This thread reminds me of the laetrile craze of the 1960's and 70's,
where desperate people traveled to Tiajuana, Mexico for a "miracle" cure. Steve McQueen was one of them.
By Barron H. Lerner, NY Times,, Nov. 15, 2005
Steve McQueen's death 25 years ago this month ended a bizarre drama in which he surreptitiously traveled to Mexico for an unorthodox cancer treatment. The medical profession largely derided McQueen as a victim of fraud, but to some people with cancer, his pursuit of an alternative treatment seemed heroic. What lessons does his unconventional journey provide today?
McQueen first developed a cough in 1978. By the next year, when he was 49, he was having difficulty breathing. Finally, in December 1979, doctors made the diagnosis: mesothelioma, an incurable cancer of the lining of the lungs usually related to asbestos exposure. McQueen, an avid car racer, may have been exposed by wearing racing suits.
His doctors gave him a gloomy prognosis, but they treated him with radiotherapy and chemotherapy to try to shrink the cancer. He kept the diagnosis a secret from all but his closest friends.
But on March 11, 1980, The National Enquirer published an article titled "Steve McQueen's Heroic Battle Against Terminal Cancer." McQueen continued to deny the rumors.
When his doctors told him they had run out of options, McQueen secretly met with Dr. William D. Kelley, a dentist and orthodontist who had devised a controversial treatment regimen he claimed had cured his own pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Kelley had been blacklisted by the American Cancer Society and had his license suspended in Texas. But McQueen was interested in the treatment, which was based on the notion that cancers arose and grew from a lack of enough pancreatic enzymes.
In July 1980, McQueen secretly traveled to Rosarita Beach, Mexico, to be treated by Mexican and American doctors using Dr. Kelley's regimen. He received not only pancreatic enzymes but 50 daily vitamins and minerals, massages, prayer sessions, psychotherapy, coffee enemas and injections of a cell preparation made from sheep and cattle fetuses. McQueen was also given laetrile, a controversial alternative treatment made from apricot pits.
In October, after being tracked down by The National Enquirer, McQueen issued a statement saying he had mesothelioma and was in treatment in Mexico. A week later, Mexican television played an audio message from McQueen in which he said he was recovering. "Mexico is showing the world a new way of fighting cancer through nonspecific metabolic therapies," he said, adding, "Thank you for helping to save my life."
Cancer organizations were horrified, warning that McQueen's supposed recovery was a hoax. One doctor called the treatment "rank quackery." But others wanted to hear what McQueen and his new doctors had to say. At a press conference, one Mexican physician claimed that 85 to 90 percent of his patients had improved with Dr. Kelley's treatment. Twelve patients who said they were cured by Dr. Kelley attended as well.
McQueen's resurrection was short-lived. On Nov. 6, 1980, doctors operated to remove cancerous masses from his abdomen and neck. He withstood the surgery, but he died the next day.
In short, don't fall for medical hoaxes and "miracle" cures.
Ivermectin is a recent example.
Unfortunately, you quoted old information on ivermectin and Covid - from an article posted in 2020. Here is the source:
That's your viewpoint but let's face the facts. Here's an excerpt from NCBI on the subject of ivermectin and its efficacy
There is also evidence emerging from countries where ivermectin has been implemented. For example, Peru had a very high death toll from COVID-19 early on in the pandemic.128
Based on observational evidence, the Peruvian government approved ivermectin for use against COVID-19 in May 2020.128
After implementation, death rates in 8 states were reduced between 64% and 91% over a two-month period.128
Another analysis of Peruvian data from 24 states with early ivermectin deployment has reported a drop in excess deaths of 59% at 30+ days and of 75% at 45+ days.129
However, factors such as change in behavior, social distancing, and face-mask use could have played a role in this reduction.
Other considerations related to the use of ivermectin treatment in the COVID-19 pandemic include people's values and preferences, equity implications, acceptability, and feasibility.130
None of the identified reviews specifically discussed these criteria in relation to ivermectin. However, in health care decision making, evidence on effectiveness is seldom taken in isolation without considering these factors. Ultimately, if ivermectin is to be more widespread in its implementation, then some considerations are needed related to these decision-making criteria specified in the GRADE-DECIDE framework.130
There are numerous emerging ongoing clinical trials assessing ivermectin for COVID-19. The trade-off with policy and potential implementation based on evidence synthesis reviews and/or RCTs will vary considerably from country to country. Certain South American countries, Indian states, and, more recently, Slovakia and other countries in Europe have implemented its use for COVID-19.129
A recent survey of global trends118
documents usage worldwide. Despite ivermectin being a low-cost medication in many countries globally, the apparent shortage of economic evaluations indicates that economic evidence on ivermectin for treatment and prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 is currently lacking. This may impact more on LMICs that are potentially waiting for guidance from organizations like the WHO.
Given the evidence of efficacy, safety, low cost, and current death rates, ivermectin is likely to have an impact on health and economic outcomes of the pandemic across many countries. Ivermectin is not a new and experimental drug with an unknown safety profile. It is a WHO “Essential Medicine” already used in several different indications, in colossal cumulative volumes. Corticosteroids have become an accepted standard of care in COVID-19, based on a single RCT of dexamethasone.1
If a single RCT is sufficient for the adoption of dexamethasone, then a fortiori the evidence of 2 dozen RCTs supports the adoption of ivermectin.
Ivermectin is likely to be an equitable, acceptable, and feasible global intervention against COVID-19. Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and prophylaxis.
As this 2020 article noted, "There are numerous emerging ongoing clinical trials assessing ivermectin for COVID-19. " The largest study, in Brazil, is now complete. See;
Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19 | NEJM
This highlights the need to check the details on medical information. Thanks to the internet and Google, it is now easy to find a wide range of claims and 'studies' that may appear legitimate.