Are you going to discount the 52 human trials that show benefit? https://ivmmeta.com/
You can find source of articles by clicking on study name and source.
Ok, perhaps debate is wrong term. The parent article presents scientific research for an experimental covid cure in phase 1 trials.
Currently there is much more scientific research supporting ivermectin as a covid cure. 52 trials, with different teams (426 scientists), in different places (worldwide), in different circumstances conducting research on FDA approved ivermectin that produce the consistent results that ivermectin is a beneficial covid treatment (https://c19ivermectin.com/).
My understanding is that even if the drug is available in Brazil OTC it has become politicized, so it's not considered standard of care. Do you have any links where health authorities in Brazil have made it standard of care?
Ivermectin is incredibly safe. "Acetaminophen overdose is the leading cause for calls to Poison Control Centers (>100,000/year) and accounts for more than 56,000 emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and an estimated 458 deaths due to acute liver failure each year." https://aasldpubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hep.20...
"Hepatic adverse events
Ivermectin was suspected to be a hepatotoxicant. In fact, this claim reproduced in several publications was based on few individual case reports [Sparsa, 2006; Veit
et al., 2006; Hirota et al., 2011] where the causal relationship with ivermectin treatment was not convincingly established. The last update of LiverTox [2018], a database of drug-induced hepatotoxicity, did not classify ivermectin as a known hepatotoxicant, a conclusion recently confirmed by the US National Institutes of Health [NIH, 2021]."
The theory that ivermectin’s anti-viral activity is dependent on unachievable tissue concentrations is incorrect as follows:
In the cell culture study by Caly et al from Monash University in Australia, although very high concentrations of ivermectin were used, this was not a human model. Humans have immune and circulatory systems working in concert with ivermectin, thus concentration required in humans have little relation to concentrations used in a laboratory cell culture. Further, prolonged durations of exposure to a drug likely would require a fraction of the dosing in a short-term cell model exposure.
There are multiple mechanisms by which ivermectin is thought to exert its anti-viral effects, with the least likely mechanism that of the blocking of importins as theorized in the Monash study above. These other mechanisms are not thought to require either supraphysiologic doses or concentrations and include
competitive binding of ivermectin with the host receptor-binding region of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, limiting binding to the ACE-2 receptor;
binding to the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), thereby inhibiting viral replication (Swargiary, 2020);
binding/interference with multiple essential structural and non-structural proteins required by the virus in order to replicate.
The theory that ivermectin would need supraphysiologic tissue concentration to be effective is most strongly disproven by the now 24 controlled clinical trials which used standard doses of ivermectin yet reported large clinical impacts in reducing rates of transmission, deterioration, and mortality.
Incorrect, only certain areas in Brazil and India are using Ivermectin which makes for excellent epidemiological studies showing ivermectin's effectiveness in areas that use it versus areas that don't: https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/epide...
(India and Brazil are towards, the bottom of the page, several other countries data show identical results where introducing ivermectin treatments causes death rates to drop)
No, all the trials show benefit. One RCT trial published in Jama, even despite severe flaws such as giving ivermectin in the placebo group, still showed benefit. The conflict of interests with that study are large though, so a significant number of independent doctors have written a letter describing the flaws in the study and why it should be retracted: https://jamaletter.com/
The situation with Brazil is that Ivermectin has become politicized, so that it is not widely used in the country. When you compare cities that use it versus cities that don't the results are striking: https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/epide...
The FDA is being criminally negligent with their warning. They admit in their press-release after 1 year of the pandemic, they still have not evaluated the data showing ivermectin treats covid: "The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19". That's their job. If they haven't evaluated the data, they should not attack a treatment that saves lives when there are 6 independent meta-analyses showing it works (Bryant, Hill, Kory, Lawrie, Nardelli meta-analysis links are available this page: https://ivmmeta.com/)