Oldgator73
Well-known member
Are you saying another article indicated the AMA said do not use ivermectin for anything?
Remember when_
- Thread starter Ray-IN
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Chef Duane
Well-known member
Actually, the AMA said they do not approve of using Ivermectin in humans for COVID "... outside of a clinical trial."
www.ama-assn.org
There have been clinical trials of Ivermectin use in humans that have shown positive results.
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines" states:
"Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."
But then there are these findings:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869 that state:
"Treatment with Ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of lower admission to a hospital due to progression of COVID-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of COVID-19."
So as with most things in life, it's a crapshoot. If you want to take Ivermectin go right ahead. (I would suggest only under the supervision of a physician.) There is some credible evidence that it is effective for treatment in the early stages of Covid. But there is also some evidence that says it's not. And it's probably not going to help if you already have an acute case of Covid.
I guess it comes down to a matter of personal choice. But at least there is that choice.
AMA, APhA, ASHP statement on ending use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19
Physician and pharmacist groups oppose the prescribing or dispensing of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial.
www.ama-assn.org
There have been clinical trials of Ivermectin use in humans that have shown positive results.
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines" states:
"Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."
But then there are these findings:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869 that state:
"Treatment with Ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of lower admission to a hospital due to progression of COVID-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of COVID-19."
So as with most things in life, it's a crapshoot. If you want to take Ivermectin go right ahead. (I would suggest only under the supervision of a physician.) There is some credible evidence that it is effective for treatment in the early stages of Covid. But there is also some evidence that says it's not. And it's probably not going to help if you already have an acute case of Covid.
I guess it comes down to a matter of personal choice. But at least there is that choice.
Last edited:
Oldgator73
Well-known member
I’m pretty sure the AMA and credible institutions determined ivermectin was not a drug of choice for COVID. I’m do not know who was the person or persons that first suggested it or why they did. But I do know that some folks were given false hope because of misinformation/disinformation concerning the treatment of COVID.Actually, the AMA said they do not approve of using Ivermectin in humans for COVID "... outside of a clinical trial."
AMA, APhA, ASHP statement on ending use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19
Physician and pharmacist groups oppose the prescribing or dispensing of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial.
There have been clinical trials of Ivermectin use in humans that have shown positive results.
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines" states:
"Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."
But then there are these findings:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869 that state:
"Treatment with Ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of lower admission to a hospital due to progression of COVID-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of COVID-19."
So as with most things in life, it's a crapshoot. If you want to take Ivermectin go right ahead. (I would suggest only under the supervision of a physician.) There is some credible evidence that it is effective for treatment in the early stages of Covid. But there is also some evidence that says it's not. And it's probably not going to help if you already have an acute case of Covid.
I guess it comes down to a matter of personal choice. But at least there is that choice.
Babe2201
Well-known member
A lot of people say the same thing about the vaccine when it comes to false hope.
Chef Duane
Well-known member
Obviously it's not the primary drug of choice as there are other treatments a physician would try before Ivermectin. But it could be used in combination with other preferred treatments. And while the AMA "strongly opposes" its use against Covid they have not openly stated not to use it. (see above). And there are credible institutions that have determined that "Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease." (see above).
The important point is its effectivity in treating potential worsening of an early infection, and that one has the choice to use it if desired.
Babe2201
Well-known member
You are correct and I know people that used it with very good results. I think sometimes if you follow the money you can also see why certain things are not recommended.
Oldgator73
Well-known member
I don’t know what you consider “a lot” to be but I would posit the only folks that claim false hope are the ones that refused the vaccine and those unfortunately those that experienced severe side affects.
Oldgator73
Well-known member
I am very skeptical when someone makes statements like this.
Chef Duane
Well-known member
I am very skeptical when someone makes statements like this.
Oldgator73
Well-known member
It’s okay to be skeptical. However: it’s not so much what you have to learn if you accept weird theories, it’s what you have to UNlearn. (Isaac Asimov)
Tulecreeper
Well-known member
No sir, not what I said.
Tulecreeper
Well-known member
Bingo...
Oldgator73
Well-known member
How did the AMA phrase it to cause so much ambiguity amongst the many?
Isaac-1
Well-known member
This whole issue of using existing drugs vs a dedicated new treatment can be traced by one particular press conference early on in the pandemic where Donald Trump and various medical experts were on stage, and Trump suggested exploring the use of existing drugs to fight covid as at that time a vaccine was expected to be 18+ months away, and he was basically lynched by the medical establishment, including the experts that were on stage with him, and accused of suggesting people inject themselves with bleach, which if you watch the statement in its entirety is not what he was literally suggesting (context of a statement is important, it is not just about the sound byte)
The medical experts stance at the time was VERY clear, this is a NEW virus, so NO existing treatment will work, instead we MUST spend Billions of dollars inventing a new vaccine / treatment, and even any research into testing effectiveness of existing drugs should not be done as it would distract from their goal even though millions of people would die while waiting on their new treatment / vaccine.
Note I am not saying Ivermectin worked or did not work, I am just saying the medical establishment including the government agencies had a knee jerk reaction from the start that NO existing drug should be considered as a possible treatment, even though at the time they still knew little about the virus or how it worked. As a result these agencies took a stance of any alternative view other than theirs must be crushed, that included views on masking, closures of businesses / schools, treatments, and everything else, no dissenting views could be tolerated no matter how minor.
The medical experts stance at the time was VERY clear, this is a NEW virus, so NO existing treatment will work, instead we MUST spend Billions of dollars inventing a new vaccine / treatment, and even any research into testing effectiveness of existing drugs should not be done as it would distract from their goal even though millions of people would die while waiting on their new treatment / vaccine.
Note I am not saying Ivermectin worked or did not work, I am just saying the medical establishment including the government agencies had a knee jerk reaction from the start that NO existing drug should be considered as a possible treatment, even though at the time they still knew little about the virus or how it worked. As a result these agencies took a stance of any alternative view other than theirs must be crushed, that included views on masking, closures of businesses / schools, treatments, and everything else, no dissenting views could be tolerated no matter how minor.
Babe2201
Well-known member
It’s okay to be skeptical. However: it’s not so much what you have to learn if you accept weird theories, it’s what you have to UNlearn. (Isaac Asimov)
Tulecreeper
Well-known member
Because the only thing a lot of people saw was, "The AMA, opposes use of ivermectin.", and ignored the "as a means to treat covid" after that. I listened to people interviewed on TV in man-on-the-street interviews being asked if they would consider taking ivermectin (no mention of covid), and many said they would not because the AMA does not recommend ivermectin. They didn't specify "as a treatment for covid", they simply said they would not take ivermectin leading me to believe that they understood the AMA to say "no ivermectin"...period. I heard it a lot.
Wasillaguy
Well-known member
They wanted the public to shun ivermectin completely, and not just to sell vaccines. Ivermectin and other wide spectrum antibacterial drugs show great promise as treatment and/or preventative for many chronic diseases, including many types of cancer. A big chunk of the health industry's money making is threatened if a cheap and plentiful treatment is available to the masses.
To this day, no pharmacist in my state will fill a prescription for ivermectin as a prophylactic. Gotta get it by mail.
To this day, no pharmacist in my state will fill a prescription for ivermectin as a prophylactic. Gotta get it by mail.
Oldgator73
Well-known member
Not the AMA’s fault that some folks are ignorant.
Oldgator73
Well-known member
Who are they?
Babe2201
Well-known member
You are right about that. The only thing we disagree is on which folks are ignorant.
