Talk:COVID-19 drug repurposing research

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2021

I would like to completely remove the following sentence: "Misinformation, lower degrees of trust, a sense of loss of control and despair over the increase in the number of cases and deaths led to an increase in the use of the drug and the emergence of a black market in Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America"

This sentence is blatantly biased, implying the only reason for people taking Ivermectin is because people are feeling "misinformation, lower degrees of trust, a sense of loss of control and despair", which is not at all an accurate picture of the primary reasons people are taking Ivermectin.

Even the source cited at the end of this sentence states in no unambiguous terms "Self-medication is on the rise because people can easily buy ivermectin at drug stores, says pharmacologist Carlos Calderón Ospina from the University of El Rosario in Bogotá" and "The municipality of Natal, in Rio Grande Do Norte, Brazil, also promoted it as a preventative — to be taken by health-care professionals and people at increased risk of severe illness from the virus, because of “its safe pharmacological profile, clinical experience using it against other diseases, cost and dosage convenience”.", yet the current sentence implies that everyone is getting Ivermectin from their local weed dealer or something. It is one-sided to imply that the black market is the only source of Ivermectin for these countries without mentioning that it is literally an OTC drug in "Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America", to use the vague geographical wording in the current sentence.

I am not against the mentioning of a black market for Ivermectin, but I am against implying that Ivermectin is only a black market drug, as I believe the current sentence does. Perhaps someone can come up with a better way to word the sentence, but as it stands right now, it would be better to remove this sentence since it is incredibly misleading by omission. Zombychicken (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

As presented, all you are asking is to delete content that you personally don't like. That approach has no chance here. --Hipal (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Ftrebien, I think it's your wording, could you clarify which sources give these reasons for the ivermectin usage (lack of trust, despair, misinformation)? I see them neither in Nature nor in One health articles which are cited. Alaexis_¿question? 06:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Politico, which is a trusted source and is cited in that paragraph.

@Zombychicken: the same paragraph also says that some governments have allowed its use. In these cases, it is not a black market. That's the case of Natal, in Rio Grande Do Norte, but the legal situation in Brazil is a limbo because ivermectin is still not allowed for COVID-19 at the federal level, despite the political turmoil, and doctors prescribing its use for this purpose may be prosecuted. For this reason, the mayor of Natal is being investigated. But then, rule abiding varies by society.

We may add to the article that it is literally an OTC drug in "Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America" if one can provide a good reference. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

the only reason for people taking Ivermectin is because people are feeling "misinformation, lower degrees of trust, a sense of loss of control and despair", which is not at all an accurate picture of the primary reasons people are taking Ivermectin So what are the primary reasons people are taking ivermectin? This article is about COVID-19 only. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that the part about trust refers not to the use of ivermectin per se but to the conspiracy theory mentioned in the previous paragraph ("The implication that Big Pharma is blocking the use of ivermectin fits into the broader pattern of seeing "some sort of big conspiracy 'against us ordinary people,"). Btw the article mentions "[p]romising research on the drug's potential" in the same sentence. Alaexis_¿question? 14:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

trust refers not to the use of ivermectin per se Right.

but to the conspiracy theory mentioned in the previous paragraph Not exactly. The article says People only listen to sources that they trust and this is the sense it adopts for this word elsewhere, which is the same sense as in Trust (social science) or even more specifically as in High trust and low trust societies. What Politico is saying is that more fragmented societies are more susceptible to misinformation in general: since these people distrust authorities and/or groups within their societies, they are more likely to believe propositions that suggest someone is trying to deceive them. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Run n Fly (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

2-DG

Do you think this follows WP:MEDRS? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It's better now, and I've put some content at COVID-19 misinformation too since it seems a feature here is the lack of research. Alexbrn (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2021

In 22, Jun 2021 philippines president Rodrigo Duterte publicly stated that ivermectin is "used for pigs"

Please update the article with this new information. Kreyren (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2021

Propose adding to the ivermectin section: "Despite the lack of FDA approval for COVID-19 treatment, an increase in off-label ivermectin prescriptions occurred in the US following initial publications showing potential benefit. "During March 16, 2019–April 2, 2021, national estimates of ivermectin dispensed from outpatient retail pharmacies increased from an average of 3589 prescriptions per week at the pre-pandemic baseline to a peak of 39,102 prescriptions in the week ending on January 8, 2021 (989% relative percent increase)"

I think this would follow well after "Ivermectin is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in treating any viral illness and is not authorized for use to treat COVID-19 within the European Union" Caprilyc (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

References