It's not just *in vitro.

Per article (and not arguing it's effective for human oncology), there are also studies with mice showing effectiveness.

▲

cthalupa 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sure, there's a few. But 3 rodent studies isn't exactly enough evidence for a layperson to worry about, either. It's not even much of a signal for scientists in that area of research.

Ivermectin is pretty safe for people to use regardless of whether or not they have parasites, so sure, do the human RCTs. Maybe we'll get lucky and have another tool in our anti-cancer toolbox.

But trying to extrapolate out that it's reasonable for people to take it for cancer based on the current evidence is premature, at best.

▲

gus_massa 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

During peak covid-19 I read a lot of ivermectin studies posted in HN. Most were just horrible, with obvious mistakes. If you pick one, I can give a try to roast it.

▲

cthalupa 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

My personal quick rubric for determining if an ivermectin study showing improvement for cv19 outcomes is likely to be trustworthy:

Was the population being studied one where parasite infections that ivermectin can take care of are endemic?

Yes - improves outcomes in this population because many of them are likely to have parasites and killing them reduces strain on the body and frees up immune system resources to deal with covid

No - you'll find glaring flaws even in a quick once-over.

Hasn't failed me yet.

▲

caminante 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Fire away at the one in the link above.

	▲	gus_massa 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I tried with 17: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7925581/ From figure 1: > Complete tumor regression was observed in 6/15 mice on the combination treatment, 1/20 on ivermectin alone, 1/10 on anti-PD1 antibody alone, and 0/25 on no treatment. Ok, that looks interesting.