Talk:Ivermectin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

False claim that ivermectin doesn’t work for Covid.

WP:MEDRS is required. This is not a forum to complain about politics. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Disgusting and false claims that ivermectin is not efficient against Covid while over 100 members of Congress were treated for Covid with it, a 250 million people region in India is now Covid FREE because of the wide use of ivermectin. Get you fact straits and stop brainwashing people. 69.114.74.138 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC) clpo13(talk) 22:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC) So? we needed RS saying it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Sources? Any? Erick Soares3 (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC) https://c19ivermectin.com/ and https://c19early.com/ for comparison with other medication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.65.58.124 (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Currently, 18 January 2022, based on 75 studies form 710 scientists - 83% improvement in prophylaxis, 66% improvement in early treatment, 40% improvement in late treatment. Of course used as part of an early treatment strategy as prescribed by a good non-brainwashed doctor. Are these RS?Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC) No they're agitprop. In any case this topic is covered at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic, and merely transcluded here. Alexbrn (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC) agitprop? It's scientific journal articles by scientists? lol. Yes, Ivermectin is hundreds of dollars cheaper than Paxlovid, Molnupiravir, Remdesivir, etcetera *sad face* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.65.58.124 (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC) c19ivermectin.com is not a "scientific journal article by scientist". It's a load of crap dressed up to fool people into thinking it is legit. Actual scientists have commented on it, however, and this is covered at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit

Hello @Alexbrn: Merely a reminder that you may have forgotten something in this edit. There is nothing wrong with your edit however your summary says you meant to add another source. Invasive Spices (talk) 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the Laing source already cited. I don't think we need another to say what ivermectin is. Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove the paragraph about covid 19 from under the heading adverse effects and give it a separate heading. Ie. Covid 19

Remove the paragraph about covid 19 from under the heading adverse effects and give it a separate heading. Ie. Covid 19

Edit opening sentence - delete 'while' and just begin with Ivermectin.

Consider expanding. 1.124.105.231 (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The article already has two sections devoted to COVID. Alexbrn (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Ivermectin effectiveness

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.

---

The article claims that "During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation has been widely spread claiming that ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[20][21] Such claims are not backed by credible scientific evidence."

This is easily proven false. The American Journal of Therapeutics states that "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin:" https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx. A meta-analysis of 77 different studies suggests that "Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance:" https://ivmmeta.com/ivm-meta.pdf. So, Wikipedia is going on record claiming that all of these dozens of studies are not credible? That in itself doesn't sound very credible.

There are also a number of ongoing studies look at the effectiveness of Ivermectin against Covid. One is at Duke University (https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20220121/ivermectin-potential-covid-19-treatment-studied-at-duke-university),

The safest, truest thing to say at the moment - given the latest data (the citations in the article are almost a year old, and research has been ongoing) - is that there is a difference of opinion in the professional community on the subject. Is it wise to exclude data because it does not fit a predetermined political agenda? When people who are genuinely concerned try to do a bit of research, and after reading the Wikipedia page happen upon one of the above studies, it immediately brings into question the legitimacy and potential bias of the entire Wikipedia platform. Claiming that "The highest quality sources (1 2 3) do not support Ivermectin as an effective treatment for COVID-19" only suggests to the reader that the article authors may have been unduly influenced by confirmation bias, and excluded data that did not fit their predefined ideas, because the source was not "highest quality," whatever that means. It is notable that the very first citation here (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full) states that "Currently, evidence on efficacy and safety of ivermectin for prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and COVID‐19 treatment is conflicting." So the statement in the Wikipedia article is only half true - yes, they don't support Ivermectin, but neither do they not support it.

I urge you take make an appropriate change to prevent Wikipedia's reputation from becoming even further tarnished than it already is. The reports on this subject are conflicting and the jury is still out. Isn't it best not to second guess the science, and just accurately report the current state of the research?

dn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.145.150.237 (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2022 (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.

Studies showing effectiveness of Ivermectin against Covid

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.

---

The article clearly violates NPOV at present, and it's unclear why multiple studies showing effectiveness of Ivermectin in treating Covid are not included at all. The present summary in the relevant section not only qualifies as violating NPOV, but is overtly false. I was very surprised to see something so demonstrably false, especially seeing as this is a controversial subject matter.

Here are four different studies --

Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19 [1] (New Microbes and New Infections journal)

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines [2] (American Journal of Therapeutics)

Ivermectin shows ‘antiviral effect’ against COVID, Japanese company says [3] (Yahoo News link, the study itself is in Japanese)

Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching [4] (Cureus Journal of Medical Science)

Can someone explain the specific reasoning for not balancing the article by including credible published research by scientists? 87.208.148.99 (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2022 (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.

Peer reviewed sample size 223,128

Background: Ivermectin has demonstrated different mechanisms of action that potentially protect from both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and COVID-19-related comorbidities. Based on the studies suggesting efficacy in prophylaxis combined with the known safety profile of ivermectin, a citywide prevention program using ivermectin for COVID-19 was implemented in Itajaí, a southern city in Brazil in the state of Santa Catarina. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of regular ivermectin use on subsequent COVID-19 infection and mortality rates.

Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching

The above is an encyclopedia, scientific fact. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:A07F:33D0:5981:578A (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable source per WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It's reliable per the NIH. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35070575 It is an RS scientific encyclopedic fact. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:683B:C15:95DC:C9A8 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The NIH has no power to decide what is a reliable source for use in Wikipedia. It has all sorts of studies. This one is a primary study and therefore not WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

New? peer-reviewed study

According to an article behind a pay-wall in The Epoch Times, which Wikipedia does not consider reliable, there is a new, peer-reviewed study indicating that iv. is an effective COVID prophylactic . Because the cited study is not identified in the portion of the article viewable without paying, I don't know anything about the study. Maybe it is a recycling of an old one, but the Feb. 1 , 2022 headline says it is a new study. Perhaps someone can find out more. "New Study on Ivermectin ‘Should Convince Any Naysayer’: Dr. Pierre Kory" By Zachary Stieber and Jan Jekielek February 1, 2022 Updated: February 1, 2022 164.47.187.32 (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• It's the same study as mentioned in the "Peer reviewed sample size 223,128" section above. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It's the same study as listed here on the NIH website. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35070575/ yet for some unknown reason is still missing from the page.2601:46:C801:B1F0:683B:C15:95DC:C9A8 (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

    Probably because appearing in PubMed does not indicate any aspect of reliability here. Lots of very unreliable studies (many of which are not peer reviewed) are also available on PubMed. It is not a particularly good measure of the reliability of the study. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

    Indeed. A primary source in a low-quality journal is the opposite of a reliable source for biomedical claims. Rather, Wikipedia requires WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

    Bring WP:SECONDARY. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  none of the secondaries are good so far [5]—blindlynx 18:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct, The Epoch Times is not a reliable source. Also, the study linked above is completely accessible without a paywall. For the same reasons others here have explained, it's not a good enough source for inclusion in the Wikipedia article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

While the full text of the article is available online—i won't link it because primary sources shouldn't be used per wp:RSMED—the journal it is in is known for fast pre publication peer review and an emphasis on post publication peer review, further underscoring the need for secondary wp:RS to report in on this—blindlynx 22:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

All of the secondary sources citing this study are unreliable, depreciated or blacklisted. With the exception of Yahoo news that pans the study [6]—blindlynx 14:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Bryant, Lawrie, et al. – epilogue

I notice the the American Journal of Therapeutics has finally issued expressions of concern against this review (and the Kory one) which Wikipedia has been steadfastly holding out against because of their WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims made in the context of the WP:BESTSOURCES. I have edited Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic accordingly, and with luck we should now stop seeing requests to include these blessed articles!

References

Alexbrn (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

Remove OTC from US Its only OTC as a livestock drug as it was a grandfathered drug when the FDA started to regulate animal drugs and the human form is RX only and regulated by the FDA 71.173.76.19 (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See sourcing for OTC claim, [7]. Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a lotion to treat head lice for nonprescription, or over-the-counter (OTC), use through a process called a prescription (Rx)-to-OTC switch. The FDA initially approved Sklice (ivermectin) lotion, 0.5% for the treatment of head lice infestation in patients 6 months of age and older as a prescription drug in February 2012. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Reuters reports Japanese study on Ivermectin antiviral effect against Covid

I was about to edit my previous post after noting that articles in medical journals as primary sources are not allowed. One of the articles, however, is from Reuters (posted on Yahoo! News), which is both a secondary and credible source, and describes a study showing Ivermectin has an antiviral effect against Covid. Is there any reason for not including this? [8] Also directly on Reuters: [9] 87.208.148.99 (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

And you will note they say it is only companies claim, not in fact a claim made by a peer reviewed study.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Reuters is not reliable for biomedical assertions, for that WP:MEDRS would be needed. Alexbrn (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

They only say the company claims ther are benefits, there is a lack of details.𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 00:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

wij van wc eend adviseren wc eend—blindlynx 04:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

How to we hold to "claim made by a peer reviewed study" when several approved COVID-related meds have zero or only small peer-reviewed studies? We have a significant hill to climb to create a level scientific playing field on this in Wikipedia. Mr Pete (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, 4 March 2022

Add a section on Early Treatment RCT studies. We now have up-to-date meta-analysis of more than a dozen RCT's (Randomized Controlled Trials) of early treatment with IVM. According to WP:MEDASSESS, "The best evidence for efficacy of treatments and other health interventions is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials." The same page WP:MEDDATE urges using the latest information. When ineffective late treatment is excluded, the results become more clear, for any potential treatment.Mr Pete (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done Misinformation. Won't be included here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it really depends on the quality of the meta-analysis and of the studies used for it. Garbage in, garbage out. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

International Journal of Infectious Diseases - Treatment for COVID-19 and decreased mortality

For your consideration - I have no experience with MEDRS so I don't know how reputable this is: Treatment with Ivermectin Is Associated with Decreased Mortality in COVID-19 Patients: Analysis of a National Federated Database - SmolBrane (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's just a conference abstract which has been picked up by the ivermectin cultists, leading to one of the authors having to tweet out a reality check.[10] For Wikipedia, it's useless. Alexbrn (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Studies suggest ivermectin can protect from and treat Covid

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8526435/ 2600:1700:6F6C:A000:B44A:F96A:5A4C:8370 (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

That is a 2021 paper speculating about possible benefits and suggesting clinical trials; it is superseded by later papers from 2022 (already in the article) saying that those results did not pan out and that no proven benefits were found. --Aquillion (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Ivermectin and COVID-19

"Ivermectin Does Not Reduce Risk of Covid Hospitalization, Large Study Finds".

"Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19". doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2115869. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

2600:1000:B03F:2983:4FD:F300:B6A2:155 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Contraindications

In the contraindications section, there is mention of contraindications for children under five years or weighing less than 15 kg and for patients with renal impairment. Neither of these contraindications are supported by a reference to an authority approved label, such as the USPI or EU SmPC. The USPI doesn't mention these in the contraindications. In Europe, ivermectin was authorized through national procedures in mutual recognition, but the labels I found didn't mention these contraindications either. The used reference in the lemma seems to be a study on a very aggressive treatment method where kidney or liver disease were both called contraindications but seem to be more like a exclusion criterion.

My proposal is to change the contraindications to reflect the major labels of the US and the EU. 2A02:A444:BE69:1:6882:D29D:A2D5:C4B9 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done as the AAP and AAFP recommend against use. I have updated the entry with better MEDRS. We must use WP:MEDRS quality sources to update such entries involving medical questions. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so you did remove the liver and kidney disease as contraindications but retain the pediatric population under 5. Your reference 48 is inaccessible without a subscription and secondly, a contraindication is not the same a not recommended by some professional organization. A, Contraindication is agreed upon with for example the FDA or other authority. In this case, what you call a contraindication, is nothing more than an advice from a non-regulatory organization. Bronsing (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I did not use the phrasing "contraindicated." You'll note the breast milk discussion also does not use this word. There are basically no true absolute contraindications (just hypersensitivity) to ivermectin use, only relative ones. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

To be 100% clear, the only true "absolute" contraindication for Ivermectin is the one present for (almost) any drug, namely a hypersensitivity. I'll add this with a source to clarify the distinction. To clarify, there are drugs/uses for which even THIS is not an absolute contraindication (e.g. Penicillin in Syphillis) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. So, most of what is discussed under the header 'contraindications' does not actually discuss contraindications. It shouldn't be under such a header. And, the sources that are cited are unverifiable (e.g.,50) or seem to be no more than a commentary (49). As it is now, the section is untrue. Bronsing (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

It appears you may not have the required subscription to verify these sources. 49 is a "structured clinical question" in a series of such questions, more akin to a clinical practice guideline/review. It is a peer reviewed secondary source. 50 is what is called a "drug monograph" which also requires an institutional subscription. Unverifiable by you does not mean "unverifiable." These sources are not preferred, but they are sufficient per WP:MEDRS, the applicable guideline in this situation.

It also appears you may not understand what is meant by the term relative contraindication (see also: [11]: "When a particular treatment or procedure should be used with caution.") — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2022

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) recently filed a motion and amicus brief with the federal district court in Galveston urging it to allow the lawsuit to proceed against the FDA for its misleading statements against ivermectin. The FDA published multiple statements and sent letters to influential organizations to falsely disparage ivermectin, implying that it was not approved for treating Covid-19. Many, including courts and state medical boards, were misled by the FDA into thinking that its lack of approval for this treatment meant that ivermectin should not be used to treat Covid-19. Source: https://www.yahoo.com/now/fda-misled-public-ivermectin-accountable-144900899.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9sZWdhbGluc3VycmVjdGlvbi5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGddsFdYKi7liIeZ50Joxtn3Y1A4Zc1pmGUA7XCOOk5i2srN6aMl6Sjy2klXwj3evqPHnXCS5mN7VszXRuew2Vb2-km4vu_cMogpUq9NHTB7hXo-jOnPbraouzeoy6nhnCIDXn_hEe-KeCypadGjaK5wUi5SZAQ4gquw2D0QNvHj 189.215.155.255 (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: That source is just a press release. If secondary sources cover the AAPS's legal filing, we might mention it, but we won't copy directly from their press release. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Change description regarding use for covid.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) recently filed a motion and amicus brief with the federal district court in Galveston urging it to allow the lawsuit to proceed against the FDA for its misleading statements against ivermectin. The FDA published multiple statements and sent letters to influential organizations to falsely disparage ivermectin, implying that it was not approved for treating Covid-19. Many, including courts and state medical boards, were misled by the FDA into thinking that its lack of approval for this treatment meant that ivermectin should not be used to treat Covid-19. 189.215.155.255 (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The AAPS is not considered a reliable source on wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Medical authorities advising against using it vs. merely not approving it

@Julius Senegal: the off-label use/prescription of drugs is extremely common, and it does not imply that those drugs are being used improperly. For instance, of the 14.3 million psychiatric treatment visits in the US where antipsychotics were prescribed, 9.0 million (63%) of those were prescriptions for antipsychotics drugs without FDA approval. It's also very common in pediatric medicine: "Sixty-two percent of outpatient pediatric visits included off-label prescribing. Approximately 96% of cardiovascular-renal, 86% of pain, 80% of gastrointestinal, and 67% of pulmonary and dermatologic medication prescriptions were off label."

Right now the lead just says that those medical authorities merely didn't approve it to treat COVID-19. That's trying to reflect some of the epistemically careful and precise language some of those bodies tend to use, which is understandable, but it's actually quite a weak statement for us to quote in isolation here. It does not necessarily imply that ivermectin doesn't work in treating COVID-19 or that you shouldn't take it to treat COVID-19, but that is exactly what those bodies were actually saying, e.g: "WHO recommends that the drug only be used within clinical trials."; the FDA titled its PSA "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19", and the EMA titled theirs "EMA advises against use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outside randomised clinical trials". These are stronger statements than the one in the article, and get more to the heart of the point of the information we are trying to convey here. Endwise (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stick to WP:OR, and sorry, I am not interested in what stands in a title, rather than what stands in the text. I have cited the FDA: "The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals." Ivermectin has not been approved for this, this is a fact.

Just saying "advised against" could imply that there is approval for the treatment but in that particular case they just do not advise it. --Julius Senegal (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise I understand your motivation, and what you say here is right. But with WP:MEDRS, we are bound to stick as closely to the text as possible. There are other sources we could probably use to say it isn't recommended, but these authorities don't actually say that explicitly in those docs. There may be other places where they say they don't recommend it, though. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia manage damage control for compromised sources.

I am interested to know where in Wikipedia procedures and protocols are explained on what happens when a source is found to be inaccurate or fraudulent? How promptly can these kind of corrections be managed? Is there a tool available that will flag all data from a given author, journal, public health authority or news source to warn readers?

Is there a mechanism where Wikipedia flags articles as having a notable shift in encyclopaedic information because of deprecation of a source, do they apologise for using poor source selection? Has this happened before where a source was considered good and then relegated to untrusted and how was this communicated?

If there is a large body of peer reviewed primary sources that contradicts secondary non peer reviewed sources is it time to consider if Wikipedia has been compromised as a source of information?

Wikipedia is at a cross roads, they can be a public-hero or a laughing-stock and it needs to be prepared to act fast if it wants to have a chance to select which fork it will take.

This comment is very topical for this page and should not be removed lightly. If a better venue for this discussion is available moving it and leaving a forwarding link could be beneficial but silencing this line of discussion is not in the interest of the future of Wikipedia.

Idyllic press (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I am interested to know where in Wikipedia procedures and protocols are explained on what happens when a source is found to be inaccurate or fraudulent? That is usually dealt with at WP:RSN and a source's (un)reliability may be added to WP:RSP.

How promptly can these kind of corrections be managed? Within an article, they are dealt with immediately. For ones like WP:DAILYMAIL, it's a longer process and usually we get someone to program a bot to remove them site wide.

Is there a tool available that will flag all data from a given author, journal, public health authority or news source to warn readers? Not that I'm aware of, but WP:VP would be a decent place to suggest the creation of such a tool. There's {{unreliable sources}} you can use too.

Is there a mechanism where Wikipedia flags articles as having a notable shift in encyclopaedic information because of deprecation of a source, do they apologise for using poor source selection? No, the encyclopedia is self-correcting and ever-changing. We do not have the equivalent of "retractions" that academic journals do because we do not use a static unchangable media like paper journals.

Has this happened before where a source was considered good and then relegated to untrusted and how was this communicated? Yes. That happens at WP:RSN. Major changes are sometimes communicated at WP:AN but WP:RSP is the best place to look up a source's status.

If there is a large body of peer reviewed primary sources that contradicts secondary non peer reviewed sources is it time to consider if Wikipedia has been compromised as a source of information? No, as a WP:TERTIARY source we wait for WP:SECONDARY sources to catch up to the primary sources. We are always behind the curve. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is at a cross roads, they can be a public-hero or a laughing-stock and it needs to be prepared to act fast if it wants to have a chance to select which fork it will take. This sounds an awful lot like you're about to tell us that ivermectin actually works really well for COVID-19 and we (and all the best available scholarly journals) were all wrong. (Edit: Yep...[12])

From you: ...see if you can find many mentions in the mainstream media about the Senate Directive SA0620, it should be shouted out by all the Horse Paste news channels... but maybe it is just too much facts that are better kept quiet. The anti-Ivermectin lobby is much stronger and more dangerous than the pro-Ivermectin movement and the only reason for the narrative you hold dear. As editors on Wikipedia it behoves you to have a balanced view and this Ivermectin4covid page has only negative things to say, it is the height of biased editing and reflects very poorly on the original goals of Wikipedia.

Key to this discussion: Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. If our sources are wrong, then so are we, and as soon as the consensus of our sources shifts, then so do we. This is not the place to be a "hero" or a "laughing stock". We reflect the literature, our scholarly sources, and the news media (where applicable), and it is those sources which would have egg on their face in such a situation, not WiIki.

Wikipedia's policies have proven extremely adept at preventing the spread of misinformation. See for example: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

if you think those policies need to be changed (e.g. WP:BESTSOURCES or WP:BMI or WP:MEDRS) then you should probably make your case at those talk pages. This would be an inappropriate venue for such a discussion. On talk pages like this, we talk about how to apply those policies, not how to change them. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Covid effectiveness

Has the consensus on Ivermectin's effectiveness for covid changed since February, when ToBeFree placed the section at the top? I'm seeing three reviews or literature surveys at PubMed that are now saying it might provide some benefit in certain circumstances. If this holds up, it may require changes to the last paragraph of the lead, which is pretty categorical that there's no indication of any benefit whatever, and these surveys don't seem to fit that kind of language. Mathglot (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The issue was always how claims were being made that were not true, such as it was a cure. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Which reviews specifically? Bon courage (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. The two sentences of the lead that I was referring to, are these:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation has been widely spread claiming that ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19. Such claims are not backed by credible scientific evidence.

(edit conflict) I think the first part is undoubtedly accurate (misinformation widely spread); but less sure about the rest. If it's beneficial some of the time, for some of the people, then the second part is too strong, or unbalanced. The way it's written now ("*is* beneficial") would not be supported by the surveys I saw either, but that's a pretty categorical statement, that we generally wouldn't use even for approved drugs that have clear benefits almost all of the time. We talk about the benefit of flu vaccines even in some years when they are 10-20% effective. Maybe time to revisit the wording in that paragraph? Mathglot (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll have to respond tomorrow, but it was trivial to find them, just include "survey" or "literature review" with your search terms, or go to Cochrane or Pubmed. Mathglot (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

All the reviews I know of are junk (and have been repeatedly discussed). So just wondered if there was anything new. I believe the settled state of knowledge is that ivermectin for COVID is a total fraud, just the province of scammers and cranks these days. It's all covered at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Bon courage (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

If all the reviews are junk, that leaves us (as editors) with very little to go on to build an article, because they are the secondary sources. How could we even summarize general reliable opinion, if the reviews themselves do not? That would undermine a lot of things, if that's actually the case. Mathglot (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I meant all the review with positive results wrt ivermectin/COVID, which I assumed you were referring to. Bon courage (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

No, by review, I meant things like literature surveys/reviews and meta-analyses. I'm not aware of any literature reviews that are "junk", although I know of two that were questioned, because of inclusion (due to the inclusion criteria in their methodology) of studies that were questionable (one in each, iirc), thus calling into question how to deal with that at the level of a survey or meta-analysis. Mathglot (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I think probably what's been happening is that new trials have come out which show small benefit, but then when integrated into the overall evidence picture, these trials do not end up moving the needle much. The confidence intervals keep getting smaller, but they still overlap 1 for odds ratios, indicating the drug probably has just as much likelihood of harming as it does of helping. (see below). Various trials are always coming out as well that have bad methodologies which render them unsuited to answer the questions, and it doesn't come out until later that there are numerous issues. (e.g. Raoult's trials which are now being investigated for research misconduct [19]). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, I didn't place the section at the top; I have never edited this page here. My protection of Template:COVID-19 treatments (current consensus) is the template's latest revision, so my name is displayed there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think that was probably me who added the template. I just updated it slightly to include the 2022 cochrane review, so it should show my name instead — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Oops, sorry ToBeFree; misread that as a small sig. Mathglot (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This 2022 cochrane review (updated as of 21 June 2022) says:

We found no evidence to support the use of ivermectin for treating COVID-19 or preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. The evidence base improved slightly in this update, but is still limited. (plain language summary)

and more technically speaking (edited only to trim for space, bolded and underlined to emphasize):

Inpatient data

• We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.60, 95% CI (0.14 to 2.51); 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence)
• or [affect] clinical worsening at 28 days (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence)
• or [reduce] serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence)
• may have little or no effect on ... viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence).

Outpatient data

• probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence)
• little or no effect on quality of life (measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale) (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence).
• may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence);
• may have little or no effect ... on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to
  1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence)
• may have little or no effect ... on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence)
• may have little or no effect ... on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence)
• may have little or no effect ... on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence)

Overall, I would say the evidence base has not changed much. We can be essentially certain that the drug does not reduce mortality or improve quality of life in the outpatient setting. Basically the only difference between this and the 2021 review is that the confidence intervals on these things got a little smaller, but they still overlap 1 (clinical equipoise) and even include relatively large ranges of "negative effect" in each. There is no reason based on this evidence to conclude that ivermectin improves the clinical picture for patients in either an inpatient or outpatient setting. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

That looks pretty persuasive; I wonder if my search terms were biased in some way? I'll have to go back and see what it was I was looking at, assuming I can repeat what I did, or find them some other way. Mostly what I remember is Pubmed results, linking mostly to ncbi. I'll post again, if there's anything worth saying. Mathglot (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess it is just because the people who write Cochrane reviews understand the subject better than a Google search does, even with the best search terms, and can summarize it better. But maybe I misunderstand what is going on here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Should mention Ivermectin Anti-viral properties

Despite the prevailing narrative that has tried to cover up Ivermectin's antiviral properties, if Wikipedia is to show itself as a reliable, unbiased information source, these valuable and important characteristics must be mentioned clearly in the current information.

Some examples:

Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent with demonstrated antiviral activity against a number of DNA and RNA viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Despite this promise, the antiviral activity of ivermectin has not been consistently proven in vivo. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/

There were lower viral loads and less viable cultures in the ivermectin group, which shows its anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity. It could reduce transmission in these patients and encourage further studies with this drug. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9262706/

Ivermectin proposes many potential effects to treat a range of diseases with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug. It is highly effective against many microorganisms, including some viruses. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z

Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad spectrum anti-parasitic agent (Gonzalez Canga et al., 2008) that in recent years ,we, along with other groups, have shown to have anti-viral activity against a broad range of viruses (Gotz et al., 2016; Lundberg et al., 2013; Tay et al., 2013; Wagstaff et al., 2012) in vitro. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011

Stop destroying Wikipedia's already tarnished reputation. Hvalborg (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed ad nauseum here at the height of the ivermectin craze. In vitro is meaningless.Please read the archives for the full discussion, and stop promoting fringe medicine. Acroterion (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and this is covered in more detail at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Bon courage (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Ivermectin, COVID, and Peru

In case anyone tries to add that again: the referenced study was co-authored by a member of the discredited FLCCC and Peru completely removed Ivermectin from their recommended COVID treatments in 2021.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Ivermectin, COVID and Fifth Circuit

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)

I thin we can mention a court said they over stepped their authority. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Crazy old America ah? It only means a court decided doctors can do quackery there, but it's not the FDA's role to push back. Would need some decent secondary sources to make sense of this: it doesn't convey any knowledge about ivermectin. This has already been discussed at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Bon courage (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• Note I have adding something on this to Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic, where is's probably WP:DUE (unlike here). Bon courage (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

SAIVE Trial

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)

It's just PR. WP:MEDRS needed. Bon courage (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You've linked to a press release for French pharma company MedinCell. Despite these impressive claims made in the press release, no publication, or even preprint has resulted (that I have been able to find).

At the company's website

https://www.medincell.com/en/portfolio/

potential ivermectin products (mdc-STM for malaria and mdc-TTG for COVID-19) are still shown as PRECLINICAL candidates - which in itself is suspect given the company's press release claims of at least one completed Phase-2 trial.

So no - All you have cited is a press release. 156.96.151.132 (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Too preliminary, as even single phase 2 studies contradict WP:MEDRS.

The study design is strange, I doubt that strong conclusions can be drawn. --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)