8
0

Ivermectin


 invite response                
2021 May 9, 10:24pm   81,084 views  629 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (61)   💰tip   ignore  

https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/05/09/update-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19/

Back in January I wrote an article about four randomized controlled trials of ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19 that had at that time released their results to the public. Each of those four trials had promising results, but each was also too small individually to show any meaningful impact on the hard outcomes we really care about, like death. When I meta-analyzed them together however, the results suddenly appeared very impressive. Here’s what that meta-analysis looked like:



It showed a massive 78% reduction in mortality in patients treated with covid-19. Mortality is the hardest of hard end points, which means it’s the hardest for researchers to manipulate and therefore the least open to bias. Either someone’s dead, or they’re alive. End of story.

You would have thought that this strong overall signal of benefit in the midst of a pandemic would have mobilized the powers that be to arrange multiple large randomized trials to confirm these results as quickly as possible, and that the major medical journals would be falling over each other to be the first to publish these studies.

That hasn’t happened.

Rather the opposite, in fact. South Africa has even gone so far as to ban doctors from using ivermectin on covid-19 patients. And as far as I can tell, most of the discussion about ivermectin in mainstream media (and in the medical press) has centred not around its relative merits, but more around how its proponents are clearly deluded tin foil hat wearing crazies who are using social media to manipulate the masses.

In spite of this, trial results have continued to appear. That means we should now be able to conclude with even greater certainty whether or not ivermectin is effective against covid-19. Since there are so many of these trials popping up now, I’ve decided to limit the discussion here only to the ones I’ve been able to find that had at least 150 participants, and that compared ivermectin to placebo (although I’ll add even the smaller trials I’ve found in to the updated meta-analysis at the end).

As before, it appears that rich western countries have very little interest in studying ivermectin as a treatment for covid. The three new trials that had at least 150 participants and compared ivermectin with placebo were conducted in Colombia, Iran, and Argentina. We’ll go through each in turn. ...

What we see is a 62% reduction in the relative risk of dying among covid patients treated with ivermectin. That would mean that ivermectin prevents roughly three out of five covid deaths. The reduction is statistically significant (p-value 0,004). In other words, the weight of evidence supporting ivermectin continues to pile up. It is now far stronger than the evidence that led to widespred use of remdesivir earlier in the pandemic, and the effect is much larger and more important (remdesivir was only ever shown to marginally decrease length of hospital stay, it was never shown to have any effect on risk of dying).

I understand why pharmaceutical companies don’t like ivermectin. It’s a cheap generic drug. Even Merck, the company that invented ivermectin, is doing it’s best to destroy the drug’s reputation at the moment. This can only be explained by the fact that Merck is currently developing two expensive new covid drugs, and doesn’t want an off-patent drug, which it can no longer make any profit from, competing with them.

The only reason I can think to understand why the broader medical establishment, however, is still so anti-ivermectin is that these studies have all been done outside the rich west. Apparently doctors and scientists outside North America and Western Europe can’t be trusted, unless they’re saying things that are in line with our pre-conceived notions.


And HCQ falls into that same bucket. Even worse - to admit HCQ works would be to admit Trump was right about something.

Liberals would rather that millions die than that Trump be allowed to be right about anything. They hate Trump more than they love their fellow humans.

« First        Comments 613 - 629 of 629        Search these comments

613   Ceffer   2024 Mar 24, 9:59pm  

Uh, Oh! The Rockefellers aren't going to like this. They'll have to sell more street fentanyl to make up for the loss of profits from the increase in population health. So, what does it mean exactly when you have to sue the agency that is supposed to oversee the health and safety of our country in order to keep them from doing the opposite?
Patrick says


https://flccc.substack.com/p/breaking-the-fda-has-lost-its-war



614   GNL   2024 Mar 24, 10:29pm  

Ceffer says

the increase in population health.

What?
615   richwicks   2024 Mar 25, 8:44am  

GNL says


Ceffer says


the increase in population health.

What?



The increase on the general health of the overall population.

After these last 3 years, it seems hard for me to deny that the purpose of modern medicine isn't to help people, it's to hurt them and make them dependents. They are basically drug pushers making you addicted not to getting high, but making you addicted to not feeling ill or sick.

The vaccines did NOTHING other than harm people. I know a few people now that think they were negatively, and perhaps permanently, effected by the injection. One is a rock climber that believes he's become considerably weaker since he took the injection. I know several women who were just beyond menopause that started experiencing menstruation again. One guy got blood clots and he's like early 40's.
616   AmericanKulak   2024 Mar 29, 9:27am  

Kid got pinworms at school. Considering.
618   Onvacation   2024 May 20, 5:44pm  

Ivermectin may cure cancer!
619   Onvacation   2024 May 20, 5:47pm  

AmericanKulak says

Kid got pinworms at school. Considering.

I think Ivermectin cures pinworms.
620   Onvacation   2024 May 20, 5:48pm  

Pre Wuhan Article
https://www.nature.com/articles/ja201711
Abstract
Over the past decade, the global scientific community have begun to recognize the unmatched value of an extraordinary drug, ivermectin, that originates from a single microbe unearthed from soil in Japan. Work on ivermectin has seen its discoverer, Satoshi Ōmura, of Tokyo’s prestigious Kitasato Institute, receive the 2014 Gairdner Global Health Award and the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, which he shared with a collaborating partner in the discovery and development of the drug, William Campbell of Merck & Co. Incorporated. Today, ivermectin is continuing to surprise and excite scientists, offering more and more promise to help improve global public health by treating a diverse range of diseases, with its unexpected potential as an antibacterial, antiviral and anti-cancer agent being particularly extraordinary.
621   Patrick   2024 May 30, 7:41pm  

https://voiceforscienceandsolidarity.substack.com/p/do-we-need-to-move-from-c-19-vaccine-fd8


Given the lack of herd immunity and the ongoing evolution of the virus towards enhanced transmissibility, combined with the fact that there is absolutely no scientific rationale to believe that updated C-19 vaccines will protect highly vaccinated populations that, by now, have experienced multiple rounds of vaccine breakthrough infections, citizens should pressure their governments to immediately ensure the availability of safe and effective antiviral drugs in sufficient supply and at affordable prices.

Ironically, this means that governments in highly C-19 vaccinated countries should ideally mandate the use of ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine to mitigate the detrimental consequences of their insane C-19 vaccine mandates.
622   Patrick   2024 Aug 11, 4:54pm  

https://transcriberb.dreamwidth.org/166700.html


"Dr. McCullough speaks in Fresno at the Remdesivir Lawsuit conference!"
[National Press Conference, September 7, 2022 TruthforHealth.org]
https://rumble.com/v1jl35e-dr.-mccullough-speaks-in-fresno-at-the-remdesivir-lawsuit-conference-min-53.html

DR. JANCI LINDSAY: Hi everyone. Thank you so much for coming today. And I just want to say right from the start that I am so very deeply sorry for your loss. I hope that we can in some part help you to, to regain some of the trust in the medical profession that was undoubtedly lost during all this.

My name is Dr. Janci Lindsay. I'm a toxicologist and a molecular biologist. I own a company, Toxicology Support Services. I've been doing scientific research for over 30 years and I consult as an expert witness in litigation cases across the country as a toxicologist.

I'm here to tell you that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were always safe and effective for the treatment of coronavirus and that there was an agenda that was set out to demonize them, to, to show that they weren't safe and effective in order to allow for emergency use authorization for both remdesivir and the covid genetic vaccines.

WOMAN'S VOICE: Yes.

JANCI LINDSAY: This was wrong. We know from countless studies that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have worked. I want to tell you a little bit about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and how safe and effective they are.

Ivermectin was approved in 1984 as an anti-parasitic in humans. It was shown to be safe for all ages. By 2016 2 billion doses had been given. It's on the WHO [World Health Organization] list of essential medicines to be given. In 2015 Satoshi Omura and William Campbell got the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for its use to treat African river blindness. Ivermectin has potent anti-viral properties against several families of viruses, West Nile virus, Zika, dengue, influenza, HIV, and of course, coronavirus.

2021 review by Zaidi and Dehgani noted 20 separate mechanisms of action of ivermectin against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, all unique.[1]

A recent paper from Brazil, a giant study of rem—, of, excuse me, of ivermectin use in 88,000 patients resulted in a 92% reduction in fatality as compared to the control group of infected persons with SARS-CoV-2. But not only that, we have countless other studies of the safety of ivermectin. In India in Uttar Pradesh they used a treatment program in— which resulted, with IVM [ivermectin], which resulted in only 11 cases as of September 10th 2021. By August 31st of that same year out of 187,638 tests for covid, there were only 21 positive cases with the use of ivermectin.[2]

Now why am I saying that? Because ivermectin is useful not only for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2, but for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2. And you may have a seen a meme that I wrote that went around where I advocated for the use of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, both cheap and out of patent, for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. And I said, if they really wanted to stop this they would use both of these medicines because they stop the contraction and they stop the transmission of this virus.

But they don't want to stop it. They don't want to let up their emergency powers. They don't want to stop not treating covid.

We know, in Peru, when they put forth their program of ivermectin treatment, that within a month they had a 75% reduction in death from covid cases. In a month. We know it works. We know it has worked in India, in Africa. In all of the states in Africa that use both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for malarial prophylaxis they had barely any covid cases. Yet these countries were ignored, except for those of us that, that were trying to get the word out.

50:01
Not only that, but most people don't know that ivermectin used for malaria actually has an extra benefit. It kills the mosquitos so that they can't go on further to transmit any other mosquito-borne pathogens. It's an amazing medicine.

Hydroxychloroquine is the same. Approved for use in humans in 1955. It's on the WHO list of essential medicines for humans, and can be used while you're pregnant, in nursing women, and in infants. In 2019 it was the 122nd most prescribed drug in the US with over 5 million prescriptions. Sounds pretty unsafe, doesn't it?

[audience murmur]

It's a potent antimalarial drug and a potent anti-inflammatory that acts against the second phase of the SARS-CoV-2 infection where you really get that cytokine storm. It prevents the binding and replication of SARS as well. It changes the pH inside the cell that interferes with replication of the virus and entry. 356 studies, 487,600 patients, you get a 62% improved early treatment regimen if you use the drug. 72% less death we're seeing in 15 studies using this drug.

It's cheap and out of patent. It's used to treat RA [rheumatoid arthritis] and lupus on a daily basis at doses that are just as effective for treating SARS-CoV-2.

So what happened?

51:39
In 2020 I was astonished to see that two of our most respected medical journals, The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, published false, fraudulent studies on hydroxychloroquine. There was a made-up data base called the Surgisphere data base[3] which boasted of 500,000 patients that had been treated around the world. It was completely fake. This was used along with 2 other studies where they used known toxic doses of hydroxychloroquine on patients to demonize this drug to allow for the emergency use authorization of remdesivir and the genetic vaccines.

This was wrong. It was always fraudulent. And I'm here to tell you that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are safe and effective for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and you've been lied to.
623   stereotomy   2024 Aug 20, 8:30am  

Gin up the ivermectin fear-mongering. Yeadon is claiming ivermectin is a "violent fertility toxin."

Looks like someone "got" to Yeadon.

https://x.com/5dsoul/status/1825808269039849903?s=42

There's a rash of hit pieces that have come out in the past couple of months.

@Rin - some of the hit piece articles claim that ivermectin + quercetin is even more harmful. Looks like they're trying to cover all the bases. I half expect them to claim zinc is poisonous.

Some other articles found by searching "ivermectin fertility" on Yandex point out that fertility issues can be reduced by taking R-lipoic acid.
626   Patrick   2024 Sep 3, 7:26pm  

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32474842/


Purpose: Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that exhibits antitumor effects in preclinical studies, and as such is currently being repositioned for cancer treatment. However, divergences exist regarding its employed doses in preclinical works. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine whether the antitumor effects of ivermectin are observable at clinically feasible drug concentrations.

Methods: Twenty-eight malignant cell lines were treated with 5 μM ivermectin. Cell viability, clonogenicity, cell cycle, cell death and pharmacological interaction with common cytotoxic drugs were assessed, as well as the consequences of its use on stem cell-enriched populations. The antitumor in vivo effects of ivermectin were also evaluated.

Results: The breast MDA-MB-231, MDA-MB-468, and MCF-7, and the ovarian SKOV-3, were the most sensitive cancer cell lines to ivermectin. Conversely, the prostate cancer cell line DU145 was the most resistant to its use. In the most sensitive cells, ivermectin induced cell cycle arrest at G0-G1 phase, with modulation of proteins associated with cell cycle control. Furthermore, ivermectin was synergistic with docetaxel, cyclophosphamide and tamoxifen. Ivermectin reduced both cell viability and colony formation capacity in the stem cell-enriched population as compared with the parental one. Finally, in tumor-bearing mice ivermectin successfully reduced both tumor size and weight.

Conclusion: Our results on the antitumor effects of ivermectin support its clinical testing.
627   The_Deplorable   2024 Sep 3, 10:16pm  

Patrick says
" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32474842/
Purpose: Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug"

Yes...
1. Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug.
2. Ivermectin is also a proven antiviral medication and
3. Ivermectin is also a proven anti-cancer medication.
628   Patrick   2024 Oct 13, 1:30pm  

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29257278/


Ivermectin as an inhibitor of cancer stem‑like cells

The aim of the present study was to demonstrate that ivermectin preferentially inhibited cancer stem‑like cells (CSC) in breast cancer cells and downregulated the expression of 'stemness' genes. Computational searching of DrugBank, a database of approved drugs, was performed using the principles of two‑dimensional similarity searching; the chemical structure of salinomycin was used as a query. Growth inhibition of the breast cancer cell lin e MDA‑MB‑231 by ivermectin was investigated in the total cell population, in cell spheroids and in sorted cells that expressed cluster of differentiation (CD)44+/CD24‑. The effects of ivermectin treatment on the expression of pluripotency and self‑renewal transcription factors, such as homeobox protein nanog (nanog), octamer‑binding protein 4 (oct‑4) and SRY‑box 2 (sox‑2), were evaluated by reverse transcription‑quantitative polymerase chain reaction and western blotting. Ivermectin exhibited a similarity value of 0.78 in reference to salinomycin. Ivermectin demonstrated an inhibitory effect upon the growth of MDA‑MB‑231 cells in the range of 0.2‑8 µM. Ivermectin preferentially inhibits the viability of CSC‑enriched populations (CD44+/CD24‑ and cells growing in spheroids) compared with the total cell population. The opposite pattern was observed with paclitaxel treatment. Ivermectin exposure reduced the expression of nanog, oct‑4 and sox‑2 at the mRNA and protein levels. Ivermectin preferentially inhibited the CSC subpopulation in the MDA‑MB‑231 cells and downregulated the expression of genes involved in the maintenance of pluripotency and self‑renewal.

« First        Comments 613 - 629 of 629        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste