Hi, scientist here. Y'all made the mistake of talking science again.
Study one has a tiny sample size (45) and used more than the recommended IVM dose per kg body weight (0.6 mg/kg vs 0.2 mg/kg), and
still didnt find a difference in viral load reduction unless patients absorbed more of it, which suggests pharmacokinetics is a barrier to standardizing IVM treatment. If you bothered to read this at all, you'd notice the authors say these things:
Code
No differences in clinical evolution at day-7 and day-30 between groups were observed.
Large trials with clinical endpoints are necessary to determine the clinical utility of IVM in COVID-19.
Study 2 is the joke of a study that got Pierre Kory et al started on this nonsense. It's
in vitro (cells in a petri dish). They used a cell type that isn't representative of human anything at all (Vero = monkey kidney cell line). Even if the cell type was representative of human anything, the Vero cells lack TMPRSS2 (a protein required for viral infection that makes it more efficient), meaning that this isn't representative of a true viral infectious process. Additionally, these cells are Vero-hSLAM, which expresses the receptor for the measles virus. Furthermore, these cells don't make/secrete interferons, which are host antiviral molecules that play roles in stopping viral infections and interact with the virus. Why would anyone take a study like this seriously when the cell type is wrong, lacks the proper host proteins for viral propagation, and expresses proteins that have no business in SARS-CoV-2 replication? It's a horseshit (pun intended) study. Guess what else would work in that study to stop viral replication? Shooting the infected cells in a petri dish with a fucking gun. Does that mean you're gonna shoot yourself to prevent COVID-19?
Study 3 isn't even an actual study, but rather a review that cites study 1 and a bunch of other
in vitro (cells in a petri dish) studies, most of which
aren't for SARS-CoV-2. None of this is in anything living. Using this as justification for IVM being an antiviral is equivalent to wishful thinking.
This is why you shouldn't interface with scientific publications if you don't have the training to dissect them or the willingness to take the extra time that you'd need to read and understand its contents to compensate.
Here is some actual science.
Recent preprint showing IVM (and a related drug in the same family, Moxidectin) can't even inhibit viral replication
in vitro (cells in a petri dish) for HUMAN cells:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.17.444467v2Largest, most recent completed RCT for IVM showing that IVM made people need a ventilator
sooner rather than helping:
https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-06348-5#Abs1Review of 10 IVM studies showing that it doesn't do shit clinically:
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839These people literally fanboy over IVM and don't cite/show anything new. They are citing Kory's group of ambulance chasing MD dipshits (FLCCCA) who literally stand outside hospitals and try to override the autonomy of hospital physicians in caring for COVID patients by offering desperate family members IVM prescriptions. This was evidenced by this disgusting ruling from Ohio:
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2021/08/30/ivermectin-lawsuit-butler-county-judge-orders-hospital-treat-covid-19-patient-drug/5647432001/In the above example, the hospitalized patient was prescribed a fucking massive dose of IVM by the doctor chud (30 mg daily, which, at my body weight of 185 pounds/84 kg, is nearly 2x the approved dose for parasitic infection). These people are betraying their MD training and safe drug dosing for IVM. It's fundamentally absurd and dangerous in the absence of scientific evidence.
There is truth in this, as the body of "evidence" for IVM that Kory et al cite is comprised of cherrypicked, deceptively analyzed RCT data from low-middle income countries that lack infrastructure, training, and knowledge on how to properly design and execute a RCT.
Here you can read about how poorly studies like this were done (aka made up out of thin air) and subsequently withdrawn:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ivermectin-covid-study-suspect-data and
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concernsTurn off the knuckledragging gorilla fuck that is Joe Rogan and stop fawning over horse paste as a culture war icon.
Hey there, thanks for clarifying a lot of things and educating us with counter citations. I said I was open-minded to the matter and I never recommended any of the general public to take it since I thought it was still at the evaluation phase. I read through your citations and it seems like based on the limited RCT results that we have, the QoE is either very low or low, so shouldn't be taking ivermectin for covid.
Yeah just read his response and it was a good one. I was more curious than anything since it was brought up and I've been hearing about it