Ivermectin does not prevent severe COVID-19, study finds

submitted by [deleted] from (upi.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]fatman 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Of 241 patients in the study with mild to moderate symptoms treated with the medication, 52, or 22% developed severe COVID-19, the data showed.

Meanwhile, 43 of 249 patients, or 17%, who received "standard" treatment, including corticosteroids and, in a handful of cases, other experimental drugs, progressed to serious illness from the virus, the researchers said.

So ivermectin was just barely less effective than the standard cocktail of steroids and other experimental treatments. How does it compare in cost?

And why do all the official studies with ivermectin focus on giving it to patients who are already fully infected? Why won't they do an official study on ivermectin as prophylaxis?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I don't know about costs.

And why do all the official studies with ivermectin focus on giving it to patients who are already fully infected?

Because they want to know if anti-vax claims can be supported or denied by the scientific study of treatments.

Why won't they do an official study on ivermectin as prophylaxis?

Studies of this began in mid-2021. Here are examples, among several, where the research begain and that research continues:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362

[–]BravoVictor 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Because they want to know if anti-vax claims can be supported or denied by the scientific study of treatments.

And yet this study found the "anti-vaxers" were correct. 78% of patients did the same or better after receiving Ivermectin. The article tries to use weasel words to imply it overall works worse by comparing it to a combination of other treatments. That's not how you make comparisons.

If you want to find out how healthy an apple is, you don't compare it to someone who ate a pizza, a carrot, ham, and fruit rollup.

This article is pushing propaganda that says:

  1. People think Ivermectin is a prophylatic.
  2. Ivermectin can't be used alongside other treatments, so it's either take an experimental vaccine or Ivermectin.

I wish they would stop.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Look at the recent research, rather than conflate the two links. As I said to fatman,

those links show early and late approaches. The early approach - with minimal info - in June 2021, was fairly positive. As of yesterday:

"In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19."

Thus - now with better data and examples, researchers can show that ivermectin is not helpful, and because of this, the patient depending on it can get much worse forms of long COVID.

[–]fatman 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Cool. From the first link:

Conclusions: 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.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Yes - those links show early and late approaches. The early approach - with minimal info - in June 2021, was fairly positive. As of yesterday:

In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.

Thus - now with better data and examples, researchers can show that ivermectin is not helpful, and because of this, the patient depending on it can get much worse forms of long COVID.

[–]fatman 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Are you a redditor?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I hope that the recent information about ivermectin is helpful.

[–]BravoVictor 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So that's a yes. Please go back to Reddit, and stop pushing your anti-science propaganda here.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This is a common tactic of anti-vaxxers to refer to those providing medical science journal research as somehow against science. One of the weakest of arguments. And anyone can read my occasional posts on Reddit - it doesn't require a mental heavyweight to figure this out.

[–]BravoVictor 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

the patient depending on it can get much worse forms of long COVID.

That's exactly the opposite of what the study found.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Look at the recent research in the second link, and then look at the research on unvaccnated people who are likely to get long COVID. This is also one of the purposes of the recent research.

[–]BravoVictor 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

How does it compare in cost?

Bingo. Thank you for thinking for yourself.

To answer your question, it's immensely cheaper than most other treatments, as Ivermectin has been around for decades as an anti-parasytic, and is even sold over the counter in a lot of countries in tropical regions, where it costs a few dollars.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

One point of the original post is that it's not cheaper because you're still likely to suffer from COVID - which for those who've not been vaccinated - can be long covid - which could be quite costly.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

which for those who've not been vaccinated is long covid

source? sounds like bullshit

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=unvaccinated+long+covid&t=h_&ia=web

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vaccinated+long+covid&t=h_&ia=web

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2022/02/16/unvaccinated-more-likely-to-get-long-covid-and-suffer-symptoms-for-longer-studies-find/?sh=2c88508a49e6

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-long-covid-less-common-in-fully-vaccinated-uk-health-agency-says-12542755

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/15/vaccination-reduces-chance-of-getting-long-covid-studies-find

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/long-covid-vaccine-coronavirus-cases-b2015607.html

https://sbuhb.nhs.wales/news/covid-vaccine-news/young-adults-warned-of-long-covid-risk-if-they-do-not-get-vaccinated/

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-health-agency-says-long-covid-less-common-vaccinated-2022-02-15/

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Maybe the chances of long covid are higher for the unvaxed. It doesn't mean it's always. Your comment is called a 'gish gallop'.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You asked for a source. The other sources say the same thing (hence, not a gish gallop).

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I appreciate it. Sometimes less is more.