It is possible to bring clarity to the ivermectin debate
As of the end of 2016, scientists published a study of adverse reporting on ivermectin contained in VigiBase. This global database, with information originating in 125 countries, contained just 1,668 reports regarding ivermectin covering more than 30 years of administering more than a billion doses.
A quarter of all reports were for itching and another 20% for headache and dizziness. The scientists identified 48 reports of serious neurological effects for clinical review. Two patients died. One asphyxiated five days after a dose. The other was in septic shock with multiple-organ failure when parasites were found and treated with ivermectin. That patient never recovered. The handful of patients remaining may have been subject to a number of issues such as the presence of other diseases, drug-on-drug interactions, a genetic mutation of their mdr-1 gene, or high loa loa parasite presence. These numbers are so low that they have no statistical significance.
And for calls to poison control centers? Well, ivermectin tastes terrible, as in really, really bad, even when covered in apple flavoring, so that might account for some of it. Another study in NIH's database reports that an acute toxic dose is about 250 times the therapeutic dose. That's around 60 vials of horse paste. 'Nuff said?
Secondly, medical research exists in part to find usable medicines, for prevention, treatment, and cure of disease. Finding a new drug is time-consuming and requires genius to recognize potential, diligence to carry on the repetitive work to uncover utility, and millions of dollars over 10 to 15 years of testing and trials. Most drug trials do not lead to a viable product.
Thus, it is both medically and financially prudent to re-examine drugs already in use for "repositioning," "repurposing," or "off-label" use. The advent of A.I. in the pharmacological field has sent medical research leaping and bounding in this area. The costly and time-consuming safety trials are already completed on in-use compounds. Anyone truly seeking to help people would of course opt for sooner rather than later, and proven safe rather than pending. Effectiveness requires a much shorter duration of testing.
As of the end of 2016, scientists published a study of adverse reporting on ivermectin contained in VigiBase. This global database, with information originating in 125 countries, contained just 1,668 reports regarding ivermectin covering more than 30 years of administering more than a billion doses.
A quarter of all reports were for itching and another 20% for headache and dizziness. The scientists identified 48 reports of serious neurological effects for clinical review. Two patients died. One asphyxiated five days after a dose. The other was in septic shock with multiple-organ failure when parasites were found and treated with ivermectin. That patient never recovered. The handful of patients remaining may have been subject to a number of issues such as the presence of other diseases, drug-on-drug interactions, a genetic mutation of their mdr-1 gene, or high loa loa parasite presence. These numbers are so low that they have no statistical significance.
And for calls to poison control centers? Well, ivermectin tastes terrible, as in really, really bad, even when covered in apple flavoring, so that might account for some of it. Another study in NIH's database reports that an acute toxic dose is about 250 times the therapeutic dose. That's around 60 vials of horse paste. 'Nuff said?
Secondly, medical research exists in part to find usable medicines, for prevention, treatment, and cure of disease. Finding a new drug is time-consuming and requires genius to recognize potential, diligence to carry on the repetitive work to uncover utility, and millions of dollars over 10 to 15 years of testing and trials. Most drug trials do not lead to a viable product.
Thus, it is both medically and financially prudent to re-examine drugs already in use for "repositioning," "repurposing," or "off-label" use. The advent of A.I. in the pharmacological field has sent medical research leaping and bounding in this area. The costly and time-consuming safety trials are already completed on in-use compounds. Anyone truly seeking to help people would of course opt for sooner rather than later, and proven safe rather than pending. Effectiveness requires a much shorter duration of testing.
