Talk:Ivermectin

Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.

1. Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
2. Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings. (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
3. Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 27 February 2023 by Sumanuil (t · c)

Claims that much of the research finding benefit was fradulent is not supported by the source used

The source used (I'm ignoring the BBC article, since that's not a real source on this topic) to support that a lot of research was problematic is simply not supported by the article used as a source. The article mentions that ONE study was problematic and TWO meta studies had used that one study. This is not "a lot" by any stretch of the imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The Nature Medicine source describes more than one study being problematic. Firefangledfeathers 02:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

And the BBC source is fine. All this is dealt with in detail at the main article which is linked. Alexbrn (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

False claim that ivermectin doesn’t work for Covid.

WP:MEDRS is required. This is not a forum to complain about politics. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Disgusting and false claims that ivermectin is not efficient against Covid while over 100 members of Congress were treated for Covid with it, a 250 million people region in India is now Covid FREE because of the wide use of ivermectin. Get you fact straits and stop brainwashing people. 69.114.74.138 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC) clpo13(talk) 22:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC) So? we needed RS saying it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Sources? Any? Erick Soares3 (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC) https://c19ivermectin.com/ and https://c19early.com/ for comparison with other medication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.65.58.124 (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Currently, 18 January 2022, based on 75 studies form 710 scientists - 83% improvement in prophylaxis, 66% improvement in early treatment, 40% improvement in late treatment. Of course used as part of an early treatment strategy as prescribed by a good non-brainwashed doctor. Are these RS?Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC) No they're agitprop. In any case this topic is covered at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic, and merely transcluded here. Alexbrn (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC) agitprop? It's scientific journal articles by scientists? lol. Yes, Ivermectin is hundreds of dollars cheaper than Paxlovid, Molnupiravir, Remdesivir, etcetera *sad face* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.65.58.124 (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC) c19ivermectin.com is not a "scientific journal article by scientist". It's a load of crap dressed up to fool people into thinking it is legit. Actual scientists have commented on it, however, and this is covered at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer reviewed sample size 223,128

Background: Ivermectin has demonstrated different mechanisms of action that potentially protect from both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and COVID-19-related comorbidities. Based on the studies suggesting efficacy in prophylaxis combined with the known safety profile of ivermectin, a citywide prevention program using ivermectin for COVID-19 was implemented in Itajaí, a southern city in Brazil in the state of Santa Catarina. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of regular ivermectin use on subsequent COVID-19 infection and mortality rates.

Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching

The above is an encyclopedia, scientific fact. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:A07F:33D0:5981:578A (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable source per WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It's reliable per the NIH. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35070575 It is an RS scientific encyclopedic fact. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:683B:C15:95DC:C9A8 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit

Hello @Alexbrn: Merely a reminder that you may have forgotten something in this edit. There is nothing wrong with your edit however your summary says you meant to add another source. Invasive Spices (talk) 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the Laing source already cited. I don't think we need another to say what ivermectin is. Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove the paragraph about covid 19 from under the heading adverse effects and give it a separate heading. Ie. Covid 19

Remove the paragraph about covid 19 from under the heading adverse effects and give it a separate heading. Ie. Covid 19

Edit opening sentence - delete 'while' and just begin with Ivermectin.

Consider expanding. 1.124.105.231 (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The article already has two sections devoted to COVID. Alexbrn (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Ivermectin effectiveness

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article claims that "During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation has been widely spread claiming that ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[20][21] Such claims are not backed by credible scientific evidence."

This is easily proven false. The American Journal of Therapeutics states that "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin:" https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx. A meta-analysis of 77 different studies suggests that "Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance:" https://ivmmeta.com/ivm-meta.pdf. So, Wikipedia is going on record claiming that all of these dozens of studies are not credible? That in itself doesn't sound very credible.

There are also a number of ongoing studies look at the effectiveness of Ivermectin against Covid. One is at Duke University (https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20220121/ivermectin-potential-covid-19-treatment-studied-at-duke-university),

The safest, truest thing to say at the moment - given the latest data (the citations in the article are almost a year old, and research has been ongoing) - is that there is a difference of opinion in the professional community on the subject. Is it wise to exclude data because it does not fit a predetermined political agenda? When people who are genuinely concerned try to do a bit of research, and after reading the Wikipedia page happen upon one of the above studies, it immediately brings into question the legitimacy and potential bias of the entire Wikipedia platform. Claiming that "The highest quality sources (1 2 3) do not support Ivermectin as an effective treatment for COVID-19" only suggests to the reader that the article authors may have been unduly influenced by confirmation bias, and excluded data that did not fit their predefined ideas, because the source was not "highest quality," whatever that means. It is notable that the very first citation here (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full) states that "Currently, evidence on efficacy and safety of ivermectin for prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and COVID‐19 treatment is conflicting." So the statement in the Wikipedia article is only half true - yes, they don't support Ivermectin, but neither do they not support it.

I urge you take make an appropriate change to prevent Wikipedia's reputation from becoming even further tarnished than it already is. The reports on this subject are conflicting and the jury is still out. Isn't it best not to second guess the science, and just accurately report the current state of the research?

dn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.145.150.237 (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New? peer-reviewed study

According to an article behind a pay-wall in The Epoch Times, which Wikipedia does not consider reliable, there is a new, peer-reviewed study indicating that iv. is an effective COVID prophylactic . Because the cited study is not identified in the portion of the article viewable without paying, I don't know anything about the study. Maybe it is a recycling of an old one, but the Feb. 1 , 2022 headline says it is a new study. Perhaps someone can find out more. "New Study on Ivermectin ‘Should Convince Any Naysayer’: Dr. Pierre Kory" By Zachary Stieber and Jan Jekielek February 1, 2022 Updated: February 1, 2022 164.47.187.32 (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• It's the same study as mentioned in the "Peer reviewed sample size 223,128" section above. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)