Talk:COVID-19 drug repurposing research

Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.

1. Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
2. Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings. (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
3. Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 27 February 2023 by Sumanuil (t · c)

Fluvoxamine

Appropriate here? (The article section already cites The Lancet Global Health.) Mapsax (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

New information on ivermectin side effects

Hello, as the title suggests new information has revealed the side effects of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment from the New England Journal of Medicine. I believe this would be a good contribution to the article. Obama gaming (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a letter so not WP:MEDRS, but maybe some of the statistical information may be useful - not here though, as this is an article about research activity. Alexbrn (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh I just read it again, there are references within the letters to said statistics. Also, which article do you think I should put this under? Regards Obama gaming (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe at COVID-19 misinformation#Ivermectin ? Alexbrn (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheers mate I'll take a geez Obama gaming (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Missinformation - RCT are not the only way we know things - there was no RTC to show that cigarettes are bad - yet we know they are. RTCs can be biased as well - and when there are large sums of money involved, even the journals can be twisted. This blanket blocking of other types of papers will not look good for Wikpedia a few years from now - The new Phizermectin has the same pharmacological action as ivermectin (at a much higher price). There is a difference between science and scientisim - real science only progresses when there are multiple theories that are objectively tested. This needs to be edited by someone skilled in the arts that is not getting money from Pharma.

Humour content

Background: The Ivermectin section of this article contains a humourous tweet from the FDA with the text "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it." I removed this yesterday, with the edit summary "Rm humorous FDA tweet. The FDA's actual position is in the adjacent text, and the joke is very unbefitting for an encyclopedia article on a medical topic." This was then reverted by User:TrangaBellam with the summary "Disagree."

Wikipedia is intended to present neutral, informative, encyclopedic content, not to make fun of wrong people. Specifically, this article is supposed to explain about COVID-19 drug repurposing research. I have yet to see any possible justification for keeping the joke tweet in the article. --Yair rand (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)