Talk:COVID-19 drug repurposing research/Archive 1

The clinical trial information in the section about vitamin C appears to be some sort of original research extraction from the ClinicalTrials.gov search results referenced in the citation. The citation is over two months old and it may no longer be useful/valid/accurate for the text it is supporting. There may be similar issues with the ClinicalTrials.gov search results used in the section about vitamin D. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It's been reported by many sources that data presented at a conference about a week ago show that treatment with remdesivir reduces mortality by 62%. If there is a reliable source for this I guess that it should be added. (This is strikingly different from the previous research which had remdesivir having a marginal effect on mortality.) Lavateraguy (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

As early as February publications out of the PRC, described cinanserin was stated as holding value, as an antagonist on the serotonin receptor site that is responsible for reversing the agonist activity of ergotism and LSD, alongside vasodilating, both serins modulate interleukin releases, Il-6 inflammation via the HT-2A serotonin path. The two compounds did not receive any attention outside of the PRC as far as I can tell, until a few weeks ago Here.

• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.25707
• https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13054-020-03257-y

There are no western trials. Though interest is growing as the latter illuminates. Boundarylayer (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-52430/v1 Preprint. Posted 05 Aug, 2020.

Montelukast in Hospitalized Patients Diagnosed with covid-19.

The patients who received montelukast were started on 10 mg/day on Day 1 of admission. Patients receiving montelukast experienced significantly fewer events of clinical deterioration compared to patients not receiving montlukast (10% vs 32%, p = 0.022).

What do you think? A preprint yes, but Montelukast drug is extremely safe and the dose is very low, so why everyone isn't give Montelukast just in case??

--ee1518 (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

There is this article on protease inhibitor .......

SARS-CoV-2 Cell Entry Depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and Is Blocked by a Clinically Proven Protease Inhibitor Hoffmann M1, Kleine-Weber H2, Schroeder S3, Krüger N4, Herrler T5, Erichsen S6, Schiergens TS7, Herrler G8, Wu NH8, Nitsche A9, Müller MA10, Drosten C3, Pöhlmann S11. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30229-4

But Matt Hall wrote this on his tweet "OK so let's talk about camostat, because I'm starting to worry about it as a #COVID19 repurposing candidate. It emerged based on this Cell paper, but a LOT of assumptions are buried in the science." https://twitter.com/cispt2/status/1246856029012361218

So how?

WP:RSMED. Trials are underway in Japan, as far as I've last read. It is regularly perscribed there for flu symptoms.  As is beta-glucan

, most commonly but not exclusively, from oyster mushrooms. An immunomodulator that reduces the prevalence of all cause RTIs (respiratory tract infections). Trials are also underway.

Camostat reduced mortality from "100% to 30%" in mice, infected with SARS-1 the results of the human trial with this SARS-2, is Dec 2020.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04321096

Boundarylayer (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camostat Camostat is only sold in Japan? Prescription or over-the-counter? Some article mentioned the price is very low.

https://cancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org/content/10/6/779.long Bromhexine is also mentioned. So over-the-counter bromhexine cough medicine might also work?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromhexine

--ee1518 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-9149(20)30947-4/fulltext Use of statins prior to admission was associated with a more than 50% reduction in risk of developing severe COVID-19, after controlling for associated comorbid conditions and for concomitant use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs.

... They didn't mention dose or brand of statin.

https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/izkeot/statins_reduce_covid19_severity_likely_by/

CK = Creatine Kinase should be monitored when taking statins, but I haven't checked the details how often should it be done when beginning statin therapy. And is it even needed for low-dose or short-time statin therapy.

--ee1518 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Should the article mention Hydrocortisone, in addition to the entry for dexamethasone? See this BBC News story here: [7] Extract: "The latest study brings together all clinical trials involving steroids on coronavirus patients around the world. It confirms dexamethasone works and that another steroid, hydrocortisone, is equally effective." Hallucegenia (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems worth mentioning.

Boundarylayer (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hydrocortisone is not yet in this Wikipedia article, could someone add it?

--ee1518 (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 07:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Over at

The article currently has a direct quotation from the Mccullough et al. review:

there are a number of randomized and prospective studies [of Ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19] and all have shown efficacy in clinical out-comes at the time [of publication].

Unfortunately, this quote is itself a misrepresentation. Of the five cited studies (Alam, Chowdhury, Gorial, Khan, Nunez), only one was randomized and none placebo-controlled. The others are case series and observational research; two are in non-indexed journals, and one a preprint. All—every single one—would fail

Talking of misrepresentation, this[8] edit by

How so? In NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines updated on August 17. 2020:

"The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIII)."

In the the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines updated on January 14, 2021:

"The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19."

The statement "...recommends against ..." statement in the earlier recommendation has been removed in the latter. More to the point, the recommendations are boiler-plate language. For interpretation see:( [9], p.17). It is clear from that that the drug is one step closer to full-blown NIH endorsement in COVID-19. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You are imposing a non-scientific narrative framework onto this not supported by the sources. This is not a progression that has some pre-ordained plan: the next "step" could as well be that better evidence shows the drug useful or useless for example. In the absence of this better we just don't know (as the good sources say). Please also see

talk

) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I never used the phrase "...one step closer ..." in the text of the article. I simply stated that the negative recommendation was removed in the update to the NIH treatment guidelines. Are we at a logjam on this language?--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The current text[10] as tidied by

talk

) 17:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I have slightly adjusted the tone in favor of clarity around the dose size. Most people don't understand that "10⁴ dose" means "ten thousand times the normal amount". That means 10,000 pills per day. At an average rate of 60 pills per minute, you'd spend three hours a day swallowing pills. (You would also probably die from the side effects.) If the people advocating for this on the internet can't do math or if they have decided that 1/10000th the amount that worked in that one lab test (the very lab test they're saying proves that it works) will have the same effect as the amount that actually worked in the lab – well, that's not my fault, and I additionally encourage them to watch out for people trying to sell them homeopathy "drugs", too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This focus on the drug quantities involved in the original research is pointless. Nowhere was it claimed by the original researchers that the quantities used were the minimum required to achieve their result. The leader of the Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute Dr Wagstaff said at the time, "“Ivermectin is very widely used and seen as a safe drug. We need to figure out now whether the dosage you can use it at in humans will be effective – that’s the next step,” [[11]] Since April there have been dozens of studies which confirm that a normal dose of 200 micrograms/kg of bodyweight is effective against Covid 19, so perhaps its time to retire these references to the quantities used in the original in vitro studies. AussiePete56 (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out why Vitamin-D is not featured on this page on the other similar one COVID-19 drug development.

There is a surprising amount of research on the go with trials and published papers. Safety at physiological doses is well proven yet widespread deficiencies remain uncorrected. Demonstrated benefits and learned consensus keeps telling us that it should be on the front line as a prophylactic to minimise severity even it it does nothing else.

Here is a secondary source of sorts that has valuable information in the conclusion. Vitamin D and COVID-19: evidence and recommendations for supplementation

Here are some of the published study results Vitamin D is effective for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 37 studies

Has this simply been forgotten or what is the reason it is a second class citizen to new drugs that have still to be invented?

Idyllic press (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a whole section on vitamin D in the article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 07:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

200 scientists and doctors agree with you... [[12]] AussiePete56 (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

AussiePete56, there's content already here. What do you think needs to change? Jdphenix (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jdphenix. Apologies - I actually misread the above - I thought it was all written by Fvasconcellos and that he was saying that there was no mention of vitamin D in the "drug repurposing" article. What's actually there is not bad AussiePete56 (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the following under COVID-19 drug repurposing research#Ivermectin,

although it is still prescribed for outpatient use. [13]

to cite this as a source, instead of as a link. Jdphenix (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done

talk

) 12:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

We need a section on repurposing psychotropic drugs. Especially Fluvoxamine, other SSRI inhibitors, and successful amantadine use in Poland (adamantanes in general). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.144.208 (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Bring sources and discuss. Sounds interesting! Jdphenix (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Found this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7785036/ Sloorbeadle (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected}} Recommend that the Ivermectin section be reordered chronologically, from:

In November 2020, a systematic review found weak evidence of benefit when ivermectin is used as an add-on therapy for people with non-severe COVID-19.^[1] A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 24 patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors found no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load between patients who received ivermectin and those given placebo, thus failing the primary outcome of the study.^[2]

As of January 2021^[update], the U.S. National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines state that the evidence for ivermectin is too limited to allow for a recommendation for or against its use.^[3] Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for anti-viral use.^[3] Additional evidence from RCTs and dose-response studies are needed.^[4] At least 45 such trials were listed as of January 2021.^[2]

It was reported in June 2020 that despite the absence of high-quality evidence to suggest any efficacy, use of ivermectin for prevention or treatment of early-stage COVID-19 has become increasingly widespread especially in Latin America, raising concerns about self-medication, safety, and the feasibility of future clinical trials.^[5][6] In response, the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency, Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases, and Brazilian Thoracic Society all issued position statements in July^[7] or January 2021^[8][9] advising against the use of ivermectin for this purpose, and the government of Peru rescinded a previous recommendation for the use of ivermectin (alongside azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine) in hospitalized patients,^[10] although as of January 2021 it is still prescribed for outpatient use.^[11]

to

It was reported in June 2020 that despite the absence of high-quality evidence to suggest any efficacy, use of ivermectin for prevention or treatment of early-stage COVID-19 has become increasingly widespread especially in Latin America, raising concerns about self-medication, safety, and the feasibility of future clinical trials.^[5][6] In response, the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency, Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases, and Brazilian Thoracic Society all issued position statements in July^[7] or January 2021^[8][9] advising against the use of ivermectin for this purpose, and the government of Peru rescinded a previous recommendation for the use of ivermectin (alongside azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine) in hospitalized patients,^[10] although as of January 2021 it is still prescribed for outpatient use.^[11]

In November 2020, a systematic review found weak evidence of benefit when ivermectin is used as an add-on therapy for people with non-severe COVID-19.^[1] A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 24 patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors found no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load between patients who received ivermectin and those given placebo, thus failing the primary outcome of the study.^[2]

As of January 2021^[update], the U.S. National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines state that the evidence for ivermectin is too limited to allow for a recommendation for or against its use.^[3] Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for anti-viral use.^[3] Additional evidence from RCTs and dose-response studies are needed.^[4] At least 45 such trials were listed as of January 2021.^[2] Rfkrishnan (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to suggest to include the following in the article:

• Camostat approved in Japan for other diseases, with various positive pre-clinical data and multiple clinical trials currently running.
• Disulfiram widely approved for treatment of chronic alcoholism, shown to inhibit proteases of MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV and currently in clinical trials.
• Danoprevir clinical candidate against Hepatitis C virus, in clinical trails against COVID and shown to be favourably compared to lopinavir/ritonavir.
• Tipiracil ?
• Nafamostat approved for other indications in various clinical trials for COVID.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Skingo12 (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Each of the respective wiki pages link provide information on the respective drug in the COVID-19 context with proper references/sources for all statements. I did not copy that content here, as I am not sure which form the inclusion in this article should take (e.g. how much detail/repetition from the individual drug pages).

The article states, "On 15 June, the FDA revoked the emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, stating that although the evaluation of both these drugs under clinical trials continues, the FDA (after interagency consultation with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA)) concluded that, based on new information and other information discussed "... it is no longer reasonable to believe that oral formulations of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) may be effective in treating COVID‑19, nor is it reasonable to believe that the known and potential benefits of these products outweigh their known and potential risks".[28][29][30][31]". While it does seem to be supported by the citations, it seems to me that if Wikipedia is supposed to be an intelligent summary of existing discussion, there should be some acknowledgement that the alleged statement by the FDA is absurd, even if no one has pointed this out in print. It is absurd because 1. anything *may* be effective, no matter how unlikely and therefore to believe that will always be reasonable, and 2. if it really is impossible that it is effective, why is it stated earlier in the sentence that "the evaluation of both these drugs under clinical trials continues"? Surely there should at least be some acknowledgement that this is paradoxical. And has no reputable source noted the paradox? Arctic Gazelle (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I suggest adding the following to the end of the "ivermectin" section... "On the 27th Jan 2021, Slovakia became the first European nation to approve the use of ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of Covid 19. The approval is for a six month period."^[1] AussiePete56 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Skingo12 (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Skingo12. However, a few days later now, I see that the suggested addition has been removed. Would the editor responsible like to explain why? AussiePete56 (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't need a cherry-picked shopping list of countries, esp. from weak sources. What else would be added: South Africa, Australia ... ?

talk

) 08:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

How can an official government website be a "weak source".[[14]] You will say any nonsense for rhetorical effect. "Cherry-picking" is when you mention ONLY countries that reject ivermectin. The first first-world country to authorise its use against covid-19 is obviously a milestone event for the drug, and is a appropriate addition to this section AussiePete56 (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Requester is blocked.

talk | contribs

) 17:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn has selectively deleted half of a direct quote that he does not like in his role policing articles on vitamin D and any of its physiological or medical actions. Here is the source first cited by Whywhenwhohow [15] . This is not a comprehensive source but the full context says Dietary supplements aren’t meant to treat or prevent COVID-19. Certain vitamins and minerals (e.g., Vitamins C and D, zinc) may have effects on how our immune system works to fight off infections, as well as inflammation and swelling. I think we need all of this or nothing at all. We have evidence, and not what they are "meant" to do: see the cited systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of vitamin D deficiency PMID 33146028. Jrfw51 (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

And what does the next bit say? That these vitamins are best got through foods and supplements can have adverse effects. By selecting just the text you have in the context of an article on "drug repurposing research", you're including text that has the unfortunate effect of being misleading. Let's not do that.

talk

) 18:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What is misleading about this? (Anyway the physiological source of vitamin D is from UV action on skin if you can get it). The science shows these (bio)chemicals have immune effects and that is why people have tried to increase their intake to "fight off infections" such as COVID-19. Neither you nor I can be sure whether supplements do or do not help specific groups in specific situations. I propose that the whole of this introduction is deleted, and we wait for further quality evidence on the specifics. Neither you nor I have time to keep defending our different POVs. Jrfw51 (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It is suggested to add a separate pyramax entry to Antiviral. In addition, the paper of Dr. Sanjeev's research team at St. George's University of London, UK, has been formally listed in Cell magazine's Trends in parasitology. Also, I think the preliminary dissertation is also important because I made the preliminary thesis in July as an important reference thesis in this thesis. I will add the content of the pre thesis in more detail and then suggest the content. If you go to this article I edited, there is a citation paper.

It was announced on 3 April 2020 that artesunate/pyronaridine, the main components of a new ACT antimalarial drug sold under the brand name Pyramax, showed an inhibitory effect on SARS-CoV-2 Pyramax showed a virus titer inhibition rate of 99% or more after 24 hours in vitro tests using Hela cells. , while cytotoxicity was also reduced.[7]

A preprint published in July 2020 reported that pyronaridine and artesunate exhibit antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses using human lung epithelial (Calu-3) cells and Vero cells.[8] This in vitro experiment was very important in that the human lung cell Calu-3 was used, the cells were first infected with SARS-COV-2 and then treated with drugs 1 hour later.

Also, this in vitro experiment is encouraging in that the combination of pyronaridine and artesunate showed 100% inhibition in Vero cells. When each component was tested in Vero cells, the effect was less than that of HCQ, but when the two components were combined, it showed 100% inhibition and the effect lasted 48 hours. This shows that the two ingredients have a synergistic effect.

When tested in calu-3 cells with a single component of PYR and ART, the inhibition rate was 80-90%, especially the SI value of ART was very high, reaching 220.

The combination of pyronaridine and artesunate is being studied as a possible treatment for moderate to severe SARS-COV-2. [9] The preprint[8] published in July 2020 is cited as a reference paper for this paper.[9]

It is currently in phase II clinical trial in South Korea, South Africaand Philippine. phase III clinical trial in Burkina Faso, Kenya. The clinical trials in Burkina Faso, Kenya are led by CDC in the USA and The Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaperNerd (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Would need

talk

) 15:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Pyramax Korea Phase 2 clinical trial ends in April, so we'll talk again at that time. PaperNerd (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It's the only subsection containing subsubsections in the present article. It even includes a Controversy section, suggesting that it has attracted significant attention.

I agree with the split. I think Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine during the COVID-19 pandemic would be the best title for the new article. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks great now:

fgnievinski (talk

) 17:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Among 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. There was however a marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia, a reduction of cough and a tendency to lower viral loads and lower IgG titers which warrants assessment in larger trials.Adriaandh (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Adriaandh's version is more accurate, but why are we publishing a small, mostly statistically insignificant primary-source piece of original research which fails

WP:MEDRS? Wikipedia policy is that secondary sources should be used where available, like this meta-analysis and review performed by a highly reputable independent consultancy which concluded that ivermectin is a, " profoundly effective COVID-19 treatment." [[16]] Publishing only anti-ivermectin propaganda with regards to its potential against Covid 19 is WP:BIAS and WP:INFORMATION SUPPRESSION AussiePete56 (talk

) 16:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

That PDF is a faked-up

talk

) 17:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear esteemed Mr Alex, could you please comment on the false reporting on the study results?Adriaandh (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I've already commented on this at

talk

) 09:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Mister Alex sir, can you in that case please do as you said and just remove the erroneous content? As others (probably with nefarious goals) have said, this study is not representative of the full body of work with regard to Ivermectin. If you do insist on keeping it, please correct the misleading statement and also add all other RCT results to make this a fair representation of all the evidence for and against the drug. I implore you to follow your infinite wisdom and maintain this page unbiased. Much appreciated! Adriaandh (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Then remove it. It was only cherry-picked in the first place because its the only research you could find that didn't strongly endorse ivermectin as an effective anti-Covid 19 agent. You've repeatedly labelled as "fake" anything that doesn't confirm your hostile prejudices - an aggressive and unethical tactic. By the way, the highly esteemed Dr. Theresa Lawrie [[17]] would be very interested, not to mention concerned, that an influential senior editor of Wikipedia has very publicly declared her research to be FAKE. I wonder if you fully considered the laws regarding libel when you made your scurrilous and baseless allegations? Do you have deep pockets and access to a good lawyer? You might need both. AussiePete56 (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a faked-up "paper" (i.e. looking like a journal article but it's not). I am reporting you to

talk

) 11:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I see the false reporting on the study outcome is still unchanged. Is reporting on life and death medical research outcomes not considered important enough to maintain accurate information?Adriaandh (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Can somebody, anybody, please explain how 18-fold lower at day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) = found no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load ? I am really perplexed. Why was this page editing restricted if such a blatant false statement is still allowed to be left untouched? Adriaandh (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

How is it that the most significant compilation of work done on Ivermectin is not included in this Wikipedia entry? Specifically, <https://hcqmeta.com/> shows beyond any reasonable doubt that Ivermectin has positive effects against COVID 19 regardless of the endpoint used (death, hospitalization, lab results) or stage of the disease (prophylaxis, early/late treatment). Meta-analysis of 42 studies estimates a 75% improvement in outcomes Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). According to another hypothesis, it would be the scabies parasite which confers this protective role against Covid-19. This hypothesis is based on the ability of Sarcoptes scabiei to modulate “for 4 to 8 weeks after initial infestation … the host’s inflammatory and immune responses” ^{[1] [2]}. It would be the modulation of the host's inflammatory and immune responses elicited by Sarcoptes scabiei, and not ivermectin, that would have protected EHPAD residents from severe forms of Covid-19 ^[3]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Guidance on reliability/utility of a source

Good afternoon all Wikipedians; and can I ask your advice please on the following source: https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/05/09/update-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19/ - this source appears to take a reasonably critical overview of the few studies to have been concluded so far (ie as a secondary source) and goes on to conduct a meta-analysis on the results of some of them (ie in this respect is a primary source). Regards and respect to all, Springnuts (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable. We need good

talk

) 15:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Question

Alexbrn, I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning. The section already contains a lot of information about various bodies recommending and not recommending (mostly) to use ivermectin, how is India's health ministry guidance difference from those of Brazil, Peru and EU which are mentioned in the article? Alaexis_¿question?

12:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

They are at least linked to the underlying research. We need to keep focus otherwise it opens the door to a "shopping list" of countries and their various stances - rational or not - on ivermectin. For some secondary commentary on India/ivermectin this[18] Reuters fact-check might be useful? Perhaps in the

talk

) 12:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Whether they are right or wrong is beside the point. The fact that the health ministry of the second biggest country in the world recommends it is important - even (especially) if they turn out to be wrong. If this section contained only information about research then adding information about India's guidelines would be out of place. There can be no justification for including the official stance of Peru and not India. Maybe you can recommend where to move all the information about individual countries from this article? Alaexis_¿question? 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be fine with removal of the Peru content - it seems irrelevant too.

talk

) 16:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so this is my suggestion. We are starting with and giving most space to the research, then mention the WHO's official position and then mention briefly the stances of individual countries and blocks, starting with the US and EU and noting alternative positions.

“

In vitro, ivermectin has antiviral effects against several distinct positive-sense single-strand RNA viruses, including SARS-CoV-2.[110] Subsequent studies found that ivermectin could inhibit replication of SARS-CoV-2 in monkey kidney cell culture with an IC50 of 2.2–2.8 μM.[91][111] Based on this information, however, doses much higher than the maximum approved or safely achievable for use in humans would be required for an antiviral effect.[112] Aside from practical difficulties, such high doses are not covered by current human-use approvals of the drug and would be toxic, as the antiviral mechanism of action is considered to operate via the suppression of a host cellular process,[112] specifically the inhibition of nuclear transport by importin α/β1.[113] In November 2020, a systematic review found weak evidence of benefit when ivermectin is used as an add-on therapy for people with non-severe COVID-19.[114] Merck, the company from which the drug originated, has said that there is no good evidence ivermectin is plausible or effective as a drug used against COVID-19, and that attempting such use may be unsafe.[115] The WHO say that ivermectin should not be used to treat COVID-19 except in a clinical trial.[129] This is also the position of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the FDA. In a number of countries, including India, ivermectin has been approved by local health authorities.

”

Alaexis_¿question? 16:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't look good, because of the tacked on India stuff which has nothing to do with research. We know, sadly, that some Indian health authorities are up to their neck in quackery.

talk

) 16:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Who are "we" and how is it based on Wikipedia policies? Alaexis_¿question? 17:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"We" means Wikipedia editors who look at sources, and sources are the basis for all content here. e.g.[19]

talk

) 17:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

How is it relevant? This is a different ministry. Again, this is not about whether ivermectin works or not (personally I agree with the WHO that it's not a good idea to use it before clinical studies are complete). There are high-quality sources that prove that this is the guideline of the Ministry of Health (USA today article and the guidelines themselves. If the positions of major public health agencies is relevant then there can be no grounds to remove the Indian position. If they are not, I'm happy to leave the WHO statement and move everything else to a different place. Alaexis_¿question? 17:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This is an article about research. We have different articles about the COVID-19 pandemic in India, and about misinformation. Maybe your content would be dues in those (and maybe not). But it aint't due here.

talk

) 18:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Then why do we have information about its use in Latin America? It's not related to research. Alaexis_¿question? 18:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be fine with removal of the Peru content - it seems irrelevant too.

talk

) 18:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

---

(responding to the Adriaandh's reverted post) Please note that I opened an RfC at Talk:Ivermectin#Survey. Considering that this is an article about research, I think that the information about different countries' stances belongs there. There is little outside feedback so far, please feel free to add your opinion. Alaexis_¿question? 05:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn. Regulatory approval, whether in India or in South American countries, is not in the scope of this article, which is about research. When good research produces reliable results (whether positive or negative), they can be mentioned here. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2021

This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Self-medication has led to..." to "Self-medication with a formula intended for horses has led to..." in order to avoid confusion and to better reflect the cited source. Anthropoentomophagology (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2021

This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

WP:MEDRS? --Fernando Trebien (talk

) 23:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It's better now, and I've put some content at

talk

) 14:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2021

This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In 22, Jun 2021 philippines president Rodrigo Duterte publicly stated that ivermectin is "used for pigs"[1]^[2]

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

1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6DCuND1RR0
2. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/21/asia/philippines-duterte-covid-vaccine-jail-intl-hnk/index.html

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2021

This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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^[1] 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)"^[2]

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

1. doi:10.1007/s11606-021-06948-6
   .
2. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.0299
   .

 Not done The source for "showing potential benefit" is a letter, and doesn't support it in any case. More generall this is not relevant to the topic of "drug repurposing research". Maybe something respectful of

talk

) 13:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have edit access there and the talk page is locked as well but propose adding "Despite the lack of FDA approval for COVID-19 treatment, an increase in off-label ivermectin prescriptions occurred in the US[1] following widespread media coverage of the drug. "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)"^[2] Caprilyc (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Caprilyc possibly also at Ivermectin and/or COVID-19 pandemic in the United States if it's notable. Alaexis_¿question? 14:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Point taken. I did not mean to add it as an endorsement of efficacy, more as a statement on how even very preliminary scientific findings affected physician behavior in the field. Given that there is discussion of people taking horse dewormer perhaps that is also better moved to COVID-19 misinformation instead of this research section. Caprilyc (talk) 15:01, 28 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. Melmann 09:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Concerning Ivermectin, it seems reasonable to include a statement, such as:

The National Institute of Health (NIH) is currently neutral in its stance on the efficacy of Ivermectin as a COVID-19 therapy: "There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19." "Some observational cohorts and clinical trials have evaluated the use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19." See, https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/ 2600:8802:330F:A00:895B:ADAD:F26F:315A (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

References

1. doi:10.1007/s11606-021-06948-6
   .
2. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.0299
   .

 Not done The position of the NIH is already included in the article.

talk

) 20:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Invermectin again. Claimed peer reviewed meta-analysis.

This any use? https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx

Regards all. Springnuts (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

No. It's been raised (in at least 3 sections) at

talk

) 06:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Springnuts (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2021

This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is now peer reviewed evidence that Ivermectin does work for CoVid. https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx 108.243.106.82 (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done The URL throws a 404 error. dudhhr_Contribs 02:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Chloroquine and hydroxycholoquine

For Ivermectin it is correctly written that “some governments have allowed its off-label use”, including India (despite the opinion comments added like “Misinformation”, “despair”…). But this is not written for Chloroquine and hydroxycholoquine, despite the fact that Indian Ministry oh Health advises the use of hydroxycholoquine for mild cases in its latest Clinical management protocol, amended on May 24 2021.

The Protocol https://www.mohfw.gov.in/pdf/UpdatedDetailedClinicalManagementProtocolforCOVID19adultsdated24052021.pdf,

Article about the amended protocol and ivermectin Hindustan Times,

Article about the amended protocol and hydroxycholoquine Times of India.

Could someone add the info, at least for hydroxycholoquine? I have not enough edits to be able to do it myself… Thanks. Ceveris (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Pyramax (pyronaridine/artesunate) phase2 result

As a result of plaque assay, after 3 days of administration, the amount of viable virus was reduced by 96.3%. (Initial viral load)

The Pyramax group achieved a 100% negative change after 10 days in all patients, whereas the amount of infectious virus on the 3rd day of administration of the infectious virus Pyramax was significantly reduced 2.8-fold compared to the placebo group [the amount of change in the amount of virus before administration, the adjusted mean of the Pyramax group 96.3% reduction vs. 34.5% reduction in placebo group, p=0.0143)]. PaperNerd (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Would need a source that was reliable according to

talk

) 04:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

New Cochrane report regarding Ivermectin

I cannot add it (maybe @

PMID 34318930) came to the conclusion that "the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.". --Julius Senegal (talk

) 06:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

More information about withdrawn ivermectin promoting paper

can be found on nature news:

doi:10.1038/d41586-021-02081-w --Julius Senegal (talk

) 07:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change: Aside from practical difficulties, such high doses are not covered by current human-use approvals of the drug and would be toxic, as the antiviral mechanism of action is considered to operate by the suppression of a host cellular process.

to: Aside from practical difficulties, such high doses of ivermectin that were effective in cell culture are not approved for human-use; administering sufficiently high dosages to reach the dosage in the cell culture medium (in the study) for humans would be toxic, as the antiviral mechanism operates by suppressing required human cellular processes. In fact, currently there are no good quality studies showing that Ivermectin is both safe and beneficial to treat COVID-19 (cite many meta-analyses). Thus, ivermectin is unlikely to be prescribed in many countries to treat SARS-COV-2, the viral agent causing COVID-19, but prescription is likely to result in malpractice lawsuits and human deaths. To explain simply, the study using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 showed that as cells die, they will produce less virus. Uncc23 (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2021

This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under Research, COVID-19, the last paragraph states that the governments of some countries have granted official approval ivermectin for use as a treatment of COVID-19. One country listed is the Philippines. The citation says the exact opposite. The Philippines has approved ivermectin for use as an anti-nematode drug, in line with it historical usage. The citation specifically states that the government of the Philippines has, in no way, shape, or form, approved ivermectin for use as treatment of COVID-19.

I am asking for the line mentioning the Philppines to be deleted. 2601:582:300:2F7E:4C73:CC65:4E98:361 (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Source seemed clear that it was not authorized for off-label use EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Aspirin

There was research into aspirin (for its blood thinning properties) to treat COVID-19. https://www.ukri.org/news/aspirin-does-not-reduce-deaths-for-hospitalised-covid-19-patients/#:~:text=Aspirin%20does%20not%20reduce%20deaths%20for%20hospitalised%20COVID%2D19%20patients,-10%20June%202021&text=The%20'RECOVERY'%20trial%20has%20released,patients%20hospitalised%20with%20COVID%2D19.

DouglasHeld (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

DouglasHeld, The thing about this, is that it's not repurposing. It's using it for the purposes we already know about, in a new disease. This article is more about using drugs for previously unknown purposes, in the treatment of COVID-19.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought perhaps blood thinning is still considered an off-label use of aspirin.

DouglasHeld (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2021

This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change this line: "Self-medication with a highly concentrated formula intended for horses has led to numerous hospitalizations, and overdose can lead to death, possibly due to interaction with other medications.[94] "

to:

Self-medication with a highly concentrated formula intended for horses has led to at least some hospitalizations, and overdose can lead to death, possibly due to interaction with other medications.[94]"

Because the cited article actually states: "...the FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock." 71.167.166.177 (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not personally comfortable making the change without either consensus or a source with specific numbers, which I couldn't immediately find. I will propose using "multiple hospitalizations" as a compromise between "some" and "numerous", especially since that phrasing was previously used in the article. @Ftrebien and Autodidact1: Perhaps you could provide some input here? — LauritzT (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@LauritzT: I agree that "multiple hospitalizations" is the best option, following the description given by the source. I tried to find some numbers, but all I could find was that the number of exposures (including those cases with major effects and those with minor effects) rose from 133 to 459 from July to August in the US. It also more than doubled relative to 2020 from January to August.^[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftrebien (talk • contribs)

Agree that "multiple" is the best term here. This is such an evolving phenomenon that we don't want to pin ourselves down too firmly imo.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Romo, Vanessa (4 September 2021). "Poison Control Centers Are Fielding A Surge Of Ivermectin Overdose Calls". NPR. Retrieved 13 September 2021.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2021

This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Suggest that the following conclusion from "Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVOC-19" appearing in the American Journal of Therapeutics (2021)be added:

The findings indicate with moderate certainty that ivermectin treatment in COVID-19 provides a significant survival benefit. . . . Overall, the evidence also suggests that early use of ivermectin may reduce morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. This is based on (1) reductions in COVID-19 infections when ivermectin was used as prophylaxis, (2) the more favorable effect estimates for mild to moderate disease compared with severe disease for death due to any cause, and (3) on the evidence demonstrating reductions in deterioration. 2601:189:C480:FFB0:0:0:0:CFEE (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This will be "a whole thing." I suggest you seek consensus here on the talk page for that addition. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 September 2021

This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I think this article deserves to be included. It is a well sourced and reputable newspaper in India. It writes how the State with the highest population in India used Ivermectin to treat Covid-19 and how it was sanctioned by the State's Health Department.

Uttar Pradesh government says early use of Ivermectin helped to keep positivity, deaths low The 13th 4postle (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Re: India, we already discuss this with other sources that are more recent. Sub-topic discussion of just Uttar Pradesh would be

WP:UNDUE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 15:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2021

This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change “After reviewing the evidence on ivermectin, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) advised against it's use” to “After reviewing the evidence on ivermectin, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) advised against its use”

Remove incorrect apostrophe DarthTaper (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)