Any body have any experience or views... - Advanced Prostate...
Any body have any experience or views on Ivermectin and cancer?
The ability to reply to this post has been turned off.
From the FDA:
"Even the levels of ivermectin for approved uses can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners. You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death.
Ivermectin Products for Animals Are Different from Ivermectin Products for People
For one thing, animal drugs are often highly concentrated because they are used for large animals like horses and cows, which can weigh a lot more than we do—a ton or more. Such high doses can be highly toxic in humans.
Moreover, FDA reviews drugs not just for safety and effectiveness of the active ingredients, but also for the inactive ingredients. Many inactive ingredients found in animal products aren’t evaluated for use in people. Or they are included in much greater quantity than those used in people. In some cases, we don’t know how those inactive ingredients will affect how ivermectin is absorbed in the human body."
Ivermectin has had billions of human doses over the last 20 years.
It has very few side effects, and is approved for 6 month old babies.
It's available in the US at walgreens and CVS, and is probably safer than aspirin. In many countries it's an otc drug.
It may or may not fight cancer, but it's not dangerous. It's instead rather innocuous.
Ivermectin is reasonably safe drug with a multi year record of safety in adults and children and now in Covid 19 patients.It is fascinating to see that many drugs/supplements used for Covid 19 also have potential to stop prostate cancer. The role of Akt/mTOR and MAKP pathways , is becoming more and more clear . This pandemic is accelerating the search for anti cancer, safer drugs as the research in this area is faster now.
And there is no need use Ivermectin for animals as the one for human use is nhow available for a$20 for 30 tabs if bought with GoodRx coupon. Prices might drop further once Ivermectin becomes SOC for prevention of Covid 19...which might happen soon as lot of research in its favor are piling up from different parts of the World.
"Prices might drop further once Ivermectin becomes SOC for prevention of Covid 19...which might happen soon as lot of research in its favor are piling up from different parts of the World."
Actually that would cause prices to rise.
But no fear. There seems to be a lot of irrational professional prejudice against it.
Fluvoxamine, with much less evidentiary data, seems to being accepted as a promising treatment. With real side effects even.
I think Ivermectin reminded too many medical professionals of the huckster-in-chief's promotion of chloroquine, another anti-parasitic.
So you disagree with the FDA?
Tall_Allen
The shameful behavior of the FDA/CDC/NIH in the last year of the tr*mp regime should remind everyone to "trust but verify". They don't pass the verify test in this particular instance.
Here is the data for Ivermectin & Covid:
covid19criticalcare.com/wp-...
There is almost no data for Fluvoxamine and Covid, yet it is being cheered on by the FDA/CDC/NIH. Though Fluvoxamine is not an anti-parasitic treatment and is, therefore, is not contaminated by the unfortunate tr*mp chloroquine/lysol/UV-up-the-buttocks JuJu.
So yeah, FDA is run by imperfect human beings.
Ivermectin = almost no risk for evident high returns
Fluvoxamine = moderate risk for potentially high returns
chloroquine = reasonably high risk for never verified returns
Isn't the FDA supposed to consider risk vs returns. I think we know it doesn't always do a flawless job at this.
I believe that they are the agency that was ultimately responsible for me not receiving early PSA testing because the only metric they measured was death (studiously disregarding other important metrics) vs the bad self-interested judgment of urologists.
When they were saying we shouldn't use N95 masks, my BS detector went off. I went and got some KN95 masks.
When the critics started waving their hands about horse medication, my BS detector went off. If you think about it, I think it will set yours off as well.
I think you see enough anomalies to self-verify that the FDA, and its various counterparts throughout the world, often make flawed decisions.
fda.gov/consumers/consumer-...
The FDA hires many excellent scientists. I would think twice about discarding their opinions. They always review the available research and provide documentation.
They have nothing to do with the USPSTF, if that is what you are referring to. You seem to be conflating totally different governmental entities.
1. Pretty much the same type and quality of decisions and decision makers recruited from the same talent pools, as have supervised the US Covid response.
I am reluctant to put blind trust into them.
2. In the link you provided, they obsess on overdosing and animal doses. Distraction, bait, and switch straw man technique. It's just so crude - guilt by association.
3. "Even the levels of ivermectin for approved uses can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners. You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death."
My observation of FDA side effects process is that it is flawed and unreliable. Disclosure is often too little or too much.
4. I understand that they warn about liver damage. Not an unreasonable concern early on.
Yet there have been billions of doses over 20 years and I am told there has yet to be a documented case of liver damage ever.
5. Yes there are some contraindications, but that is why you should get it through a pharmacy with a prescription.
6. From my favorite peer reviewed journal, wikipedia: "Common side effects include fever, itching, and skin rash when taken by mouth,[3] and red eyes, dry skin, and burning skin when used topically for head lice.[8] It is unclear if it is safe for use during pregnancy, but is probably acceptable for use during breastfeeding.[9] It belongs to the avermectin family of medications.[3]"
It seems the biggest problem comes from the load on your system when it kills off a heavy infestation of parasites.
7. Wikipedia on the side effects of Fluvoxamine, which seems far more dangerous than ivermectin.
"Gastrointestinal side effects are more common in those receiving fluvoxamine than with other SSRIs.[30] Otherwise, fluvoxamine's side-effect profile is very similar to other SSRIs.[2][9][11][13][31][32]
Common (1–10% incidence) adverse effects Edit
Nausea
Vomiting
Weight loss
Yawning
Loss of appetite
Agitation
Nervousness
Anxiety
Insomnia
Somnolence (drowsiness)
Tremor
Restlessness
Headache
Dizziness
Palpitations
Tachycardia (high heart rate)
Abdominal pain
Dyspepsia (indigestion)
Diarrhea
Constipation
Hyperhidrosis (excess sweating)
Asthenia (weakness)
Malaise
Sexual dysfunction (including delayed ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, decreased libido, etc.)
Xerostomia (dry mouth)
Uncommon (0.1–1% incidence) adverse effects Edit
Arthralgia
Hallucination
Confusional state
Extrapyramidal side effects (e.g. dystonia, parkinsonism, tremor, etc.)
Orthostatic hypotension
Cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions (e.g. oedema [buildup of fluid in the tissues], rash, pruritus)
Rare (0.01–0.1% incidence) adverse effects Edit
Mania
Seizures
Abnormal hepatic (liver) function
Photosensitivity (being abnormally sensitive to light)
Galactorrhoea (expulsion of breast milk unrelated to pregnancy or breastfeeding)
Unknown frequency adverse effects Edit
Hyperprolactinaemia (elevated plasma prolactin levels leading to galactorrhoea, amenorrhoea [cessation of menstrual cycles], etc.)
Bone fractures
Glaucoma
Mydriasis
Urinary incontinence
Urinary retention
Bed-wetting
Serotonin syndrome – a potentially fatal condition characterised by abrupt onset muscle rigidity, hyperthermia (elevated body temperature), rhabdomyolysis, mental status changes (e.g. coma, hallucinations, agitation), etc.
Neuroleptic malignant syndrome – practically identical presentation to serotonin syndrome except with a more prolonged onset
Akathisia – a sense of inner restlessness that presents itself with the inability to stay still
Paraesthesia
Dysgeusia
Haemorrhage
Withdrawal symptoms
Weight changes
Suicidal ideation and behaviour
Violence towards others[33]
Hyponatraemia
Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion
Ecchymoses"
Why would anyone believe you over the FDA researchers who have studied this?
"Why would anyone believe you over the FDA researchers who have studied this?"
Facts and evidence are more important than position papers and poorly executed spin.
But the FDA has the facts and evidence on their side. That's what they are so good at doing - looking at evidence. You only have your own opinions.
It's just my own actionable opinion.
The facts are the facts for anyone who wants to formulate their own opinion.
And I went and got a prescription for a standby supply of Ivermectin in the event I start getting early symptoms.
There is enough data for me to form an opinion that it's use constitutes risking a little for a lot.
Today Dr. Gottlieb, ex FDA commissioner expressed concern that the new covid variants are going to generate reinfection. Somewhere also I read that they are resistant to the monoclonal antibodies that are the only approved treatment.
Everyone needs to make their own decision, and we all have to deal with imperfect information.
But for me it's an easy decision. Almost non-existent side effects and mechanisms of action that appear likely to remain in effected by the mutations we are seeing.
I just don't see any downside.
Unapproved psma and bat treatments are much scarier to me and have much riskier side effects.
Actually, the FDA (or NIH is similar) just approved ivermectin for off label Covid use. Previously it recommended against it's use against Covid other than in trials.
Science often gets in the way of such opinions, just as it did for hydroxychloroquine. You probably don't want to see this either:
medrxiv.org/content/10.1101...
Actually I would be highly responsive to contradictory evidence.
It seems like the evidence keeps falling on the side of Ivermectin. And perhaps soon also in favor of Fluvoxamine.
I checked out hydroxychloroquine early on. But it is a nasty medicine. There was little evidence supporting it, and even that evidence had a dubious provenance as I recollect.
Actually I read about that paper a while back.
Apparently the ivermectin (or the mechanism by which it operates) concentrates in lung tissue. So that study is of limited use. Or so I am told.
You are the one who taught me that there is no substitute for live clinical trials. I learned from you to be dubious of petri dish evidence.
Ivermectin has well over 20 clinical trials over varying quality. Take another look at the meta analysis link I posted.
They are now working on a very carefully designed clinical trial Canada to address the open issues.
I am pretty certain my prescribing doc will let me know if anything surprising happens in that trial.
I agree that the research we have is quick and dirty, but it's what we have. Why aren't you getting the vaccine?
You mistake me for one the idealogs here. Lol
I got my vaccine as soon as I could get in line.
And I will get a booster shot as soon as possible.
But like Dr. Gottlieb says, those variants may or may not respect older antibodies.
One Page Summary of the Clinical Trials Evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19
"Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medicine whose discovery won the Nobel Prize in 2015, has proven, highly potent, anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties in laboratory studies.
In the past 4 months, numerous, controlled clinical trials from multiple centers and countries worldwide are reporting consistent, large improvements in COVID-19 patient outcomes when treated with ivermectin.
covid19criticalcare.com/wp-...
===============
Comprehensive scientific review of these referenced trials can be found on the Open Science Foundation pre-print server here:
===============
"Even restricting analysis to just the 16 randomized controlled trials (totaling over 2,500 patients), the majority report a statistically significant reduction in transmission or disease progression or mortality.
Further, a meta-analysis recently performed by
an independent research consortium calculated the chances that ivermectin is ineffective in COVID-19 to be 1 in 67 million.1
The FLCCC Alliance, based on the totality of the existing evidence, supports an A-I recommendation (NIH rating scheme; strong level, high-quality evidence) for the use of ivermectin in both the prophylaxis and treatment of all phases of COVID-19."
I have no idea how reliable that is. Is it even peer-reviewed in a respectable publication (pubmed listed)?
I don't think those studies are. They were all done in the heat of battle, and they have their flaws.
They are doing a study in Canada with a very careful design. But these things take time. My recollection of the petri dish study you cited, was that it was done last May and it took some time for it to get peer-reviewed.
In the meantime, given how safe Ivermectin is, it works OK for my decision-making. If it were a dangerous drug or had material risks it would be another issue.
But that a member of the Chloroquine Anon crowd might want to overdose themselves with horse Ivermectin is not my risk. I don't need to be protected from that risk.
I see that argument much the same as the "don't do PSA testing" decision. The risk that Urologists couldn't restrain themselves from cutting ignorant unquestioning patients, was not my risk either.
So what is wrong with this one published in JAMA?
"Among [400] adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms. The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19"
jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...
Or this one in The Lancet:
"Among [24} patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors for severe disease receiving a single 400 mcg/kg dose of ivermectin within 72 h of fever or cough onset there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positives. "
thelancet.com/journals/ecli...
I will have to read them
They don't look good for ivermectin as an efficacious treatment.
The second study didn't use the generally accepted protocol. I don't know why they wouldn't do that. It makes the study of limited usefulness.
The first study presents some issues. The author cautions on reading more into the study than what it shows. But at least with respect to light symptoms, it is evidence the ivermectin may not be effective.
Still, it's safer than aspirin. So I'm not quite ready to dump it in the toilet. There should be some upcoming well designed trials. I can wait for them.
there are three ingredients in the injectable form and none is toxic in other than huge quantities. i don't know about the horse paste. The ingredients are propylene glycol (virtually non toxic) ivermectin toxic at very high levels and 1,3-Dioxolan-4-ylmethanol toxic at 7000mg/kg body weight in rats. that would be something over a half liter for an 81 kg rat (or person)
There is so little risk and so much evidence including detailed explanations of the mechanisms by which ivermectin can reduce cancer that i think it is perfectly safe.
"There is so little risk and so much evidence including detailed explanations of the mechanisms by which ivermectin can reduce cancer that i think it is perfectly safe."
There is zero clinical evidence for ivermectin in prostate cancer. There is zero clinical evidence for its safety in men with prostate cancer. It may be found clinically useful, it may not (and lab research focuses on its use as a co-drug). But it is important not to delude oneself about the risks and benefits.
The myths about Ivermectin being useful for treating cancer just will not die. Lots of people going to the ER from this non-treatment. Every 2 weeks it seems, we have to be subject to yet another post about it. Everyone please ask to have these Ivermectin posts deleted when they pop up.
I don't mind that patients wonder about off-label uses of drugs. IMO it gives a good opportunity to discuss why lab studies are not useful as clinical evidence - lab studies can only be used to rule out medicines, but never to rule them in. But I'm not so naive to believe that confirmation bias won't prevent that message from being received. OTOH, I agree with you that patients who raise such things on a patient forum are often trying to arouse popular support.
Posts promoting some of these "alternatives" often start out with "Has anyone tried such and such alternative unproven quackery?" Sounds like an inncocent request for information, but it's not. They have an agenda. You can see that when the poster gets into a defense about whatever it is if they get challenged or someone says they tried it and it didn't work. A good example is a recent post about some electric pulse generation which is complete quackery.
I started it in October. Nothing to report yet. Next PSA test is November 7.
What dose?
One notch on the horse paste tube. A 250 pound dose. 3 days a week max alternating with fenbendazole and artemisinin protocol.
Good morning. How is it going? Do you have any results or side effects to report? Thanks
My PSA hit a new low of 0.5 on April 7. However, I am doing a lot of alternative things, as well as Lupron since 2018. No side effects
Keep in mind that it is possible that alternative "things" can cause a MASKING OF or LOWERED PSa number.
I haven't seen any studies showing that for anything I've been taking, though. But I'll keep searching.
I see a lot of anecdotal wording in support of something other that the post title! What's the argument here? Cancer or Covid-19?
Or geeee, is this a pitch for another one pill wonder?
Dunning Kruger is a powerful and totally misunderstood and dismissed attribute from the internet age that we must all be cognizant of. I continually even amaze myself sometimes thinking I've found something the doctors, the hospitals, the world, have amazingly missed 
FDA has it's flaws with little doubt, but Wiki anything doesn't trump it... And if there's been Billions of doses, there certainly would be more tracking and reliable information than Wiki... Just saying! And let us not forget Wiki is edited by anyone. I'll take traditional published papers by scientists and doctors via traditional methods with peer review and a multitude of tracking for their published findings.
Lastly, interesting that CESces and CESanon seem to be arguing the same point the same way but are two different users... Or the same person? Lol
Something smells fishy
Anyways have a nice day!
The discussion on the efficacy of Ivermectin on COVID-19 is interesting, but it appears that we lost track of the question. The question at hand is "Any body have any experience or views on Ivermectin and cancer?"Thanks to all.
The ability to reply to this post has been turned off.
Not what you're looking for?
You may also like...
Does anyone have any experience with Maitake Mushrooms?
\"Cancer is a meadow and not a cornfield\"-A Broader View
Does SHBG have any effect on Prostate Cancer?
Anyone have any info or experience with Dr. Gary Onik and his Immunotherapy?
My prostate cancer experience
Any body Heard From Joekaty
