Coronavirus: Thread

grarpamp grarpamp at
Sat Sep 4 19:40:40 PDT 2021

> ivermectin

Why All The Fuss About Ivermectin?

First hydroxychloroquine, now ivermectin, is the hated deadly drug de
jour, castigated by the medical establishment and regulatory
authorities. Both drugs have been around for a long time as
FDA-approved prescription medications. Yet now we are told they are as
deadly as arsenic.

As a physician, I am certainly aware of ivermectin but don’t recall
ever writing a prescription for it in my 30+ years’ medical career.
Ivermectin is an anthelmintic, meaning it cures parasitic infections.
In my world of ophthalmology, it is used on occasion for rare
parasitic or worm infections in the eye.

Ivermectin was FDA approved in 1998 under the brand name Stromectol,
produced by pharmaceutical giant Merck, approved for several parasitic
infections. The product label described it as having a “unique mode of
action,” which “leads to an increase in the permeability of the cell
membrane to chloride ions.” This suggests that ivermectin acts as an
ionophore, making cell membranes permeable to ions that enter the cell
for therapeutic effect.

Ivermectin is one of several ionophores, others including
hydroxychloroquine, quercetin, and resveratrol, the latter two
available over the counter. These ionophores simply open a cellular
door, allowing zinc to enter the cell, where it then interferes with
viral replication, providing potential therapeutic benefit in viral
and other infections.

This scientific paper reviews and references other studies
demonstrating antibacterial, antiviral, and anticancer properties of

This explains the interest in this drug as having potential use in
treating COVID.

Does ivermectin work in COVID?

I am not attempting to answer that question, instead looking at
readily available information because this drug has been the focus of
much recent media attention. For the benefit of any reader eager to
report this article and author to the medical licensing boards for
pushing misleading information, I am not offering medical advice or
prescribing anything.  Rather, I am only offering commentary on this
newsworthy and controversial drug.

What’s newsworthy about ivermectin? A simple Google search of most
medications describes uses and side effects. A similar search of
ivermectin provides headlines of why it shouldn’t be taken and how
dangerous it is.

YouTube screen grab

The Guardian describes ivermectin as horse medicine reminding readers
considering taking the drug, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow”,
saying it’s a medicine meant for farm animals. The FDA echoed that
sentiment in a recent tweet, adding “Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” their
word choice making it obvious who the tweet was directed to.

Perhaps the FDA didn’t realize that Barack and Michelle Obama often
used the term “y’all” and that some might construe the FDA tweet as

The FDA says ivermectin “can be dangerous and even lethal,” yet they
approved it in 1998 and have not pulled it from the market despite it
being “dangerous and lethal.” Any medication can be “dangerous and
lethal” if misused. People have even overdosed on water.

It is true that ivermectin is also used in animals, as are many drugs
approved for human use.

This is a list of veterinary drugs with many familiar names of
antibiotics, antihypertensives, and anesthetics commonly used by
humans. Since these drugs are used in farm animals, should humans stop
taking them? That seems a rather unscientific argument against
ivermectin, especially coming from the FDA.

And healthcare professionals are not recommending or prescribing
animal versions of ivermectin as there is an FDA-approved human

Does ivermectin work against COVID? That is the bigger question and
worthy of investigation, rather than reminding people that they are
not cows.

A study published several months ago in the American Journal of
Therapeutics concluded,

    Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials
of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant
reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral
clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis
trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with
the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of
ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide
decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent
effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

To my knowledge, these 18 studies have not been retracted, unlike
previous studies critical of hydroxychloroquine which were
ignominiously retracted by prestigious medical journals like The
Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Yet the medical establishment refuses to even entertain the
possibility of some benefit from ivermectin, castigating physicians
who want to try it in their patients. 18 studies found benefit. Are
they all wrong?

Podcaster Joe Rogan recently contracted COVID and recovered within
days of taking a drug cocktail including ivermectin. Was it his drug
cocktail, his fitness, or just good luck? Impossible to know but his
experience will keep ivermectin in the news.

Highly unvaccinated India had a surge in COVID cases earlier this year
which abruptly ended following the widespread use of ivermectin, over
the objections and criticism of the WHO. In the one state, Tamil Nadu,
that did not use ivermectin, cases tripled instead of dropping by 97
percent as in the rest of the country.

This is anecdotal and could have other explanations but the discovery
of penicillin was also anecdotal and observational. Good science
should investigate rather than ignore such observations.

The Japanese Medical Association recently endorsed ivermectin for
COVID. The US CDC cautioned against it.

There is legal pushback as an Ohio judge ordered a hospital to treat a
ventilated COVID patient with ivermectin. After a month on the
ventilator, this patient is likely COVID free and ivermectin now will
have no benefit, allowing the medical establishment to say “see I told
you so” that it wouldn’t help.

By this point, active COVID infection is not the issue; instead, it is
weaning off and recovery from long-term life support. The early
hydroxychloroquine studies had the same flaw, treating patients too
late in the disease course to provide or demonstrate benefit.

These drugs have been proposed for early outpatient treatment, not
when patients are seriously ill and near death. Looking for treatment
benefits in the wrong patient population will yield expected negative

Given how devastating COVID can be and how, despite high levels of
vaccination in countries like the US, UK, and Israel, we are seeing
surging cases and hospitalizations among the vaccinated, we should be
pulling out all the stops in treating this virus.

Medical treatment involves balancing risks and benefits. When
FDA-approved medications are used in appropriate doses for appropriate
patients, prescribed by competent physicians, the risks tend to be
low, and any benefit should be celebrated. Instead, the medical
establishment, media, and regulatory authorities are taking the
opposite approach. One has to wonder why.

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list