Ivermectin to be investigated as a possible treatment for COVID-19 in Oxford's PRINCIPLE trial

[hlthe2b]

28. The single study showing INVITRO effectivenss was withdrawn by the authors after accusations of

data manipulation and analytic misfeasance. But, even if you take that study at face value, the doses required were so far above the safe threshold in humans that the premise collapses on its own due to safety issues.

Yes, the low doses required for treating guinea worm or intestinal ascariasis, or headlice are safe. Beyond that, this is not a blanket statement that the OP or anyone else should be making.

The lay public (and even some physicians and others who should know better) do not understand that any number of compounds are tested to show decreased replication of newly emergent infectious agents, including viruses and bacteria. Yet of those compounds that show such early promise in the lab, the minute percentage that actually shows effectiveness in humans (or animals) is incredibly low. The conflation of the two is not only naive' it is dangerously uninformed. We've had decades of HIV data as but one example and the percentage of usable drugs coming out of those innumerable lab "trials" is minuscule.

Apparently, some learned NOTHING from the hydroxychloroquine debacle which, within the lab setting, the promise of the drug being effective was based on its blocking effect of one binding site used by COVID-19 virus (SARS-COV2) to enter cells. Unfortunately, we now know that this virus is capable of using another readily available binding site upon which hydroxychloroquine has no impact. So, it has ALWAYS been worthless in prevention or treatment.

There is a reason why most physicians are not an expert on ALL aspects of COVID-19. And if they are not, then why the hell do some believe the anonymous posters on FACEBOOK or FOX pundits to be?

Somehow I doubt many of us will live sufficiently long to explain this phenomenon.

I have no problem with Oxford performing rigorous actual double-blinded studies. That is a good thing. What is abhorrent and intensely naive' is those who point to the fact it is being studied to conclude it MUST be effective (before the first participant is even enrolled). We study all manners of things that end up showing negative benefit.