that the claim many have made, that while her research team's efforts showed that ivermectin does mitigate the COVID-19 virus, the dosage needed to accomplish this in humans would be "very high" and "toxic", is "a fallacy."
Dr. Wagstaff explained how monkey kidney cells are very different from human tissue and do not produce an immune response, nor do they produce interferon. She went on to point out that because ivermectin accumulates in human lung and other tissues, there is no need for a 1:1 ratio of drug to virus and, consequently, the IC50 of the original monkey-kidney culture does not carry over into humans. She pointed out that ivermectin works with the human immune system to produce a 6-8 fold increase in the IC50 using the 0.2 mg/kg of body weight dosing commonly found in protocols treating SARS-CoV-2, which is within the standard dosage range for treating parasites. [3] -- Bdmurrell ( talk) 01:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a small paragraph discussing how this drug is not proven or certified to be safe and/or effective for treatment of covid-19. Currently it has links to the Covid-19 article and the Covid-19 pandemic, but I think that a link to the COVID-19 misinformation article would be useful as well, as that directly addresses this piece of misinformation. 2601:644:8B80:2690:7093:CDFE:71EE:6AF6 ( talk) 04:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Several cn's are missing in the section below, as well as at least one misplaced footnote. In addition it would be nice to have in the history section reference to this link.
Ivermectin is available as a generic prescription drug in the U.S. in a 3 mg tablet formulation. [1] It is also sold under the brand names Heartgard, Sklice [2] and Stromectol [3] in the United States, Ivomec worldwide by Merial Animal Health, Mectizan in Canada by Merck, Iver-DT [4] in Nepal by Alive Pharmaceutical and Ivexterm in Mexico by Valeant Pharmaceuticals International. In Southeast Asian countries, it is marketed by Delta Pharma Ltd. under the trade name Scabo 6. The formulation for rosacea treatment is sold under the brand name Soolantra. [5] While in development, it was assigned the code MK-933 by Merck. [6]
Albertbelgium ( talk) 11:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
[6] Ongoing Living Update of COVID-19 Therapeutic Options: Summary of Evidence. Rapid Review, 26 August 2021
--TMCk ( talk) 18:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
"Although pooled estimates suggest significant benefits with ivermectin, included studies’ methodological limitations and a small overall number of events results in very low certainty of the evidence. Based on the results reported by the RCTs classified as low risk of bias, ivermectin may not significantly reduce mortality nor mechanical ventilation requirements, and probably does not improve time to symptom resolution. However, ivermectin may reduce hospitalizations in non-severe patients. Further research is needed to confirm or discard these findings."
--TMCk ( talk) 18:33, 2 September 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.
Slatersteven, you reinserted that the claim "ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19" is misinformation (i.e. untrue), citing the BMJ. I don't see where the BMJ source says that ivermectin has been proven to not be beneficial for treating or preventing Covid. Could you maybe quote the specific sentence(s) in the source stating that? Than we could attach the source to the claim you reinserted in the article. -- Distelfinck ( talk) 15:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectintois beneficialfor treating and preventing COVID-19.
misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin has been proven beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.That's what reliable sources say -- the jury is still out if ivermectin is beneficial, but the claim that it has been proven beneficial is false. Would you be okay with me changing it in that way, Slatersteven? -- Distelfinck ( talk) 15:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The BMJ article's title ("Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19") doesn't specify what claim the "Misleading" is referring to. It could be about ivermectin being beneficial, but also could be about other information around that topic. Again, please provide a quote supporting the claim you reinserted into the article. A drug not being beneficial is a biomedial claim and needs a reliable source per WP:MEDRS -- Distelfinck ( talk) 15:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Ivermectin has been researched for anti-Covid benefits, and found to be helpful. s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 Claims of anti-Covid efficacy are not misleading or misinformative. The article header should be updated to remove that statement. 🖖 ChristTrekker 🗣 15:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn None of the sources in that paragraph that you edited state that the claim "ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19" is misinformation, or untrue. Even though, you added this statement to our article with your edit. You added unsourced information. Unsourced information is against Wikipedia policy, in this case. A correction is in order, i.e. you should remove that statement. -- Distelfinck ( talk) 14:52, 6 September 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.
Shibbolethink You are missing the point with your above close. Statements, even if true, if challenged, need a inline citatation (e.g. in a footnote). The statement that "ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19" is misinformation doesn't have an inline citation supporting it. -- Distelfinck ( talk) 15:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Some sources
All are variations on Ivermectin misinformation. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space.
(from
WP:Citing sources).
None of the four sources cited in that intro paragraph support the statement that "ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19" is misinformation.
Even if the statement is true, it is still against policy, because none of the inline citations support it.
-- Distelfinck ( talk) 15:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.and
A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is directly present in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research.You said "That statement is an encyclopedic summary of these sources: ...". But if it's not directly present in at least one ouf the sources, per our policy that's not sufficient.
In the early hours of New Year’s Eve, former Liberal MP Craig Kelly logged on to Facebook to make one of his regular contributions to the global network of misinformation about Covid-19 – this time, to promote the antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a treatment for the virus....For months, Kelly had faced increasing criticism from health experts for promoting the use of drugs such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as coronavirus treatments, against scientific evidence... [23]
"There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. That is wrong," the FDA said... Currently, there are no "mountains of data" to show its benefit. The existing evidence is limited and documents mixed results. We rate the statement False. [24]
a general publication from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) stated that “…ivermectin is incorrectly being used for the treatment of COVID-19, without any scientific evidence of its efficacy and safety for the treatment of this disease.” [25]
Misinformation isFalse. There’s no evidence ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19. [26]
false or inaccurate information. Our statement is an encyclopedic summary of these sources per WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY. Encyclopedic summary is absolutely allowed on wikipedia, in exactly the fashion we have with these statements here. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Its time to close this, and take it to other venues. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
[27] "Why ivermectin should not be used to prevent or treat COVID-19" from the American Medical Association
Is this something that ought to be used, or does it not count as a reliable medical source? It's a few months newer than the sources given at the top of this article, but it's a very different kind of source. 2600:1003:B862:A86D:29BF:4640:593:3900 ( talk) 21:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I added the AMA statement to the misinformation section along with others from the FDA, CDC and WHO. I'm not sure if Merck's press release is reliable enough to use here, although it is mentioned by the AMA for what it's worth. It's not our job to steer folks away from bad medical decisions but I think it serves the reader well to say up front that use for COVID-19 treatment is specifically advised against, rather than using uncertain terms like "no evidence". – dlthewave ☎ 02:25, 5 September 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.
See: WP:NPOV & MOS:TERRORIST
In the Ivermectin#COVID-19_misinformation section the seond paragraph states "Ivermectin became a cause célèbre for right-wing figures promoting it as a supposed COVID treatment." Upon clicking the reference [1] I find no mention of anything related to the "right wing". Can this sentence be reworded or removed altogether? -- Skarz ( talk) 01:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
References
The conservative Australian MP Craig Kelly, who has also promoted the use of the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19 – despite World Health Organization advice that clinical trials show it does not prevent illness or death from the virus – has been among those promoting ivermectin....
Lawrence said what started out as a simple university assignment had led to a comprehensive investigation into an apparent scientific fraud at a time when “there is a whole ivermectin hype … dominated by a mix of right-wing figures, anti-vaxxers and outright conspiracists”— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
mention of anything related to the "right wing"you say you failed to find - in the very first sentence of the source. Why does this need explaining? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Recently found this claim. The validity of this claim needs to be tested. Sharing the links to the claims on some news portals below.
https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1435422132884881411
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/pko3zz/ivermectin_causes_sterilization_in_85_percent_of/
-- Dr. Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 04:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
It turns out that the articls were redacted. Is inclusion of the fact these claimes were made WP:DUE? —blindlynx ( talk) 14:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
There's a sentence in the article that reads "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"." Would somebody with the ability to edit the page please add the full name of the EMA in something like 'European Medicines Agency (EMA)' and/or a link to the EMA page? The words 'European Medicines Agency' currently don't appear anywhere in the text of the article. Thanks in advance. Joe ( talk) 08:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pleaase change "In mammals, ivermectin cannot cross the blood-brain barrier" to "In mammals, glutamate-gated chloride channels only occur in the brain and spinal cord, and ivermectin cannot cross the blood-brain barrier".
The "Mechanism of Action" section currently notes that "In mammals, ivermectin cannot cross the blood-brain barrier", but omits the reason why this is important. After all, mammals also have nerve cells and muscle cells outside the blood-brain barrier. The sentence in the original source referenced is "However, mammals only possess glutamate-gated chloride channels in the brain and spinal cord and as the avermectins have a low affinity for other mammalian ligand-gated channels and do not usually cross the blood–brain barrier, they are very safe for mammals." This may be too much information, hence the suggested correction. It still leavs open the question of why ivermectin does not affect the spinal cord in humans (or perhaps it does?), but that is a problem in the original reference, and thus needs to be left for expert correction. Urilarim ( talk) 00:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I altered your suggested sentence slightly. I replaced the old one with:
"In mammals, however, glutamate-gated chloride channels only occur in the brain and spinal cord and avermectins cannot cross the blood-brain barrier. Therefore, recommended doses of avermectins are unable to kill mammals via tissue paralysis."
Let me know your thoughts on my changes to your edit. Feel free to use my tale page or leave a message here. If you respond here, please ping me using the {{Talkback}} template on my talk page. RFZYNSPY talk 00:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
It is disingenuous to caution against websites that are anonymous (see above “Current consensus”, #3), since WP itself is proud to be anonymous. Niemandsbucht ( talk) 20:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
General philosophizing on the point of the encyclopedia, unrelated to this article. Try
WT:Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
|
---|
Respectfully, what is the point of an encyclopedia, or any ostensible reference or repository for and of information that categorizes itself as an unreliable source? This seems like a liability and accountability measure and it undermines the very nature of the site itself. I say this as a frequent user, paying donor, and someone who is considering a more active role in the editorial process. Zebraboy24 ( talk) 12:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
This would be a great point if at any time I had said that Wikipedia should use itself as a source. What you are essential doing is arguing that Wikipedia is a library and not an encyclopedia; or that libraries are nothing more than third-party stores of information. You understand that there is a difference in say, an auto manufacture stating that their vehicles are reliable forms of transportation and that same manufacture saying that due to internal polling our vehicles are the best forms of transportation available anywhere, correct? An encyclopedia is intended to be a place that localizes information, it is a sum of its parts. How can the information it provides be reliable yet it isn't reliable in and of itself? Wouldn't this same logic extend to any study, or report that uses the work or information of others and didn't rely solely on first person accounting? Zebraboy24 ( talk) 14:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
|
Why does "Stromectol" get top billing at the top of the article? Is this not pure commercial promotion?
200.68.169.188 ( talk) 18:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC) baden k.
I think it is because in pharmacology text book like lippincott that brand is given as an example. Who ever made this may have simply copied it, I do not think there was any malicious intent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.96.247 ( talk) 20:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the claim is made that the use of ivermectin to treat covid is misinformation and theirs no data to backup the claim that ivermectin can be used to treat covid Because of the mechanism of action of ivermectin we know that it will be beneficial to symptoms and certain mechanisms of covid 19 and SARS-CoV-2 Ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response.In addition, ivermectin docking may interfere with the attachment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein to the human cell membrane. Not to mention a study from the American journal of therapeutics Witch concluded that Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ I would like for the the page to be edited to remove the claim that misformation about the effectiveness of ivermectin was spread with no studies to back the claim Their is many studies that show the effectiveness of ivermectin thou as stated above not enough conclusive data for the approval of ivermectin as a covid 19 medication
Thank you for your time and I hope you will view the information given and actually check the relevant information instead of spreading deliberate misinformation 166.182.252.190 ( talk) 20:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. It will help to bring more reliable sources. Please also review the talk page archives for prior discussion about the American Journal of Therapeutics source.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk)
20:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Is there a reason why these studies are excluded from the consensus and what about the FLCCC Alliance? 41.13.254.135 ( talk) 07:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ Al-Andalus: just a note here because I reverted your edits and the rollback tool doesn't allow an edit summary. If I understand correctly, I think you were trying to make clearer the distinction between what ivermectin is approved and widely used for (treating worms and mites) vs. what it is not approved for (treating viruses), since we currently use the word "parasite" which could encompass both? Is that correct? If so, I think we could make that clearer in the article with less clunky wording. Maybe something like "Ivermectin is a medication used to treat worm and arthropod infections in humans and animals"? Though I suppose arthropod is also somewhat jargony... Anyway happy to hear others' thoughts on AA's proposed wording and/or on the idea of "parasite" being imprecise here. Ajpolino ( talk) 13:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add:
As of September 26, 2021, there is 79 clinical studies of Ivermectin as listed at the clinicaltrials.gov website.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=ivermectin&cond=covid%2C+covid19%2C+covid+19&Search=Apply&age_v=&gndr=&type=&rslt= Shawn.rsa ( talk) 12:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Your information on Ivermectin efficacy for early treatment of covid is not factual. See Uttar Pradesh and how they have contained the virus and reduced hospitalizations. When most of the world does not have vaccines or monoclonal antibodies you do the world a disservice by promoting misinformation due to the influence of for-profit pharmaceutical companies. These companies are coming out with their own new early treatments. Some are very similar in chemical composition to Ivermectin. 47.183.226.192 ( talk) 03:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Ivermectin has been pushed by right-wing politicians and activists promoting it as a supposed COVID treatment." This passage needs to strike the partisan political editorial content. People from across the political spectrum have "pushed" this drug. Putting this kind of partisan political editorializing into this article ruins the credibility of this site and feeds conspiracy theories. DanBoomerman ( talk) 15:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC) DanBoomerman ( talk) 15:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The page currently states:
In mammals, however, glutamate-gated chloride channels only occur in the brain and spinal cord and avermectins cannot cross the blood-brain barrier.
This "cannot" should be changed to "does not usually". The claim that it cannot is misleading, inconsistent with the cited paper, and underplays the risks associated with this drug.
Wyatt Childers ( talk) 18:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ivermectin must be capitalized. Below and other places it is not.
"Despite the absence of high-quality evidence to suggest any efficacy and advice to the contrary, some governments have allowed its off-label use for prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Countries that have granted such official approval for ivermectin include the Czech Republic,[120] Slovakia,[120] Mexico,[121] Peru (later rescinded),[122][123] and India[124][125] (later rescinded).[126]" 2600:6C4E:200:BFE0:F8CF:7219:C5CA:756F ( talk) 04:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ivermectin is used globally as a broad base antiparasitic, antibacterial, and antiviral medicine based on its cell replication inhibition properties. With respect to SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) Ivermectin has been shown to be absorbed into the lung tissue for long duration (half-life between 81-91 hours) which allows longer duration antiviral activity which can help reduce respiratory disease duration and patient recovery. The developing and third world areas have the highest use of Ivermectin based on its low cost (5 day course is US$0.60 to US$1.80) and high safety levels for humans with over 3.7 million human patients treated with with 5693 adverse reactions when administered for the various diseases it can be used to treat. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Cschlise ( talk) 23:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
We risk losing neutral tone without being more careful with our words here. ErrantPhilosopher ( talk) 13:59, 16 October 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.
The article says "Such claims are not backed by credible scientific evidence." The two citations following this sentence - one from Politifact and the other from The Guardian - neither of which are peer reviewed medical journals, and also neither of which was written by doctors, appear to be "cherry-picked" to support a predefined conclusion. A paper in the American Journal of Therapeutics (link is below), whose editorial board consists of over two dozen doctors and cites 144 other papers and studies, suggests that this is false. It states "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."
The papers written by actual doctors usually say that some studies suggest it is not useful in treating COVID, or that it has some benefit but more study is needed, or that the drug hasn't been approved for this off-label use. This article is at best misleading, and at worst deliberately lying to readers.
d — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCNorris ( talk • contribs) 03:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Can someone confirm that this source also covers the text of the section after the citation? I cannot access it and its placement should likely be adjusted, or a citation-needed tag added... Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 10:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Take a look at the 4 links posted as "proof against ivmmeta.com", they are complete jokes. Vice news interviewing some unqualified idiot? No, the way science works is by using meta analysis/scientific reviews not opinion pieces, which there are many of ivermectin's dozens of trials, and they almost all show it is highly effective. The stupidity in suggesting that the scientific review of ivermectin is "flawed" and then linking a garbage vice article as proof of "consensus" just shows that the editors here are nowhere near following wikipedia's own policy. Only one single study has been widely criticized by El Gazzar, which in the context of a meta analysis doesn't remotely matter as the results are the same. There are 60+ other trials that still make the prophylactic, early and late treatment effect signal clearly effective against covid 19. From the early in vitro study which showed a 5000 fold reduction in covid 19 within 48 hours, to the dozens of trials, many peer reviewed and published, many double blind rcts, to the population wide studies to the thousands of testimonies of people on deaths door suddenly making a full turnaround, ivermectin is unequivocally proven and anyone saying otherwise is either: a) stupid or b) paid to lie. Reading some random shill who has no credentials vs hundreds of studies from people with zero potential for conflict of interest, gee which is more likely to be true?
Collapse list of weak sources
|
---|
Role of ivermectin in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers in India: A matched case-control study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592050/ Effects of Ivermectin in Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8101859/ https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/on-driving-sars-cov2-extinct Favorable outcome on viral load and culture viability using Ivermectin in early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19 – A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1 Effects of Ivermectin in Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149291821002010 Real-World Evidence: The Case of Peru. Causality between Ivermectin and COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344469305_Real-World_Evidence_The_Case_of_Peru_Causality_between_Ivermectin_and_COVID-19_Infection_Fatality_Rate Sharp Reductions in COVID-19 Case Fatalities and Excess Deaths in Peru in Close Time Conjunction, State-By-State, with Ivermectin Treatments https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3765018 Use of Ivermectin Is Associated With Lower Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 The Ivermectin in COVID Nineteen Study https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)34898-4/fulltext A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness Note: this study was funded by https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/ https://www.jcdr.net/articles/PDF/14529/46795_CE[Ra]_F(Sh)_PF1(SY_OM)_PFA_(OM)_PN(KM).pdf Use of Ivermectin as a Potential Chemoprophylaxis for COVID-19 in Egypt: A Randomised Clinical Trial Antiviral effect of high-dose ivermectin in adults with COVID-19: A proof-of-concept randomized trial https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00239-X/fulltext Crying wolf in time of Corona: the strange case of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Is the fear of failure withholding potential life-saving treatment from clinical use? https://www.signavitae.com/articles/10.22514/sv.2021.043 Global trends in clinical studies of ivermectin in COVID-19 Morimasa Yagisawa, Ph.D.1,2, Patrick J. Foster, M.D.2 Hideaki Hanaki, Ph.D.1 and Satoshi Ōmura, Ph.D.1 https://kitasato-infection-control.info/swfu/d/ivermectin_20210330_e.pdf Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8383101/ Meta-analysis of randomized trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection Andrew Hill, Anna Garratt, Jacob Levi, Jonathan Falconer, Leah Ellis, Kaitlyn McCann, Victoria Pilkington, Ambar Qavi, Junzheng Wang, Hannah Wentzel https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214#.YOSvFH94xL0.twitter 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 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/ Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines (peer reviewed & published June 12, 2021) Bryant, Andrew MSc1,*; Lawrie, Theresa A. MBBCh, PhD2; Dowswell, Therese PhD2; Fordham, Edmund J. PhD2; Mitchell, Scott MBChB, MRCS3; Hill, Sarah R. PhD1; Tham, Tony C. MD, FRCP4 https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ Ivermectin works on all variants: https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2021/05/18/2231755/0/en/Mountain-Valley-MD-Receives-Successful-Results-From-BSL-4-COVID-19-Clearance-Trial-on-Three-Variants-Tested-With-Ivectosol.html "Ivermectin was able to reduce virus replication by a factor of 1,000 even at low concentrations" https://twitter.com/Covid19Crusher/status/1390288935729905670 Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen Fatemeh Heidary & Reza Gharebaghi https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011 https://c19ivermectin.com/caly.html "Rajter et al. summarize the author, noting that “the antiviral activities of ivermectin have been derived from laboratory experiments that largely involve high, generally non physiologic, multiplicities of infection, and cell mono layer cultures, often of cell lines such as Vero cells that are not clinically relevant. The EC50 values should not be interpreted beyond the fact that they reveal robust, dose dependent antiviral activity in the cell model system used, and it would be naive to strive for μM concentrations of ivermectin in the clinic based on them.” [4]." The broad spectrum host-directed agent ivermectin as an antiviral for SARS-CoV-2 ? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006291X20319598?via%3Dihub Ivermectin Docks to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Receptor-binding Domain Attached to ACE2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7652439/ Zimbabwee “The secretary for health and child care has authorized the MCAZ to authorize the importation and use of ivermectin for COVID-19. MCAZ will issue bulk section 75 approval for importation of human formulations of ivermectin manufactured by compliant facilities.” India(some states, with more switching to ivermectin as evidence is overwhelming enough to combat propaganda) https://joannenova.com.au/2021/05/cases-down-in-the-parts-of-india-that-approved-ivermectin-use/ |
Many of these are systemic reviews, they are far higher quality secondary sources than some random opinion pieces which the corrupt mods here put as "consensus". No, the consensus is the meta analysis and it shows unequivocally that ivermectin works in thousands of different examples. There is almost no evidence that it doesnt. Every study that showed poor results used the drug at 7-14 days after symptoms, clearly well past the viral replication stage of covid. Using horrible quality sources as a heading in this section over the actual quality scientific reviews just exposes how many people here need to be removed from power. Asailum ( talk) 05:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
A few weeks ago I inserted
an edit that said: It is considered a very diverse biopharmaceutical product.
. Another editor reverted it with this summary: undue without explaining this is an oldish piece by Ivermectin's inventor, in the context of a parasitology journal which is not reliable for exceptional claims of general use
. During a quick review of the literature I have found a few different and significant mentions of ivermectin being "diverse". For instance, some sources say that it is "broad spectrum", "versatile", or "an old drug with new tricks".
I propose we discuss here the precise meaning of this diversity. Is it:
There is a danger in numerals 2 and 3 above. They can imply that it is normalized to consider ivermectin for treatment of diseases other than parasites. This implication can open the door for POV and fringy views that ivermectin is effective as a prophylactic for COVID-19. So, although the diversity deserves a mention, wording has to be extra careful here to keep things NPOV. Forich ( talk) 03:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Ivermectin has been used for several years to treat many infectious diseases in mammals.. (By the way, the section that opens the introduction is titled: "Ivermectin: a multifaceted medication" keep that in mind for my point below). This description is very different from the current one we are using, which says
Ivermectin is a medication used to treat parasite infestations..
Ivermectin has been used to treat many infectious diseases in mammals.and ii) Inmediately make the distinction between FDA approved uses in humans (this part is not multifaceted) vs the medication's "properties", which pertain to inhibiting diseases in vitro, and include:
What you seem to want to do is cherry-pick the most imprecise and meaningless wording out of sources. To be clear and transparent, if one uses as a google-scholar-search-strategy the terms "allintitle: ivermectin review" and pick the first three results that come up, which the algorithm tends to show the one with most cites, we get these results:
Anthelmintics available through drug donations are being used according to manufacturer recommendations and a large body of experience and knowledge has been gained through their use in millions of individuals. Ivermectin is probably the most remarkable anthelmintic drug owing to its impact on onchocerciasis and LF, with an efficacy and safety that have made it the most relevant tool for the control of those diseases..
Ivermectin is a semisynthetic derivative of avermectin B1 and consists of an 80:20 mixture of the equipotent homologous dehydro B1a and B1b. This antiparasitic agent, developed by Merck & Co., is frequently used in veterinary medicine, due to its broad spectrum of activity, high efficacy and wide margin of safety.
Ivermectin has been used for several years to treat many infectious diseases in mammals. It has a good safety profile with low adverse effects when orally prescribed. Ivermectin was identified in late 1970s and first approved for animal use in 1981. Its potential use in humans was confirmed a few years later. Subsequently, William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura who discovered and developed this medication received the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Studies revealed that ivermectin as a broad-spectrum drug with high lipid solubility possesses numerous effects on parasites, nematodes, arthropods, flavivirus, mycobacteria, and mammals through a variety of mechanisms. In addition to having antiparasitic and antiviral effects, this drug also causes immunomodulation in the host. Studies have shown its effect on inhibiting the proliferation of cancer cells, as well as regulating glucose and cholesterol in animals. Despite diverse effects of this medication, many of its underlying mechanisms are not yet known. Of note, some of these effects may be secondary to toxic effects on cells.
So for our purposes, it's mainly an anti-parasitic. Are you aware that our wording does not include the word "mainly"? I can compromise to including it, seems a fair description. Forich ( talk) 05:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
it seems you somehow think the connotations of general words override specific meanings in texts. I made this proposed wording for the lead: "Ivermectin has been used to treat many infectious diseases in mammals." I apologize if it wasn't clear that this is what I am recommending to include in the article. If you think I am pushing for a general word (I did mention "multifaceted", but not in the proposed text), let me make clear that I understand that including the word "multifaceted" or a similar term in the lead is too general and imprecise and, for that reason, it was not in my proposed text. So to answer directly your comment, I do not think that the connotation of general words should override specific meaning in texts, as my proposal to use the specific meaning "Ivermectin has been used to treat many infectious diseases in mammals." shows. My wording says many infectious diseases, the current text says "parasite infestations" so in this instance mine is more precise. My text says "in mammals" whereas the current words do not specify subjects of treatment, which to me seems like my proposal is more precise. I am not an english native speaker, perhaps that is influencing your perception of me being unclear. You do seem to speak english very well but I don´t mind collaborating with you even if you are not a native speaker. If that becomes a problem I can always ask a native speaker to proof-read my texts, just let me know. Forich ( talk) 05:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Ivermectin is not approved or used widely in any evidence-based sense to treat these other things.Can you comment what part of my interventions led you to think that I want to edit the article to conform to Ivermectin being approved or used widely in other things than parasites? My request to have a secondary sentence following the opening description in which we make an explicit distinction between the FDA approved uses and the other properties seems to fail to make across the point that I understand the distinction exists and should be clear. I believe this back and forth is revealing where is our main point of miscommunication, please bear with me and you'll see where I'm going, we are getting closer I think. Forich ( talk) 06:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I feel an overall lesson of this discussion is that the three of us value the FDA approved uses to come across as the most important message to convey in Wikipedia. I would go as far to say that I do not mind to comply to a wikipolicy that enforces us to use in the first sentence of a drug entry exclusively the FDA approved uses of the drug in the United States. But we should be honest and admit that is the goal guiding us. If I get some time I will look at the articles for other drugs with notable off-label prescriptions to see what do their lead sections look like, maybe it is a de facto pattern to include the FDA-approved uses as the main descriptor and I have missed it. Forich ( talk) 06:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
No, I think any text which says “many infectious diseases” or “many uses” or “diverse uses” is unnecessarily vague and imprecise. For our purposes, the most important thing is that we do not reference its unapproved uses in the same breath as its approved ones. Ever. That’s how we create a false equivalence. Even if we explain it immediately after, it still makes the article worse by unnecessary generalization. I have no interest in changing the current wording to one that changes “anti parasitic” or “treat parasitic diseases” to something that is not parasite specific. The difference in depth of use and context between A) its actual efficacious uses in veterinary medicine and human allopathic medicine versus B) its off label uses and infant research ideas means we should not use generalizing language to refer to both together… — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 10:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Further, the review sources support this. All 3 of those sources you cited put its parasitic uses first. One, the last one, uses vague language which is the result of writing a review about its in vitro data as well. Unlike us, this review is for content experts, so they can get away with this sleight of hand. We cannot. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 10:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The current version of the article does not mention
Trichinosis. According to
MEDRS Ashour (2019), ivermectin has five "clinical uses", with number four being Trichinosis. It also says Although not yet approved, experimental studies with IVM have shown promising effects.
. Given these fact shown in high quality sources, how should we proceed to mention Trichinosis:
Please discuss. Forich ( talk) 03:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that the section Veterinary use is far down in the article, even though this is an important use. I would suggest merging it into the section Medical uses. -- Leyo 16:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
There is nothing in the chemistry section about its total synthesis. I propose to add the following text:
"The total synthesis of ivermectin and related avermectins have been reported by various groups. [1]"
@ 142.157.199.66: It is already mentioned that once avermectin homologues are produced that they separately undergo hydrogenation to give ivermectin. Obama gaming ( talk) 02:35, 27 October 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. |
Change "COVID-19 Misinformation" section to "Treatment of COVID-19" while adding information that supports successful treatment of COVID-19 with ivermectin.
The current article only speak to a very one-sided view on the subject with very dubious support from media references rather than published research. It also maintains that "misinformation" is spread by right-wing politician rather than medical and scientific community. On contrary, there is substantial body of evidence that ivermectin is a medication uniquely suited to treat COVID-19 given its now well-described, potent anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties. The efficacy of ivermectin is supported by results from 64 controlled trials, 32 of them randomized, and 16 of those were double-blinded, the gold standard of research design.
If there is controversy in the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment, such controversy should be reflected in the article based on the very spirit of Wikipedia and must not be blocked from editing. "Wikipedia is an online free content encyclopedia project helping create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. It is supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and based on a model of freely editable content."
A list of research articles can be found here:
Here's an extract:
Glebl1 ( talk) 18:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247163 Otaku00 ( talk) 05:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
If you need a meta analysis, Hill et al. was corrected (70 percent reduction in mild cases): https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/8/11/ofab358/6316214 Otaku00 ( talk) 12:59, 25 November 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.
Words like "suckered in"and "misinformation" like in the article only show that a neutral viewpoint is not given anymore. Your link does not say who decided that this source is "low quality". Was it you? I would therefore be good to explicitly name ALL the only sources that are considered high quality here because otherwise there will always be the same rhetoric answers. Otaku00 ( talk) 15:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
And by the way, you got yourself trapped here because number 2 of those given sources on the top of this page is the same as the one I gave. Otaku00 ( talk) 15:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven: It depends on what you quote, e.g. "Time to clinical recovery and binary clinical recovery showed significant improvement with ivermectin in comparison with SOC." And again, the language of Alexbrn ("quacks", implying as a non-physician that Paul Marik and others are such) confirms a non-neutral viewpoint. There is no "mainstream" reflected here as Ivermectin was given off-label by probably thousands of doctors even outside the named countries, as you can best see in social media, and hear from patient's reports. A good week after the Japanese people bought it (due to a famous physician's recommendation and against official advice), their cases dropped dramatically. Wiki is rather blind to what I'd call "mainstream". Otaku00 ( talk) 15:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I quoted from the meta analysis, the link is above. Otaku00 ( talk) 16:09, 25 November 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.
Let's just hope that if (more likely when) Ivermectin is accepted in the U.S. as effective in treating Covid-19, before or after catching a case, that there has not been even one desperate reader who has actually taken Wikipedia as their main source and given up on seeking out the medicine. No neutral wording has been allowed to stay in the lead, even simple language like "no benefit, which has been disputed..." would be much better. So please add a few words of neutrality. Don't cage this section for awhile, would like to read some comments. Feeling I have to write this, and make an attempt rather than sit by and not at least try, for myself and for the benefit of editors who won't allow it and will have to live with their stance, just as U.S. media, medical personnel, and politicians will have to live with what they've done in their realms of influence. As this page is read worldwide, even in countries where Ivermectin is successfully used for Covid-19 prevention and treatment, the lead violates WP international and reflects a U.S. and other western nation bias. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Ivermectin is successfully used for Covid-19 prevention and treatment? Are there any WP:MEDRS sources for that? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:51, 26 November 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 article needs more medical references for verification or relies too heavily on primary sources.
Omission bias over Japan success using the treatment. Country not mentioned at all
Omission bias over India success using the treatment. Country not mentioned at all
Omission bias over several countries success on using the treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:128:856B:D500:7CA5:29AB:2D67:4857 ( talk) 17:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
This article violates NPOV. From Impartial Tone:
“ Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.”
Presenting the conversation surrounding Ivermectin as “misinformation” is clearly attempting to characterize opposing/contentious viewpoints as “lies” which is incredibly problematic and antithetical to Wikipedia’s values.
Consider changing the article to present both sides of the debate without attempting to authenticate either side. No definite scientific consensus has been reached and it is dishonest for Wikipedia to suggest otherwise. 49.195.100.179 ( talk) 03:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Subsequent to the previous post re: NPOV.
Go to PubMed and search “ivermectin Covid”. You will see study after study finding efficacy of the drug as a treatment against the virus. So there is definitely a debate, at the very least. The previous commenter who responded to the above, sounds highly biased: “science and reality on one side” isn’t that what every person thinks in an argument? It sounds like one side of the debate has got hold of this page, and are using it to push their version of events - instead the article should simply read that “some studies have shown promise of Ivermectin as a treatment(sources), however this is not currently an approved use of this medicine by the FDA or WHO.”
Because anyone can see for themselves that there is a multitude of studies showing effectiveness of this treatment, and very few to the contrary, if you look at journal articles. So there is clearly a lot of research in this space, and to claim, categorically, that there is some kind of overwhelming consensus to the point that Wikipedia needs to violate its own principle of not being biased (the word “misinformation” is incredibly biased), is simply, dishonesty, and undermines this website’s credibility. 121.45.59.35 ( talk) 11:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers says that citing Korey would violate WP:REDFLAG because it's "Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine...."
This raises the question of what is the "prevailing view." Neil deGrasse Tyson would say that the "prevailing view" is what's in the textbooks. When there are still different views, Tyson thinks you should acknowledge that there are different views, because that's the way science works. Covid-19 is so new that it's literally not in the textbooks, and there are lots of conflicting views. (Many of the CDC's statements, like the new rules on quarantining after infection 5 days rather than 10, don't even reflect the consensus.)
When you eliminate the debate over ivermectin, and censor Korey and Mahmud from the discussion, that's censoring the scientific method to make your results look better. It's like Louis Pasteur going over his vaccination data and changing them to make them look better for publication.
-- Nbauman ( talk) 01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
"During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation has been widely spread claiming that ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[18][19] Such claims are not backed by credible scientific evidence.[20][21]
Not true. There's over 40 credible scientific papers by top research scientists stating it is beneficial, including a Monash University study revealing Ivermectin kills COVID within 48 hrs, paper snippet here and National Library of Medicine here which indicates a five day treatment is effective. The media is lying and trying to make Ivermectin look like a controversial medicine when it is even on the WHO list of essential medicines and is considered safe for human use. † Encyclopædius 08:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
You can check https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/r93g4/ and https://osf.io/9egh4 among others for scientific published evidence of the EFFECTIVENESS of Ivermectin against covid19. The statement is not true.
Due to the wave of reporting that ivermectin is only used to treat heart worms in horses, often from sources or in the same articles correctly identifying that ivermectin is not approved for covid treatment, I think this section should have it noted that it is erroneous that ivermectin is not suitable for any human application. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.76.179 ( talk) 14:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I have a question about this: does the article in the American Journal of Therapeutics not comply with the criteria of "Higher Quality Resources for medical claims"? The article appears to be a peer reviewed secondary source within the Wikipedia definition of secondary sources. It appears to be a review article and meta analysis of peer reviewed primary sources. Please can somebody explain. Robscovell ( talk) 01:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be educational to explain why the article in the American Journal of Therapeutics meets the "Red Flag" criteria listed in WP:REDFLAG. On the face of it it appears to be a valid meta-analysis in a reputable peer-reviewed medical journal. I have reviewed the past discussion on the topic in the archives and I haven't found a detailed critique of the article yet. It would help me, and others, if there could be a detailed explanation of the inadequacy of the article. Robscovell ( talk) 00:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I still think it would be highly instructive, from a science education point of view, to provide a critique of the article in the American Journal of Therapeutics by members of the relevant community (who are they?) and in the context of mainstream assumptions (what are the relevant assumptions?). That would help reader to understand the AMA's decision and would also help provide clarity as to the dangers of Ivermectin. Of course, there is a meta-question here: who decides what is the 'relevant community' and what the 'mainstream assumptions' are? Robscovell ( talk) 01:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
In that case, this leads naturally to questions about whether or not Wikipedia's approach is valid or not, which is obviously a much broader topic beyond the limit of this discussion, so I won't pursue it here. It is true that the consensus opinion of major medical organisations is that pro-Ivermectin/COVID research is flawed, so I will leave it there, because that is the highest claim that Wikipedia is constitutionally able to make. Robscovell ( talk) 03:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Missing anti-viral properties as primary description. Ivermectin has known anti-viral properties as well as anti-parasitic properties. Failing to mention it's anti-viral properties in the first paragraph is noteworthy, and is obviously due to the controversy about it's efficacy with the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Regardless of whether this article cites the potential of Ivermectin to treat COVID, the anti-viral properties of Ivermectin are well-established and obvious, as the vast majority of the citations in this article testify to. The first sentence should read "Ivermectin is a medication used to treat parasitic and viral infections". To do otherwise violates Nuetrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:C081:9220:F570:6E02:44A7:32E4 ( talk) 22:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@AlexBrn reverted my edit to the Ivermectin article which provided three references, available from NIH, on the ability of Ivermectin to bind to the COVID-19 spike protein, indicating that it may be useful for treatment of the disease. Clinical trials are ongoing, and it is certainly not yet approved by the various agencies, but I think this information is useful. I think peer-reviewed articles from respectable journals, available at the National Institute of Health website do not qualify as "unreliable/misinformation". Here are the articles: [1] [2] [3] Please let me know if this changes your opinion. PAR ( talk) 20:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
OK, I read the American Journal of Therapeutics review by Korey. Korey says that the largest double-blinded RCT was by Mahmud in J Int Med Res [43]. In other words, that's their best case. This was a 400-patient trial, 200 placebo and 200 treatment. Primary outcome was time to clinical recovery. Secondary outcomes were disease progression and RT-PCR positivity, which reached statistical significance. A secondary outcome, survival, was 3 deaths in the placebo group and 0 deaths in the treatment group -- which they say is statistically significant at p = 0.016. They published it in a peer-reviewed journal on PubMed. You can't change clinical practice on the basis of one study, but they checked all the boxes. It may be that this was just a statistical anomaly. It may be that multiple other studies failed to replicate their result. I'd like to see letters commenting on this study. But otherwise I don't see how we can dismiss a published RCT like this, and/or the review by Korey.
I'm an ivermectin skeptic, and I'd be happy to find well-designed studies debunking it. (That's what I came here for.) But I learned that in science, you have to give all the information supporting your position, and all the information opposing your position. (I just heard Daniel Griffin say that again on TWIV.) Do we all agree on that? -- Nbauman ( talk) 20:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
"all the information opposing your position"← no, sounds intellectually incompetent, and falls right into the trap of the quacks and grifters. In any case, see the top of this page for the consensus from reliable sources. We're not going to be undercutting high-quality sources with obvious crap like the Kory review. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Group assignment was not stratified according to disease severity". This means it is possible that the placebo group could have, by chance, received a slightly sicker set of patients. Well-designed trials overcome this weakness by using a rolling basis model, and assigning patients to the different treatment groups based on maintaining an even proportion of severity, age, comorbidities, etc. in the two groups. So that we can be sure we have removed the influence of these other factors on the outcome.
The trial was registered retrospectively" Meaning they could have run this study as many times or ways as they liked, and registered only the ones that worked.
User:Alexbrn, Daniel Griffin, MD, PhD, and Vincent Racaniello, PhD, are "intellectually incompetent" because they say that a scientist has to give all the information supporting his position, and all the information opposing his position? Do you want to think that over? Nbauman ( talk) 23:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Several new studies are linked in this article on horse medicine that might suggest some updates to this page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougransom ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Shibbolethink So why not mention Mahmud, and say that Deng and Popp rejected it from their systematic review for the reasons given? If I'm reading the literature, and I find an article that makes a claim, it would be valuable for me to know that the article is red-flagged by other authors and why. If I'm debating somebody, and they pull out Mahmud as evidence, it would be valuable for me to already know about Mahmud, and why he's wrong.
If in a Wikipedia article you delete Mahmud and say, "We cleaned up the article, we deleted everything we disagreed with," then you're engaging in the censorship that the pro-ivermectin people are accusing science of doing. -- Nbauman ( talk) 01:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ivermectin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Articles that this page sites as per Ivermetin and COVID-19 are not scholarly articles but "sensational" sources: they are basically periodicals with no scienctific basis. I recommend removing all of them. Big Mouth 1234 ( talk) 17:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
This article fails to mention that ivermectin is a zinc ionophore or discuss the effects of zinc ionophores in medicine. PMID: 34929542 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.112.153 ( talk) 23:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Please subject all three vaccines to the same same standard of testing and review and report your results. That would be an honest and transparent step. 71.212.220.11 ( talk) 09:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The source used (I'm ignoring the BBC article, since that's not a real source on this topic) to support that a lot of research was problematic is simply not supported by the article used as a source. The article mentions that ONE study was problematic and TWO meta studies had used that one study. This is not "a lot" by any stretch of the imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 ( talk) 02:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)