This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ivermectin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.
Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials.( May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) ( WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings.( July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) ( WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
Shall we mention the results of this trial? https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230105005896/en/MedinCell-Announces-Positive-Results-for-the-SAIVE-Clinical-Study-in-Prevention-of-Covid-19-Infection-in-a-Contact-Based-Population Pakbelang ( talk) 08:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Should(n't) the decision concerning the drug's use be mentioned? Here's an article about it: Fifth Circuit sides with ivermectin-prescribing doctors in their quarrel with the FDA | Courthouse News Service = https://www.courthousenews.com/fifth-circuit-sides-with-ivermectin-prescribing-doctors-in-their-quarrel-with-the-fda . Kdammers ( talk) 16:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Can we have a list of countries selling oral Ivermectin over the counter for humans or animals?
En .wiki article of Ivermectin now says:
Legal status CA: ℞-only US: ℞-only/ EU: Rx-only (UK not mentioned at en . wikipedia, but Rx-only also there)
Each EU country decides independently, which drugs are Rx-only, which are over the counter medicines. Are we sure Ivermectin (oral or topical) isn't over the counter in some EU country or in other European country?
I heard one can buy ivermectin tablets in some countries (in global south only?) at airports from vending machines, one doesn't even need to visit a pharmacy to buy it? And one doesn't even need to leave the airport, if one visits such airport and such country only to buy the medicine.
Because of growing Scabies problem in Europe, and side-effects of topical lotions, there is growing interest for better availability of scabies drugs. Topical scabies lotions: difficult to apply everywhere on body, bad smell, skin irritation and dying and smell of clothes.
91.159.188.106 ( talk) 16:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
The FDA over played their hand and has had to walk it back. The repeated mention (3 times) of the conflict between invitro dose concentration and practical dosing is not meaningful. All the invivo studies that have shown benefit have used typical treatment doses. There has never been a call to use high doses so claiming this is why it does not work is spurious.
The "You are not a horse" comment was in bad faith, the FDA had no right to say it and has been ordered to remove it, this should be made very clear.
While Wikipedia is in thrall to the pharmaceutical industrial complex and global politics their credibility is in freefall and until they decide to clean house they position as puppets of the globalists is plain for all to see. [ Trickle Truthing] is not what encyclopaedias are about.
Wikipedia was captured, the editors were played it is time to earn the trust of humanity again.
87.95.122.66 (
talk) 13:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
unactionable Rant.
|
---|
Wikipedia is participating in a propaganda campaign against Ivermectin. This is not speculation or hearsay, it is systematic. Wikipedia is parroting the false narrative of toxicity and overdosing that the FDA, CDC and WHO pivoted to in 2020/1 after Ivermectin was found to be of great value in treating SARS-CoV-2, before that it was known globally as a very SAFE drug by the developers and all health regulators. A drug that was cheap and had an extremely good safety profile for 30 years, had been dosed safely in excess of 3 billion doses with less than 8000 recorded adverse drug reactions as shown in the [ VigiAccess] database in the decades it has been monitored in contrast to the plethora of adverse events with other popular treatments and prophylactics such as acetaminophen, remdesivir, baricitinib, bamlanivimab and comirnaty. Those using it to treat in frontline clinical care or research did not need and were not using the in-vitro concentrations, they were using between 1x and 3x times the standard dose depending on the Covid-19 variant under treatment. Trying to insinuate that SARS-CoV-2 treatment needs an ESTIMATED large dose that is 35x the norm when no one is using or proposing such a dose is not encyclopaedic knowledge, it is misinformation or in this case propaganda disinformation. A 100x overdose is non lethal. Wikipedia has been co-opted as a propaganda mouthpiece and right thinking editors want it to change. Why does an out-of patent, safe, cheap and effective drug for SARS-CoV-2 treatment have scary warnings about toxicity but the patent, less safe, less cheap, less effective drugs get a free pass on Wikipedia? Some soul searching is in order. Upper management has been lying to the editors at Wikipedia. The secondary sources are NOT AUTOMATICALLY TRUSTWORTHY when they conflict with primary sources and this policy of [ appealing to authority] has been used as a tool to corrupt the content of Wikipedia to follow political and multinational economic interests in opposition to self evident facts. All the primary sources can be seen at the live review site that is banned for collating medical research. You can look at all the studies easily collected and relevant details extracted and interesting severe failures and conflicts of interest also noted on linked pages. Much of the Wikipedia commentary (for sadly it is not encyclopaedic knowledge) relies on studies that are clearly not up to scientific standards yet get a free pass because some unelected three letter health agency makes claims that they are best of breed. The site
c19early.org should be required reading for anyone who wants to edit any Wikipedia page relating to any treatment for SARS-CoV-2 to verify the secondary sources as a sanity check. If a source contradicts over 100 studies then the source is SUSPECT, not the 100+ studies.
|