You mean a drug pass clinical trials for its intended use ?
That’s just the way it works.
You may as well say you don’t believe in science then.
Just get it through clinical trials.
What’s the problem ?
2 Likes
No, that isn’t the way it works, and you know it isn’t. Why are we rehashing this again?
The authorities were happy enough to unleash a bunch of untested vaccines (some using novel technology) upon the world, and yet went out of their way to issue orders preventing doctors from prescribing a couple of commonly-used, demonstrably-safe, and potentially-useful drugs to COVID patients. They even initiated a campaign on social media to ensure that Ivermectin was never even mentioned except in a negative light. The only conceivable intent of those actions would be to prevent efficacy trials from taking place and to poison any possible research leads.
Also: clinical trials have little to do with “science”. They are by-the-numbers procedures for demonstrating safety and efficacy to the regulatory authorities. Doctors are ordinarily permitted to prescribe drugs off-label, at any dose which has been previously approved in other use-cases, if they have a clinical justification for doing so and the patient presents with no contraindications. No “approvals” are required.
2 Likes
Yes it IS the way it works , even for the vaccines let alone any drugs.
.
The vaccines are novel drugs. Ivermectin is not.
That’s not routine for serious disease.
For instance doctors could prescribe drugs which Dampen the immune system or ramp up the immune system. Which one will benefit the covid patient?
Without a large clinical trial which one is going to help or hurt the patient. They ran large trials for steroid drugs in the UK and the evidence was so strong that they did give it rapid approval. But they did trials for other existing drugs and they showed no effect or even negative ones. No approval.
1 Like
This statement is garbage , they are all about science.
You are desperately trying to knock down anything that doesn’t agree with your mindset on this.
2 Likes
Yeah, it is. Doctors routinely use the “let’s try this drug and see if it works” when there’s a life on the line.
The ban on prescription was unprecedented and had no clinical justification. If it had been shown that Ivermectin was actually harmful to patients with respiratory disease then that would have been a different matter. No such evidence exists. As mentioned above, the authorities have offered no justifications for their actions other than “we don’t know if it works [and don’t care]” and “it might work so we don’t want anybody using it”.
Trials of efficacy have been done, and you’re dismissing them simply because you don’t like the results. And please don’t wheel out that “they’re probably fraudulent” thing. If that were true, those researchers would have been shot down in flames. One of them, IIRC, actually was. The others have not.
So just pump anything into them.
You’ve lost me.
1 Like
All semantics.
The world is being run by people changing the goal posts continually to the detriment of society.
I’m not fine with that.
4 Likes
You were asserting that there’s a constraint on prescription that does not actually exist. Doctors have a lot of leeway to “pump anything into them”. I’m not saying it’s right. I’m saying it happens. Authorities will issue clinical guidance on contraindications, but an outright ban is unprecedented when no harm has been demonstrated.
This is what it boils down to.
We know ivermectin is fairly safe to use to a certain dosage for healthy patients.
But will it benefit covid patients or actually harm them ?
That’s why you need clinical trials.
It’s really THAT simple.
1 Like
So why do you think the authorities spent an immense amount of time, money and effort making damn sure that no such trials could take place, or that the possibility could even be discussed in public?
They didn’t.
You are desperately casting around for a conspiracy.
1 Like
Oh come on. Various state governors took it upon themselves to ban the use of Ivermectin. The ban on mentioning Ivermectin on YouTube, for example, is well-known. Are you seriously suggesting none of that happened?
In the US, I get text queries from vsafe@cdc.gov every so often to inquire about my health after getting vaccinated. I assume I am not special in that regard.
You can look for phase 4 trials on clinicaltrials.gov.
2 Likes
I don’t think this is the relevant question here. The example you gave for this is steroids, where that’s a reasonable concern, but ivermectin isn’t primarily immunomodulatory AFAIK so it doesn’t really extend to this situation.
The proposed main mechanism of action for ivermectin (3CL protease inhibition) seems on the face of it plausible as a means of blocking viral replication, and this wouldn’t be a situation where you’d need to worry too much about immunomodulation making things worse. I understand there are additional tentative secondary mechanisms too but haven’t read enough about them - the concentrations I read of for in vitro 3CL protease inhibition didn’t seem that astounding either.
I don’t really have a horse in this race, but it doesn’t seem to me that ivermectin is the COVID wonder drug some are claiming it to be. It just seems like one of those marine sponge natural products that does a dozen biological things (antibacterial, antiviral, antihelminthic, anticancer, antiproliferative, antiblahblahblah) mostly not particularly well (50–100 μM).
It’s an example.
It’s a good example of the kind of thing that can happen and the unpredictability prior to undergoing an extensive clinical trial for treating the disease of interest . Would dampening down the immune system help or harm a very sick patient ? Which patients exactly would benefit.
The beneficial effects in this case were so clear that they actually gave it emergency approval for use.
Because when you prescribe a pharmaceutical agent to a very sick patient you’d better hope it doesn’t actually kill them instead of make them better.
No, I disagree. The possible risk of steroids in that situation is obvious specifically because they can affect the immune system, where the relative effects of reducing inflammation and immunosuppression need to be weighed up. This isn’t really something that would be expected to apply here. Yes, of course there could still be unintended consequences, as with any off-label use, but it’s really a different situation.
That simply wasn’t known . You could make a good guess that was the case but it wasn’t known.
An example of how things can go wrong with steroids.
I know a few people who got mild Covid, were put on steroids and developed steroid induced psychosis. One of them was really messed up, horrible hallucinations, days without sleep and after he couldn’t be knocked out with massive doses of alprazolam, they finally figured out the cause, gave him quetiapine, and he was normal in a few days.
1 Like