Yes, I am aware that ivermectin can be used to treat rosacea, human lice, and worms. It is safe when it is used correctly. It can also be used to combat worms in horses. However, the veterinary formula is different from that of the human drug. So those who purchase and consume animal ivermectin seem dumb.
Because the data are not clear, I don't know if ivermectin can be used as a preventive or palliative for Covid-19. While some studies have suggested that, none of the published studies has adhered to the gold standard of drug testing: double-blind, randomized tests with large sample sizes and carried out over a reasonable length of time. You can see the FDA link below to all existing studies. Only one study used a placebo and only two used standard care (i.e. Neither drug nor vaccination were given. The majority of studies are retrospective reviews of ivermectin treatment without controls. These studies are useless.
FDA warns against the use of ivermectins against covid and links to other tests. FDA states this:
Here's what you need to know about Ivermectin. Ivermectin has not been approved or authorized by the FDA for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 in animals or humans. Ivermectin has been approved for human use to combat infections caused by certain parasitic worms, head lice, and skin conditions such as rosacea.
Current data does not support the claim that ivermectin has any effect on COVID-19. Current clinical trials are being conducted to assess the effectiveness of ivermectin tablets in treating or preventing COVID-19.
It is unsafe to take large amounts of ivermectin.
You should only fill an ivermectin prescription from your doctor if it is legitimate.
Do not use medication for animals on yourself, or anyone else. Animal ivermectin products can be very different from those that are approved for human use. It is not recommended to use animal ivermectin in the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.
It is also noted that ivermectin can interact with other drugs, even if it is taken according to its instructions.
Another thing I don't know, but strongly suspect is that if you have the option of getting vaccinated with any major vaccines and not taking ivermectin or not, your chances of becoming ill and dying will be greater if the latter. This includes side effects from both the vaccines and the non-vaccinated. Although I don't believe there has been any controlled studies, we will eventually have the data.
It is possible that ivermectin could have some beneficial effects on Covid-19. This may prevent or mitigate its symptoms. We can't make any guarantees until large, ongoing studies are complete. They are not. Therefore, those who advise you to avoid dangerous vaccines and take ivermectin are putting lives at stake if they influence anyone.
Five researchers from Nature Medicine have published a new letter (below), which examines meta-analyses of studies that claim to prove the effectiveness of ivermectin in Covid-19. Researchers find flaws that could invalidate some of the conclusions. To read the full article, click on the image.
Although I have removed the references, you can still see them in the original correspondence. These are the main conclusions of the authors:
This problem was well illustrated by research into the use of Ivermectin (a drug with an established safety record in many parasitic disease) as a treatment or prophylaxis for COVID-19. It relies on high volumes and often unpublished trial data that is variable in quality. Recent research has highlighted flaws in a randomized control trial of Ivermectin. The results of this trial accounted for more than 10% in the overall effect of at least two major metaanalyses. We found several anomalies in the data that were not consistent with experimentally derived results. The preprint server hosting the study has since removed it. Concerns about unplanned stratification among baseline variables in another randomized controlled trial of ivermectin were also raised. These concerns are highly indicative of randomization failure. We have asked for data from the authors, but have not received any response as of 6 September 2021. The second ivermectin research has been published. However, the authors have not yet responded to our request for data. Scientists should not withhold data published by other researchers. This is highly unethical! Continue reading:
Publicly, the authors of a meta-analysis of Ivermectin and COVID-19 has stated that they will now reanalyze their now-retracted metaanalysis and republish it. They will also remove both of these papers. These two papers were the only ones that showed an independent significant decrease in mortality. The revision will likely not show any mortality benefit for Ivermectin, as they were the only ones included in the meta-analysis. Many other studies that claim a clinical advantage for ivermectin have similar problems. They include impossible numbers, unexplainable mismatches in trial registry updates with published patient demographics and purported timelines that do not align with the veracity and methodological weaknesses. In the next few months, we expect more studies to support ivermectin.
Many hundreds of thousands of patients have been given ivermectin since the primary studies were published. This is based on evidence that has significantly diminished under close examination. I don't know much, but I would not take ivermectin unless FDA approval was obtained. If you do so, it is foolish. Researchers also suggested a different method to analyze data, other than large double-blind testing or meta-analysis (assuming it is good data). Most of the flaws above could have been detected immediately if meta analyses were done on an individual patient basis (IPD). Particularly, the presence of extreme terminal digit bias or duplications in patient records would have been obvious and easily interrogable using raw data. Meta-analysts analyzing COVID-19 interventions should request and review IPD in all cases. Even if IPD synthesis techniques have not been used, we recommend this. Similar to the above, clinical trials that are published on COVID-19 must follow best-practice guidelines. To enable this type of analysis, anonymized IPD should be uploaded. If authors cannot or refuse to upload anonymized IPD, they should be considered at risk for bias and excluded from meta-syntheses. The difficulties in releasing IPD from clinical trials have been well documented. These can be addressed with careful anonymization, integration of data sharing plans at trial planning's ethical approval stage. This is an alteration to long-accepted practices and is significantly more stringent than the current standards. However, we believe what happened with ivermectin is justifiable. A poorly reviewed evidence base supported the administration millions of doses worldwide of a potentially ineffective medication, yet it crumbled after being subjected to basic numerical scrutiny. This research has given undue confidence in the treatment of COVID-19 with ivermectin. It has also displaced other research agendas and likely led to poor treatment or substandard care. The results of multiple studies are combined to form a meta-analysis. IPD, however, uses each patient from many studies to draw an overall conclusion. Although I have not investigated the details of this analysis, you can see here and here. This type of analysis is not something I recommend. I have not studied it and the combined patients could be data that is questionable but unreliable. Therefore, I recommend large numbers of random, double blinded tests of ivermectin. Each test should include large samples of patients and a control group that was given a placebo. Don't listen to anyone who says vaccines are bad. Get your vaccines if you don't have any medical contraindications. (This is my recommendation for a doctor, even if it's the wrong type of doctor.
