[0] https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2015/press-releas...
> Four states -- Tennessee, Arkansas, Idaho, and Louisiana -- have passed OTC ivermectin laws
> [Nine] other states have bills moving through their legislatures
That seems like it will interfere with careless randomized controlled trial design. If the drug kills mosquitos, it could easily do less well at preventing the user from getting infected by a mosquito, but it could potentially prevent an infected patient from spreading an infection via mosquito or even kill a mosquito that would otherwise subsequently spread an infection between two other people.
In any case, here’s a better article. It seems the authors are very much aware of this issue, and they randomized entire clusters of people:
https://www.science.org/content/article/well-known-drug-coul...
If the paper is legitimate, then the effect could be better with weekly dosing and much better with twice-a-week dosing.
the reduction of infection is by reduction of mosquito population.
There is a secondary effect: ivermectin eliminates parasites that are a burden on the body's immune and repair systems. With the parasite eliminated, resources the body used to hold the parasite at bay are now available to deal with other problems, e.g., viral or bacterial infections.
I remember reading some nasty mosquito diseases already landed in Florida and Southern Texas. And seems malaria use to be as far north as NH.
So, if work does not start soon, malaria could cover a decent area of the US. Of course we know the politicians will completely ignore this threat and some may even say it is no worse than the common cold. Just look at the progress on Climate Change, if decent work was done on that 30+ years ago, it would have solved lots of potential issues.
This standard may also apply here.
https://newrepublic.com/article/116425/science-humor-when-do...
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-y...
Spoiler: this finding fits
kacesensitive•6mo ago
bamboozled•6mo ago
gus_massa•6mo ago
I agree. Anyway, there is a nice post about Ivermectin in 2020 by Derek Lowe (In the Pipeline) https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/what-s-ivermectin the most relevant quotes are:
> The drug is effective against a wide number of parasites and arthropods in general
> Its ion-channel mechanism of action against parasites has no application to viruses.
cryptoegorophy•6mo ago
sjsdaiuasgdia•6mo ago
A whole lot of people will ignore or rationalize away evidence that disagrees with what they have already decided is true.
rolph•6mo ago
amy_petrik•6mo ago
MOST drugs do different things. The most extreme example, one of the "dirtiest" drugs, is benadryl aka diphenhydramine, an over the counter common drug. It basically does something to every receptor some one. Its main use is anti-histamine, but people recreationally use it (cholingergic activity). Also many other neuronal receptors.
The hypothesis here is "ivermectin works against parasites but is neutral to the human body LOL". If only. If only antibiotic or antiparastic were so simple. If only anything biological were so black and white. It's not as if one of the greatest classes of antibiotics now has a black box warning because it was found to cause people's tendons to snap suddenly. A simple pubmed search, "ivermectin" "inflammation" reveals the relevant mechanism, anti-inflammatory. In COVID it dampens the inflammation of the lungs, which is how COVID historically kills people - lungs fail and they go on a ventilator - fail from excess inflammation. So there's a viable mechanism.
The position of medicine the whole way was "we can't prove ivermectin works" which is a valid position. That position also means - "we can't show ivermectin DOESN'T work" either, which seems to be how people are running with it.
The armchair science here is, "LOL ivermectin doesn't work against viruses". Absolutely true, but not how it is meant to work. It's meant to kill the consequent inflammation. Why do we give people with upper respiratory infections steroids? Don't steroids weaken the immune system, the system meant to be clearing the infection? We give them to dampen upper respiratory inflammation, to make breathing possible, virus be damned. But it's harder to acquire steroids. Easier to acquire ivermectin. And so now a perfectly innocent drug is the scapegoat. Thankfully there are hundreds of other off-brand easily acquirable anti-inflammatories that will rise up like a hydra's head from the stigma of decapitated ivermectin
If people are spouting off strong opinions about ivermectin and can't converse competently about all that i just said, whether they are pro-ivermectin or anti-ivermectin, then they are part of the problem.
gus_massa•6mo ago
OK, I have to agree.
> The armchair science here is, "LOL ivermectin doesn't work against viruses". Absolutely true, but not how it is meant to work. It's meant to kill the consequent inflammation.
It's easy to prove that. Just do a double blind randomized controlled trial published in a serious peer review journal. (Bonus points for preregistering)
I read a lot of the ivermectin papers and preprints during peak ivermectin. IIRC neither of them had a double blind randomized control group. Do you know a paper where they show positive results with ivermectin?
For covid-19 is perhaps too late, because after the vaccines and omicron everyone has some level of inmunity. But every 10 years there is a new regional coronavirus outbreak (like SARS1 or MERS), so it would be easy to test this in 5 years and it would be even more useful to confirm the effect and use it. But it must be confirmed, because otherwise we will just give a coctail of 10 miracle drugs, with 10 side effects an iteractiosn, that nobody is sure any of them work.