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)

Can we have a list of countries selling oral Ivermectin over the counter for humans or animals?

Can we have a list of countries selling oral Ivermectin over the counter for humans or animals?

En .wiki article of Ivermectin now says:

Legal status CA: ℞-only US: ℞-only/ EU: Rx-only (UK not mentioned at en . wikipedia, but Rx-only also there)

Each EU country decides independently, which drugs are Rx-only, which are over the counter medicines. Are we sure Ivermectin (oral or topical) isn't over the counter in some EU country or in other European country?

I heard one can buy ivermectin tablets in some countries (in global south only?) at airports from vending machines, one doesn't even need to visit a pharmacy to buy it? And one doesn't even need to leave the airport, if one visits such airport and such country only to buy the medicine.

Because of growing Scabies problem in Europe, and side-effects of topical lotions, there is growing interest for better availability of scabies drugs. Topical scabies lotions: difficult to apply everywhere on body, bad smell, skin irritation and dying and smell of clothes.

91.159.188.106 (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIR. Presumably Europeans with scabies get it from doctors, rather than airports, as it's an established treatment. Bon courage (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It is time to remove any negative FDA mention.

The FDA over played their hand and has had to walk it back. The repeated mention (3 times) of the conflict between invitro dose concentration and practical dosing is not meaningful. All the invivo studies that have shown benefit have used typical treatment doses. There has never been a call to use high doses so claiming this is why it does not work is spurious.

The "You are not a horse" comment was in bad faith, the FDA had no right to say it and has been ordered to remove it, this should be made very clear.

While Wikipedia is in thrall to the pharmaceutical industrial complex and global politics their credibility is in freefall and until they decide to clean house they position as puppets of the globalists is plain for all to see. [Trickle Truthing] is not what encyclopaedias are about.

Wikipedia was captured, the editors were played it is time to earn the trust of humanity again.
87.95.122.66 (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring the more moronic parts of your comment, this topic is covered in the Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic article. The US courts ruled the FDA couldn't post content which might amount to medical advice so, so the FDA removed all of it. They did not however 'walk back' their view that there is no good evidence ivermectin has any use for COVID-19, in common with every other reputable medical information source on the planet. Some of the ivermectin cultists on social media have tried to spin this as the FDA somehow reversing their view; we cover that too. Bon courage (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Toxicity and overdose warnings are scaremongering

unactionable Rant.

Wikipedia is participating in a propaganda campaign against Ivermectin. This is not speculation or hearsay, it is systematic. Wikipedia is parroting the false narrative of toxicity and overdosing that the FDA, CDC and WHO pivoted to in 2020/1 after Ivermectin was found to be of great value in treating SARS-CoV-2, before that it was known globally as a very SAFE drug by the developers and all health regulators. A drug that was cheap and had an extremely good safety profile for 30 years, had been dosed safely in excess of 3 billion doses with less than 8000 recorded adverse drug reactions as shown in the [VigiAccess] database in the decades it has been monitored in contrast to the plethora of adverse events with other popular treatments and prophylactics such as acetaminophen, remdesivir, baricitinib, bamlanivimab and comirnaty. Those using it to treat in frontline clinical care or research did not need and were not using the in-vitro concentrations, they were using between 1x and 3x times the standard dose depending on the Covid-19 variant under treatment. Trying to insinuate that SARS-CoV-2 treatment needs an ESTIMATED large dose that is 35x the norm when no one is using or proposing such a dose is not encyclopaedic knowledge, it is misinformation or in this case propaganda disinformation. A 100x overdose is non lethal. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10108531/ A 77x overdose is non lethal. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0196-0644(99)70271-4 Wikipedia has been co-opted as a propaganda mouthpiece and right thinking editors want it to change. Why does an out-of patent, safe, cheap and effective drug for SARS-CoV-2 treatment have scary warnings about toxicity but the patent, less safe, less cheap, less effective drugs get a free pass on Wikipedia? Some soul searching is in order. Upper management has been lying to the editors at Wikipedia. The secondary sources are NOT AUTOMATICALLY TRUSTWORTHY when they conflict with primary sources and this policy of [appealing to authority] has been used as a tool to corrupt the content of Wikipedia to follow political and multinational economic interests in opposition to self evident facts. All the primary sources can be seen at the live review site that is banned for collating medical research. You can look at all the studies easily collected and relevant details extracted and interesting severe failures and conflicts of interest also noted on linked pages. Much of the Wikipedia commentary (for sadly it is not encyclopaedic knowledge) relies on studies that are clearly not up to scientific standards yet get a free pass because some unelected three letter health agency makes claims that they are best of breed. The site c19early.org should be required reading for anyone who wants to edit any Wikipedia page relating to any treatment for SARS-CoV-2 to verify the secondary sources as a sanity check. If a source contradicts over 100 studies then the source is SUSPECT, not the 100+ studies. 87.95.122.66 (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a mouthpiece for fringe medical advice that can harm people. Acroterion (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Cancer research

This very lenghty article is missing any mention at all of Ivermectin's possible cancer supressing effects.

There is ample[1] research[2] on[3] its[4] anti-cancer/anti-tumor[5] properties[6].

Moreover, AP and others have reported on this.[7] AP's article states "There are no studies demonstrating the drug cures cancer in humans, experts say, but some are researching the use of ivermectin in combination with other therapies to treat breast cancer."

At the very least a mention to some of the many promising lines of research to treat cancer should be mentioned. AP further states "some cancer researchers believe ivermectin could be promising when used in combination with other drugs and are conducting further studies." This sentence could be added here.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:E287:9A23:4820:CC7C (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Undue; it's being researched (like most drugs) for pretty much everything. And will probably (like most drugs) turn out not to be useful. Bon courage (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Too premature.

In-vitro, we have already defeated cancer, so this doesn't mean anything. --Julius Senegal (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

FDA retractions on COVID treatment.

Considering that the FDA agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by three doctors and retract their statements saying that ivermectin is not an appropriate drug for treating COVID-19, shouldn't this article be updated to reflect that?

It's been two months since the FDA was forced to make those retractions, and this article has still not be updated with this very relevant information. 24.146.98.33 (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This is mentioned here and covered in more detail at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. As is noted there, it is widely-touted misinformation to claim this ruling has anything to do with ivermectin being an "appropriate drug" for COVID-19, since The FDA position remains unchanged that "currently available clinical trial data do not demonstrate that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19". Bon courage (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Per Bon.

The lawsuit is about a specific, funny wording ("You are not a horse"). Maybe they should have stated: "Don't behave like a horse"...--Julius Senegal (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"currently available clinical trial data do not demonstrate that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19" The point is that they couldn't prove that in a court of law. The trial was not about saying "you are not a horse". Do you really think the trial was about calling people horses? You think that's why the doctor's were suing? Really?? Maybe you should read about the case. The trial was about the FDA hurting the reputation and careers of doctors who prescribed ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment based on their medical expertise. The FDA could not defend their position and instead settled with these doctors.2603:8080:2B00:11D4:DFA2:E8A0:4E30:8E97 (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

That's repeating the misinformation. The court narrowly considered how the FDA "has authority to inform, announce, and apprise—but not to endorse, denounce or advise. The doctors have plausibly alleged that FDA’s posts fell on the wrong side of the line". In other words they can say Ivermetic for COVID is a steaming pile of hore shit, but they can't add "so don't use it that way". This is covered in Wikipedia's article Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic, including how the court result has been spun into being more than it is by the ivermectin stans. Bon courage (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)