Ivermectin To Be Studied As Possible COVID-19 Treatment In UK (bbc.com) 86
University of Oxford scientists are trialing giving Ivermectin to people with Covid symptoms to see if it can keep them out of hospital. The BBC reports: The Principle study will compare those given the drug to patients receiving the usual NHS care. The drug has become controversial after being promoted for use across Latin America and in South Africa, despite being so far unproven. Previous studies of Ivermectin have generally been small or low quality. Most commonly used to treat parasitic infections such as river blindness, spread by flies, Ivermectin has also been shown to kill viruses in petri dishes in the lab -- although, at much higher doses than would usually be prescribed to people.
Dr Aurora Baluja, an anaesthesiologist and critical care doctor, said Ivermectin was often being given in parts of the world where there are high incidences of parasitic infections. Covid patients who are also fighting a parasitic disease at the same time would be likely to fare worse and that might explains some of its seemingly positive effect. Though there have been some early "promising" results from small and observational studies, Principle joint chief investigator Prof Richard Hobbs said it would be "premature" to recommend Ivermectin for Covid. [...] The Oxford team said they had selected Ivermectin to be included in the trial because it was "readily available globally" and known to be relatively safe (although, like most things, it can be toxic at very high doses). People aged 18-64 with an underlying health condition or experiencing breathlessness, and anyone aged 65 or over, can sign up to the Principle study within 14 days of having Covid symptoms or receiving a positive test. "All in all, though, the most compelling reports of ivermectin's effects seem to come from the smallest and least controlled samples (all the way down to anecdotal results) while the larger and more well-controlled trials tend to produce equivocal evidence at best," writes Derek Lowe, a medical chemist working in the pharmaceutical industry. "My current opinion is pretty much exactly that of the WHO guidance: I do not think that the current evidence is strong enough to say that ivermectin is a useful therapy for coronavirus patients. I know that there are quite a few studies out there in the literature, but they suffer from various combinations of small sample size, poor trial design, not enough data reported, and (in many cases) inconclusive statistics."
Should people on their deathbeds be allowed to try anything to save themselves? Should the entire world be allowed to practice self-care on a grand scale? These are some of the questions American author, journalist, and podcaster Matt Taibbi poses in an article via Substack. He argues that ivermectin "has become hostage to a larger global fight between populists and anti-populists."
UPDATE (2/18/2021): CNN reports "The antiparasitic drug ivermectin doesn't prevent severe disease from Covid-19 any more effectively than symptom management and close observation by medical professionals, according to a study published Friday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine." In fact, slightly more patients in the ivermectin group went on to need extra oxygen compared with those who took a placebo, though the difference was not statistically significant.... [T]hey also looked at whether patients needed to be hospitalized, had to go on a ventilator, needed intensive care or died from their infections. There was no meaningful difference in outcomes between the group that took ivermectin and those who got the placebo treatment.
It was a randomized-controlled trial, the gold standard of medical research, in which researchers test an intervention against a placebo....
In addition to the fact that ivermectin didn't work, people who took it had more side effects than those who didn't, and sometimes those side effects were severe, including heart attacks, anemia and diarrhea that led to shock.
Dr Aurora Baluja, an anaesthesiologist and critical care doctor, said Ivermectin was often being given in parts of the world where there are high incidences of parasitic infections. Covid patients who are also fighting a parasitic disease at the same time would be likely to fare worse and that might explains some of its seemingly positive effect. Though there have been some early "promising" results from small and observational studies, Principle joint chief investigator Prof Richard Hobbs said it would be "premature" to recommend Ivermectin for Covid. [...] The Oxford team said they had selected Ivermectin to be included in the trial because it was "readily available globally" and known to be relatively safe (although, like most things, it can be toxic at very high doses). People aged 18-64 with an underlying health condition or experiencing breathlessness, and anyone aged 65 or over, can sign up to the Principle study within 14 days of having Covid symptoms or receiving a positive test. "All in all, though, the most compelling reports of ivermectin's effects seem to come from the smallest and least controlled samples (all the way down to anecdotal results) while the larger and more well-controlled trials tend to produce equivocal evidence at best," writes Derek Lowe, a medical chemist working in the pharmaceutical industry. "My current opinion is pretty much exactly that of the WHO guidance: I do not think that the current evidence is strong enough to say that ivermectin is a useful therapy for coronavirus patients. I know that there are quite a few studies out there in the literature, but they suffer from various combinations of small sample size, poor trial design, not enough data reported, and (in many cases) inconclusive statistics."
Should people on their deathbeds be allowed to try anything to save themselves? Should the entire world be allowed to practice self-care on a grand scale? These are some of the questions American author, journalist, and podcaster Matt Taibbi poses in an article via Substack. He argues that ivermectin "has become hostage to a larger global fight between populists and anti-populists."
UPDATE (2/18/2021): CNN reports "The antiparasitic drug ivermectin doesn't prevent severe disease from Covid-19 any more effectively than symptom management and close observation by medical professionals, according to a study published Friday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine." In fact, slightly more patients in the ivermectin group went on to need extra oxygen compared with those who took a placebo, though the difference was not statistically significant.... [T]hey also looked at whether patients needed to be hospitalized, had to go on a ventilator, needed intensive care or died from their infections. There was no meaningful difference in outcomes between the group that took ivermectin and those who got the placebo treatment.
It was a randomized-controlled trial, the gold standard of medical research, in which researchers test an intervention against a placebo....
In addition to the fact that ivermectin didn't work, people who took it had more side effects than those who didn't, and sometimes those side effects were severe, including heart attacks, anemia and diarrhea that led to shock.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:we knew about this months ago... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to take a drug based on small, low quality studies, and anecdotal reports, the favoured drug from a year or so ago, Hydroxychloroquine is still available (indeed easier to get than previously). Those with more sense will be guided by the latest expert medical opinion. There is enough anecdotal evidence to justify an Ivermectin trial, but the claims in some quarters that it is some kind of miracle Covid cure are unlikely to be borne out.
Re:we knew about this months ago... (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is, given where the studies have been done so far, there's every possibility that it has a statistically significant effect on the fatality rate in those places because of a high rate of previously undiagnosed concurrent infection with something else that Ivermectin cures.
The HCQ + Azithromycin tests were similarly probably skewed by a high rate of previously undiagnosed concurrent bacterial infections that happened to be treatable with AZ.
In other words, it is entirely possible that these drugs did save lives of COVID patients entirely by accident, without actually having any actual effect on the COVID itself, in much the same way that a tourniquet can save the lives of COVID patients who happen to be dying of a major severed artery....
But yes, I agree that the odds of them actually reducing the fatality rate of COVID itself are pretty small.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, it is entirely possible that these drugs did save lives of COVID patients entirely by accident, without actually having any actual effect on the COVID itself,
That is actually the current work hypothesis and is clearly said at the end of the summary.
Prophylactic, not treatment (Score:3)
Ivermectin has only been shown to be useful in prophylaxis:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2... [clinicaltrials.gov]
Re: (Score:1)
I did my research. Specifically I listened to "How to save the world in three easy steps" before YouTube pulled it for dubious reasons. Even those guys were like, yes, Ivermectin works . . . as prophylaxis.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah they put it back up by reuploading it. Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
IIUC, when someone dies with a v
McMaster study? (Score:2)
ivermectin will be the next hydroxychloroquine (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no plausible explanation as to why this anti parasite drug would have any effect on viruses. This will fade away just like hydroxychloroquine did.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Desperation however will make people jump straight to the next rumoured miracle drug. It's hard for people to understand, "We don't actually have any effective drugs for treating early-stage COVID". Or to understand that a random study or two does not establish ground truth, and that they're seeing the green jelly bean effect [xkcd.com].
Often peoples' minds work like, "Trying something is better than doing nothing" But most commonly it quite literally is not. An ineffective drug, by definition, is just as likely to
Re:ivermectin will be the next hydroxychloroquine (Score:5, Insightful)
Desperation however will make people jump straight to the next rumoured miracle drug.
Too bad more people won't jump strait to masks and vaccinations.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, a lot of this is happening in the developing world where vaccination availability is extremely low. Even in Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc vaccine availability is quite limited (Europe is at least finally catching up). Most Americans have a distorted view of global vaccine availability because it's been so abundant there for so long.
The other day an acquaintance found out that he had COVID and started self medicating with Ivermectin. He lives in South Africa. Check out South Afric
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, a lot of this is happening in the developing world where vaccination availability is extremely low. Even in Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc vaccine availability is quite limited (Europe is at least finally catching up). Most Americans have a distorted view of global vaccine availability because it's been so abundant there for so long.
The other day an acquaintance found out that he had COVID and started self medicating with Ivermectin. He lives in South Africa. Check out South Africa's vaccination statistics; they're sobering. 0,81% fully vaccinated, 3,68% partially vaccinated.
For every one vaccinated person, then, there are probably almost two people with roundworm infections (6.8% in rural areas of Africa [hindawi.com]). So I could see how it could look like it helps a lot when you're facing such high coinfection rates. :-)
The malaria coinfection rate probably isn't much better....
Re: (Score:2)
The other day an acquaintance found out that he had COVID and started self medicating with Ivermectin. He lives in South Africa. Check out South Africa's vaccination statistics; they're sobering. 0,81% fully vaccinated, 3,68% partially vaccinated.
Did SA get their vaccine liability issue fixed? Hopefully.
Re: ivermectin will be the next hydroxychloroquine (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe it's because Covid is only a problem for a very small percentage of the population. And that population is generally sick with lifestyle diseases like diabetes, heart disease, COPD, and hypertension when they catch it. Want to save lives? Forget about masks abs vaccines and just get more people to eat healthier and exercise more.
You/re an ignorant ass. STFU and GTFO.
Re: (Score:1)
The irony is that this makes drugs that have more side effects also appear to be more effective
That's one reason that the placebo isn't necessarily a sugar pill. At least some of the covid vaccine trials had the control group getting a different unrelated vaccine, presumably for this reason - if you get mild side effects, you will realise that you had a real vaccine, but not which one it was.
Re: (Score:3)
Ivermectin does appear to hinder COVID replication in vitro. At extreme, damaging doses. It does so by disrupting normal cellular processes which you need to live.
Ivermectin stops COVID in the same way that a handgun does. The way it works as an antiparasitic is because insects are much more vulnerable to having glutamate-gated chloride channels "pushed open" by its mode of action than humans, and this kills them. You want to increase the dose enough to do the same to humans? Allowing chloride ions to ju
Re: (Score:1)
To pick nits, where you said "insects", I think you meant "invertebrates", e.g. roundworms. It does kill insects and arthropods, too (e.g. lice and mites), but that makes it more of an insecticide than an antiparasitic. :-)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: ivermectin will be the next hydroxychloroquine (Score:2)
Do you have a video or sound byte with context?
Re: (Score:3)
Top of your cherry-picked article: "22 June 2021 Editor’s Note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the editors and the publisher. A further editorial response will follow the resolution of these issues."
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, we've already seen this. See also this interesting article on SBM: https://sciencebasedmedicine.o... [sciencebasedmedicine.org]
Re:ivermectin will be the next hydroxychloroquine (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to be dragged down a rabbit-hole, but I am quite skeptical of the merits of HCQ in actual SARS-CoV-2 patients and at best neutral on Ivermectin. However to address your point:
There is no plausible explanation as to why this anti parasite drug would have any effect on viruses.
Funny you should say that. In SARS-CoV-1 (also a dangerous coronavirus), Chloroquine (also anti-parasite drug) was found by a CDC researcher to be effective in preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-1 in cell culture, both as prophylaxis and therapeutic. Researchers for the CDC noted "the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection"
I recognize that seeing drugs used to counter parasites as possible anti-virals seems impossible to you, just as seeing ulcers as caused by bacteria, or that anyone might be hostile to the use of leeches in medicine would have seemed impossible to earlier generations.
I will repeat: I am not making a case at all that because Chloroquine might have been effective in SARS-CoV1 cell cultures in a CDC lab in 2005 that HCQ or Ivermectin would be of any use in actual SARS-COV2 patients in 2021. I am simply pointing out that credible people have long observed interesting effects from a wider variety of drugs than you might think, and that your statement "There is no plausible explanation as to why this anti-parasite drug" seems at best to be remarkably poorly founded.
Vincent MJ, et al., Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread. Virol J. 2005 Aug 22;2:69. doi: 10.1186/1743-422X-2-69.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:ivermectin will be the next hydroxychloroquine (Score:5, Insightful)
Richard Feynman disagrees with you. And not just a little bit.
https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental... [fs.blog]
Re:ivermectin will be the next hydroxychloroquine (Score:4, Informative)
No, it is safe, only its effectiveness is question (Score:2)
Umm no, Ivermectins safety is very very solidly known, because it has been used in huge quantities across wide ranges of society throughout the world.
The only thing in questions is its effectiveness.,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Lovely. So we should believe in lone scientists who seem to support our goofball theories? No. Here's a good rule of thumb for non-scientists: If a theory has a large consensus among scientists, believe it. If not, be skeptical.
Not saying that every goofball theory is correct; but quite a few down through the ages have turned out to be game-changers.
A recent example would be the causal relationship between H.Pylori infections and the vast majority of stomach ulcers. Boy did that guy get pilloried by "scientific consensus"!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He did not said "impossible", he said "not plausible".
I thought those claims about effectiveness Chloroquine (also for older Covid variations) was debunked?
Re: (Score:2)
The secret to hydroxychloroquine's versatility is that it alters animal cell chemistry. This makes it fatal to animal parasites, and it can also alter the operation of patient cells to mitigate certain inflammatory diseases. This same effect also makes it a perennial candidate anti-viral medicine, because *in vitro* the drug alters culture cell mechanisms that viruses need to hijack to reproduce.
The thing is, *you* need those mechanisms too, and that's why the *in vitro* antiviral promise has never yet t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no plausible explanation as to why this anti parasite drug would have any effect on viruses.
There's no plausible explanation for a lot of things in biology such as the link between an allergic reactions and susceptibility to cancers, but none the less we investigate the links and when we determine they are real we do research to describe and explain why things are the way they are.
Investigate, try, and then publish your results. That's how you get to a world where Aspirin increases the survival rate of prostate cancer, but there's no explanation as to why, or how Paxil reduces heart disease even t
Re: (Score:3)
I am a well published neuroscientist, and I am speaking from lots of experience with ivermectin. It works on chloride channels that are predominantly expressed in the nervous system of certain parasites, like roundworms and demodex mites. There is no plausible explanation as to why it would interact with reproduction of viral particles in your cells. So not only am I not anti-science, I know more about this topic than you do, obviously. There will be lots of testing done now, and when large, high quality tr
Re: (Score:1)
I know it doesn't feel good to be poked at, but whether or not you are published doesn't really have any bearing on this question. The only thing that matters are the results of the experiments (provided they are done reliably). "If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science." As the scientific method is inherently empirical in nature, personally I'd avoid all categorical statements. Philosophers and artists get to be categorical, the rest of the world has
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that matters are the results of the experiments (provided they are done reliably). "If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science."
We live in a world where it is claimed that there is 5G chips and a mysterious magnetization effect in the vaccine. If 500 ivermectin huge trials prove that it does nothing, many will use that as proof that the guvmint is suppressing the truth. If it's proven that it stops Covid 19 immediately, many of the same will say it's related to the "mark of the beast".
And exactly why the countries that claim ivermectin works haven't done a large scale study, I find that all a group has to do is make a claim that
Re: (Score:2)
There is clearly an astroturf campaign in progress, but what I want to know is: who is behind it? Who benefits from this astroturf campaig?.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a well published neuroscientist, and I am speaking from lots of experience with ivermectin.
Then maybe next time you should lead with that, because your post was that of a random internet commenter, but none the less that would be an appeal to authority, and not a justification for not investigating something.
Mind you there was no plausible explanation of the things I mentioned either. Until they were studied and found, ... and the science community collectively said ... "oh!".
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you are attacking me rather than giving facts. I did not say scientists should not investigate, I said that based on what I know, it is going to be another dead end. That is not an unreasonable position to take when talking about a drug that acts on chloride channels, which viruses do not have. So please don't tell me how to lead with my comments. Worry about how you lead with yours.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not appeal to authority when you are the authority.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. The scientific method is empirical, not abstract. With this method of inquiry, one doesn't start with "there is no plausible explanation", one starts with "we have observed that".
Re: (Score:2)
We have observed that a flamethrower also destroys the COVID-19 virus in vitro, as does bleach, strong acids, etc. For the scientific method to even apply, you have to start from a plausible hypothesis. Otherwise, you just end up with green jellybean studies.
Take a look at all the low-quality studies we see in the area of herbal medicine if you don't understand why this is important. Imagine tens of thousands of studies in the form "Could [insert random substance] help with [insert random condition]?" b
Re: (Score:2)
We have observed that a flamethrower also destroys the COVID-19 virus in vitro, as does bleach, strong acids, etc.
These things have something in common with their effect on the human body that existing drugs therapies do not. Hint: Don't burn yourself to cure your COVID.
For the scientific method to even apply, you have to start from a plausible hypothesis.
You most definitely do not. You just need to have a hypothesis. Plausibility is irrelevant. Plausibility helps direct effort into research to maximise the chance of the science agreeing with you but it has zero application to the scientific method itself. And a whole host of scientific discoveries throughout history have been made without any plausibili
Re: (Score:3)
We have observed that a flamethrower also destroys the COVID-19 virus in vitro, as does bleach, strong acids, etc.
These things have something in common with their effect on the human body that existing drugs therapies do not. Hint: Don't burn yourself to cure your COVID.
Every day, most people drink up to .5 ppm of chlorine in their tap water. It keeps dangerous microorganisms from growing in the water, and, subsequently, in the people who drink it. But if you try to ingest enough chlorine to kill those same microorganisms in vitro, it will kill you with near certainty. Chloroquine is similar, in that at concentrations that would be deadly in humans, it destroys lots of viruses, but in concentrations that are readily survivable, it does nothing.
The open question is wheth
What if jellybeans actually work though? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no plausible explanation for a lot of things in biology such as the link between an allergic reactions and susceptibility to cancers, but none the less we investigate the links and when we determine they are real we do research to describe and explain why things are the way they are.
Investigate, try, and then publish your results. That's how you get to a world where Aspirin increases the survival rate of prostate cancer, but there's no explanation as to why, or how Paxil reduces heart disease even though it's an anti-depressent with no explanation why, or why Metformin for diabetes somehow also treats breast cancer. The idea of writing something off before any studies are done is equal in stupidity to not writing something off after studies have found it to be ineffective.
Your statement is anti-science. Don't be anti-science.
The issue is that people will just make shit up that they demand be investigated. It's kind of a 21st century way to stop science progression, as those who practice science are prodded to prove the earth isn't flat, or that hydroquinone isn't the cure or ivermectin isn't a cure for Covid-19.
I heard that the ingredients in Jock itch medicine, when combined with Preparation H, and used as a salad dressing, counteract all known diseases. Why are so-called scientists and that satan Fauci not stopping everything else to show how we can save humanity.
My sensitivity to the subject is based on a number of kooks who get involved in electromagnetics, who demand that we go back and prove or disprove everything. I mean I got a demand to prove the phlogiston theory because the guy insisted that actual atoms flew off antennas to land on other antennas, and he thought a physics theory long abandoned proved him right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If someone has an extraordinary claim, they gotta give some extraordinary proof. This guy's "Tiny Electromagnetic Turds" concept was roundly ignored, which of course, he used as validation that it was being suppressed.
Meanwhile these countries that claim it works are full of smart people - why don't they do some trials?
Cheap, ZOMG block studies! Or study wrong thing (Score:1, Flamebait)
As for Ivermectin, it's like HCQ in that information, discussion and study a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is no suppression of information about ivermection or HCQ. Go look them up on PubMed. There are many articles, and the idea that there is suppression of scientific reports is absurd. Why do people even say these things without checking?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
Type this into PubMed "hydroxychloroquine covid-19" and you get 2805 results. Wow, look at all that suppression! Please, check into things before you type.
Even though the claimed efficacy of ivermectin is new, a similar search for iverme
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
The Promotion of Ivermectin: A Free Speech Edge Case - Areo. [areomagazine.com]
"Imagine that you are in charge of deciding what information people get to hear. There is a vibrant marketplace of ideas, but you oversee it and can manipulate it as you like. What would you allow, and what would you forbid?
At the time of this writing, YouTube has banned videos promoting Ivermectin because of concerns that excitement about an unproven medication could dissuade some people from getting vaccinated. [google.com] YouTube's decision was made for
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/y... [wsj.com]
Google’s YouTube has ratcheted up censorship to a new level by removing two videos from a U.S. Senate committee. They were from a Dec. 8 Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on early treatment of Covid-19. One was a 30-minute summary; the other was the opening statement of critical-care specialist Pierre Kory.
Dr. Kory is part of a world-renowned group of physicians who developed a groundbreaking use of corticosteroids to treat hospitalized Co
HCQ - no reason to study now (Score:1)
At the beginning, we effectively couldn't help folks with acute symptoms - only delay death (early on, almost nobody who went on vents survived).
In that grim landscape, a drug that looked like it might keep 10-30% of folks who'd otherwise get to that stage from developing symptoms so severe would have saved lives. Thousands of them. So it'd be worth checking for use until better treatment was available (which we
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that one reason to study it now is because it is quite inexpensive and therefore within reach of impoverished countries.
Re: (Score:3)
But HCQ did have a plausible explanation and we knew it worked on SARS which is also a coronavirus. That was way back in 2005 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/ [nih.gov]. The problem with HCQ wasn't that it didn't have a plausible mechanism. It was reasonable and good to test. The difficulties were a) it was never in the best case scenario going to be the wonder drug that some were touting and b) that some people kept touting it even after the evidence strongly suggested it didn't work, and then
Re: (Score:2)
As with most science, the larger the study, the smaller the effect. That is because with a much larger data set, the noise is not as problematic. Once a large scale study is done, it will most likely turn out to be non-significant. It would be nice if it turned out to be a potent anti-viral drug, but if that were the case, it would have come out of the smaller trials with much larger effects.
Re: (Score:3)
There's this. [nature.com]
I can't really judge its plausibility, but it made it into a serious journal.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you look at Figure 1, they show it potentially blocking many pathways, including Toll like receptor 4, STAT3, PAK1 and IMP. That means they are just guessing at this point as no drug could block that many disparate pathways. In any case, that is a review article, not a research article, and clearly there is no consensus on any specific action as of yet. If it does turn out to block any of these pathways, it will almost certainly not turn out to be a highly selective and high affinity ligand, becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Why did parent get modded troll - he is perfectly right.
However he could have read the summary more carefully.
Obligatory XKCD. (Score:2)
https://xkcd.com/1217/ [xkcd.com]
What the hell is "populist"? (Score:2)
I can see an obvious fight between superstition and realism though. There's certainly no shortage of antidotal bullshit feeding a self-reinforcing denial.
Where the word populist fits ... shrug.
Three forms of morality (Score:2)
I can see an obvious fight between superstition and realism though. There's certainly no shortage of antidotal bullshit feeding a self-reinforcing denial.
Where the word populist fits ... shrug.
There are three general categories of morality: individualistic, groupist, and religious.
Individualistic deals with the rights of the individual, and is aimed generally at "anything is allowed", so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Things like freedom of speech and freedom of religion fit in this category.
Groupist is basically "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", and covers things like forcing people to wear masks and take vaccinations, censorship, social credit, and so
Re: (Score:2)
Eek! How does that figure out the effectiveness of a drug?
Re: (Score:3)
and he wondered why it wasn't getting any more coverage in the mainstream press.
I for one hope the reason is that the mainstream press has learnt its lesson about giving news coverage to drugs with as yet unstudied results causing morons to go panic buy them.
Re: (Score:2)
Zinc, given alone, without Ivermectin is likely to be helpful in some cases. Zinc deficiency is extremely common. Among other effects, this impairs the immune system. What is less clear is that adding Ivermectin adds to the benefit of resolving the zinc deficiency issue.
Everybody is an expert here (Score:1)
Ya, but ... (Score:2)
Ivermectin has also been shown to kill viruses in petri dishes in the lab -- although, at much higher doses than would usually be prescribed to people.
I imagine *many* things can kill viruses in petri dishes in the lab -- especially in larger doses than would be prescribed to people.
[ Like sunshine/uv-light and bleach :-) ]
Controversial or not, studies are good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ivermectin is for WORMS! (Score:1)