FDA says stop taking animal drugs for COVID

Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
4,217
Trophies
3
XP
6,392
Country
United Kingdom
Guess the ''for Animal Use Only'' label don't apply here
It applies to the people who are stupidly taking the animal formulations of drugs.

This is something different.

A letter from the director of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (to the director of the American Medical Association) to clarify the stance on a drug that appears to have therapeutic value in a clinical setting seems about as legit as you can get. It was only 6 years ago the discovery of the parent drug "Avermectin" won the Nobel prize for medicine as a anti-parasitic for people, so it's a bit misleading to keep only calling it a horse de-wormer.
 

RAHelllord

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2018
Messages
102
Trophies
0
XP
703
Country
Germany

AAPS cherry picks information and is untransparent about their donors and the people behind it, as such it should be treated with caution. Most of the studies that "are favorably" for ivermectin are in vitro only, meaning in a petri dish and not in a living body.

Unless more controlled studies with living beings (and preferably humans) are done the AMA is correct in being hesitant to allow it for people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dakitten and Xzi
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
4,217
Trophies
3
XP
6,392
Country
United Kingdom
AAPS cherry picks information and is untransparent about their donors and the people behind it, as such it should be treated with caution. Most of the studies that "are favorably" for ivermectin are in vitro only, meaning in a petri dish and not in a living body.

Unless more controlled studies with living beings (and preferably humans) are done the AMA is correct in being hesitant to allow it for people.
This isn't about cherry-picking information, it's about first hand experience by actual doctors. I wouldn't personally dismiss all the clinical evidence just because it's not a controlled study, but if nothing else it should provide an incentive to do further research. The AMA don't even want to entertain the notion that further studies are warranted.
 

Xzi

Arm Cannon Enthusiast
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
13,166
Trophies
2
Location
Spiraling Out
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
15,091
Country
United States
I guess Joe Rogan was big on pushing Ivermectin for a while, but then when he actually caught COVID, he went straight for the monoclonal antibodies treatment instead. That's the biggest problem with all these talking heads: it's always "do as I say and not as I do." Most of them got vaccinated the very second it was available to them, but they have no problem telling their listeners/viewers to eat Tide Pods and drink paint if they think it'll get them better ratings.
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
4,217
Trophies
3
XP
6,392
Country
United Kingdom
I guess Joe Rogan was big on pushing Ivermectin for a while, but then when he actually caught COVID, he went straight for the monoclonal antibodies treatment instead. That's the biggest problem with all these talking heads: it's always "do as I say and not as I do." Most of them got vaccinated the very second it was available to them, but they have no problem telling their listeners/viewers to eat Tide Pods and drink paint if they think it'll get them better ratings.
I'm pretty sure he said that he took Ivermectin as well as monoclonal antibodies and IV vitamin C+D and something else that I can't remember.

Edit: Also, it wasn't him that pushed Ivermectin but his guest the evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein and the Intensivist doctor whose name I always forget.
 
Last edited by subcon959,

Xzi

Arm Cannon Enthusiast
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
13,166
Trophies
2
Location
Spiraling Out
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
15,091
Country
United States
I'm pretty sure he said that he took Ivermectin as well as monoclonal antibodies and IV vitamin C+D and something else that I can't remember.
Yeah he says a lot of things, but I'd be very surprised if he took Ivermectin at all, and even if he did, he obviously wasn't very confident in it. This way though he gets all the recovery benefits of monoclonal antibodies, and he can continue the grift by claiming it was all thanks to Ivermectin instead.
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
4,217
Trophies
3
XP
6,392
Country
United Kingdom
Yeah he says a lot of things, but I'd be very surprised if he took Ivermectin at all, and even if he did, he obviously wasn't very confident in it. This way though he gets all the recovery benefits of monoclonal antibodies, and he can continue the grift by claiming it was all thanks to Ivermectin instead.
I don't see the point of speculating either way, but I haven't once seen him personally advocate Ivermectin (been a regular watcher for about 7 years mostly because he gets cool guests like Egyptologists). In fact, he drones on and on about nothing other than fitness and exercise being the best way to prepare against illness. I don't watch American news though so I have no idea if he is just misrepresented or what.
 

Exidous

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
175
Trophies
0
Age
41
XP
305
Country
United States
The two FDA approved treatments, remdesivir and regeneron (monoclonal antibodies) are both very expensive.

Remdesivir works because it impedes viral replication within cells. Monoclonal antibodies are what they sound like: human immune material sourced artificially.

There's eagerness to find something available over the counter (aka cheap) that's at least somewhat effective. Unfortunately that's akin to finding a drug to cure the common cold - viruses are very simple organisms and aren't generally susceptible to direct treatment that's not also harmful to human cells. I don't know if ivermectin is such a drug, but it fits the price profile anyway...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xzi

RAHelllord

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2018
Messages
102
Trophies
0
XP
703
Country
Germany
This isn't about cherry-picking information, it's about first hand experience by actual doctors. I wouldn't personally dismiss all the clinical evidence just because it's not a controlled study, but if nothing else it should provide an incentive to do further research. The AMA don't even want to entertain the notion that further studies are warranted.

Are they actually doctors in fields that know how this medicine interacts with patients and are able to conduct double blind studies to ensure it's actually the medicine helping and not just a placebo effect? That's what I mean with them being nontransparent about the people behind them.
Double-blind studies are also preferred because the human brain is made to recognize patterns, particularly ones they expect. Hence the requirement that not even the actual physicians and doctors treating the patients during these studies know if the medicine they give the patients is the real deal or a placebo. A collection of independent physicians and surgeons is not going to be able to do those studies independently between themselves to the requirements a clinical trial needs.

It's also not the AMA's place to mandate more studies, but they're still undergoing. The AMA actually says that clinical trials are still needed before a recommendation can be made:

From: https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering...-should-not-be-used-prevent-or-treat-covid-19

“Clinical trials and observational studies to evaluate the use of ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19 in humans have yielded insufficient evidence for the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel to recommend its use,” the CDC health alert explains. “Data from adequately sized, well-designed and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.”

If the AAPS wishes to conduct a clinical trial on the effects of ivermectin I'm confident they can find the people in their organization and do it properly in a coordinated effort, but just pointing at in vitro observations when there have already been preliminary clinical trials suggesting it's ineffective is just pointless and unhelpful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dakitten
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
4,217
Trophies
3
XP
6,392
Country
United Kingdom
If the AAPS wishes to conduct a clinical trial on the effects of ivermectin I'm confident they can find the people in their organization and do it properly in a coordinated effort, but just pointing at in vitro observations when there have already been preliminary clinical trials suggesting it's ineffective is just pointless and unhelpful.
I don't know why you keep bringing up in vitro observations when I'm talking about clinical evidence. The in vitro stage was already promising enough to warrant clinical trials and those have been ongoing throughout the world. I can find far more trials that show some efficacy than those that are inconclusive, and again I'm willing to trust the doctors over the bureaucrats and media on these sorts of matters (even anecdotally). I fully accept I have a bias here having dealt with organisations like GMC (UK's equivalent to AMA) and being left frustrated. I just don't want to see any possible candidates being dismissed because of their political association before the actual work has been done with large scale studies. There's no reason the funding can't be found to do this alongside the contracts awarded to develop new antivirals.
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
    kenenthk @ kenenthk: Uremum