Merck Ivermectin Researcher Proud of Its Success - For Treating River Blindness (lancasteronline.com) 66
A Pennsylvania newspaper tracked down Dr. Kenneth Brown — who wrote Merck's original research protocols in the 1980s for studying ivermectin as a "river blindness" treatment.
They describe Brown as 85 years old, retired, and "proud of his association with Ivermectin." More than 4 billion doses of ivermectin (renamed Mectizan) have been administered globally in the effort to eliminate river blindness, the leading cause of preventable blindness worldwide. Historically, river blindness — transmitted by the bites of black flies that breed near rivers and streams — is prevalent in 36 countries in Africa, Latin America and Yemen. Brown saw firsthand in west Africa the miracle at work, often administered by local townspeople — who could neither read nor write — trained through Merck's donation program.
"We want to celebrate Ivermectin for what it's done around the world," said Polly Ann Brown, Brown's wife.
They asked how he feels about people "willing to bypass evidence...collected through traditional scientific studies" to try self-administering their own levels of the drug in home experiments seeking remedies for Covid-19. (The article notes that even the author of an often-cited Australian study that initially claimed a benefit from ivermectin has since said "[T]he potential repurposing plausibility if any is at present not very likely, because the antiviral concentrations would be attainable only after massive overdose.") Brown tracks questionable claims about medicines as a retirement job... The main thrust of many pushing the use of ivermectin [as an unproven Covid-19 treatment] goes something like this: Big pharma doesn't want the public to use ivermectin...because the pharmaceutical companies don't make vast sums of money on what is, essentially in the U.S., a horse dewormer. Billions of people — they will argue — have taken the drug safely.
What they don't say, or don't know, is that ivermectin has been administered billions of times. But because ivermectin is not a one-and-done treatment (it has to be administered once annually) that's an exaggeration. And while it's been used for decades, there are no established safety protocols for its use as a COVID-19 treatment. The way Brown sees it, the affection for ivermectin rather than one of the COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. reveals an anti-science bias.
Brown's advice?
"Don't get your information or medical advice from Facebook or Instagram," Brown said. "No social media can be reliably accurate."
Elsewhere in the article, Brown stresses that Ivermectin is "not magic..."
"It is a danger to trust the dream we wish for rather than the science we have.'
They describe Brown as 85 years old, retired, and "proud of his association with Ivermectin." More than 4 billion doses of ivermectin (renamed Mectizan) have been administered globally in the effort to eliminate river blindness, the leading cause of preventable blindness worldwide. Historically, river blindness — transmitted by the bites of black flies that breed near rivers and streams — is prevalent in 36 countries in Africa, Latin America and Yemen. Brown saw firsthand in west Africa the miracle at work, often administered by local townspeople — who could neither read nor write — trained through Merck's donation program.
"We want to celebrate Ivermectin for what it's done around the world," said Polly Ann Brown, Brown's wife.
They asked how he feels about people "willing to bypass evidence...collected through traditional scientific studies" to try self-administering their own levels of the drug in home experiments seeking remedies for Covid-19. (The article notes that even the author of an often-cited Australian study that initially claimed a benefit from ivermectin has since said "[T]he potential repurposing plausibility if any is at present not very likely, because the antiviral concentrations would be attainable only after massive overdose.") Brown tracks questionable claims about medicines as a retirement job... The main thrust of many pushing the use of ivermectin [as an unproven Covid-19 treatment] goes something like this: Big pharma doesn't want the public to use ivermectin...because the pharmaceutical companies don't make vast sums of money on what is, essentially in the U.S., a horse dewormer. Billions of people — they will argue — have taken the drug safely.
What they don't say, or don't know, is that ivermectin has been administered billions of times. But because ivermectin is not a one-and-done treatment (it has to be administered once annually) that's an exaggeration. And while it's been used for decades, there are no established safety protocols for its use as a COVID-19 treatment. The way Brown sees it, the affection for ivermectin rather than one of the COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. reveals an anti-science bias.
Brown's advice?
"Don't get your information or medical advice from Facebook or Instagram," Brown said. "No social media can be reliably accurate."
Elsewhere in the article, Brown stresses that Ivermectin is "not magic..."
"It is a danger to trust the dream we wish for rather than the science we have.'
Old News (Score:3, Informative)
Ivermectin is so last week. The people who are in the know and do their own research are now drinking betadine.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't feel bad for these people. I only feel bad for the innocents they inflict this stupidity on like their children.
I still feel bad for them (Score:4, Insightful)
Should they be smarter? Well, if we could all be smarter just because we want to be everybody would be Albert Einstein.
Re: (Score:2)
It is so strange how things that are just floated on social media, without any evidence whatsoever, get picked up and spur large numbers of people to do something they never would have ever done if not for the social media post. None of these people would start drinking an anti-parasite drug to treat a viral infection. Ivermectin is great at killing many nasty parasites, including whip worm, round worm, heartworm and sarcoptic mange. As noted, it also works on river blindness, which is another especially na
Re: Why does anyone bother? (Score:2)
And that's different from people who get "vaccinated" with a jab that doesn't prevent infection nor transmission, but reduces severity? Those idiots go around thinking they're uninfectable, and then PASS THE VIRUS asymptomatically to others around them...
ALL Vaccines in general have a range of effectiveness and "lifespans" across the entire vaccinated population, depending on several factors.
But specifically, one very important fact in the case of Covid, one that you even restate; that being: That the Vaxes "reduce severity" (Significantly) of any "Breakthrough" Covid infections.
That one Admission totally undermines your Argument against the Covid Vaxes.
Why?
Because, in the case of Covid (which is what we are talking-about), it is, in the final analysis, Co
Re: (Score:2)
you literally just described the vaccine though. unless that's a 'whoosh' moment -- in which case i salute you.
Re: (Score:3)
For one thing, the price of ivermectin is going through the roof and availability is poor, so people who need it for legitimate reasons can't get it or afford it. The idea that this is normal and totally acceptable behavior is just plain ridiculous. Nothing you said has any bearing on what I said. You are the one who brought up politics, I was talking about what ivermectin was supposed to be used for.
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Leftist narrative (Score:1, Troll)
Why is this modded troll? There is nothing vaguely troll like in this post.
Because it's against the narrative.
I've about given up on Slashdot. I only scan the headlines maybe once a week now, and tapering off.
We *used* to have dialog and discussion, but now it's basically a trumpet for leftist canon. Slashdot has become a newsletter of religious doctrine.
Insults are considered good argument style and get modded up, viz previous response: "I you're really too fucking dumb to "get" it, let me break it down for you."
There's no reason to interact with this site any more. It's about as
Re: (Score:2)
What narrative? You don't say what you are talking about. Perhaps the narrative that the vaccine is pretty effective and that ivermectin is not? Just come out and say what this unfair narrative is that is driving you away from /. No one is driving you away, some people are saying that the vaccine is more effective than ivermection. Just point us to some information that claims otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
For anyone who does not click the link the comments in question did not come from the FDA or anyone working for the FDA, it is during an open public hearing portion of a meeting, so various presenters are pulled in to present some opinions.
"Steve Kirsch is the CEO of M10 Networks which develops digital money technology for banks and central banks. ". He also runs a company/foundation looking into vaccines alternatives so not exactly an ubiased source on matters.
He calls in for 3 minutes, cites a bunch of V
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
To your point, note from the recent FDA hearingent FDA hearing [youtube.com] on Covid related matters:
Steve Kirsch also pointed out that early treatments are more successful than boosters, noting that cases in Israel are at an all-time high and cases in Uttar Pradesh, India where they administer Ivermectin, the cases are nearly non-existent today.
It cannot be accurately said that there is no evidence whatsoever. You can only state with certainty that *you* have not seen evidence, which is quite a different thing, and the "strange" aspect is why so many people are so invested in something that doesn't matter to them.
There is a HUGE difference between correlation and causation. More specifically in your quoted statement, there may be a correlation to an area where Ivermectin is administered also having "nearly non-existent" cases of Covid. The correlation does not prove that Ivermectin is the cause of those lower cases. It is just as likely that the Indian government is just under reporting the actual cases of Covid.
An additional item that came up in the FDA review is that the Death-to-life ratio might not be high enough to warrant booster shots among the young cohort; meaning, that giving boosters to young people will cause more deaths than lives saved from Covid. The evidence is slight right now, I'd like to see a stronger study that says definitively whether this is true or not. (Highly likely that boosters will save lives in the older cohort and the high-risk cohort, so that's still a thing.)
Way to TOTALLY misrepresent or misinterpret the FDA's statement. That statement does not mean that "givin
Re:Old News (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really if you know much about human behavior.
Covid is scary because it's a brand new disease that is both deadly and airborne meaning it can spread rapidly, as we've seen. There's literally nothing people could do for the first year or so except try to take steps to avoid getting sick. Meanwhile, they see reports on the news about thousands of people dying every day and it induces anxiety. The human body is a remarkable machine in many ways, but it really only has one response to stress stimuli which is the fight or flight response where adrenaline gets dumped into the blood providing a burst of energy. Well, if you aren't going to fight or run away from something looking to make you its next meal, what are you going to do with all that energy? Some people will channel it into trying to research things on their own, except that they don't have the knowledge or training to know how to properly interpret anything they might read, and of course the fight or flight mode also diverts blood flow to the muscles, leaving less for higher brain functions needed to understand complex medical terminology and methodology.
Now combine the above with the fact that, as individuals human beings are intelligent creatures, but as a group we're just big dumb animals, and you get a recipe for a perfect storm of people with a lot of time and energy on their hands, looking for something to channel that energy into, who are also part of a group that encourages them not to use their critical thinking capacity, and you get cults like QAnon. Dangerous enough when it's a Jim Jones or Branch Davidians sort of situation, but add a global pandemic where if you get sick all a doctor can really do is say, "sorry, there's nothing I can do" and add the reach of the Internet, and it basically becomes a plague in its own right.
Re: (Score:2)
No one wants a blind horse
Re:It is just for horses (Score:5, Funny)
No one wants a blind horse
Yes, then you'd *have* to lead him to the water ...
Sure, but... (Score:1)
Yes, then you'd *have* to lead him to the water ...
Yeah but even if you lead a blind horse to water, you can't make it blink.
Re: It is just for horses (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be led.
-Stan Laurel
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you get that idea?
https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/... [webmd.com]
It is also for humans, and a wide range of animals. This story is specifically about it being used to cure river blindness, in humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by the list [wikipedia.org] a LOT of manufacturers must be making a "massive load of profit" over Ivermectin then.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, probably. Are you trying to argue that therefore, "ruthless ad strategy" Merck doesn't?
Not offtopic! Very much on topic! (Score:1)
So Merck's lackeys doesn't want me to ruin their nice ad, I see?
My comment couldn't be more on-topic.
Placebo effect? (Score:2, Informative)
The placebo effect has been shown to be real, at least for some treatments:
https://www.health.harvard.edu... [harvard.edu]
That said, it's probably not something you want to depend on...but at 30-60% it's more effective than a ventilator.
Re:Placebo effect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, but could they maybe swallow something less harmful as a placebo? Have them take Aspirin or something like that, at least that only kills people who are sensitive toASA.
Re: (Score:2)
There is very little harm from this drug. It is prescribed to humans all over without harm. There is a co-story to this one about 20 people being hospitalized, which shows how very little harm there is, since there have been billions of doses at this point. I am sure more people were hospitalized in the Tide Pod Challenge than this.
Re: (Score:2)
That's likely, but at least the TIDidots don't endanger others in their zeal to become the best known suicide in the whole of Tiktok.
Re: (Score:2)
That ventilator is there for preventing your blood oxygen from dropping low enough that you get organ damage and die. No placebo will ever be able to do that. Nobody with good enough blood oxygen gets put on a ventilator as ventilators do damage.
Statement with no data (Score:2)
Like most people, you're making statements with no data.
The fact is, at least for the VA in Oregon hydroxychloroquine and a z-pack worked pretty well for a while. They weren't able to reproduce it in other places, but at least in that facility their findings were that they had substantially less mortality than would be expected relative to no treatment (which was the treatment at the time).
Belief is a powerful thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You might accidentally increase your chances of survival by killing some non-diagnosed case of parasites with it, as long you take the correct human dosage etc..
It is probably the reason why it works so well at reducing the death rate in poor countries.
Not killing the covid itself, but removing secondary infections that help covid deliver the final blow.
The placebo effect is real for every treatment (Score:2)
There is a famous example (within medicine) from the treatment of Parkinson's disease, which affects the motor neuron pathways within the brain. A specific symptom, dyskinesia, can be treated by surgical destruction of a very specific part of the brain (globus pallidus; the operation is called pallidotomy).
Because the placebo effect in prior trials for Parkinson's showed placebo effects of ~40%, the clinical trials for pallidotomy were designed to limit those effects as much as possibly to determine real e
Or ya know, the guy who came up with the idea (Score:3)
Even the guy who came up with that idea in the he first place says it won't work. You'd need a "massive overdose" in order to get any anti-viral activity, he says after looking at the data.
We do have a number of anti-viral drugs, so it makes sense to study the various anti-virals and variants on them to see if any work on covid.
The checked Ivermectin, which is a fine thing to do. Why not check. And the guy who thought to check found out it doesn't work. Which isn't surprising, because there is no reason it
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it "might work." It might prevent COVID, or cure it, or help to treat it... ... *IF* administered in specific doses, in a specific manner, over a specific timeframe, combined with other pharmaceuticals or therapies, when not contraindicated by interactions with other pharmaceuticals, and when other factors do not contraindicate it or interfere with its efficacy. Or, it might not work.
But without data from the studies and clinical trials that have not been conducted; no one... and certainly not rando
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, paint thinner might work too. We just don't know. More studies are needed.
Re: (Score:2)
The manufacturer even says it doesn't work on covid https://www.merck.com/news/mer... [merck.com]
They didn't actually say this (Score:2)
They cite a lack of evidence that it works. That is not the same thing as claiming it doesn't work.
It may sound like pedantry but the two things are actually very different.
Re:PMC8415515 shows ivermectin works (Score:5, Insightful)
47. Elgazzar A, Eltaweel A, Youssef SA, et al. . Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treatment and prophylaxis of covid-19 pandemic. Res Square. 2020. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-100956/v2.Preprint. [CrossRef]
Oh look, it's the study that was retracted [galencentre.org] for plagiarism and falsifying data. So, their review relies on a study that showed the only significant real world benefit, by using fabricated data, and doesn't have enough evidence to show a benefit without it due to the large effect it had on the review's outcome [bmj.com], and it's the same for your review of that review. It's therefore completely invalid. As I also asked the last idiot who posted a review that relies on that fraudulent study, did you know about this and continue to post it anyway, or did your right wing echo chamber not bother you to inform you of this scientific fraud?
He *should* be proud of what he accomplished! (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that people decide to push a drug for some new, off-label purpose that it was never originally intended for doesn't diminish the successes of using it for its intended purpose.
This whole thing about using it for COVID isn't exactly a new phenomenon though. Holistic medicine is really no better; convincing people they should take random concoctions of plant parts or mineral supplements to cure various ailments.
It seems to me we created this tendency to distrust modern medicine, and you can't just blame people for being "anti science and stupid". We used the force of law to ensure any pharmaceutical company figuring out a drug that improves quality of life for people or potentially saves people's lives is *exclusively* theirs to charge any price for it they like for a period of time. If the need for it outstrips their ability to manufacture and distribute it? Tough luck! People just die or suffer!
I understand the dilemma that it costs so much to do R&D that maybe they'd just stop doing it for more difficult challenges, if they were afraid the payback wasn't there. But seems like it would have been so much better to simply allow the inventing company to collect royalty fees from everyone else wanting to manufacture it instead, and let all of them produce as much of any new drug as the market demands. In other words, ensure it's a profitable business but balancing that with not letting one (or even a few) big pharma companies hold the exclusive power to make what saves your life.
He should be proud (Score:3)
Everyone involved in developing that drug should be proud for their contribution in helping prevent river blindness. They are not responsible in the slightest for idiots who have tried to co-opt their work in recent days, or the idiots who believe the other idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just "river blindness" but effective against other parasites in humans: head lice, scabies, whipworm, lymphatic filariasis, strongyloidiasis, . He did indeed do good, and saved tens of millions from horrible maiming and death.
But against viruses? LOLZ, fergetaboutit.
I wonder about this correlation (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a LOT of people who spend a LOT of money on so-called naturopathic cures (or treatments). I actually witnessed a woman trying to return expensive CBD products to a store because she said they didn't work and the store said that they don't take returns for that reason. I wonder what the correlation between people like this and their views on either the vaccines or Ivermectin is. You talk to people spending all kinds of money in these natural grocer stores on supplements and they are borderline militant about it. Not everyone in these stores is wearing a mask and they sure as hell aren't wearing N95 masks. One thing that appears constant through all of this is that people are going to believe what they want to believe and the government can't force people to believe what they don't believe in and no amount of browbeating or social media shaming is going to change their mind.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the problems with CBD oil is that it's used to treat pain, and pain is literally in your head. We have documented evidence that placebos work for pain reduction (not elimination, but reduction) and CBD oil then forms a very real placebo.
My mother takes it for arthritis pain. I haven't the heart to argue with her on this topic because she seems happier and in less pain since taking it. If expensive feel good therapy works for her I'm not going to argue. I just dread the day she finds out and the place
Re: (Score:3)
Way to go!
32 RC Trials for Ivermectin COVID-19, ivmmeta.com (Score:1)
Ivermectin actually works (Score:1)
I get my advice from Slashdot (Score:2)
I read this on Slashdot, is it therefore wrong? I'm confused...
Prof William Campbell - The Story of Ivermectin (Score:2)
No river blindness here. (Score:1)