The promotion of the anti-parasite drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment has generated a lot controversy worldwide. What's your view on it?

There is no scientific basis for using it as a Covid treatment so why the need to even pose this question in the first place? Seems like little more than an invitation to anti vaxers to start spouting conspiracy theories. Surely there are more serious and constructive things to debate out there.

As rainyday said. It was proven over a year ago to not work for covid treamtent. Why is this still a question?

Maybe because it was created by a Japanese researcher at Kitasato University and they are hoping to cash in on it, even though it has been proven to be useless against Covid!

Many of us view the anti-vaccine phenomenon as The Darwin Project.

I don't have a view as I am not a virologist. I'll defer to the experts on the subject and follow their advice.

Go to youtube and enter, Dana White says he is Covid free.

Watch the first 3 to 4 minutes of the video and listen what medicine he took and what happened.

Reuters just issued a retraction yesterday of an article saying it was effective.

”On Monday, Reuters reported that Ivermectin had been shown to have an "antiviral effect" against the Omicron variant of COVID-19 in phase III trials—which are conducted in humans—citing a press release by Japanese pharmaceutical company Kowa.

However, Reuters later published a correction to this claim explaining that this statement was not true, and that what Kowa had actually found was that ivermectin had an antiviral effect against COVID-19 in non-clinical research.”

https://www.newsweek.com/reuters-corrects-ivermectin-anti-viral-effect-omicron-covid-coronavirus-1674854

That’s my view.

Dana White says he is Covid free.

The UFC fighter? He is also credibility free.

The UFC fighter?

He is not a fighter. He is the UFC president.

I am a huge fan of the UFC, and I found that video in youtube about 1 month ago, after I heard Dana White got Covid.

I was really surprised about which person he called and which medicine he took.

I even didnt know that this Joe Rogan is the same guy who always announce during the UFC Weigh Ins.

I was very surprised about the medicine he took and the effect of it.

Life is full of surprises.

As rainyday said. It was proven over a year ago to not work for covid treamtent. Why is this still a question?

Rainyday said nothing of the kind, probably because that's not true. You are confusing evidence with proof, a basic distinction even for non-scientists. The reason it is still a question is because that's what science does: it asks questions.

Religions and cults don't ask questions though - and the whole discussion of this medical issue has become cultish in the west. Anybody who starts talking about medicines this way is somebody I avoid, whether they are selling the latest "super supplement" or a Scientologist ranting about the evils of all drugs.

Go to youtube and enter, Horse says he is Worm free. 

Watch the first 3 to 4 minutes of the video and listen what medicine he took and what happened.

It seems that I hit a wounded point for many people here with this video.

Many people do not want to hear this real life experience from someone who took ivermectin and had success in treatment from Covid.

Anybody is free to decide how he or she judges this information in the video.

But in my opinion, instead of blindly ignoring it, you should just keep it under consideration as a possibility.

And according to this video, there is no doubt that this medicine works for Dana White.

But I guess, that many people here will say that he is lying, because his experience will damage most of the people's opinion about ivermectin.

Rainyday said nothing of the kind, probably because that's not true. You are confusing evidence with proof, a basic distinction even for non-scientists. The reason it is still a question is because that's what science does: it asks questions.

What I actually said was that there is no scientific evidence that it is beneficial. Its true that that isn't the same as proof that it is ineffective. But when assessing medical treatments the onus is to demonstrate its effectiveness, not the opposite (to disprove its ineffectiveness).

And scientist are asking questions about this. The American FDA lists 83 seperate clinical trials which are evaluating the effectiveness of Invermectin:

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=COVID-19&term=ivermectin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=&Search=Search

But it also notes that despite this volume of research, the data available to date do not show that Invermectin is effective against COVID:

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

He is not a fighter. He is the UFC president.

I’s brave of you to admit that you value the scientific opinion of people who arrange punch ups to that of scientists.

When and if this drug is proven effective I’ll consider using it if I have to

It seems that I hit a wounded point for many people here with this video.

Many people do not want to hear this real life experience from someone who took ivermectin and had success in treatment from Covid.

Anybody is free to decide how he or she judges this information in the video.

But in my opinion, instead of blindly ignoring it, you should just keep it under consideration as a possibility.

And according to this video, there is no doubt that this medicine works for Dana White.

But I guess, that many people here will say that he is lying, because his experience will damage most of the people's opinion about ivermectin.

I can't speak for everyone else, but for me if the best evidence you have to rely on in a debate like this is Youtube video testimonials then you can't really expect to be taken seriously.

What I fear is that this kind of information can dangerous, as people will begin to self medicate with whatever they have been told, may, might, possibly works. How does Dana White know for sure it was the Ivermectin that cured him. Did he receive any other treatment? Joe Rogan did, not only did he take Ivermectin but he also received monoclonal antibody treatment for his Covid. So which worked? You can see the danger, right?

Some people say it worked for them. It is an off patent, rather safe drug. Why not let patients who want it have it? Why make them buy it on the black market? Personally I am not convinced it is effective but I am concerned that because it is off patent the large pharma don't want it competing with other incredibly profitable new therapies.

Well, you are basically asking why we don't just ditch the usual process for approving drugs based on scientific evidence that they are safe and effective. There are valid reasons we shouldn't just let social media driven trends dictate what drugs are available to treat which diseases.

it may help to some people it may not as well.

i have heard stories that people with mild symptoms get better when they have used it.

my opinion?

natural immunity is best,I did not use any medicine for years.eat well drink well do sports and active life,dont be overstressed and be positively minded.that is my opinion even about if use or not ivermectin.

It's very dangerous to take even approved medications without doctor's advice.

So it far more dangerous to take unapproved drugs.

This promotion of ivermectin poses a danger to lives of people because many people are gullible, some even think they know better than doctors.

That video of Dana,for example, has clearly convinced some people.

I hope those people don't get infected because their lives would be in danger if they take ivermectin.

Peter NeilToday  08:01 am JST

Reuters just issued a retraction yesterday of an article saying it was effective.

Peter, you might be interested to know that one James C. Smith is not only a board member of Pfizer, but also:

Chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation, a London-based charity supported by the global news and information provider. President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Thomson Reuters Corporation, a provider of intelligent information for businesses and professionals, from 2012 until his retirement in 2020.

https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/board-of-directors/james_smith

This striking conflict of interest wouldn't have anything to do with the way Reuters reports or doesn't report on products that compete with Pfizer's vaccine. Not at all. Nothing to see here.

klausdorthToday  07:59 am JST

For all those who still promote the use of ivermectin, maybe you should read the article from the FDA:

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

The FDA is so hopelessly captured by the pharmaceutical companies that fund it that its impartiality is severely compromised.

The evidence from doctors who are using IVM successfully to treat COVID patients puts the FDA's claim to shame.

Regardless of what people believe, Ivermectin is a Nobel Prize winning medication that has saved countless people from blindness and death. Evidence for its effect on Covid is scanty but there is nothing wrong with trying it.

It is a common trope to dismiss it as mere 'horse de-wormer' as a way to demean and disparage people who are not full on vaccine believers. Doing so is ignorant and lazy intellectually.

 It's long been approved as a dewormer in humans (and animals, of course)

You think I was referring to this when I said unapproved?

You think I was referring to this when I said unapproved?

No, just clarifying for anyone else reading it.

 Evidence for its effect on Covid is scanty but there is nothing wrong with trying it.

Even approved medicine is dangerous.

Saying nothing wrong in trying is dangerous.

If people believe you, people could die

You think I was referring to this when I said unapproved?

No, just clarifying for anyone else reading it.

That's not clarifying.

That's trying to deceive people.

As rainyday said. It was proven over a year ago to not work for covid treamtent.

Good god

And yet yesterday, yes yesterday

Kowa says that ivermectin showed the "same antiviral effect" on all "mutant strains," including Alpha, Delta and Omicron. The company also noted that ivermectin suppresses invasion of the virus and inhibits its replication.

"[Ivermectin] is expected to be applied as a therapeutic drug (tablet) for all new coronavirus infectious diseases," reads the report.

Who are the ones denying the science?

The pro vaxxers that’s who. Now why would they do that?

Lol

That's not clarifying.

That's trying to deceive people.

I'm not trying to deceive anyone in any way at all. If you read my post properly, you'll see that I said:

Ian, IVM is one of the safest drugs ever produced, and poses almost no danger at all when prescribed by a doctor.

Clearly, I'm not encouraging anyone to go out and order it off the net. I wouldn't do it myself. There are many drugs that doctors prescribe off-label to treat illnesses that they weren't originally intended for, and ivermectin happens to be one of them, due to a process of observation and discovery. It's one way that medical knowledge evolves. Sometimes doctors have to try different things to fight illnesses, and do so with their patients' informed consent.

I'm not trying to deceive anyone in any way at all

You were trying to pass it off as approved.

Ivermectin has been used against several diseases for more than 30 years with something like 40 billion doses used over those years. Despite what the FDA and CDC say, Ivermectin has been proven to be safe. It does have some un expected side effects like curing Herpes and fungal infections. Very effective against Malaria, a dangerous eye disease in tropical countries and removing parasites from humans and animals. It has been reported to be one of the most important medical discoveries along with Aspirin.

Misinformation definition. Any information including accurate information which is inconvenient for th current agenda.

Go to youtube and enter, Dana White says he is Covid free.

I was very surprised about the medicine he took and the effect of it.

Or much better, see what every institution of medicine and science in the world have to say and understand why terribly poor quality evidence is the worst possible reference you could get to understand something.

The medicine he took has not postivie effect even if he thinks so, he is wrong about it. Lots of people get COVID, take nothing and recover without problems, according to this flawed logic taking nothing has more evidence of a positive effect than ivermectin.

The backlash against its use is rather strange given how it is recommended in principle by doctors in Japan

Unfortunately you can find doctors prescribing useless things everywhere in the world, maybe not so openly recognizing they are doing it in spite of complete abscence of evidence of action, but there will be always people motivated by something different than actual desire to help the patients.

It has not been 'proven' ineffective as some using circular logic say there's no evidence it's beneficial so there shouldn't be any trials to test whether it's beneficial. Very strange.

Yes it has, there is no circular logic because trials have been done and lack of effect has been found, specially when considering the actual risks the drug bring to the patients, what does apply is that doing much worse trials (smaller, less controlled) to attempt to disprove the best available evidence is not justifed, neither scientifically not ethically.

Some people say it worked for them. It is an off patent, rather safe drug. Why not let patients who want it have it? 

Because it has risks of their own, and because doing that promotes unethical issues where people can be taken advantage for by people with low morals that profit from convincing patients something is being done to help them even when this lacks any evidence of the sort.

Would you support also selling anti-COVID talisman? I am sure anybody can easily get many testimonials of their efficacy very quickly, and at least it would have less risk than ivermectin.

This striking conflict of interest wouldn't have anything to do with the way Reuters reports or doesn't report on products that compete with Pfizer's vaccine. Not at all. Nothing to see here.

COIs do no automatically disqualifiy something, they do help explain why someone would contradict existing evidence, but at this point every institution of science and medicine of the world coincides in considering ivermecting as not having evidence of benefit, just one other source saying the same is not important.

Statement from Merck :

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; 

No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;

A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

Qualified virologist speaks - "Follow the money, man" "Big Pharma"

Random cat herder on Youtube speaks - "Seems Legit".

IVM is one of the safest drugs ever produced, and poses almost no danger at all when prescribed by a doctor.

But this depends completely in the doctor being professional and ehtical enough to follow scientific evidence first, which at this point disqualifies every doctor that prescribes the drug outside of an ethically approved trial. This means that by default the drug is being used only against the best medical practices, so no guarantee of safety can be taken.

Even doctors who support it acknowledge that its effectiveness wanes sharply in the later stages when inflammation takes over from the viral replication stage

That is not the problem, the problem is that doctors that support it fail to acknowledge the evidence that points out lack of specific benefit even when used prophylactically before the infection. That is because it takes completely their excuse to prescribing it and they find that unacceptable because would mean they were wrong (and they are).

I posted this comment verbatim yesterday around 5:15pm on the daily coronavirus update article and it was removed promptly

Which was fortunate because it has been already debunked (as it would be clear if you read the original statement that made it clear the company has no clinical data to support use of ivermectin)

https://www.newsweek.com/reuters-corrects-ivermectin-anti-viral-effect-omicron-covid-coronavirus-1674854

Literally hundreds of things have been found "effective" outside of clinical trials, this is very easy because the hurdle to surpass is terribly easy, anything that makes a cell die sooner also makes it die before producing the maximum amount of viruses during infection, thus lowering viral titers, but obviously this has no clinical importance (because it means making the disease worse and killing the patient). The drug has no clinical evidence of benefit, even after being investigated by many groups around the world. Absence of evidence CAN be evidence of absence if a proper investigation is performed and this is the case with ivermectin.

Evidence for its effect on Covid is scanty but there is nothing wrong with trying it.

Yes there is, is unethical and unprofessional.

If you're so confident, why don't you debate this with the doctors and their patients who have been successfully treated with it?

That is meaningless, doctors and their patients have also been successfully treated by giving them nothing, the debate would end immediately by making it clear this is no evidence of benefit, for that you would have to provide proof patients do better with it that without it, doing well is not enough because then it would prove everything as effective.

How many times were my posts deleted for talking about Ivermectin

This is a positive and desirable consequence of promoting false and misleading information that puts in danger the life and health of the public. It is something that should be done.

I believe it has been confirmed to be one of the safest drugs available (for any disease). Regarding its effectiveness against Covid19, there is much more evidence indicating effectiveness than for the two recently approved drugs from Pfizer and Merck.

Because of the extremely low cost, well establish safety profile and effectiveness, it should be included in any early treatment protocol. I believe many lives would have been saved if it had been included.

The chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association recommended its use last August. This was immediately followed by a rapid decrease in cases throughout Japan. I believe his recommendation played an important role. Searching online, we can find several clinics offering IVM as treatment for Covid.

If anyone is set on using ivermectin, make sure you consult a doctor first

I believe it has been confirmed to be one of the safest drugs available (for any disease)

The simple fact that people have to be screened for safety in the clinical trials clearly contradicts this, the same as HCQ use of the drug have risks that are deemed unacceptable for some of the patients.

But even if the risks were minor, complete lack of benefit still means they would not be justified in being used. It does not matter how cheap something is, if it brings risks and no benefits it still means using it is worse than not.

The chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association recommended its use last August

And he did it with old, debunked and invalid evidence, that included reports found to be fraudulent and with fabricated data. Baseless personal opinions that run against the best available science are the worst kind of justifications to recommend something, it is as bad as routinely prescribing "safe" antibiotics for common colds.

*The medicine he took has not postivie effect *even if he thinks so, he is wrong about it

Hahahaha...this is the funniest nonsense, I ever heard.

So the positive effect, the big progress in his symptoms, do just exist in his imagination?

Hahahaha....very funny!

I believe it has been confirmed to be one of the safest drugs available (for any disease)

The simple fact that people have to be screened for safety in the clinical trials clearly contradicts this, the same as HCQ use of the drug have risks that are deemed unacceptable for some of the patients.

Are you suggesting that people are not screened in other trials? Fact is that IVM (and HCQ) have been used for decades, with billions of doses administered, and the have been established to be very safe is the doses given for Covid. Safer than taking a Tylenol.

But of course, any data that goes against the pharma narrative will automatically be labelled as debunked, invalid, fraudulant, and this negative information will show up on top of Google searches. But somehow, it is hard to find the whistleblower and other information on the Pfizer trials. If anyone wants to see a summary of the data supporting IVM effectiveness:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/SUMMARY-OF-THE-EVIDENCE-BASE-FINAL.pdf

Also, I find this quote explains well what is going on:

“The first step is to give up the illusion that the primary purpose of modern medical research is to

improve Americans’ health most effectively and efficiently. In our opinion, the primary purpose of

commercially funded clinical research is to maximize financial return on investment, not health.”

—John Abramson, M.D., Harvard Medical School

My view is 'no view' after 2 years of the nonsense surrounding it. If it worked it would be in general use. No sane government in the world would have spent what they've had to on vaccines. There is no conspiracy theory, No Big Pharma 'Cabals'- all this nonsense is just made up by people who don't have anything better to do with their time or hold a real job down.

and this remark by @RawBeer:

I believe it has been confirmed to be one of the safest drugs available (for any disease)

Well - so my post remains on the forum I will also just say 'no view'

RecklessToday 12:24 pm JST

You can find reviews on Drugs.com about people who actually took ivermectin for coronavirus. Mixed results. The side effects appear mild such as diarrhea.

The cause of some diarrhea could most likely due to the elimination of parasites. I read of another person who had diarrhea and found eliminated parasites. After his course of Ivermectin, he said he never felt better.

The promotion of the anti-parasite drug ivermectin

Wow, talk about an unbiased headline! The antiviral properties of IVM in vitro are undisputed, and about use as antiviral in humans there are a lot of studies with varying results. Off-label use of drugs with informed consent is common and SHOULD not be political.

It's nowhere @zichi. As we both know. Every 'study' has later been discovered to be fraudulent, fabricated and suspicious in almost every way possible. Just total and utter rubbish. Covid has been VERY present in both my work and personal life in the last 3 weeks during this wave and thus far nobody, however poorly they have felt (and some really have) have taken more than Paracetamol and kept themselves hydrated. No one has feel the need to turn to HCQ or Ivermectin.

Are you suggesting that people are not screened in other trials? 

No, I am clerly saying that this screening is necessary because the drug have inherent risks, ivermecting is specially risky because not everybody has the same tolerance and what is a low dose/kg in a patient is an overdose in another, saying that the drug is "one of the safest" is demonstrably wrong.

Safer than taking a Tylenol.

That is false, because tylenol do not require medical vigilance while ivermectin does.

But of course, any data that goes against the pharma narrative will automatically be labelled as debunked,

That is a well debunked argument without basis on reality. The use of dexamethasone means drugs a thousand times more expensive are not being used, so "goes against" the interests of companies selling those much more expensive drugs, but still dexamethasone had no trouble in demonstrating to be very effective and safe and it is routinely use all over the world in COVID patients. This clearly proves this argument is based only on wishful thinking and imagination.

The reality is simple, scientifically looking for any benefits of Ivermectin resulted in none being found, trying to misrepresent this as some kind of conspiracy by every institution of science and medicine in the world (except one that is trying to profit from it...) is obviously not believable.

But somehow, it is hard to find the whistleblower and other information on the Pfizer trials

It is trivially easy to find this information, what is difficult is to find the mischaracterizations and lies some people built on top of the actual real information, but that is of course desirable, because there is no benefit on having overly exaggerated and deformed information being promoted.

The article is biased. Remember that IVM was recommended as a treatment by Dr. Ozaki and is indeed used off-label by some doctors in Japan. With informed consent as it should be. It is also used by health authorities in poorer countries, see for example here in El Salvador:

https://rumble.com/vmqw5e-el-salvador-free-covid-protocol-kit-with-ivermectin-saving-1000s.html

Doctors should be free to try unconventional treatments with informed consent, this SHOULD not be a controversial issue.

Are you suggesting that people are not screened in other trials? Fact is that IVM (and HCQ) have been used for decades, with billions of doses administered, and the have been established to be very safe is the doses given for Covid. Safer than taking a Tylenol.

This kind of misses the point though. I don't think anybody is arguing that it is dangerous if taken in the correct dosage.

The more important point is that it hasn't been shown to be effective at treating Covid 19. There are very good reasons for us not to approve drugs for uses that they haven't been shown to be effective at.

If anyone wants to see a summary of the data supporting IVM effectiveness:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/SUMMARY-OF-THE-EVIDENCE-BASE-FINAL.pdf

And here are several responses to the claims made by that group on the effectiveness of IVM:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fringe-doctors-groups-promote-ivermectin-for-covid-despite-a-lack-of-evidence/

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes-controversial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505

But , of course, any data that goes against the pharma narrative will automatically be labelled as debunked, invalid, fraudulant, and this negative information will show up on top of Google searches. But somehow, it is hard to find the whistleblower and other information on the Pfizer

So if you can't win on the merits, then yeah why not just invent a conspiracy theory that you have no evidence at all to back up, right? That is way easier.

The antiviral properties of IVM in vitro are undisputed

In clinical use? they are completely debunked until now. There is no useful antiviral property demonstrated for IVM.

Off-label use of drugs with informed consent is common and SHOULD not be political.

It is not political, off-label use of drugs that have been already been investigated and found useless is unethical and unprofessional. Doctors that genuinely care about the patients took the effort to plan and submit for ethical approval a protocol for a human trial of the drug so their data could be aggregated and used to find out if the drug was useful or not. Unfortunately this resulted in finding the drugs is not better than placebo no matter at what timing was used. Trying to ignore these results and persist using is invalid and demonstrate lack of professional capacity and care for the patients.

theResident

My view is 'no view' after 2 years of the nonsense surrounding it. If it worked it would be in general use

Alas, no. The authorities and medical establishment in the West demonized treatment (at least for cheap generic drugs.... the new expensive antivirals from Merck and Pfizer seem accepted) and fundamentally insisted that there is only vaccination and nothing else.

There is a whole range of qualified doctors who disagree with this approach, but they are collectively smeared the media and Western health authorities.

This takeover of the medical profession should worry you more than any particular drug or vaccine.

virusrex

And he did it with old, debunked and invalid evidence, that included reports found to be fraudulent and with fabricated data.

He pointed out that there is an astonishing correlation between low Corona deaths in countries that routinely use IVM as antiparasitic drug (one of the safest and most well known drugs on the market by the way), and those who do not. Those facts have not changed, take a look at a map from Africa.

Ivermectin can be ordered online right now from India for cheap legally, no one has to wait for an overpriced Japanese version coming in Summer from Kowa Pharmaceuticals.

I already got some, just in case. Although we can probably get a doctor's prescription, the most important thing is early treatment. So if ever I have symptoms, I will immediately take it and not wait for the PCR results and seeing a doctor.

https://jp.reuters.com/article/kowa-ivermectin-idJPKBN2K50B7

A study is underway, let's wait for the results.

Meantime, don't take ivermectin unless prescribed by a doctor, agreed?

I am familiar with this industry and there is no financial incentive to conduct expensive clinical studies on an off patent drug to show that it is effective against coronavirus. It may be an academic medical pursuit perhaps.

And yet we have 83 clinical trials investigating it:

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=COVID-19&term=ivermectin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=&Search=Search

I'm not an expert on this, but that seems like a lot. So there would seem to be adequate interest in investigating it regardless of industry financial incentives.

Off label use is very common. Recall some blood pressure drugs had a side effect of hair growth in men, and some hypertension drugs are used for performance anxiety, all off label.

I don't doubt that this happens, but I question the wisdom of, as you seemed to be suggesting in your earlier post, using this fact in itself as a basis for approval independent of actually testing a drug to see if it is effective.

He pointed out that there is an astonishing correlation between low Corona deaths in countries that routinely use IVM as antiparasitic drug

By ignoring the huge amount of evidence that disprove it? and the multiple other epidemiological factors that make his statement invalid? that would be the opposite of a good argument for its use. Ignoring case like in Brazil, where the widespread use of the drug did not reduce the terrible effects of the pandemic is at best proof of deep incapacity at evaluating the literature. Ignoring very pertinent facts invalidates his recommendation.

I've linked this site on Japantoday before and well... you know how that story goes. It has everything... the good, the bad and the meh.

This is a source extensively debunked as pseudoscience.

https://mobile.twitter.com/gidmk/status/1422044335076306947

In general the conclusions require for fraudulent and underpowered studies that find impossible things (as in contradicted by their own results) to be given the same weight as much better and bigger studies that have much more solid methodologies, which is why nobody is taking it seriously. To reduce it for simplicity is like taking 5 studies made in less than 10 people and giving them the same weight as one study done in 10,000 people, even if 2 of the small studies report 12 cured patients out of 10 total.

If the only source you can get to support your beliefs is something so heavily critized you should think why is that. How come no better evidence is available? this indicates more than any single report that ivermectin is useless against COVID.

https://jp.reuters.com/article/kowa-ivermectin-idJPKBN2K50B7

Routers have already retracted this artcle since the company have accepted they have no clinical data of ivermectin benefit.

https://www.newsweek.com/reuters-corrects-ivermectin-anti-viral-effect-omicron-covid-coronavirus-1674854

So if ever I have symptoms, I will immediately take it and not wait for the PCR results and seeing a doctor.

This is the last resource of people that will never accept any knowledge that contradicts their beliefs, actively refuse to accept any evidence that they don't like.

https://jp.reuters.com/article/kowa-ivermectin-idJPKBN2K50B7

A study is underway, let's wait for the results.

The only people at risk from Ivermectin's side effects are people who can't follow simple instructions. 

This is simply stupid.

You do realize that now right?

I guess the question people should be asking themselves is not 'does Ivermectin work?' but what do we humans have to lose by trying?

Actually, no, the question to be asking is still "does Invermectin work?"

https://www.chunichi.co.jp/article/410129

As expected zero clinical data, not even animal studies, just the same low level in vitro "evidence" that would demonstrate any of the other hundreds of drugs that give the same result as "effective"

We have to assume that there are counter opposing forces who both want and do not want Ivermectin to be considered a viable treatment method.

That is unnecessary, the analysis you present has been completely debunked as misleading and self contradictory, lying about the data they present and the conclusions that can be taken from the literature, this means that the much more likely explanation (that your source is mistaken) has already proven true, with the authors making no effort to defend their publication from the criticism that demonstrate is wrong.

The rest of the conspiracy you think explains why nobody can find an effect on ivermectin can be proved false with the humble example of dexamethasone, that represents a huge loss of profit for all the companies that produce and sell steroids a thousand times more expensive but that has been easily recognized as effective and safe for COVID patients. This would be impossible if the "counter opposing forces" you want to believe exist were real.

Is there an alternative? The vaccine hasn't really had the intended effect

The vaccine fullfilled its intended effects preventing COVID in the majority of the vaccinated people and reducing very importantly the disease, complications and deaths, and even acting against infection and transmission. The appearance of variance thanks to the lack of vaccination is something that was at the same time expected and inevitable without improving the vaccination rates all over the world.

IVM's safety is undisputed. But Merck, the initial manufacturer of IVM, rejected IVM's safety despite having produced billions of doses.

Lot's of evidence shows IVM to be effective, yet that evidence never seems to be enough. But interestingly, Merck's new product Molnupiravir was rapidly approved despite it being toxic as %#$Y (shown to be mutagenic and a probable carcinogen) with only two small studies conducted by Merck, with the second one showing no effectiveness, slightly lower than placebo!

Agencies are so quick to jump on expensive drugs (even if ineffective and toxic, Remdesivir is another good example), but for cheap safe IVM, they're never sure enough of its effectiveness, more and more studies are always needed.

IVM's safety is undisputed. But Merck, the initial manufacturer of IVM, rejected IVM's safety despite having produced billions of doses.

undisputed do not mean is non-existent, every medical professional already knows ivermectin comes with risks, specially because of its variable effect on different people, which requires close medical attention (unlike your Tylenol example). that is what is undisputed.

The evidence that proves ivermectin is not useful is more and better than the underpowered, misrepresented and retracted reports that supposedly support the drug, this is why no institution of medicine or science in the world says it is a treatment for COVID, not being able to accept this reality is not the same as demonstrating it is false.

Let us know if you kill 2 birds with 1 stone and find some dead parasites in your commode.

I'm afraid he may kill 3 birds with one stone

Better not wait for symptoms and consult a doctor now for proper guidance on using it just in case.

Also make sure that what you are getting aren't fake medicines, especially those who are buying online

You all know that there are lots of predators out there preying on the unsuspecting population

Too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

LOL

virusrex

undisputed do not mean is non-existent, every medical professional already knows ivermectin comes with risks, specially because of its variable effect on different people, which requires close medical attention (unlike your Tylenol example). that is what is undisputed.

Everything comes with "risks", that is why people should ask their doctor for guidance instead of self-medicating. I.e. Joe Rogan and Dana White did not buy their IVM on the internet, they had it prescribed by their doctors. The "risk" argument is a strawman.

The evidence that proves ivermectin is not useful is more and better than the underpowered, misrepresented and retracted reports that supposedly support the drug,

You keep repeating this like a mantra, however that does not make it true. Here is an overview over 147 studies, 96 peer reviewed, 77 with results comparing treatment and control groups:

https://c19ivermectin.com/

Do not tell us you read them all. Any meta-analysis will be biased and come to different conclusions depending on which studies to include and how to weigh them. The pro IVM experts say the negative studies used the drug in the wrong way (too late, wrong dosis), not following the recommended protocols. I do not know who is right, and neither do you. But I do not take the corporate media narrative as gospel, and neither should anybody.

virusrex

The vaccine fullfilled its intended effects preventing COVID in the majority of the vaccinated people

Do you have a reference for that claim? I do know that "preventing" was the claim a year ago (people got banned from social media for saying that the vaccinated can get infected), but today the claim has shrunk to: "the mRNA vaccines REDUCE the risk of hospitalization for a few months." Nothing any more about "preventing". If you have a current reference to the contrary, please show it.

if anyone needed more confirmation that the Pfizer vaccine has taken on the status of Holy Water, look no further than this thread.

People with absolute no medical authority whatsoever are openly outraged that tests are being done on Ivermectin.

The worst thing that could happen to them is Ivermectin is declared an effective treatment where literally everyone wins except Big Pharma.

They would rather see it declared ineffective than effective because their narrative would break down even further.

These past two years have broken a LOT of people.

Just broke them.

Everything comes with "risks", that is why people should ask their doctor for guidance instead of self-medicating. I.e. Joe Rogan and Dana White did not buy their IVM on the internet, they had it prescribed by their doctors. The "risk" argument is a strawman.

Raw Beer I hope you're reading this.

Don't do this:

I already got some, just in case. Although we can probably get a doctor's prescription, the most important thing is early treatment. So if ever I have symptoms, I will immediately take it and not wait for the PCR results and seeing a doctor.

I guess that "someone" here has written off Kowa and Kitasato University as a bunch of amateur bozos.

I guess that "someone" here has written off Kowa and Kitasato University as a bunch of amateur bozos.

Just curious, what's in those articles about kowa you think were so important?

People with absolute no medical authority whatsoever are openly outraged that tests are being done on Ivermectin.

Nobody in this thread has expressed any outrage whatsoever that tests are being done on Ivermectin. I'm happy that tests are being done.

The worst thing that could happen to them is Ivermectin is declared an effective treatment where literally everyone wins except Big Pharma.

It'd be great if Ivermectin or anything else is shown to be an effective treatment. People simply pointing out that this hasn't happened yet is not the same as wishing it to not be so.

They would rather see it declared ineffective than effective because their narrative would break down even further.

I'm very happy to see a narrative that is wrong be shown to be wrong. But to do that, somebody actually has to show that it is wrong, which hasn't happened yet. Might it happen? Yes, tests are ongoing and they may well prove that it is of some use. If so, great, we need all the help we can get in fighting this stupid disease. But today we don't have that evidence.

Any meta-analysis will be biased and come to different conclusions depending on which studies to include and how to weigh them. The pro IVM experts say the negative studies used the drug in the wrong way (too late, wrong dosis), not following the recommended protocols. I do not know who is right, and neither do you. But I do not take the corporate media narrative as gospel, and neither should anybody.

You should look into a Zoom call Tess Lawrie had with Andrew Hill. Both were strong advocates for IVM. Hill's Ivermectin paper was published 4 days after his university received a 40 million dollar donation from UNITAID. "Hill's conclusion was changed 180 degrees from his position just a few weeks earlier." In the Zoom call, Hill admits that his decision was influenced by UNITAID.

No, thank you!!! I will stick with drugs specifically made for viruses!!!

Wrong. Conflicts of interest are always relevant. Especially when it comes to attempting to bury competitors to leaky vaccines that are becoming less effective by the day, never mind their suspect safety record.

How exactly do yout hink is relevant to Kowa directly accepting they have zero clinical data? would any other company apart from Reuters reporting this fact would magically make some human clinical trial information to be available? Again, your confusion is thinking a conflict of interest is enough to make anything reported automatically the opposite, which makes no sense.

You keep repeating this like a mantra, however that does not make it true. Here is an overview over 147 studies, 96 peer reviewed, 77 with results comparing treatment and control groups:

And again, this is not a valid scientific source, it misrepresents and falsifies the information in order to rest importance to valid studies, inflate the importance of bad quality reports and actively lies and contradict the authors conclusions in some of the articles it chooses to present (not to mention it cherry picks the data to give a false impresion of what the literature actually says). The deficient epidemiological analysis and the lack of criteria to include articles is a clear warning about the lack of scientific rigour and true purpose of the collection. This is well debunked source and it has been so for many months.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/the-anonymous-meta-analysis-thats-convincing-people-to-use-ivermectin/

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

Again, no insitution of science or medicine in the world says ivermectin have showed benefits for patients, this is why everybody repeats it, is the consensus.

Do you have a reference for that claim? I do know that "preventing" was the claim a year ago (people got banned from social media for saying that the vaccinated can get infected)

First of all you need to understand what you want to discuss, getting infected do NOT means getting COVID, infection and disease are two very different things. If 100% of the people get infected after being vaccinated but none of them get symptoms that still means the vaccine is 100% effective preventing COVID.

Reducing the risk of hospitalization is exactly what the vaccines are designed to do, and that applies as well to COVID as to Measles or Polio or any other disease preventable by vaccination.

People with absolute no medical authority whatsoever are openly outraged that tests are being done on Ivermectin.

No such example, people are understandably opposed to people misrepresenting the available evidence to say ivermectin has shown benefit for patients when that is not true. The point is that only true information should be included on a discussion, even if you would like very much for other thing to be correct.

"Hill's conclusion was changed 180 degrees from his position just a few weeks earlier."

Well, his current position is supported by the best available science, it may be surprising for people used to believe religious figures that never change their minds even when proved wrong. But in science everything is reduced to the data and the analysis that can be done about it.

Only very stupid, or bigoted, people are absolutist in either their support or opposition to Ivermectin as an anti-covid medication. It has been shown to have anti-viral properties in the lab and has therefore been deemed worthy of further investigation by the British government. It is currently undergoing very thorough investigation by Oxford University. I am happy to wait for their verdict before pronouncing on its value. Given however that it is a widely used medication and is generally safe to take, there is little harm in people self-medicating with it if they want, but so far it has not been proven to be effective.

The more important point is that it hasn't been shown to be effective at treating Covid 19. There are very good reasons for us not to approve drugs for uses that they haven't been shown to be effective at.

I understand it’s a heated conversation and maybe not every post is read so I’ll post this again.

*Kowa says that ivermectin showed the "same antiviral effect" on all "mutant strains," including Alpha, Delta and Omicron. *The company also noted that ivermectin suppresses invasion of the virus and inhibits its replication.

"[Ivermectin] is expected to be applied as a therapeutic drug (tablet) for all new coronavirus infectious diseases," reads the report.

Now this information came out yesterday, so you can’t really say anymore with sincerity that Ivermectin is not effective.

Now this information came out yesterday, so you can’t really say anymore with sincerity that Ivermectin is not effective.

Yes it can be said, because the data that disproves it comes not only from test done on cells (which is the only evidence that Kowa has) but from clinical trials on human patients. This is a much more important kind of evidence because it is extremely easy to get false positives on cells, anything that kills them also reduce the viral loads so saying something shows efficacy in vitro is like saying one person is able to walk without help, not exactly the kind of evidence that proves he would be a gold medalist in marathon.

At this point the degree of evidence is in placebo controlled human trials, anything less than this means going backwards.

I'm very happy that 'tests' and 'studies' are STILL being carried out on the effects of Ivermectin on Covid19. In these miserable days of early closings and quasi restrictions its nice to brighten up up the day seeing what humorous comments @RawBeer can come up with.

Only very stupid, or bigoted, people are absolutist in either their support or opposition to Ivermectin as an anti-covid medication. It has been shown to have anti-viral properties in the lab and has therefore been deemed worthy of further investigation by the British government. It is currently undergoing very thorough investigation by Oxford University. I am happy to wait for their verdict before pronouncing on its value.

What? It has been widely investigated out of the lab too! In the study I mentioned above ("supported by the best available science") Hill showed that IVM decreased deaths by 75%, but he admitted to have been pressured to conclude that further studies were needed.

And I wouldn't trust anything coming from Oxford. They received massive funds for vaccine development and they are the ones behind the large HCQ study where they gave doses much higher that the maximum recommended dose to patients in the late stage of Covid, instead of the low dose given early. In other words, they clearly designed that study to fail!

Given however that it is a widely used medication and is generally safe to take, there is little harm in people self-medicating with it if they want

True that! It's safer than Tylenol.

What? It has been widely investigated out of the lab too! In the study I mentioned above ("supported by the best available science") Hill showed that IVM decreased deaths by 75%, but he admitted to have been pressured to conclude that further studies were needed.

No that is still not true, he may have thought he showed something but his work is deeply insuficient to refute the much more extensive and complete data that contradicts him. Being "forced" to accept this would talk much more about his lack of understanding how scientific evidence and discussion works.

And I wouldn't trust anything coming from Oxford

You have used sources completely discredited and unreliable repeatedly. Including people that have falsified data, conducted unethical human experimentation and committed fraud for personal profit. If your only requirement to trust something is that it says something you want to believe then that only proves personal bias and double standards.

True that! It's safer than Tylenol.

Since ivermectin still requires medical vigilance to be used safely that is demonstrably false.

True that! It's safer than Tylenol.

Since ivermectin still requires medical vigilance to be used safely that is demonstrably false.

It's sold over the counter in several countries. France stopped that once it was found effective for Covid...

virusrex

Again, no insitution of science or medicine in the world says ivermectin have showed benefits for patients, this is why everybody repeats it, is the consensus.

That would include the medical authorities in El Salvador, Uttar Pradesh, Goa, and yes Japan to a certain degree? They do not count in your "consensus"?

Btw, medicine is never decided by "consensus", it should always be a process of continuous discovery. That is why patients are routinely asked to get a second and third opinion, rather to be referred to an all-knowing authority.

. France stopped that once it was found effective for Covid...

Curious what the source of the above might be. I read this:

The French government has banned the prescription of hydroxychloroquine to treat symptoms of Covid-19 due to serious concerns over health ...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2020/05/27/france-bans-hydroxychloroquine-to-treat-covid-19/?sh=3f3a802721ab

virusrex

Since ivermectin still requires medical vigilance to be used safely that is demonstrably false.

Fact check: Millions of people in some areas in Africa take it routinely once a week as a preventive.

The CDC asks immigrants to take it. You suggest all these people are under continuous "medical vigilance"?

That would include the medical authorities in El Salvador, Uttar Pradesh, Goa, and yes Japan to a certain degree? They do not count in your "consensus"?

Have they published any data to support the value of ivermectin? or is it again a case where they are saying "we are using it because we don't have anything else". There is a huge difference between someone saying they don't have anything better and saying they can prove and vouch for its efficacy. The second case in science comes with data to prove it.

Btw, medicine is never decided by "consensus",

Yes it is, because consensus do not means what you think it means, consensus is the result of the evidence about something being clear and having no significant controversy, which is why it guides health related decisions. Science based medicine (or the lesser evidence based medicine) is precisely acting only according to the best available science, which is usually something where consensus has been reached.

Continuous discovere do not contradict reaching a consensus, what you are trying to force is to endlessly consider debunked, false information, which obviously do not contribute to the discovery of anything.

Fact check: Millions of people in some areas in Africa take it routinely once a week as a preventive.

And they also take contaminated water, do you also think this works against COVID? how about actual data that proves people that take the drug do better than those that don't. That is the least amount of evidence necessary.

The CDC asks immigrants to take it. You suggest all these people are under continuous "medical vigilance"?

Yes, or ethically they should be. But the US is not exactly an example of ethical and professional health related measures (not with a third of all antibiotics used in hospitals for things where they offer no benefit).

virusrex

Have they published any data to support the value of ivermectin? or is it again a case where they are saying "we are using it because we don't have anything else".

That is your speculation. Clearly the medical authorities in Uttar Pradesh, Goa, El Salvador and other places are using it because they have determined that it is beneficial. So where does that leave your claim that "Again, no insitution of science or medicine in the world says ivermectin have showed benefits for patients".

You are discounting those authorities because they are not Western, or something else?

And they also take contaminated water, do you also think this works against COVID?

Irrelevant. I simply addressed your claim that "Since ivermectin still requires medical vigilance" by pointing out that millions of people who do not have the luxury of continuous medicals take it routinely. This simply goes to misleading claims about the safety of the drug.

good for horses, parasites and deplorables XD

We have a saying in America, "There's a sucker born every minute."

Just curious, what's in those articles about kowa you think were so important?

Nothing. Just a serious commitment by serious professionals in serious organizations. Not some voodoo mumbo jumbo by witchdoctors as certain "experts" here would have you believe.

That is your speculation

No, that is my question, you are the one saying they vouch for the efficacy of the drug (so they must have data to prove it) so, where is that data? if not that is just another example of people using something without any evidence and specially without even supporting it efficacy, just its low price.

You are discounting those authorities because they are not Western, or something else?

No, I am asking for a source where they support the value of ivermectin with scientific data. You have provided nothing.

Irrelevant. I simply addressed your claim that "Since ivermectin still requires medical vigilance" by pointing out that millions of people who do not have the luxury of continuous medicals take it routinely. 

And it is as valid as taking antibiotics for the common cold, it is not valid, it is not ethical and it is dangerous, once you reduce your argument to the worst possible examples of how something is being used you make clear your interest is not about improving the health of anybody.

Nothing. Just a serious commitment by serious professionals in serious organizations

No serious commitment at all, they just said it reduces viral titers in cells, which is something already well known and unrelated to the possibility of being clinically useful, the same as hundreds of other drugs that also cause this and are also worthless against the disease.

No serious commitment at all, they just said it reduces viral titers in cells, which is something already well known and unrelated to the possibility of being clinically useful, the same as hundreds of other drugs that also cause this and are also worthless against the disease.

Yeah. If you say so, it must be true.

Is there any reason why its impossible to state that Ivermectin has been officially allowed as a treatment in Japan since last August 13?

Its official. Its been and is being used in Japan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1GF0H9V_1g

Why would this very obvious and key point be hidden?

Reality check: IVM is used and accepted by health authorities in dozens of countries around the world. Common demoninator is that the mainstream media ever report that. See an overview here:

https://ivmstatus.com/

I wonder if our vaccine fanatics think that all the health authorities in these countries are stupid?

It surely doesn’t help against corona, but tell me if you watch side effects like getting a biiig one like a stallion’s. lol

@WilliB: IVM is used, and indeed accepted pretty much everywhere, that is sadly where the facts of your post end. It is Not accepted pretty much everywhere for the treatment of Covid! If you feel the need to use Uttar Pradesh, Goa and El Salvador as your best examples I'm really not sure how you and your kind expect to be taken seriously. Even if we remove the Governments that you consider... What's that word? Shills? Then I would certainly hope for some better examples. Perhaps Singapore or Taiwan? South Korea? Russia?

@master. I can with unequivocally inform you that Ivermectin has not been 'officially' approved for the treatment of Covid in Japan. Ever.

@master. I can with unequivocally inform you that Ivermectin has not been 'officially' approved for the treatment of Covid in Japan. Ever.

Yet its been being administered every day since at least last August.

Better alert the authorities.

Reality check: IVM is used and accepted by health authorities in dozens of countries around the world.

And yet you are completely unable to find even one of them vouching for the treatment, not even one. What do you think this means?

I wonder if our vaccine fanatics think that all the health authorities in these countries are stupid?

What everybody knows (because this is neither the first nor the last time it happens) is that people are desperate enough to use something worthless just so the patients get something done.

Is there any reason why its impossible to state that Ivermectin has been officially allowed as a treatment in Japan since last August 13?

Yet its been being administered every day since at least last August.

Why would that be? it is just one of many baseless treatments that is allowed, but fortunately much less frequently used than other common ones, like antibiotics for common cold. That of course do not make it less of a mistake. One that is done every single day by unprofessional, unethical doctors just so the patients get something, even if it is worse than useless.

Are you referring to the vaccinated? Who were told the vaccine would prevent infection.

By the experts refering to the unevitable variants? absolutely nobody, that is still a false argument only repeated by antivaxxer propaganda.

Why would that be? it is just one of many baseless treatments that is allowed, but fortunately much less frequently used than other common ones, like antibiotics for common cold. That of course do not make it less of a mistake. One that is done every single day by unprofessional, unethical doctors just so the patients get something, even if it is worse than useless.

well, I can go with actual medical professionals here in Japan or one of a million keyboard warriors who say they know better than the professionals.

I think I know whose judgement I'll follow..

Master...

Is there any reason why its impossible to state that Ivermectin has been officially allowed as a treatment in Japan since last August 13?

Its official. Its been and is being used in Japan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1GF0H9V_1g

Why would this very obvious and key point be hidden?

Poor John Cambell, got his Ivermectin info from a conspiracy site.　A shame really as he at least tries to give good information. Got suckered on Japan though.

ivermectin and other mectins are drug tools that Japanese Drs use to treat conditions or illness.

Lots of Studies on Ivermectin and Covid/Sars and many Drs and people using it India, United States, Europe etc.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8765582/

 Of the 223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered for the study, a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis: 113,845 (71.3%) regular ivermectin users and 45,716 (23.3%) non-users. Of these, 4,311 ivermectin users were infected, among which 4,197 were from the city of Itajaí (3.7% infection rate), and 3,034 non-users (from Itajaí) were infected (6.6% infection rate), with a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.53-0.58; p

There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (44 versus 99 hospitalizations among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63; p

Yet its been being administered every day since at least last August.

Really? What are you basing this claim on? I would bet a dollar to a donut you've read some point and concluded the above, whereas if you actually showed us the "data" you based this on, we'd quickly see that no smart person who is able to use logic could come to that same conclusion.

Just sayin'.

well, I can go with actual medical professionals here in Japan

Well, you can find other medical professionals in other countries that also say Ivermectin is a good covid treatement. You know what you don't see? Any actual medial association making the same claim.

So you could go along with rogue medical professionals from any country, or you could look at what the doctors of a country agree. Like intelligent people do!

theResident

@WilliB: IVM is used, and indeed accepted pretty much everywhere, that is sadly where the facts of your post end. It is Not accepted pretty much everywhere for the treatment of Covid! If you feel the need to use Uttar Pradesh, Goa and El Salvador

Why? Because the medical authorities in those countries are inferior?

Any other reason?

Strangerland

Well, you can find other medical professionals in other countries that also say Ivermectin is a good covid treatment. You know what you don't see? Any actual medial association making the same claim

Check the above referenced site: https://ivmstatus.com/

Used in Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Czech Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Thailand, Ukraine, Zimbabwe, and other countries.

Generally countries with low budges for expensive drugs. Are suggesting the medical institutions in those countries are inferiour to our Western, institutions? Why?

Commanteer

Anybody who starts talking about medicines this way is somebody I avoid, whether they are selling the latest "super supplement" or a Scientologist ranting about the evils of all drugs.

In which way, exactly? The proponents of IVM (like Dr. McCullough in the US) do not tout IVM as a "super supplement". The argument is that if it is used early and properly, it can dramatically reduce symptoms and risk of hospitalization.

It is safe to say that the medical authorities in the many countries that officially use it follow a similar thought. I do not believe any of them believe a "super supplement".

And the whole IVM issue is completely unrelated to the question of vaccines, which you can be for or against either way. It is NOT either/or question; only the media try to portray it like that.

I'm not a horse, nor do I have intestinal parasites. I have no use for it until I become one or have the other :)

It is well-accepted in Japan.

Kowa Co. Ltd. is the latest to confirm its effectiveness against COVID, in collaboration with Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Kitasato Institute.

I think it has been used widely in Japan already.

Ivermectin has not been proved effective at the current time. So there would be no reason to use it except for further clinical trials.

I do believe that a focus on finding effective treatments for Covid is worthwhile, but religious pursuit of ineffective treatments is unproductive. There are plenty of trials on different treatments and that should continue.

Of course, the vaccines remain to be your best defence against Covid.