Talk:Ivermectin: Difference between revisions

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{Ivermectin|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{Ivermectin|topic=acas}}	Assyrian, Chaldean, Aramean, and Syriac identity, culture, and politics	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Assyrian, Chaldean, Aramean and Syriac topics
{{Ivermectin|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{Ivermectin|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{Ivermectin|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{Ivermectin|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{Ivermectin|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{Ivermectin|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{Ivermectin|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{Ivermectin|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{Ivermectin|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghurs

COVID-19

This page has clearly now totally jumped the shark. It's cherry picked a single small RCT to report that no benefit was found (since the primary outcome was based on flawed PCR tests that would probably remain positive for weeks) while the study results were actually very positive and the actual study conclusion was "At day 7, there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positive patients (RR 0·92, 95% CI: 0·77–1·09, p = 1·0). The ivermectin group had non-statistically significant lower viral loads at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) and day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) post treatment as well as lower IgG titers at day 21 post treatment (p = 0·24). Patients in the ivermectin group recovered earlier from hyposmia/anosmia (76 vs 158 patient-days; p < 0.001).

Interpretation

Among patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors for severe disease receiving a single 400 mcg/kg dose of ivermectin within 72 h of fever or cough onset there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positives. There was however a marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia, a reduction of cough and a tendency to lower viral loads and lower IgG titers which warrants assessment in larger trials. "

This statement is false: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 24 patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors found no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load between patients who received ivermectin and those given placebo.

I quote directly from the study: the median viral load for both genes was lower at days 4 and 7 post treatment in the ivermectin group with differences increasing from 3-fold lower at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) to around 18-fold lower at day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N)

The study DID find a difference - it was just not statistically significant based on the threshold chosen. Even the PCR found a difference - RR 0·92. If you want to write something negative based on the results of this extremely small study, then write that it was underpowered to find statistically significant difference. Because every single endpoint found a difference showing benefit of Ivermectin use.

If this reporting of results is ok, can we then report all results of all RCTs in an unbiased way on this page? Or is only negative interpretations of under-powered ones permitted?

Why not report on all the cities, states and countries where Ivermectin is now part of their standard outpatient care?

Would there be a way to determine whether Alexbrn has received financial compensation for his "moderation" of this page? Adriaandh (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It is truly shocking the lengths taken to suppress information about this potentially life saving treatment for covid. The WHO and CDC have sat on this cheap safe potential treatment since August, meanwhile promoting an unproven expensive vaccine. Why? This is another tool in the toolbox, yet only negative articles are allowed on Wikipedia. When did Wikipedia become so politicized? Is this source good enough for mention? https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04668469 .2mg / kg is a low dosage proven to be safe, not the nonsense stated in this wiki

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4A80:5870:3910:DA7:2204:1AE2 (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC) 

Incoming edits due to https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/coronavirus-australia-ivermectin-antiparasitic-drug-kills-covid19-in-lab/news-story/615c435e56aefc4b704f4fd890bd4c2c for sure.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.116.241.225 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Right now [48] and [78] are duplicate refs to the same COVID-19/invermectin article. Boud (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Article incorrectly refers to SARS-COV-2 as a negative sense RNA virus. It is a positive sense RNA virus.

On December 8th 2020 Dr Pierre Kory, speaking as a representative of a group of doctors who together have published nearly 2,000 peer-reviewed publications appeared at a meeting of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to plead that the NIH be forced to review the most recent evidence on the use of Ivermectin as a treatment and prophylactic for Sars-Cov-2 and Covid 19. He claimed that the use of Ivermectin on Covid 19 patients had a "miraculous impact", and this description was based on "mountains of evidence that has appeared in the last three months". He pointed out that the NIH's recommendation that Ivermectin not be used outside of controlled trials was made in August 2020, before the "mountains of data" that emerged subsequently. Dr. Kory presented a summary of this data, and the committee chairman Senator Ron Johnson promised to pass this on to the NIH for review.... <https://osf.io/wx3zn/> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq8SXOBy-4w>

It is okay to publish the truth about this drug now, and the results it has proven for Covid Treatment. Now that the marxists that control Wikipedia and all the internet have defeated Trump, the truth can come out. https://buffalonews.com/news/local/2nd-wny-hospital-ordered-to-treat-covid-19-patient-with-experimental-drug/article_f32339f0-5d01-11eb-b752-4f8966804581.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.87.50 (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I would delete this comment per WP:TPG, but perhaps it's instructive to leave it as an illustration of where the pro-Ivermectin boosterism is coming from. Alexbrn (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

AussiePete56 (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable. Would need WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is some more reliable evidence on the effectiveness of Ivermectin in preventing and treating Covid-19 . https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf .

https://c19ivermectin.com/ . AussiePete56 (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable. Would need WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I dispute the claim of "unreliable" by Alexbrn since the two articles are secondary reviews of others' research and therefore qualify as reliable as per the WP:MEDRS guidelines. I notice that the "unreliable" tag was applied to this page three minutes after the links to the two review articles were published - three minutes isn't enough time to read even half of one of the reviews, let alone properly evaluate both. The charge of "unreliable" is therefore itself seemingly unreliable AussiePete56 (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

We need secondary sources in reputable medical journals (or medical textbooks, etc). These are obviously not that, and appear to be self-published web sites. Alexbrn (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Using medical journals , textbooks etc is ideal, but as the guidelines state, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." We are currently in a "war" with a virus which is currently killing nearly 14,000 people a day worldwide - a number which is increasing every day. Information which can save lives is desperately needed. As per guidelines, "Wikipedia's articles are not meant to provide medical advice. Nevertheless, they are widely used among those seeking health information." I maintain that this is clearly a time where an exception to the normal stringent editorial standards should apply. Ivermectin has been taken 3.7 billion times over 40 years and its safety is not in dispute - the only unknown is its efficacy. There is after all, no alternative medicine for Covid 19, and even ventilation in hospital will allow about 23% of patients to die. Surely the "mountains of evidence that Ivermectin works miraculously on Covid 19" that Dr Kory and his team refers to should be mentioned on these pages to allow access to as many medical professionals as possible the information they need to make their own assessments on how to best treat their patients. AussiePete56 (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The current situation is all the more reason why we used the best quality sources, which is why general sanctions apply for this topic requiring WP:MEDRS, of which you have been notified. What you're proposed to add is dodgy (as the word "miraculous" should clue you in to at once). We already cite high quality WP:MEDRS: PMID 33227231. I shall not respond further unless new sources are proposed as this is a clear-cut case. Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

My point is that the information being presented in these reviews IS the "best quality source" available - ie, the very latest real-world studies demonstrating life-saving treatments. Alexbrn didn't even read these studies. 6% hospital deaths versus 23% are the results achieved. Some of these studies lack peer-review which typically takes months - time that these 14,000 people who are dying daily no not have. To give priority to ideological purity over thousands of daily deaths is insane and inhumane. To repeat a point that Alexbrm ignores - 3.7 billion doses of Ivermectin has been taken over 40 years. It is safe. There is only potential benefits to using it and strong and growing evidence supports such use. Allowing this information to be available, together with suitable disclaimers, is the appropriate and responsible decision. AussiePete56 (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

"In November 2020 a meta-analysis found only weak evidence of benefit.[89]"

I propose changing this vague and ambiguous sentence to, "In November 2020 a meta-analysis found a 47% reduction in mortality (statistically significant) for Ivermectin-treated Covid-19 patients, however, due to a relatively small sample size (629 patients) the evidence is considered weak. [1] AussiePete56 (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn The actual meta-analysis linked as reference is much more positive as to the effectiveness of Ivermectin that what is stated in this wiki: There is only very weak evidence of ivermectin's benefit when used as an add-on therapy for people with non-severe COVID-19; there is no evidence for people with severe disease.[85]

Why not just quote the conclusion of the actual meta-analysis? Ivermectin is an established drug with a long history of clinical use and with minimal safety concern. Recent observational studies have reported the effectiveness of this drug as add-on therapy in patients with COVID-19. Our meta-analysis also supports this finding and suggests the modest utility of ivermectin in reducing all-cause mortality and improving clinical outcomes. Currently, many clinical trials are on-going, and definitive evidencefor repurposing this drug for COVID-19 patients will emerge only in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriaandh (talk • contribs) 17:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

}}

"The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19". In the interests of full disclosure, I propose amending this to, "The National Institutes of Health recommended against the use ivermectin for COVID-19 in August 2020". Since then, dozens of research reports on Ivermectin and Covis 19 have been released. Putting a date on the recommendation flags for the reader that it does not necessarily encompass the most recent research. AussiePete56 (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

This would be possible is it was also added "... and is still current as of 2021", because of course such guidelines are under constant review. And we wouldn't want to give the false impression that the NIH is somehow outdated, now would we? Alexbrn (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I would accept your suggestion on a "better than nothing" basis. Do you really think that the NIH's position is not outdated Alexbrn? You always exude the attitude that conformity to authority equals virtue. Do you have any theories on why the NIH, CDC and FDA allocated zero public funds to the investigation of re-purposing existing drugs against Covid 19, and instead went "all-in" on developing novel vaccines? I'm not cynical, but cynics would say, "Because that's where the money is." Many billions of dollars. And the vaccines don't work on patients who already have the virus. And it will take about a year for 80% of first-world countries to get vaccinated, and many more years for third-world countries.

So we're up to 15,000 people per day dying from Covid 19 at the moment, most of whom could be saved on the evidence of dozens of studies that the NIH ignores.... AussiePete56 (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not use Talk pages to push conspiracy theories. As multiple editors have now advised you, WP:FOC. Alexbrn (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

We should try to avoid turning this into a discussion board, and try to focus on reporting what our sources say. Since regulatory bodies routinely change their positions, their prior positions by their own admission were outdated. Teishin (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you have repeatedly referred to the 28 studies which each independently found that Ivermectin works to alleviate Covid 19 illness as "fake" - that sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. AussiePete56 (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Something trying to pass itself off as a journal article, when it's just a self-published web site, is a "fake" journal article. As noted, people sharing it on Facebook get banned. Maybe Wikipedia should do the same. Alexbrn (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no skin in this game. I just saw this chart stating far lower cumulative deaths from COVID-19 in the Mexican state of Chiapas compared to all the others and how that correlates with it being alone amongst them in using Ivermectin: https://twitter.com/Covid19Critical/status/1347721731272830976 (That mention of Ivermectin brought me here.) The correlation may be something which can be readily verified or disproved as it claims to be from public official data and the outcome mentioned on the main page. ― Ralph Corderoy (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

break

Note the imprecise wording of the Invermectin COVID-19 Wikipedia entry: "As of January 2021, the U.S. National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines state that the evidence for ivermectin is too limited to allow for a recommendation for or against its use." This wording does not make clear that ivermection is now a treatment option for COVID-19. In fact, the “neither for nor against” NIH classification is the "recommendation given to monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma, both widely used across the nation." [2] Unfortunately, this clarification can not be made because the COVID-19 section is locked down for edits even from autoconfirmed users--which is contrary to the edit notification for that section. I hope this is just a mistake and not a tragic example of "cancel culture" impacting Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisswiss (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

False quotes

It seems like there are false statements on this page? "there is no evidence for people with severe disease.[85]" -> there is plenty of evidence at least:

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v2 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1579212920302792?via%3Dihub https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)34898-4/fulltext - this notes that "Ivermectin treatment was associated with lower mortality during treatment of COVID-19, especially in patients with severe pulmonary involvement. "

This is a very strong statement to make "there is no evidence" -> could we replace it with something less contraversial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.55.125 (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The statement is WP:Verified by the cited source, which says:

the complication rate and mortality amongst patients with severe disease have been reported to be very high. In such patients the effectiveness of add on ivermectin has not yet been explored

If and when reliable, WP:MEDRS sources appear with different information, Wikipedia can follow. None of the sources you link are WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think you are misinterpreting the source. The quote you include is followed by a footnote number (22) which, (if you look at the last line of the publication) refers to a study published in the Lancet back in March. It is not a reference to this meta-analysis. 161 "moderate to severe" patients were included in this meta-analysis, but they were not segregated into two separate categories, hence the comment, " In such patients (severe) the effectiveness of add on ivermectin has not yet been explored." AussiePete56 (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction is not rebuttal AussiePete56 (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It is. If you are going to make assertions about "footnotes" which apparently follow a given quotation and change its meaning, but on checking the article has no footnotes and nothing follows the quotation other than a paragraph break, then we are in la-la land. Alexbrn (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what prompts you write that. The article has an entire page of references (page eight) which correspond to the footnote numbers scattered throughout the article, 20 such references in the Introduction alone. The reference number in question (22) is located between the last and second-last sentence in that paragraph. AussiePete56 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so you mean the reference number in the middle of the quotation? And that somehow is meant to modify the authors' meaning in the next sentence? That sounds like a stretch. The only thing I can think is that this secondary source is using "severe" to mean more severe (i.e. with complications) than the primary sources, or that the data are insufficient for the authors to consider there has been "exploration" of use of ivermectin in severe cases. Wikipedia could guard against these by having "there is no good evidence for people who have the disease most severely." Or by removing it entirely. Alexbrn (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You're suggesting adding the word "good" in the sentence, "there is no evidence for people with severe disease"? I agree that that would be an improvement. Removing any reference to Ivermectin not being useful to people with severe disease would be better, since there are nine studies showing benefits for people with late stage Covid 19 disease - (average reduction in mortality - 75%) Even the NIH's own Ivermectin page references one such study. AussiePete56 (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Removed. Alexbrn (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation

This sentence seems to be a regurgitation of mainstream media propaganda: In December 2020, American politician Ron Johnson used a Senate hearing to promote fringe theories about COVID-19.[72] Among the witnesses was Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care doctor, who erroneously described ivermectin as "miraculous" and as a "wonder drug" to be used against COVID-19. Video footage of his statements went viral on social media, receiving over one million views.[73]

Where are the reputable scientific studies referenced to prove that they were promoting "fringe theories" about covid? There is a large scientific body of evidence (including the meta-analysis already referenced by this wiki) that shows the effectiveness of Ivermectin. How is that a Fringe Theory?

For this to be an impartial wiki entry (instead of a politicization of treatment for a pandemic) the statement should be:

In December 2020, American politician Ron Johnson used a Senate hearing to promote public discussion about possible early and prophylactic treatment of COVID to try and save lives and reduce stress on the public health system by early treatment, since the late phase of the disease is extremely difficuly to manage.[72] Among the witnesses was Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care doctor representing a group of highly published critical care specialists from major academic medical centers with collectively over 1,000 medical publications. Critical Care Specialist Pierre Kory was so excited about the potential benefits of prophylactic and early treatment with ivermectin that he described the drug as "miraculous" and as a "wonder drug" to be used against COVID-19. Video footage of his statements went viral on social media, receiving over one million views.[73] Mainstream media fact checking sites have jumped on his use of the word "miraculous" and "wonder drug" to discredit everything that he said, while one can argue that a drug that could have saved only 10% of the over 1,800,000 worldwide deaths (i.e 180,000 lives) could be classified as a miracle or wonder drug, Ivermectin has actually been shown to be much more effective than that in some studies, with not a single study not showing at least some benefit, one can easily make an argument for the use of Miraculous and Wonder Drug, especially considering it is widely available, cheap and safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriaandh (talk • contribs) 17:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We work from reliable sources here on Wikipedia, not from original research. If you have reliable sources that support anything you've mentioned above, please identify them. You'll want to review what it means to present a neutral point of view as well. We don't simply dismiss or otherwise ignore high-quality references. --Hipal (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

"We work from reliable sources here on Wikipedia..." So why are we referencing an article written by a reporter with no medical training? AussiePete56 (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RSCONTEXT (followed maybe by WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:MEDRS and WP:PARITY if you're genuinely interesting in understanding). Alexbrn (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Given the impossibility of defining "miraculous", why does Wikipedia waste its time trying to disprove it? Stating that the use of the word "miraculous" was an error makes no sense. It was a piece of rhetorical hyperbole in a spontaneous unprepared speech to the Senate committee. Instead of looking at the data behind Professor Kory's claims, there is meaningless focus on that single word. Citing an article written by an un-named reporter who allegedly asked the opinion of a couple of alleged experts about the speech, falls short of Wikipedia's standards on verifiability and NPOV. AussiePete56 (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia neutrally reflects reliable sources. The "miracle" claim is repeated on the front page of the FLCCCCC web site too. It's this kind of quackery which has raised alarm: another RS is here which might be good to add. Alexbrn (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with the "miracle" claim, Alexbrn calling it "quackery", and defacto "erroneous" the claims of Dr Kory is unwarranted and may be biased. Especially in view of mounting evidence (not conclusive albeit ok) for the positive effect of IVM in both prophylaxis and therapy of covid-19. It is so because Alex accepts the view of 2 journalists and an oncologist as fact (!), against Dr Korry view (who is a proven, highly published lung specialist with already important and universally accepted contributions in covid therapy). I am humbled by the amount of research the team of Dr Marik (the FLCCC protocol is a collaboration under Dr Marik) has published in peer review journals. I give below just some indicative publication statistics:

https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/P.-Marik/3887524 756 pubs, 32900+ citations(!!) In particular covid research: 10+ publications, with already close to 100 citations and 3 highly influential ones.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/P.-Kory/3462977 79 pubs and 826 citations, 10's of highly influential ones. (I didn't bother to check the credentials of the oncologist in COVID therapy, but I'm sure his opinion is much less important, (As for the AP journalists: I reserve my comment for maybe later) Therfore I ask a moderator to replace the "erroneous" with disputed, and to reference the credentials of Dr Marik's team. Artemon ge (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello and best wishes for the new year. We must also remember that it was official policy of the South Africa, and for many years, that AIDS is NOT(!)caused by HIV. So I would be extremely cautious here ,see: AIDS/HIV denialism. The Peru case is more interesting. In WP:RSCONTEXT WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:MEDRS and WP:PARITY I did not see a mention for research results published in clinicaltrials.gov: Is it a reliable source? Artemon ge (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It's ironic that the South African regulatory authority quoted safety concerns for the banning of Ivermectin - after 3.7 billion doses taken over 40 years, the one thing Ivermectin indisputably has going for it is its safety. Even the WHO declares it to safe [[3]]

Prof. Kory was called a quack back in May when he gave his first address to the Senate committee recommending the use of corticosteroids against Covid 19 - that is now standard practise

If we are going to use an unnamed Associated Press reporter as a source of criticism of Prof. Kory's comments, then it should be balanced with a refutation of the same AP article. [[4]] AussiePete56 (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It is really amazing that an APNews article written by a reporter with zero medical background without any references is fine to use as evidence that can shape medical treatment/narrative about a pandemic by wikipedia, but reviews of medical studies by experts in their fields are not. Read URGENT COVID-19 information. Another reputable scientific source stating that Ivermectin is a miracle drug in the context of this pandemic. The thousands of people that could have been saved since this information has been made public is keeping me up at night. I had a certain level of faith in the media and especially in sources like Wikipedia to actually be impartial and not reinforce clearly political hit jobs and smear campaigns against serious medical professions trying to save people's lives. In a few weeks time there will be nowhere to hide anymore and the mainstream media and public health authorities will be forced to accept the facts. All of these news sources that slandered these doctors's good names should make public apologies when that happens, but they won't. They will just act as though all of this is wonderful new information, that the science finally came in blah blah. This singular topic has opened my eyes to the state of the public discourse and so called "reliable" sources of information in the world today. This wikipedia page is shameful and unethical and contributing to unnecessary loss of life. Feel free to delete all of my comments on wikipedia and delete my account since I will not waste my time anymore trying to shape the information contained on these pages for it is clearly a fruitless and meaningless endeavor. I am glad I tried though, as now I know not to trust any of these pages. Perhaps I will come looking for reliable information in the Talk pages if ever I find a requirement to use wikipedia in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriaandh (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin in COVID-19

I edited the section Research/COVID-19 which was reverted by Alexbrn. There were two parts to the edit. The first part of the edit was simply to give the date for that the NIH guidelines on ivermectin were released. That information is on the NIH website. I will insist on my edit unless it incorrect or misleading in some way.

My edit:

The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use ivermectin for COVID-19,[86] in Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines released on August 27, 2020.

Alexbrn version:

The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use ivermectin for COVID-19.[86]

The second part of my edit was related to a meta-analysis of clinical trials on ivermectin.

My contribution was:

A meta-analysis funded by the World Health Organization showed an 83% reduction in mortality in hospitalized patients treated by ivermectin. A presentation of the work by Andrew Hill was given at "Ivermectin Against COVID-19 Collaborative Workshop", December 15-17, 2020, sponsored by MedinCell, S.A..

The contribution was removed in Alexbrn's version

The explanation give by Alexbrn was: "Unreliable source per WP:MEDRS, and misrepresented to boot". The source of information was a talk at a scientific conference on COVID-19. Unless there is a more specific justification of removal of this contribution I am going to insist that it is included. What exactly is "unreliable" and was is "misrepresented"? --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. --Hipal (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, the material that was posted refers to a presentation at a scientific meeting. Is there a specific prohibition against such a reference? On the other hand, the guidelines specifically encourage references to meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. That was exactly the subject matter that I referred to. The quote from the quidelines is as follows:

The best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[12]--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be of great help if you could specifically indicate here on this talk page the reference, what you want changed, and why. --Hipal (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The addition that I made and was deleted by Alexbrn was:

A meta-analysis funded by the World Health Organization showed an 83% reduction in mortality in hospitalized patients treated by ivermectin. A presentation of the work by Andrew Hill was given at "Ivermectin Against COVID-19 Collaborative Workshop", December 15-17, 2020, sponsored by MedinCell, S.A..

The reason for this entry is that the description of this pharmaceutical is missing important information in this Wikipedia article.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. So there's nothing published by a reliable medical source? --Hipal (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I presume your question is rhetorical, but no, the meta-analysis presented at that conference is unpublished. Are you implying that presentations at scientific conferences are categorically prohibited as sources? I don't think anyone is questioning the authenticity of the video.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The "meta-analysis" is neither complete nor published. It's unreliable (and, as Hill sets out, based on poor quality data - which is why they are waiting for better data before finalizing the analysis, which did not "show" anything, other thn an interim result). We should know more later this month. Alexbrn (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials you say is "unreliable", but a since-debunked anonymous-reporter's AP article criticising Prof. Kory is OK?

If "On October 12, 2020 Peru withdrew its authorization to use ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as COVID-19 treatments." is a worthwhile inclusion here, then why is, "In December 2020 the Central American country of Belize announced that it had begun using convalescent plasma and Ivermectin to treat patients of Covid 19 with severe symptoms." [[5]] not also a worthwhile inclusion? AussiePete56 (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This comment is in response to the last comment of Alexbrn:

"It's unreliable (and, as Hill sets out, based on poor quality data - which is why they are waiting for better data ..."

In fact the investigator on the meta-analysis of the ivermectin studies never states or implies that his work is based on "poor quality data". That is a false statement. The investigator gives two reasons for including additional studies. The first reason is that there is the potential for publication bias (at 9:09 in the video). The second reason is to match the number of total patients in a previous clinical trial of Remdesivir in Covid-19 (at 10:24 in the video). Neither reason is based on any known limitation of the current study, but just based on general prudence to include as many studies as is reasonable.

My suggestion is that the reference to this scientific presentation be reinstated in this Wikipedia article. If necessary, the wording can be changed to make it clear that the investigator recommends that additional study be completed before ivermectin use is adopted.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This video is not WP:MEDRS. You are aware of the general sanctions in effect for this topic. We need to wait for more reliable source(s) to appear, which should be soon. Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I don't see how it is reliable. --Hipal (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I modified the statement referring to the NIH guidelines on ivermectin in Covid-19 to be the following:

The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use ivermectin for COVID-19, in Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines released on August 27, 2020.

This edit was removed by Alexbrn who states: "Rmv. as gives false impression guideline is not current. The date is in the reference."

The date is of central importance for these guidelines and should not be disclosed in a reference that most readers will not view. Providing relevant factual information should not be considered controversial. Wikipedia should allow readers to decide for themselves if a given publication date is relevant.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

What is your source for it being "of central importance"? It's very odd to pull bits of a reference into text. You are aware of the sanctions governing this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see any reference supporting such emphasis. Am I overlooking something? --Hipal (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There should not be a requirement to provide supporting documentation to disclose facts in a Wikipedia article. The relevance of the date is that the majority of clinical research in the use of ivermectin in Covid-19 was completed after the publication of the NIH guidelines.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There should not be a requirement But there are. --Hipal (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Right.Wikipedia's sole purpose is to reflect the knowledge of reliable sources. There is a policy: WP:NOR. If you want to present something as WP:WEIGHTy, you need some source as a basis for your argument. Alexbrn (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The use of the Neutral-Point-of-View policy to suppress a publication date from the body of a Wikipedia article is a perversion of the review process. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The point is the guidelines is current and such guidelines are under constant review. Without that context showcasing a date implies it has some special significance. Alexbrn (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You do not have any evidence that the guidelines are under "constant review". That is the implicit bias in the article as it stands. There should not be any presumption about the inner workings of the NIH. Wikipedia should be simply reporting on the known facts.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we're getting into tinfoil hat land now. Like any major health organization, the NIH will of course update its guidelines. It's an explicit process.[6] Anyway, you have your answers. Alexbrn (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a general philosophical comment. NIH is made up of men and women just like the rest of us with competing interests and biases. To be a little more concrete, consider the recent failures of review at Lancet and NEJM - what you might call "major health organizations". The NIH should not be somehow immune to criticism as Alexbrn would have it. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

They're not immune from criticism but they do remain highly-regarded sources of information. The NIH guidelines are greatly respected and written by widely recognized experts. At this point, it's premature to say whether Ivermectin is effective or not. As Alex mentioned earlier, these are "live" guidelines that constantly evolve when new and compelling information arise. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I will make this final comment. As it stands this Wikipedia article is deceptive as it leaves the Wikipedia reader with the impression that the use of Ivermectin in Covid-19 is a lost cause. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia mentions dates for all sorts of things. Dates are facts. I don't see how there can be a policy-based reason for excluding such a fact. Teishin (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the policy-based reason for EXCLUDING the fact of Belize adding Ivermectin to their list of approved treatments for Covid 19, but INCLUDING the fact of Peru discontinuing Ivermectin?

I support the comments of Vrtlsclp. Certain moderators here have abandoned the principle of a Neutral Point of View on this subject. Points against Ivermectin are deliberately emphasised and highlighted, while points in favour are suppressed and minimised. AussiePete56 (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Small fix requested.

In the lede there is a very scary sentence that could do with some tiny adjustment so that the subject is clear. I am not getting involved but figured there are others who have the reference handy and can see if just adding the words "of the parasite" after the bold text would be an acceptable addition.

"It works by causing the parasite's cell membrane to increase in permeability, resulting in paralysis and death.[3]"

Idyllic press (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the spot - have edited. It should be clearer now. Alexbrn (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The addition of the publication date of the NIH Treatment Guidelines is no longer necessary. The addition of the date was intended to imply that changes to the NIH were outdated. That was confirmed today by an update to the NIH treatment guidelines on Ivermectin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrtlsclpl (talk • contribs)

---

RfC about the style of the COVID-19 section

The Wikipedia article states that the National Institutes of Health recommend against the use of Ivermectin against COVID-19. Should the publication date of the NIH guidelines be included in the body of the Wikipedia article?--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• No. Or at least, not without adding some background about how the NIH is regularly reviewing[7] its COVID-19 Recommendations. The push to include a date (to "allow readers to decide for themselves if a given publication date is relevant" as the OP argues on this Talk page) is to imply that the NIH is somehow out-of-date, which is a typical talking point among the ivermectin advocates "out there" on social media.[8] It's a detail, but Wikipedia doesn't want to be playing that game. This is the NIH guideline and it is current, not stale. Alexbrn (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• No No reference is offered, so it appears to be WP:OR. The date is part of the reference, so in that sense the material is already there. --Hipal (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes I propose the following language that should address the concerns of the above Wikipedia editors:

"The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19. Changes to the NIH recommendation were considered by the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel on January 6,2021. No date has been provided for making the determination."

--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

And why would Wikipedia want to link to a churned fringe press release from a zero-reputation website to try and query the NIH (which in Wikpedia terms is a strong RS) ?

@Vrtlsclpl: You're modifying the RfC already? Since it's only the three of us responding so far, I suggest clearly noting at the top of this RfC your new proposal, and not making any further proposals. Use the discussion section below to formulate and discuss any further suggestions, especially potential references. --Hipal (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I propose this language instead: "The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 that were published on August 27. 2020. Changes to the NIH recommendation were considered by the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel on January 6,2021. No date has been provided for making the determination." The second and third sentences are responsive to Alexbrn's conditions. The goalpost here is resolution of the language and we can only get there through proposal and counter-proposal.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Making a stand against mentioning a straightforward fact like a date doesn't seem reasonable. Teishin (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes I agree with Vrtlsclp and Teishin. Adding a date gives more information which is inherently unobjectionable. The fact that the majority of research into Ivermectin was concluded after that date lends that information relevance.

AussiePete56 (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Make a stand for neutrality The COVID-19 section is duplicative with the Misinformation section as it is. I propose the following rewrite, citing international guidelines. Additionally, place a notice on this talk page indicating that on the topic of COVID-19 or ongoing research of ivermectin for this article, changes require discussion before they are published. This article is intended to be a descriptive read about the most mundane of topics; one of thousands of drugs.

=== Misinformation ===

Main article: Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic

There is a false perception that ivermectin is more effective than current guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19. This has led to some countries adopting clinical guidelines for their use at the detriment to patient safety. Additionally, "Injectable ivermectin formulated for veterinary use has also wrongly been used for treatment of COVID-19." "Recommendation Regarding the Use of Ivermectin as a Treatment for COVID-19". Pan American Health Organization. 2020-06-22. Retrieved 2021-01-08.

=== COVID-19 ===

The efficacy of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2 is under study by several researchers. "Ongoing Living Update of Potential COVID-19 Therapeutics: summary of rapid systematic reviews". Pan American Health Organization. 2020-05-08. Retrieved 2021-01-08.

Jdphenix (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I oppose the proposal of Jdphenix. One of the reasons I oppose it is that the meta-analysis is out of date. It was published on May 8, 2020. Also, the comment does not properly belong under this RfC. This survey is limited to a more procedural question of whether a publication date should be included in the body of the Wikipedia article.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I am proposing an alternative to the yes/no question due to the extensive discussion that led to now. My goal is to get the article back to stritly descriptive and verifiable statements. Individual editors don't WP:OWN content on Wikipedia, including the format of an RfC.

I'll let others handle the debate on the weight of international guidelines versus newer but less reliable sources. Have a good one! Jdphenix (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Oddly enough I share some of the frustrations of Jdphenix. I will emphasize that, to this point, none of my edits to this Wikipedia article have been allowed. That is why I raised such a narrowly defined procedural question. Again, the question was whether a publication date should be included in the body of a Wikipedia article.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add that the NIH has met with the specialists on Ivermectin use for COVID and has indicated that they will review the evidence provided and update their recommendation (from August 2020) in February 2021. Currently the statement makes it seem like the NIH recommendation is current and final and any talk about Ivermectin use can be equated to flat eatherism. The only studies cited are very old and seems to be cherry picked to have something that can easily be said against them. Adriaandh (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Adriaandh and support his suggestion, which is similar to Vrtlsclpl's AussiePete56 (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• trialsitenews.com is not WP:RS. Is this covered by any proper reliable sources? I noticed that MedPage Today published something.[9] Alexbrn (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Two sources have been provided thus far that report on the meeting of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines panel to reconsider the Ivermectin recommendation. Here is a third from Newswise.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That's more churnalism. To repeat, is there RS? Alexbrn (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That is an unreasonable objection. Such a meeting is in itself an uncontroversial event, and if three separate medical-news outlets reported it, common sense [[10]] allows it to be accepted as fact. AussiePete56 (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

If you can find a recognized news outlet, then it can be considered. But not self-published websites / press-release mills mirroring dodgy material from the FLCCCCC, who are not trustworthy. WP:WEIGHT is a thing you know. The push to try and retro-fit crappy sources in support of a pre-decided POV is getting tiresome. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This meeting is akin to "business decides to have a business meeting, business matters were considered, but not adopted." The whole mess around COVID-19 repurposing research is worth inclusion somewhere, but not on this article. COVID-19 drug repurposing research#Hydroxychloroquine seems like a better place. I really don't see why individual drug articles need more than a couple of sentences noting that there is ongoing research related to COVID-19, with a link to the re-purposing article. Jdphenix (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Suppose, hypothetically speaking, I categorically oppose all of your suggestions, JdPhenix. Where do we go from there? I think you are objecting to the dryness of the discussion. Since the Wikipedia editors of this page are not able to agree on the prospects for Ivermectin in Covid-19 we can only nibble around the edges.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Disagreements can be resolved by WP:DR. But disagreements needed to be argued from a WP:PAG basis. Jdphenix's arguments are reasonable (even if I don't quite fully agree). OTOH, it is absolutely not the job "to agree on the prospects for Ivermectin" one way or the other. The dull duty of editing an encyclopedia mainly involves (1) Accurately identifying relevant, quality sources and (2) Summarizing them. The problem here is that some editors evidently have got a personal opinion on the "prospects for Ivermectin" and so are askew of their basic editing duties. Alexbrn (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're opposed to all of my suggestions with no counter argument that I can see, then no additional discussions need to be had (between the two of us on this particular topic). We're at an impasse and it wouldn't be resolved without a third-party. (Note - I actually came to this article in response to this being on the RfC list as such a third party.) Jdphenix (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jdphenix: I'm not sure if you're addressing me but I'm not "opposed to all your suggestions"; I'm sympathetic. But I also think we need some "Culture & Society" / misinformation coverage, as this is warranted by the weight of sourcing. You could always try a WP:BOLD edit? Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I was not addressing you. My apologies for the misunderstanding. I'm not going to edit the COVID-19 section or misinformation section during this discussion. It's clear there isn't consensus on how this article should be written, and I appear to be the lone voice in my desired style for it (at this moment in time). Jdphenix (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am going to summarize progress on this RfC to this point with the intent to close this discussion if there is no objection in the next day or so. Of course the general discussion can continue outside of the RfC. I thank contributors for their input. I count two explicit "NO" votes, three explicit "YES" votes. I note two contributors with comments but without explicit votes. I also note that one contributor, Alexbrn, has made a proposal, (paraphrased) that the date of the last meeting of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel can be included but with context. Hopefully there is consensus for the following: The date of the last meeting of that panel is added to the body of the Wikipedia article. If others prefer, they can add in context to accompany that date.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

RFCs generally run for 30 days and need an independent closer, often an admin. An involved WP:NAC would be problematic and disruptive. You also misrepresent my position (which is why we need an independent closer). If the RFC runs to term it's likely more editors will stop by. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Weak no on the one hand, including the date of a review is fine, and we do that with lots of meta-analyses in medical articles. However, our goal here is to give the reader an accurate impression of the mainstream view on a topic. We do that by summarizing what high-quality sources say about the topic. If folks feel the mainstream view is missing something, then that's a problem that should be brought elsewhere (we have a news-focused sister project that I know nothing about; perhaps that's a better place for living on the edge of the news). It seems the purpose of including the date here is to undermine the credibility of the NIH position by making it seem dated, and so I can't support it. If the NIH wishes to change its position, I'm sure it has the ability to do so, and we'll update our article accordingly then. Until then, I'd prefer we just state what the institutes' position is. Perhaps folks can add more detail at a more covid-centric article. But here, it seems somewhat undue. Ajpolino (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The time course of an RfC is not constrained by Wikipedia but I will leave the RfC open. On the comment by Ajpolino that Wikipedia should represent the mainstream view. Agreed. Essentially, the question we are trying to resolve is "What is the mainstream view?". I think that editor may be equating the mainstream view with the view of the US government and the World Health Organization. Other governments view this issue differently. The government of Uttar Pradesh, a large province in India distributed this drug widely for COVID-19. There is also widespread use of this drug against Covid-19 in latin america with official government support in the Dominican Republic and Belize. The province of Chiapas in Mexico has distributed this widely to the population. The "mainstream view" should not be defined to be synonymous with the view of the most powerful organizations.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"I think that editor may be equating the mainstream view with the view of ... the World Health Organization"; that is an incorrect characterization of part of my argument. Based on WP:MEDRS, the WHO is definitely considered a high quality source, and my recommendation above is based on position statements from the same. Jdphenix (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

For better or for worse, I think the medical mainstream is more influenced by large nations' health regulatory bodies (or in NIH's case, health research bodies) than by smaller nations' or states' regulatory bodies. The fact that Uttar Pradesh, DR, Belize, et al. have distributed ivermectin widely for covid is interesting and important. It should probably be described here or (perhaps more appropriately) at some more covid-focused articles. But it's no reason to add a date to our mention of when the NIH's guideline is posted. Ajpolino (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"at some more covid-focused articles"; this is a concise description of my view. Jdphenix (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree we need to avoid a shopping list of countries (/states!?) that approve or ban ivermectin: that way madness lies. And if we do cover it somewhere, we need to be careful not to misrepresent it either by being partial (I notice the ivermectin boosters are quiet about Australia and South Africa), or by skewing what the sources say: in Belize, for instance, it seems Ivermectin is distributed in a bid to head off people dangerously self-medicating with veterinary supplies, not because they believe it's a miracle drug for COVID-19.[11][12] Alexbrn (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• No The date of the NIH guidelines may never change, if the guidelines do not change. As a result, including this information may create a misleading impression that the underlying science informing the guidelines is becoming more and more outdated. In actual fact, the guidelines can be considered entirely up to date, and research conducted since their initial publication has not been sufficient to warrant publishing any different guidelines subsequently. Awoma (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The comment above states that the government of Belize authorized the use of Ivermectin to "...head off people dangerously self-medicating..." That is not supported by their second reference. Here is an extended quote from the reference in that comment:

"But the medical response team along with our Ministry of Health team here we sat down and we revised the research papers, all the articles, everything that we could to look at Ivermectin and its use in other countries and its use in protocols in other countries and we found that it had significant evidence that it has been beneficial in reducing the viral replication – so the multiplication of the virus in your body and some studies have also shown that it has helped with prophylaxis as well. So when we look at the pros and cons with using Ivermectin a decision was made to put it on our protocols for many reasons. It has a significantly high safety profile, it is effective, it is accessible and it is cost effective as well."[13]

Regarding the inclusion of a statement on use in different countries: I hate to drop such a strong card - to include a date in a Wikipedia article is almost the definition of verifiable and relevant. However, if there is consensus around exact language that's fine with me. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

" we need to avoid a shopping list of countries (/states!?) that approve or ban ivermectin... (I notice the ivermectin boosters are quiet about Australia and South Africa)" - Alexbrn.

I heard that for quite some time, South Africa had an official policy that AIDS was not caused by the HIV virus, so their recent decision to ban ivermectin for Covid 19 treatment is perhaps not surprising. As far as Australia is concerned, doctors here are already free to prescribe ivermectin to treat Covid 19, as it is the right of every doctor to treat their patients as they see fit, taking into account the most recent medical evidence.  [[14]] If doctors in the USA are more hesitant to venture away from the official policies of the NIH, CDC, FDA etc, it could be less about concern for patient welfare and more about America's notorious litigious culture. If Wikipedia's official policy regarding medical issues is to report "official" guidelines while ignoring latest research, it could be just following down the rabbit-hole this culture which has resulted in the highest per-capita spend on medicine in the world, whilst delivering vastly inferior results compared to many other countries. [[15]]

Apparently you have an aversion to comparing countries, let alone states, on their decisions about ivermectin and Covid 19, but this one example illustrates why your anti-ivermectin position is so very wrong. Only one of Mexico's dozens of states used ivermectin to treat Covid 19 - see if you can guess which line in this chart represents that state... [[16]]

AussiePete56 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. Wikipedia is by definition behind the ball. We cannot introduce language that could read as potentially middling. If the recommendation changes, then the information will change at that time. Until such as time, this is the current recommendation. Ajpolino mostly already summarizes my view on this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a slippery slope to exclude relevant facts from a Wikipedia article. The only real meter stick is whether something is true and relevant. The "...could read as potentially middling." (meddling?) is not a Wikipedia standard and would be impossible to apply uniformly. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Relevance of this particular meeting is this discussion. I remain unconvinced it's relevant. Jdphenix (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A metaphor if you will - a company considers Java to build it's great new product, but decided something different. Does that company's consideration of Java get included on Java (software platform)? No, it wouldn't. Jdphenix (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A better metaphor would be, that if dozens of studies suddenly confirm that Java users are discovered to have a dramatic level of immunity to an otherwise deadly pandemic sweeping through the world - would that fact get included on Java (software platform? Yes it would.

AussiePete56 (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the meeting of the NIH advisory committee on Covid-19 treatments that was held last week to discuss the use of Ivermectin in Covid-19 (although some in this thread deny that it occurred.) It is significant because a major perception is that Ivermectin in Covid-19 is a conspiracy theory. The simple existence of that meeting dispels that notion. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That is the meeting I was referring to. Those in this discussion raising WP:MEDRS concerns are not doubting that the meeting itself occurred, but if it is worth mentioning. (If there is actual doubt that the meeting itself occurred, why are we burning time on this again?) Additionally, we're not trying to write a piece that corrects misconceptions are certain POVs on what is a conspiracy theory. We're just writing an encyclopedia. You already know my proposal for this article. Jdphenix (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the fact that an NIH Panel met last week to discuss changing their recommendation on Ivermectin for COVID-19 is important. To this point, there has been radio silence in the media on this topic. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And why do you think that might be? Alexbrn (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Various reasons. Herd mentality. Deference to medical establishment. General lack of sophistication in medical research. Fundamentally, it is probably due to the opposition of pharmaceutical companies. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Facepalm Alexbrn (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vrtlsclpl:, I'm not sure how an argument paraphrased as "this meeting was important because the worldwide pharma cabal is suppressing it" enhances your position here. Jdphenix (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. But the skepticism of the positive findings of Ivermectin for Covid-19 boils down to one single article of faith: the pharmaceutical industry would not commit such an atrocity.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll continue this discussion once provided with WP:RS with information about worldwide effort by pharma to suppress COVID-19 therapeutic treatments. Especially take a read over WP:FRINGE. Jdphenix (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

My point is the following: My viewpoint of Ivermectin in Covid-19 rests on a large number of scientific studies. Your argument rests on the belief in the basic goodness of the Pharmaceutical industry. Which of our views is more broadly accepted is probably besides the point and probably also unknown at this point. Vrtlsclpl (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. I'm with Alexbrn on this one, based on the points provided. Idealigic (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

FYI, we've made significant changes to the section in question for this RfC. This diff shows those changes. Jdphenix (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pardon my dust

Hi all, I'm hoping to go through this article to update it and smooth out the writing in the choppier sections (i.e. it flows poorly now). I'll be working in small bursts as I can find some free time. In the meantime, pardon my dust. If you see any issues or have suggestions, feel free to bring them up here. Thanks and happy new year! Ajpolino (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of which, any objection to me trying to trim the infobox a bit to make it more reader-friendly? I'd like to try moving the database links to a separate box in external links similar to how we split disease article links from {{Infobox medical condition}} to {{Medical condition classification and resources}} (for an example, see Buruli ulcer). The rationale is that I'd guess most readers at a major drug's article are probably not biologists/chemists and won't click through to these links. The infobox is intended to give readers a quick-glance summary of key facts from the article, not to store miscellaneous data on the topic (we have Wikidata for exactly that purpose!). If folks don't object, I'll draw up a draft table and we can see how it looks. Cheers! Ajpolino (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ajpolino - in the "Misinformation" section of "Society and Culture", can I suggest replacing the word "erroneously" with "controversially"? Given the vagueness of the term "miracle" it seems wrong for an encylopedia to state that a claim of "miraculousness" is an "error" under any circumstances, let alone when there are at least thirty separate studies that support Professor Kory's claims of ivermectin's "miraculous" effect on Covid 19. [[17]] For the same reason, I suggest that the link to the Associated Press article with the clearly false headline, "No Evidence that Ivermectin is a miracle drug against Covid 19" should be removed as those thirty studies represent a lot of evidence. The article has received criticism for errors in argumentation and fact. [[18]]

 AussiePete56 (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You have RS, saying it might truly be a miracle? Because that's what it'd take to make a "controversy" ... in fact we'd need a good source saying there was a controversy about that. "Erroneous" is factual & WP:Verified. Alexbrn (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless you're claiming that "miraculous" MUST MEAN an actual "Jesus-level" miracle, then the word has to be arguably reasonable in the light of evidence that ivermectin results in an average 85% improvement in a supposedly untreatable illness, according to those THIRTY-ONE studies. Since you are the one making the claim of "an error", the onus is on you to prove that those studies are all wrong. Saying that the claim is "controversial" is being polite - your claim of an "error" is plainly an opinion and shouldn't be a part of an encyclopedia. AussiePete56 (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Not those bloody studies again. They are not reliable. The onus is not on anybody to "prove" anything "wrong"; that is a reversed-burden of evidence (and, incidentally, a hallmark of quackery). We follow the reliable sources, none of which lead any credence to this drug being a "miracle cure", but - to the contrary - say that: there's only weak evidence to support it, and a bunch of maverick doctors touting it, a bunch of credulous believers boosting it. Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the scientific method is exactly that... somebody proposes a theory and if nobody can disprove it, it is a valid theory. You should also provide a way to prove it wrong for it to be a good theory, in this case, one could prove it wrong with a double-blind placebo study. So far, nobody has been able to prove it wrong, to the contrary, it has been proven correct by a plethora of studies (even if they are small and from countries you might not consider should be part of the scientific conversation). You are showing your bias very clearly with this comment.Adriaandh (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Adriaandh, I invite you to read about Russell's teapot and then revise your view of the scientific method to the exact opposite of what you stated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, Really? The Russel's Teapot thought experiment merely emphasizes the importance of the test with which one can disprove the theory (ie. it must be falsifiable That is why it is important to provide a means to disprove your theory, or did you stop reading before that part? What is the scientific method in your mind then? Please explain how this exact opposite scientific method works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriaandh (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the forum for such discussions, but thinking that if someone cannot prove something then it's a valid theory is the opposite of the scientific method. --Hipal (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Good thing nobody proposed that to be it.Adriaandh (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. If "somebody proposes a theory and if nobody can disprove it" ...then nothing. Russell's teapot emphasizes that it's not everyone else's job to disprove the proposed theory. It's the proposer's job to positively prove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Science doesn't prove anything, you propose a hypothesis and the more evidence you can provide to support that hypothesis the more weight it carries. You can however disprove the hypothesis. So far Ivermectin has a huge amount of evidence that support the hypothesis that it is a viable treatment for COVID and there's no evidence to the contrary. It also has an even larger body of evidence that support the hypothesis that it is a safe medication.Adriaandh (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

You're sticking with this?! Please drop it. Your biases against science and for invermectin are very problematic and could result in a ban or worse. --Hipal (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the "Society and Culture" section of the Ivermectin page. You are reporting what Professor Kory said at the Senate Committee meeting. His statement that Ivermectin has a "miraculous" effect on Covid 19 is undeniably controversial, but not "certainly" an error - therefore an encyclopedia should not report it as such. Very straight-forward. To accept that thirty-one properly conducted scientific studies provides significant corroborating evidence for his statement is reasonable. AussiePete56 (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You'll need to bring some sources, rather than making an original argument. What we have is sourced fine. And per WP:PSCI Wikipedia needs to call out pseudoscience/nonsense when it's mentioned. Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Here you go for a source of that, in the discussion section of this Meta analysis done by a respected scientist Ivermectin reduces the risk of death from COVID-19 -a rapid review and meta-analysis: Not only is ivermectin a safe, effective and well-known medicine, at an estimated cost of less than 10 pence per person treated with a 12 mg tablet, it does indeed seem like a miracle drug in the context of the current global COVID-19 situation.

The word "Miracle" us used colloquially, nobody is saying (or thinking that somebody is saying) that god came down to earth and did some magic to create a compound that he then told a doctor in a dream to use for COVID. The bar to clear for a drug to be miraculous during a pandemic killing thousands of people per day is not very high. To me, if it can save a single life, it is a miracle. Especially to that person who it saved and their family. Contrary to that, one can easily say that the media articles that push political views, saying doctors that are saving lives with their treatment are quacks, and anybody promoting and giving credibility to those articles as medical fact are evil.Adriaandh (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Another source for an article where people call ivermectin a miracle drug after their mother survived covid https://buffalonews.com/news/local/after-judge-orders-hospital-to-use-experimental-covid-19-treatment-woman-recovers/article_a9eb315c-5694-11eb-aac5-53b541448755.htmlAdriaandh (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" is defined by Wikipedia as, "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field." It doesn't define it as "not reflecting the policy position of slow-moving bureaucratic Advisory Boards." Thirty-one properly conducted scientific studies all saying the same thing clearly constitutes, "an idea that is broadly supported by scholarship in its field." AussiePete56 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi AussiePete56 and Alexbrn, I haven't made it that far yet, so maybe my thoughts will change on this. My initial inclination is that this whole using-ivermectin-for-covid thing is of lasting importance and should be covered at this article in some way. But the fact that one time a US Senator held a hearing and a physician said some questionable things is probably not of lasting importance to this topic (though perhaps it has a place at some other article). Certainly if all the sources on ivermectin and covid mention this hearing as a turning point in folks' interest in ivermectin for covid, that'll change my tune. I realize that wording is important, so I'll ping you both when I draft something. Sorry for the slow movement; busy times in real life. My hope for this week is to update the other worm uses for ivermectin, the arthropod uses for ivermectin, and then the fact that it's often given as part of mass drug administration campaigns (rather than targeted treatment for those diagnosed with a disease). So I may not get to covid stuff until next week. I certainly have no holy lock on this article, so no need to wait for me for anything y'all wish to add/change. Ajpolino (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ajpolino. Actually, I have been unable to get Alexbrn to allow any changes to this page - even the addition of a factual date is too "misleading" to allow. You seem confident, so best wishes! AussiePete56 (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Another thing Ajpolino... I agree with others that the main place for discussion of Ivermectin's role in treating Covid 19 should be the Covid 19 pages themselves... I notice that there is very little mention of Ivermectin there, even on the "Covid 19 Drug Repurposing Research" page, despite appearing to be far and away the most promising candidate to date for such effective repurposing. I could write something myself but I'm confident that it would be removed. Do you think you could come up with a contribution yourself? AussiePete56 (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I propose removing the link the the wiki about misinformation with regard to Ivermectin and COVID since it contains misleading information without medical sourcing. For promoting the false claims of misinformation it seems to be allowed to use any type of reporting, but no counter points are permitted. Thus it will remain purely an archive or purported claims of misinformation without any discussion or validation of these claims. The first thing people reading about COVID and Ivermectin on the Ivermectin page sees is this link to misinformation which creates a totally false narrative without scientific backing around it.Adriaandh (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a relevant article, so a link seems merited. There obviously is a load of misinformation/conspiracism, etc. out there about ivermectin ("miracle cure", "obliterates COVID-19", etc.), while scientific support is lacking. If there's a problem on reporting on that kind of misinformation, raise it at the target article. Here, it seems good! Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

HAHA, you play a good game! You know full well that you also control that section and that you are keeping it one-sided also. I have added a reference to an article in the Financial Times with a statement from a respected researcher about the fact that Ivermectin has everything aligned to be exactly as effective as the FLCCC claimed it to be, to show how biased the claims of "fake news" are there, which you promptly deleted. So, here, for any other links, you have been saying it requires Wikipedia:MEDRS , but this hogwash regurgitate false statements of "fake news" is ok to link to without any medical information/references or backing. The section on fake news you are controlling there should really be about how the APNews article it links to IS fake news, and how political rhetoric from a democratic senator is now being used as commentary on medical treatment that trumps the opinion of a group of highly regarded doctors treating patients.

For sure you have political (and who knows, perhaps financial) motivations for your moderation of these pages.Adriaandh (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like trolling; time to ignore. Alexbrn (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:VET

This is one of the most popular pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine's scope. Very few editors watch WT:VET's pages, which means that questions may not be answered in a timely manner. If you are an active editor and interested in animals or veterinary medicine, please put WT:VET on your watchlist. Thank you, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

McCullough et al, Rev Cardiovasc Med

@Jdphenix: - Why did you remove the edit I made? The edit is below

Evidence of the effectiveness of Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19 is growing.

References

• I think it's okay to use this source to say something like "36 trials were registered for ivermectin, used alone or in combination, at the end of 2020". The text used "evidence is growing" isn't supportable. Alexbrn (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The text you suggest is OK. Also, to avoid interpretation issues let's just add the text from the article itself:

"There are a number of randomized and prospective studies and all have shown efficacy [of Ivermectin for the the treatment of Covid-19] in clinical outcomes ..."--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I provided the reason for my revert in the edit summary. Feel free to continue to add bulk to this article in a section that already has an open RfC on how that very section is presented. (Sarcasm should be duly noted. I don't support adding any mention of this source or related content.) Jdphenix (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I do see now that you left a note: WP:MEDRS. Can you elaborate though? Also, the RfC was restricted to the question of whether a publication date could be added to the body of a Wikipedia article. There is no reason to lock down the editing of that entire section of the article for the duration of the RfC which may be 30+ days. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The mention of the RfC was sarcasm. Regardless, I'm unconvinced the additional is an enhancement to this article's goal to be part of an encyclopedia. I'm standing on established science, which has already been noted as questionable per earlier arguments in the RfC thread.

My stance here should be known. The section needs to be a short summary. I even think a brief mention of the drug's promise with COVID-19 treatment is fine. Anything beyond a couple of sentences belongs here.

Actually, thinking about it, why not? Let's move most of the content on Ivermectin#COVID-19 there to expand that article's content and keep this one sane. Regardless of the dubiousness of the science here, the research and furor around it is notable for sure. Take a look at Hydroxychloroquine for an example of what I'm afraid of happening here. Jdphenix (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

And there we go. The repurposing article has a new section for Ivermectin now. I want to make sure that my opposition and reason is clear; this is an article about an individual prescription drug. It's dry and boring. Jdphenix (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I will take "yes" for an answer. I added a few words to the sentence in the revision to improve the clarity in the COVID-19 article. As it stands though, there is an incompatibility between the two articles. I don't have a strong position on the relative weight of the coverage of Ivermectin between the two articles. But if the subject is not covered extensively in this article, would there be a clear redirect to the other article? --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vrtlsclpl:, made a big change because I think we're on the same page (or at least close to it, pun absolutely intended!). Let me know what you think. Jdphenix (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm good with that. In the next thread down there another editor is working on revision related to COVID-19. There needs to be coordination there too - I would think their work could just be added to the sister Wikipedia article on COVID-19 drug repurposing.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is better than it was a few days ago for sure. I'd advocate for letting this (single article) sit for a few days to see what other editors' takes on it are. There has been a significant amount of discussion on this one and letting others catch a breath and read up would be in order. Jdphenix (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Review articles for COVID content

These very recent articles might be helpful to people who are trying to get current information into the article:

• Kaur, Harpinder; Shekhar, Nishant; Sharma, Saurabh; Sarma, Phulen; Prakash, Ajay; Medhi, Bikash (2021-01-03). "Ivermectin as a potential drug for treatment of COVID-19: an in-sync review with clinical and computational attributes". Pharmacological reports: PR. doi:10.1007/s43440-020-00195-y. ISSN 1734-1140. PMC 7778723. PMID 33389725.
  • Notes: Proper peer-reviewed, secondary review article. The journal is MEDLINE indexed and ranked 67th percentile by Scopus (=better than two-thirds of pharmacology journals) with a five-year impact factor of 2.8 (good). This is a solid source, and the full text is available free online.
• Martin, Richard J.; Robertson, Alan P.; Choudhary, Shivani (January 2021). "Ivermectin: An Anthelmintic, an Insecticide, and Much More". Trends in Parasitology. 37 (1): 48–64. doi:10.1016/j.pt.2020.10.005. ISSN 1471-5007. PMID 33189582.
  • Notes: Proper peer-reviewed, secondary review article. The journal is MEDLINE indexed and ranked 96th percentile in parisitology and 95th percentile in infectious disease by Scopus (=one of the very best journals for this subject) with a 2019 impact factor of 6.9. This is a solid source from a highly reputable journal, but it appears to be behind a WP:PAYWALL.
• Kinobe, Robert T.; Owens, Leigh (2021-01-11). "A systematic review of experimental evidence for antiviral effects of ivermectin and an in-silico analysis of ivermectin's possible mode of action against SARS-CoV-2". Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology. doi:10.1111/fcp.12644. ISSN 1472-8206. PMID 33427370.
  • Notes: Proper peer-reviewed, secondary review article. The journal is MEDLINE indexed and ranked 59th percentile in pharmacology by Scopus with an impact factor of 2.75 (good). This article is in a reputable journal, but the subject of the article is largely about non-human testing (which WP:MEDRS discourages), and it appears to be behind a WP:PAYWALL.

This is a complete list of all the MEDRS-compliant articles indexed at PubMed for the current month. In terms of what they say, a brief glance suggests that they converge on two key points:

1. There isn't enough evidence to know whether ivermectin produces a clinically significant benefit in people, but it is "promising" (to quote the last paper).
2. There are good reasons to worry that the (very high) dose necessary to produce the antiviral effects in the lab "could be toxic" to patients in real life (to quote the last paper again).

I think it would be a good idea to have this article reflect these recent research papers. This would probably be best done by having one or more of the interested editors sit down and read these papers in full, and then update the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I am supportive of adding references to this article. I took a look at the first two articles you proposed. They seem pretty reasonable. I wasn't able to access the third because of a broken link at the NLM. One thing, between the two articles I looked at, the emphasis is relatively pre-clinical. It might be good to add an article with a more clinical emphasis. Please consider adding this one:

• McCullough PA, et al. (2020). "Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19)". Rev Cardiovasc Med. 21 (4): 517–530. doi:10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264.

Also, you may have noticed in another thread that there is interest, by other editors, in consolidating a couple of related articles on Ivermectin in Covid-19 but that shouldn't affect your proposal in general. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Thanks for that - those all look viable: I shall get reading. Vrtlsclpl The McCullough paper looks less useful - it's a very low impact journal for making claims about clinical efficacy and seems to be suggesting ivermectin as a fallback from HCQ (!?). Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I took a closer look at Kaur et al cited above. It is fairly impressive. I would suggest just including an excerpt from their conclusion:

"Certain studies have highlighted the significance of ivermectin in COVID-19; however, it requires evidence[s] from more Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) and dose- response studies to support its use."

As far a McCullough et al, I would need to know more about the Wikipedia thresholds for inclusion/exclusion.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't advocate for any "magic numbers", but the journal that McCullough's paper appeared in is weak. Scopus ranks it as 23rd percentile in its field. It's impact factor is half the median (again, for that specific field). These are worrying because other research has indicated that journals at the bottom of the pack have a surprisingly high likelihood of plagiarism contents (including unsourced and known-to-be-incorrect content lifted copied from Wikipedia articles). We have stronger sources that are specifically focused on ivermectin; I would encourage us to use those instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Careful! There is so much activity in this area that it's important to always check for outdated information, which in the case of ivermectin for Covid is generally anything over a few months old. Any reviews used must include recent studies in its remit; WP:MEDDATE notes, "editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written" I just noticed the first source was written back in September, and accepted in November...

That rules out the first two sources WhatamIdoing found. Still reviewing...

Apropos removal of the controversy section:

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

References

break

Can I suggest this article published on the NIH's website, "A COVID-19 prophylaxis? Lower incidence associated with prophylactic administration of ivermectin" [[19]]AussiePete56 (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@AussiePete56: that is primary research, and so not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note PMID 33189582 is available in (legitimate) free-to-access form here. As probably our highest quality article source, it should be used. Money quote: "These observations are scientifically interesting, but ivermectin is not yet proven to be clinically relevant for Covid-19 treatment." Alexbrn (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, that comment (from a parasitologist) was specifically related to the theoretical effectiveness of ivermectin against the virus itself, referring to the original research which used far stronger concentrations of ivermectin than has subsequently been found to be needed to be effective in practise. Also, the mode of death in Covid 19 is that the virus provokes an over-reaction from the body's immune system, creating a a cytokine storm which leads to sepsis, pneumonia, multiple organ failure, etc. [[20]] Ivermectin acts as a potent inhibitor of both cytokine production and the transcription of nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB), the most potent mediator of inflammation, so even if ivermectin was found to not kill the virus at normal dosage levels (which is not the case) it's anti-inflammatory benefits qualify it as still "clinically relevant" for Covid 19 treatment. AussiePete56 (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

So let's see. Given given a choice between:

1. A WP:MEDRS source which asserts ivermectin is not yet proven clinically relevant
2. A WP:SPA on Wikipedia who says it is

Which do you think Wikipedia is bound to reflect? Perhaps we needn't bother reading sources, but just say what we want? Alexbrn (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Correction warranted

Please change “Common side effects include red eyes, dry skin, and burning skin” to => “Common side effects when used externally for head lice include red eyes, dry skin, and burning skin” to match source. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I note the effort, but now it's worse. The so called side effects are caused by die-off of parasites in the infected. As it's primarily used on a treat-the-whole-population, most of whom is not infected, and thus are not at risk, they REALLY don't belong in the lede. And they don't belong in the lede - we don't normally put side effects in the lede of Rx articles. Please remove them from the lede. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

???

:Could you link or quote the exact source you're referring to? I couldn't find anything on head lice after glancing at the two sources directly above. TimSmit (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC) The template I used says describe the change you’re requesting ... that’s what I did. I quoted the original text and what I think it should say now. What is there to not understand? what madness! The first quote is an exact exact quote from the article ... the second is what it should say ! Source is the source used in the article to support the quoted text!  ???--50.201.195.170 (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Ah! You confused yourself by putting the word ‘above’ on the end of my sentence. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel’s Statement on the Use of Ivermectin

One week after Dr. Paul Marik and Dr. Pierre Kory – founding members of the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) – along with Dr. Andrew Hill, researcher and consultant to the World Health Organization (WHO), presented their data before the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel, the NIH removed their previous guidance recommending against using Ivermectin, replacing it with neutral guidance which states "The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19." Thank you Alexbrn for removing the biased and inaccurate "Misinformation" section, but I believe it's appropriate to add the fact that the NIH issued updated guidance to the COVID-19 research section. The FLCCC Alliance characterized the situation by saying "Their recommendation has now been upgraded to the same level as those for widely used monoclonal antibodies & convalescent plasma, which is a “neither for nor against” recommen­da­tion. The significance of this change is that the NIH has decided to no longer recommend against the use of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 by the nation’s health care providers. A consequence of this change is that ivermectin has now been made a clear therapeutic option for patients." A better summary of the state of COVID-19 Ivermectin research, including a mention of the best peer-reviewed RCTs and the observational studies in areas where Ivermectin is widely used would be appropriate (given that this section is labeled "Research", and that we would not be reaching any conclusions).Tvaughan1 (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Per previous discussion any detail on this is now at COVID-19 drug repurposing research. Alexbrn (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

As Tvaughan1 seems to be stating, the update to the NIH guidelines is an extraordinary development. As Wikipedia editors, hopefully we can make a positive contribution by helping the public better understand this therapy. As always we would welcome further editors - especially those with more hard-core clinical expertise --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say it was a routine development. Guidelines get updated in response to changes in the underlying evidence all the time, and it has happened a lot during the pandemic. Anyway, the relevant page is now updated. Remember, although Wikipedia reflect accepted knowledge, it never gives medical advice. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the first appropriate step in response to the NIH decision would be to add a section to this article titled: "Medical Uses/COVID-19". Since there have been contentious discussions on editing this article I will first ask for consensus on addition of that section and also for some baseline text.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Haven't we just been through a long process of discussion that resulted in shifting this content to the repurposing article? I would strong oppose reversing that, especially since the sources say ivermectin has no clinical relevance for COVID-19. Alexbrn (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to add a COVID-19 subsection to Medical uses. As long as this is an investigational, off-label use, it belongs in the Research section and elsewhere (ideally, the repurposing article). If and when reliable evidence emerges and this use becomes established *and approved by regulatory agencies*, then addition would be appropriate. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 06:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the editor mentions "regulatory agencies". The editor needs to be more specific. Which regulatory agency in which country? --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC about the addition of a section entitled Medical_uses#COVID-19

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion was closed because it has a WP:SNOW chance of resulting in a meaningful change to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs)

---

On January 14, 2021, the NIH changed their recommendation on the use of Ivermectin in COVID-19. The updated recommendation states "...currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19." This recommendation is now the same as for the widely used monoclonal antibodies & convalescent plasma. Is it appropriate to add a section entitled Medical_uses#COVID-19 ?--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, although it unfortunately doesn't mean anything: not yet known to be harmful or beneficial for the treatment of COVID-19. It could be used to highlight that uncertainty, but the current sentence already says that it's under investigation. —PaleoNeonate – 20:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I think some context is in order. For the vast majority of pharmaceuticals the NIH does not recommend for or against their use. And for the vast majority of the off-label uses of the pharmaceuticals, there is insufficient data to recommend their use. It would be good to hear from someone who has a more firm understanding of this issue, though.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS:

Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be cited to imply wide acceptance. For example, results of an early-stage clinical trial would not be appropriate in the Treatment section on a disease because future treatments have little bearing on current practice. The results might – in some cases – be appropriate for inclusion in an article specifically dedicated to the treatment in question or to the researchers or businesses involved in it. Such information, particularly when citing secondary sources, may be appropriate in Research sections of disease articles. To prevent misunderstanding, the text should clearly identify the level of research cited (e.g., “first-in-human safety testing”)

While this particular use is still in the early stages of research/clinical trials, it does not belong in the Medical uses section. If the NIH guidelines made a recommendation for use, that would be another beast entirely. A non-recommendation either way does not warrant mention. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 07:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Fvasconcellos. Non-recommendations should generally not be included. If we did include it, it should be written in plain language, which I believe would be the opposite of Vrtlsclpl's goal. We would have to say that the NIH says there no scientific proof that it works for COVID-19, and that the NIH does not recommend that people with COVID-19 take it, and that the NIH says you'd have to very large ("100-fold") amounts of the drug.

An overdose of ivermectin can permanently kill brain cells. Overdoses of ivermectin can kill people. Please, stop pushing this. The science isn't there, and Wikipedia shouldn't get behind this hype. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Overdoses of ivermectin can kill people - Indeed.[21] Alexbrn (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

We should metion overdose here as the amount being advocated is just nuts.--Moxy 🍁 16:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Honestly? We need to stop opening RfCs every time a study comes out or something gets updated. We're not trying to be in sync with current events. We're not trying to provide a glossary of all studies done on this drug or any drug. We're just trying to be an informative neutral resource.

The round and round discussion that goes the same way, again and again, seems awfully pointy. Are we wikilawyering? I think we are. Jdphenix (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposals

Per WP:MEDRS, the updated information does not warrant a new section in Medical Uses. A lack of a recommendation is not noteworthy. Additionally, there are sound concerns about the dangers of overdose and inappropriate administration of veterinary formulations of this medication.

As such, I propose that there are no changes made to imply that ivermectin has a medical use for COVID-19. Jdphenix (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of link: "Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic § Ivermectin"

I removed a link from the COVID-19 section to an article on misinformation since it implies that the potential application of Ivermectin to COVID-19 is misinformation. @Fvasconcellos: stated that there was consensus to have a link from the COVID-10 section to an article on misinformation. We can survey again but I don't believe that there was consensus. In any case, the link is no longer appropriate since the NIH has just recently removed their recommendation against the use of this therapy in COVID-19.[22]--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That link has nothing to do with the NIH guidelines. The corresponding section in the Misinformation article regards the Congressional hearings. There continues to be misrepresentation and misinterpretation of WP:MEDRS in this article and elsewhere. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 06:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? What congressional hearings are you referring to? Can you also be more specific about "misrepresentation and misinterpretation"? --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Dr Kory of the FLCCC Alliance presented evidence on 8 December 2020 before the US Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on "Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution, Part II". It is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq8SXOBy-4w&feature=youtu.be, and a longer and fuller version is here https://vimeo.com/490351508. Dr Kory asked the Hearing to request the NIH to review the data urgently. The NIH has done so and the link is not to the Congressional hearing but to a Press Release which reads that the FLCCC "presented their data before the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel, the NIH has upgraded their recommendation on ivermectin, making it an option for use in COVID-19." Far from it being an "unreliable source" it is the very source {the FLCCC} upon which the NIH changed its recommendation to approve the use of Ivermectin. The sentence should be reverted, although it could have been better worded to read: "the NIH now approves Ivermectin as a therapeutic option." Ergateesuk (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's fine as it, with text properly WP:Verified. Wikipedia won't say "the NIH now approves Ivermectin as a therapeutic option" because it would be blatant misinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn it seems to me that you have misinterpreted "approves" to mean "recommends". Ergateesuk (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The recent update to the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines could be described as a "neutral" recommendation. It is also important to understand it's significance. As I have explained in the Talk section at Coronavirus disease 2019, the significance of the update to the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines can be accurately summarized as follows: "NIH has removed its recommendation against the use of Ivermectin in COViD-19". That is a fair description because the recommendation confers on Ivermectin the same status as two other therapies in wide use in the US: Baricitinib and Convalescent Plasma. All have US FDA approval. Most importantly, this is an earth-shattering development for those who have insisted that Ivermectin for COVID-19 is the domain of fringe conspiracy theorists. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia needs to be sourced, and Wikipedia is not going to adopt the unsourced framing and narrative of those touting this stuff: the ivermectin-as-miracle-cure quackery is still widespread out there on the webs, as are the conspiracy theories. Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for anti-viral applications, so saying it has "FDA approval" in the context of COVID-19 treatment would be misleading. Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Your word against Peter McCullough's, Vice Chief of Internal Medicine, Baylor University Medical Center. I interviewed him by email and I share that below without editing except to remove contact information and to highlight one sentence. He was aware that the purpose of the interview was for updating this article so there is not a problem with sharing it publicly. I am disclosing my name so that there are less concerns about conflict of interest and that I stand behind my views in a real sort of way.

Snipped private communication
Removed private communication from talk page. To paraphrase, it was a private exchange between a Wikipedia editor and the author or a source from this article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrtlsclpl (talk • contribs) 17:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You should have asked him why his review was so crappy! In any case, letters are not reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

And posting it without permission could be a both a copyright violation and a breach of trust. You did ask first, didn't you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No copyright/disclosure issues. Please focus on the issue at hand.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

So you got permission to publicise this on Wikipedia? Please confirm, clearly. Alexbrn (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There are now two published statements that explicitly recommend that physicians should now consider prescribing Ivermectin for patients with COVID-19: [23] and [24]. Wikipedia is now taking an extraordinarily controversial position to imply that Ivermectin use in COVID-19 is misinformation and elsewhere has made the decision to exclude Ivermectin from the COVID-19 treatment options. Here are minimal remedies:

• Remove the link to misinformation from this article. At the least it is outdated.
• Add Ivermectin to the treatment section at Coronavirus disease 2019.

OR

• Remove the "Medications" section at Coronavirus disease 2019 entirely.

In general, Wikipedia tries to stay away from giving medical advice. The absence of Ivermectin from the COVID-19 medicatons list might suggest to the reader that this medication is less acceptable than those that are on the list. To be a little more specific, in the comparison between Ivermectin and Baricitinib, two medications with the same NIH recommendation: why is Ivermectin is excluded from the medications list while Baricitinib is included? I am agnostic about the latter two options but obviously the current state is not neutrality. It is full blown advocacy.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You're linking to junk sources again: that self-published promo site, and McCullough weak review. And you didn't answer the question about permission - which could become a serious issue. You need to answer. Alexbrn (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I noticed that the email interview with Peter McCullough I attached has been hidden. It appears as a collapsed green box. Is there any way to undo that?--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the full text of the email interview. I echo concerns about copyright. There's no indication that Dr. McCullough agreed to contribute this material under WP's licensing. Jdphenix (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19, spread-out discussion, and conflicting content

We now have multiple concurrent discussions on ivermectin in COVID-19 across the talk pages of multiple articles, and conflicting information in each of those articles. While this use remains experimental, the core of our content should remain at the Ivermectin section of COVID-19 drug repurposing research. I have thus transcluded that content into the Research section of the present article in the hope of centralizing discussion and avoiding duplication of efforts/information conflicts. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 07:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Please remedy your ignorance of the reality that it's standard practice, not experimental, in much of the world.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

The 10,000 fold number mentioned in the COVID19 research section is incorrect. It should be 70-80 at most. The number is a miscalculation. The max lung concentration is about 0.082 micromolar, while the IC100 is 5.6 micromolar. 5.6/0.082 is 68.3. From: https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/cpt.1889 "Even with the high lung homogenate:plasma ratio, ivermectin is unlikely to reach the IC50 of 2 μM in the lungs after single oral administration of the approved dose (predicted lung concentra-tion: 0.0873 μM) or at doses 10× higher that the approved dose administered orally (predicted lung concentration: 0.820 μM; " 32.210.242.73 (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure when that figure was added, but I have removed it due to WP:SYNTH/WP:NOR concerns. It is unsupported by the currently cited sources (one of which fails WP:MEDRS, by the way). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 05:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Remove "Based on this data, however, doses much higher than the maximum approved or safely achievable for use in humans would be required for an antiviral effect". Fails WP:MEDRS. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext is a better source for WP:V info on ivermectin. The Lancet. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, at https://www.ft.com/content/e7cb76fc-da98-4a31-9c1f-926c58349c84, the WHO-funded ivermectin stats researcher is quoted:

“ “The purpose of this report is to forewarn people that this is coming: get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve it,” Dr Hill said. “We need to be ready.” ”

That's apropos https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-148845/v1_stamped.pdf.

6 meta analyses, 53 studies - listed at https://c19ivermectin.com/ - and all have positive findings - but we're still calling claims that it stops covid-19, "misinformation". Tantamount to mass murder - more and more so the longer this goes on. Even the NIH has changed its view to say ivermectin use against covid is acceptable - even though it appears to me it had to lie about the data in order to avoid coming out even more strongly in favor of ivermectin.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I am procedurally answering this to note that the content in the COVID-19 section is being piped in from COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research#Ivermectin, so you need to make your edit request at that Talk page.

As for the Chaccour trial, thank you for the link. I will add it to the relevant section. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, the {{Excerpt|COVID-19 drug repurposing research#Ivermectin|nohat=y}} code. You still could have handled the request. Obstructionist, it feels. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Not obstructionist. You made an administrative request; I am WP:INVOLVED in content issues on both pages. I am trying to maintain objectivity. An uninvolved admin should assess this. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Chaccour trial, wording "patients who received ivermectin" should be rewritten as "patients who received a single dose of ivermectin"; most other studies administer several doses of ivermectin. Then, why do you write "no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load", while they observed lower viral load actually? "A marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia, a reduction of cough and a tendency to lower viral loads and lower IgG titers". And finally, the authors conclude "This pilot points towards a potential use of ivermectin in COVID-19" but this section impresses quite the opposite. Is it some anti-ivermectin prejudice or what? Vlpast2 (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A tendency, i.e., not statistically significant. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Please create a new edit request, with what exactly should be changed with rationale. Jdphenix (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

There's adequate specificity. I.e. Regarding the Chaccour trial, wording "patients who received ivermectin" should be rewritten as "patients who received a single dose of ivermectin"; most other studies administer several doses of ivermectin.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

In the Covid 19 section the last sentence reads, "the government of Peru rescinded a previous recommendation for the use of ivermectin (alongside azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine) in hospitalized patients." A couple of days ago, it was reported that the government of Peru decided to reverse its position and once again include ivermectin in its kit for patients with Covid 19 [[25]] AussiePete56 (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Are we going to start a list of every government action related to Ivermectin across the world? Should be "fun". Jdphenix (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, it would undermine the falsehood that ivermectin is only being used in research at the moment - aren't we supposed to publish truth without bias? AussiePete56 (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Aparrently not, some think. Anyway, please remove. Doesn't meet MEDRS. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done:

Wikipedia isn't a list. The fact that a doctor decides ivermectin is a good idea for COVID-19 treatment isn't notable by itself. This Extra source itself states that the doctor's opinion is that evidence by reputable studies is weak, but Leonardo Inga mentioning studies without references to which ones were used as a basis for his opinion.

One procedural note. The content we're discussing is included from COVID-19 drug repurposing research#Ivermectin, so the discussion probably is best suited there. Thanks! Jdphenix (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't "a doctor" making the decision, it was the collective decisions of the Peruvian Ministry of Health and the Peruvian Government's Social Health Insurance Scheme. Jdphenix's decision to leave the reference to the original outdated since-reversed decision is obviously preposterous. Since certain editors here have an ideological commitment to never mentioning any positive association between ivermectin and Covid 19 treatment, I suggest just remove the entire sentence. The mistake needs to be corrected both here and in the "drug-repurposing" area. AussiePete56 (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The text is clear that the rescinded recommendation refers to hospitalized patients. The "reversal of position" (actually nothing of the sort) refers to outpatient use. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The headline of the article clearly indicates a "reversal of position" [[26]] so I propose that the sentence which currently reads, "and the government of Peru rescinded a previous recommendation for the use of ivermectin (alongside azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine) in hospitalized patients" should have added to it, "although ivermectin is still prescribed for outpatient use." AussiePete56 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Go here COVID-19 drug repurposing research#Ivermectin, be bold, and remember WP:BRD. I'd expect to see some back and forth before anything about this is included, but it's literally not in this article. Jdphenix (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anti-covid use edits

Also, folks, its use against covid is already standard practice, not experimental, in much of the world, though clearly that makes some people angry and even in denial. Don't be US-blindered.

And I'll add: I'm not here to edit an article on the topic of misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic to the encyclopedia, or a section of this article on that topic. So don't tell me I have to. Don't tell me I have to anything - that's not how we are supposed to talk to each other.

The idea that animal use is primary is absurd. About 3.7 billion human doses. Prevents millions of cases of river blindness, malaria (partially), covid (according to people who aren't ignorant)... Please revert Fvasconcellos last edit.

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done No source given, and content here is transcluded from the COVID-19 drug repurposing research article in any case. Alexbrn (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency

"A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 24 patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors found no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load between patients who received ivermectin and those given placebo, thus failing the primary outcome of the study.[75]"

This addition was recently added to the Covid 19 section of the ivermectin page. When I have proposed mentioning other Randomised Controlled Trials investigating ivermectin's potential use in treating Covid 19, I have been reminded that it is against Wikipedia's ban on Original Research [[27]]. What is the difference here? . AussiePete56 (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm in two minds whether we should have this. Any use of primary sources must be careful. In particular, they need to be consistent with secondary sources and not be used alone for any kind of strong claim (treatment benefits or harms, e.g.) Since this source is consistent with the secondary sourcing, and makes no surprising claims (no effect is, after all, the default assumption) this use is not problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"consistent with the secondary sourcing...". What "secondary sourcing" are you referring to? The meta-analysis which found "weak evidence of benefit"? How is "no effect" consistent with "evidence of benefit"?

Also, the phrase, "no difference found in viral load" is not supported by the study, which says, "the ivermectin group had non-statistically significant lower viral loads at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) and day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) post treatment as well as lower IgG titers at day 21 post treatment (p = 0·24)." This was repeated in the "Interpretation" - "(the ivermectin treated group showed) a tendency to lower viral loads and lower IgG titers" as well as "a marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia, and a reduction of cough" . AussiePete56 (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems well-summarized to me, and consistent with the secondary source (essentially: "meh, probably doesn't work"). As I say I'm on the fence about this. Let's see what others say. Please WP:INDENT your posts. Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

When I suggested this study [[28]] for mention on this page, you didn't invite others' input - your reply was blunt and uncompromising - "@AussiePete56: that is primary research, and so not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)" - Now all of a sudden, you have discovered philosophical flexibility regarding the use of Original Research. There are at least 17 other Randomised Control Trials which show strong statistically significant efficacy for ivermectin's use against Covid 19 which you ignore, but you want to cherry-pick and highlight the one with the smallest sample size, and the only one with no statistically significant outcomes of any kind. Why? AussiePete56 (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Per MEDRS, you can't use primary sources to go against secondary ones. As for consensus, well, it can change. I'm all for that. Alexbrn (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you please explain, why your secondary source is "meh, probably doesn't work" and not [[29]] eg.? By definition, "A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, make recommendations, or combine results of several studies". How come "meh, probably doesn't work" is this thing and meta analysis of 35 studies is not? Vlpast2 (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Some faked up document from a bunch of Maverick doctors is not a reliable source. The systematic review we cite, by contrast, is. Alexbrn (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not a "systematic review" - it's original research. THIS is a systematic review... [[30]] (pg. 15)" This review and meta-analysis confirms that ivermectin substantially reduces the risk of a person dying from COVID-19 by probably somewhere in the region of 65% to 92%. The only uncertainty in the evidence relates to the precise extent of the reduction, not in the effectiveness of ivermectin itself.... This is a profoundly effective COVID-19 treatment." AussiePete56 (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

PMID 33227231 is a systematic review. The PDF you post is another faked up document, apparently coming from a one-director Ltd company "consultancy" in the UK. The increasing use of dodgy documents, Youtube, etc. by the Ivermectin cult is increasingly make this look like full-on woo. Alexbrn (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Everything that contradicts your prejudices is labelled "fake". The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy is a highly regarded organisation which counts the British National Health Service and the World Health Organisation among its clients. Its director's peer-reviewed publications have received over 3,000 citations and her ResearchGate score is in the top 5%. This is a perfectly legitimate meta-analysis and is far more qualified to be included in Wikipedia than your tiny 24 person trial which fails WP:MEDRS AussiePete56 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:MEDRS for what constitutes reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes - primary sources don't qualify AussiePete56 (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)