[kwlug-disc] Ivermectin

[Steve Izma]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 07:51:21PM -0500, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:
> Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] Ivermectin
> 
> There is no nuance here: Ivermectin does not work against
> COVID-19 in any way.
> 
> I have a pharmacy degree and was licensed decades ago, but
> switched after a few months to the new fangled computer thing.
> So like any non-specialist, I lookup information and see if it
> is backed by evidence, under rigorous controlled testing
> conditions, or not. If not, there is not weight to the claim.
> ...
> So no, neither HCQ nor Ivermectin do any good for COVID-19 ...
> And yes, vaccines are our best shot, followed by Paxlovid, and
> perhaps one or two monoclonal antibodies that did not have
> their efficacy reduced by viral mutations.

I can hear Heisenberg rolling over in his grave on account of
your certainty. What makes you think that anything in science is
final or absolute? Our experience with computer programming
should give us a hint: complex programs without bugs? especially
in changing environments and usage conditions? Everything is a
work in progress.

> It is just like Hydroxychloroquine: what works against a
> certain pathogen or disease at a given dose, at does not work
> for other pathogens or conditions at a different dose. Viruses
> and intestinal worms have very different biologies and modes of
> infections (one is inside the cells, the other is outside, for
> one).

This sounds reductionist and dogmatic to me, approaching the idea
that pathologies have a single cause and are therefore cured by a
pharmaceutical product that attacks that single cause. Covid-19
isn't a single thing but a collection of symptoms usually
associated with (often different) respiratory diseases that were
suddenly grouped together due to the identification of a certain
virus (among the nearly one quadrillion viruses normally resident
in a human body). It's highly unlikely that a single intervention
can make a difference here. None of the uses of
hydroxychloroquine or invermectin that I've heard about use only
one of those drugs, They are always combined with other kinds of
medical attention, under the credible suspicion that those who
are the sickest have become vulnerable in many ways. Therefore
testing for the effectiveness of a single drug in these
circumstances is bound to fail, possibly intentionally so.

> One example with dire consequences is thalidomide. It was used
> as a painkiller (like Tylenol), then its use was expanded for
> morning sickness for pregnant women. The result was babies were
> born with incomplete hands or feet. Canada, the UK and Europe
> allowed that use with disastrous results. In the USA, one Dr.
> Frances Oldham Kelsey who worked for the FDA refused to approve
> the drug, and stuck to her position that the company must
> submit safety data, despite pressure from superiors.

Gee, that sounds a lot like the current debates about the
approval of vaccines: they are currently only approved under
an emergency-use authorization because the usual safety studies
have not been completed. The numbers of people currently
vaccinated do not constitute a study; where is the control group?
Safety studies take years. Have you ever heard of long-term
effects? Where are the lessons pointed to by the thalidomide case
being applied?

Norman Doidge described the problems of the "master narrative" of
the pharmalogical response to Covid-19 in a Globe and Mail
article in January 2022
<https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-vaccines-are-a-tool-not-a-silver-bullet-if-wed-allowed-more-scientific/>
(if you can't get access to this article, I have PDF of it). This
is what he says about the difficulty of merely quoting a
selection of studies, as you do in the rest of your message:

	So why hasn’t treatment focused more on repurposed drugs?

	First, because the master narrative, once it took hold,
	directed our attention away from this possibility.
	Second, in North America, the first repurposed drug that
	came to public attention was hydroxychloroquine. When it
	was endorsed by then-president Donald Trump it became
	highly politicized. People’s opinions about it often had
	more to do with their political affiliation than whether
	they had read any of the (now) 303 studies. Third,
	agencies that regulate drugs, such as the U.S. Food and
	Drug Administration and Health Canada, mandate that any
	drug they evaluate have a sponsor, usually a drug company
	agreeing to assume liabilities for the drug. It’s an
	extremely expensive process. If an old, cheap generic
	drug shows promise for repurposing, it still needs a
	sponsor to get approved for that. But drug companies have
	no financial incentive to do so. So usually there are no
	sponsors, and the drugs languish.

	Of all the reasons that we didn’t focus on repurposed
	drugs, I would argue, the master narrative was the most
	important, because of the way it organized so many
	people’s thoughts, attention, and emotions.

This mailing list frequently contains good arguments as to why we
should be skeptical of the large corporations that dominate our
activities in the tech world. An effective and frequently used
rule of thumb in these discussions has been "follow the money".
You have failed to do this in your discussion of the studies you
quote. Who benefits from them?

How bias-free were your pharmaceutical studies? How much of the
information and textbooks were associated with pharmaceutical
companies?

Science never has an end point. It is, like all other forms of
knowledge, a process of discovery and debate. Our experience with
computer tech appears to demonstrate that there's no level
playing field here and the big players monopolize the knowledge
and development process. That's why I find it very troubling that
your opening position implies that there is no longer a debate on
these issues. That echoes the desire of the powers-that-be.

	-- Steve

-- 
Steve Izma
-
Home: 35 Locust St., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada  N2H 1W6
E-mail: sizma at golden.net  phone: 519-745-1313
cell (text only; not frequently checked): 519-998-2684

==
The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best – and
therefore never scrutinize or question.
    -- Stephen Jay Gould, *Full House: The Spread of Excellence
       from Plato to Darwin*, 1996