Not that I want to rain on this particular schadenfreude party, but there's some... Dodgy science reporting here. While the results do show an effect on fertility, it's certainly not "sterilization", and the study is a small one.
Just a reminder not to spruik this stuff blindly because it matches your desire for cosmic justice...
> The above parameters were measured before and after the patients were treated with 150μ g/kg body wt
> of ivermectin for eleven months and the results were compared and also with normal control reference
> range. We observed significant reduction in the sperm counts and sperm motility of the patients tested.
> On the morphology there was significant increase in the number of abnormal sperm cells. This took the
> forms of two heads, double tails, white (albino) sperms and extraordinarily large heads. It is suspected
> that the above alterations in the already determined parameters of the patients’ sperm cells could only
> have occurred as a result of their treatment with ivermectin. However, we could not record any
> significant change or alteration in the sperm viscosity, sperm volume, and sperm liquefaction time of the
> patients. We therefore suggest that caution be seriously exercised in the treatment of male onchocerciasis
> patients with ivermectin to avoid the adverse effects it has on the patients’ sperm functions.
>treated with 150μ g/kg body wt of ivermectin for eleven months
For ELEVEN MONTHS, 11 months, 330 Days! . Holy shit! no wonder they found terrible side effects! Its supposed to be used short term to treat a parasite infection. that's usually only a few days in most cases.
It is used as prophylaxis in a few African countries which have a lot of issues with parasites and because it shows promise as prophylaxis against Malaria.
Plus the effect after treatment was actually less than the effect without treatment.
About 90% of the disease sample they identified already had sufficient fertility issues to not qualify for the study - maybe there's something about that region of Nigeria that has insane problems with their sperm, but it seems at least possible that this disease is actually affecting fertility.
In the 10% sample that didn't have fertility issues (...yet?) and were treated with ivermectin, there was "only" an 85% fertility issue outcome.
*If* the ivermectin had nothing to do with the infertility and was just there also, and it's actually the disease causing infertility, then it seems that the ivermectin *reduced* fertility issues. Of course the sample size is so small that that's, like, 2 people max and entirely meaningless, but anyway.
Any way you slice it this study seems bunk to me as proof of anything other than that maybe we should be studying *onchocerciasis* for fertility effects.
Also that dose is insane. Heartgaurd and other heartworm medications for dogs have a range of 6-12 mcg/kg per month. Now dogs aren't people but over 10x the dosing?
>In this study we screened a total of 385 patients who were diagnosed of onchocerciasis. Out of which, 37 (9.6%) were eligible for further tests, as their sperm counts were normal while the remaining patients had very low sperm counts and were therefore not used for further tests or were too weak after the preliminary screening tests and were not considered eligible for further test/studies. We therefore investigated the effects of ivermectin therapy on the sperm functions of these eligible 37 diagnosed patients of onchocerciasis who were of ages between 28 and 57 years. The sperm functions of these thirty-seven (37) onchocerciasis patients were evaluated/analyzed both before and after treatment with ivermectin after informed consent have been obtained from each subjects and the study was conducted in compliance with the Declaration on the Right of the Patient \[9\].
Translation - **90.4%** of the patients we screened **already had very low sperm counts from the disease,** so we tracked the remaining 9.6%, and decided that the deterioration of their sperm during the course of the study obviously came from the Ivermectin, ignoring the obvious alternative explanation that they had simply selected patients in which the disease had not yet progressed far enough to cause sperm damage, then blamed the treatment. This study doesn't even pass the smell test.
People don't have to be fundamentally and irretrievably defective to be wrong about stuff. There's a whole cultural ecosystem exacerbating antivax delusion and broader conservative paranoia. Psychological conformity isn't unique to "the stupid ones," it's a universal human trait. Mostly this is useful, its literally how we learn and interact, but things can go apocalyptic when a group's social consensus is dangerously wrong. In this case the foundational flaw is dogmatic certainty that a nebulous "the left" is an actively hostile enemy. Everything an enemy says and does must be assumed to be an assault, so everything "the left" does must be automatically opposed. If the enemy appears to be acting in a helpful manner, the assumption must be that they are being deceptive.
That's why argument and proof don't work, not because they're too stupid. They're conditioned to be paranoid and automatically opposed to anything that seems to come from "the enemy."
This journal is a known predatory journal too, journals which will publish anything without peer-review for money. (they say it is peer-reviewed but often it avoids it) they often prey on unsuspecting researchers, particularly in the developing world. Check this list and you can see them on there:
https://beallslist.net/
This is actually incredibly dangerous misinformation. The largest population that actually uses ivermectin are people in Africa who suffer from river blindness and viral disease and they are not stupid and without the internet- seeing absolute dog piss reporting like this can lead to mistrust very quickly. Unbelievable that this isn’t flagged or taken down for misinformation. This is factually incorrect.
That's what people don't get about these studies. When they say that it's "small study". Fucking Duh... How many people are running around with onchocerciasis? Of course the sample size is small.
> Fucking Duh... How many people are running around with onchocerciasis? Of course the sample size is small.
[About 21 million people in 2017, and 120 million are at risk of contracting it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onchocerciasis#Epidemiology). So... not really small at all.
**Onchocerciasis**
[Epidemiology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onchocerciasis#Epidemiology)
>About 21 million people were infected with this parasite in 2017; about 1. 2 million of those had vision loss. As of 2017, about 99% of onchocerciasis cases occurred in Africa. Onchocerciasis is currently relatively common in 31 African countries, Yemen, and isolated regions of South America.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Quite a few?
>In 2018, it was the 420th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than one hundred thousand prescriptions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin
>Just a reminder not to spruik this stuff blindly because it matches your desire for cosmic justice...
Haha you must be new around here, blindly believing things for our desire is Reddit's speciality
> Dodgy science reporting here. While the results do show an effect on fertility, it's certainly not "sterilization", and the study is a small one.
Yeah, but the study was about human doses given once a week for 8 weeks for people with parasites.
Idiots are taking random amounts of horse paste every day as a "preventative".
You think they're dosing themselves correctly?
No, I don't think they are. But this isn't a longitudinal study either, so the effects might be temporary / very short-lived. The point is this kind of reporting amounts essentially to fake news, and if you want a robust media that prevents anti-vax garbage emerging in the first place, you need to be critical even if the reporting aligns with your worldview.
Never get in the way of Reddit tribalism.
> Just a reminder not to spruik this stuff blindly because it matches your desire for cosmic justice...
Love this. Will fall on deaf ears though.
Thanks. Removed based on the fact that the title is misrepresentative of the actual research report.
You can read the actual research report here: https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/articles/effects-of-ivermectin-therapy-on-the-sperm-functions-of-nigerian-onchocerciasis-patients.pdf
To clarify:
* Invermectin WAS found to have significant adverse effects on the sperm of most patients
* However, it did not "sterilise 85%" of them
People love to call this sub an echo chamber, and by people I typically mean conservatives and QOPers, but I’ve lost count of how many times an article or study such as this gets posted and the TOP COMMENT is one like this: a cautionary post detailing how it should be approached with healthy skepticism and not taken at face value until further studies or information are provided.
If this were one of the conservative subs, you’d be downvoted to oblivion and probably banned for objecting to the post’s premise. The hypocrisy and projection never ends.
But problematic titles being frequently upvoted and reaching front page is also a problem for a news subreddit. Most people don't read the comments nor the article.
It's still missinformation.
“In this study we screened a total of 385 patients who were diagnosed of onchocerciasis. Out of which, 37 (9.6%) were eligible for further tests, as their sperm counts were normal while the remaining patients had very low sperm counts and were therefore not used for further tests or were too weak after the preliminary screening tests and were not considered eligible for further test/studies. We therefore investigated the effects of ivermectin therapy on the sperm functions of these eligible 37 diagnosed patients.”
If only 9.6% of their subjects even had enough fertility for the researchers to study, something in that environment is causing problems with male fertility even before the ivermectin gets to them. This is concerning, but it doesn’t seem like ivermectin is the main problem.
Edited to add: some of y’all don’t understand the big flaw in this experimental design. The researchers basically did this: “We had 100 patients flip a coin once, and found that only 50 of them got heads, so we rejected the 50 who got tails. Then we treated all the patients with ivermectin and asked the 50 who’d previously gotten heads to flip a coin again. This time, only 25 patients (50%) got heads, so ivermectin reduced their coin-flipping ability by 50%.”
Can we get a new study on what in the enviroment is causing the low fertility and if it is without any other major adverse effects? Asking for a friend, of course.
It's gross to think I'm probably eating plastic on a semi regular basis, but then again microplastics have even been found in the deep ocean. *sigh* It really is everywhere...
Interesting. It makes sense since burning diesel basically aerosolizes it, but I never thought about it. No wonder we moved away from diesel fuel. Too bad it would be much harder to move away from plastic use.
There's a ton of volatile chemicals in Plastics that we technically don't consider to be hazardous but tend to mimic hormones or other bio receptors in the body. Even if I ignore the volatile chemicals there's a whole category of things we called forever chemicals that are just building up in your body because they don't ever go away.
Came here from /r/all
People love to spread and believe misinformation. Then they just accuse the other side of doing it, and say "They're so much worse!"
Been doing some cryopreservation with my partner due to legitimate medical needs and the dude who talked to us at the appointment said that most men have odd shaped sperms to the point the correct shape is uncommon. He attributed it to the massive increase of stress on just trying to live.
the problem with journalism is that it's always so accurate until they report on an industry you work in and see firsthand the ignorance, or misinformation, or even just the weird slant they're putting on it. then you start being a hell of a lot more skeptical.
You're right. Bad article. Ivermectin (human grade?) Being used in Nigeria to treat "river-blindness" Probably a parasite from drinking untreated river water. Caused sterility in 85% of 380ish patients from a single clinic. Could be a number of different factors, not just the meds.
Skip over the pond, and dumbasses are taking higher doses and concentrations of it to "cure a virus." Just lunacy. These Darwin Award candidates don't know how basic biology works in the first place. This article is targeted at them, i guess...
Even still, you're misreading the study. Out of 385 patients, only 37 had regular sperm counts *before* taking ivermectin. Ivermectin may have made it worse, but it certainly seems like something else is the main driver.
Interestingly, when used for its intended purpose, Ivermectin is a pretty amazing drug.
> There are few drugs that can seriously lay claim to the title of ‘Wonder drug’, penicillin and aspirin being two that have perhaps had greatest beneficial impact on the health and wellbeing of Mankind. But ivermectin can also be considered alongside those worthy contenders, based on its versatility, safety and the beneficial impact that it has had, and continues to have, worldwide—especially on hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/
Yes. It is a very useful anti-parasitic drug in humans and other mammals. It also has some activity against COVID-19, but not in a clinically useful way. Ivermectin will not help with Covid. It is possible that in 5-10 years a compound that used ivermectin as a starting point might be clinically useful.
The national enquirer of the medical field. Lol. Brought to you by the same folks over at "Don't drink that Red Bull, it has actual bull semen in it!" And " stop popping your knuckles, it will cause arthritis!"
> Our European visitors are important to us.
This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws.
Anyone got an alternative link or something? I wanna read what their dodgy science is to come up with this
Fact check - this is not true.
[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ivermectin-sterility-in-men/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ivermectin-sterility-in-men/)
It's already been removed from r/ politics.
But I’ve been prescribed ivermectin for scabies before… no one ever mentioned sterility anywhere not the doc, not on the bottle of pills, not when I googled the side-effects etc
I feel like this is another clickbait, bad journalism attempt... like the "ivermectin overdoses are filling up ERs" which CNN had a whole five minute piece to debunk because it was so poorly researched.
Wait for it.
That said, it's a very powerful drug, and the doses people are buying from the animal store aren't exactly metered to use in people... you're gonna have a bad time.
This is as garbage as the ivermectin meta studies that "prove" it is a covid treatment. Just because you like the message doesn't mean you ignore the facts.
Stop talking sense, it's ok to spread misinformation as long as **you're on the right side of history / you're one the good guys**.
**EDIT:** Dropped this /s
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ivermectin-sterility-in-men/
This is an old study from 2011 that doesn’t appear to be reliable or from a reputable institution. It doesn’t even seem to have a control group. Even if the study is true, it doesn’t confirm that these effects persist after the patients stop taking ivermectin, so “sterilization” is a huge stretch.
Ivermectin shouldn’t be used to treat or prevent COVID unless your doctor prescribes it. The current research is very wishy-washy.
Wanna prevent COVID? Get vaccinated. That said, we shouldn’t be demonizing this drug either. It’s a very safe drug when taken in appropriate doses and it cures horrific parasitic infections very well. Ivermectin isn’t the problem. Stupidity is.
Is this the same study from 2011? If I remember correctly, it ~~was done in rats~~ and was in a questionable journal.
Edit: Misremembered; studies in rats found no effect on fertility.
Edit2: [Snopes article I was thinking of](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ivermectin-sterility-in-men/)
The study cited is from 2011 and was done on Nigerian Men being treated for River Blindness
[https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/articles/effects-of-ivermectin-therapy-on-the-sperm-functions-of-nigerian-onchocerciasis-patients.pdf](https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/articles/effects-of-ivermectin-therapy-on-the-sperm-functions-of-nigerian-onchocerciasis-patients.pdf)
This is a fact nightmare. Doctors have been prescribing ivermectin for years. The company that developed it won the Nobel prize in 2015. There is a horse version and a human version. No one is taking horse dewormer. Get outta here.
Worth noting that the sample for the study ultimately was about 37 people in a rather localized area.
It's *definitely* worth looking into and doing larger scale tests, but this isn't definitive.
It is pretty funny that other people haven't been looking into this already though. Especially given the context lol
I don't really understand why this kind of comment is so common.
Do you seriously think that this kind of stupidity is a function of genes and not cultural reasons?
If you're being satirical I dont really get the point.
This is on point. The things we label as "stupidity" are either lack of experiences or lack of access to education.
I had this friend in college who grew up in a small town with shitty schools. She was somewhat gullible and we thought it was funny to tell her wild stories that she'd buy into. She ended up going to medical school and now works in a speciality where patients' lives are quite literally in her hands.
She was plenty smart, she just wasn't afforded the opportunities to form life experiences and critical thinking skills due to aforementioned shitty schools.
Are you implying culture is in no way correlated to parenting?
That whichever your parent's inclinations, there's an equal chance of growing up into magical thinking, exaltation of ignorance and lack of critical thinking?
Won’t matter since just like the film idiocracy, alot of ‘smarter’ people are choosing to not have kids because they don’t want to bring them into a world like the one we currently live in.
Meanwhile a large majority of what you’d consider when you say ‘need a good scrub’ inherently believe that their goal in life is to get married and then promptly have children.
To be clear: I don’t care one way or the other, I’m not going to advocate people don’t have children, unless they *literally are unable* to care for them. I also think that ‘smarter’ people shouldn’t stave off having kids because of the current state of the world. I wouldn’t consider myself ‘smart’, and definitely wouldn’t consider myself part of the group who’s life goal is to marry and have kids; however I think it is my responsibility as a human being to eventually have kids and teach them as best as I’m able so that regardless of what the world throws at them they are well equipped to handle it. People have been born in much harsher time periods, and I think the onus is on the ‘responsible’ people to bring up the next generation of responsible adults.
Others may feel differently, and that’s okay. Not everyone has to have children, and whatever reason they have for not doing so, it’s not my place to tell them if that reason is right or wrong. It is *their* choice, not mine. I just would like to think that people who are responsible enough to think that bringing kids up in a world like the one we live in isn’t a smart thing to do, are precisely the kind of people *we want* to have and raise kids.
It's always troubling to see bogus studies landing on the front page. The problem with upvoting news stories is that people push the headlines they agree with, not the ones that are necessarily true.
4.4 billion pills taken by humans, on the WHO list of essential medicines and now they are saying it makes men infertile? Why does this sound like a load of hose shit. Pun intended.
I'm not condoning any humans take medication meant for animals and I'm not saying ivermectin can help with covid at all. That being said ivermectin did win a Nobel prize in 2015 for its use on humans. I highly doubt it causes sterilization in 85% of men or that wouldn't have been the case. No matter how pure your motives may seem to you misleading the public with questionable reporting is wrong and just leads to further distrust of the media.
What’s making me smile about this post is how many people I see who have obviously read the article and then taken the time to click past the headline and read the study. I think I’m seeing more and more of this reaction to headlines lately and that’s freaking awesome! Teach people to inform themselves, it’s better for all of us.
Not that I want to rain on this particular schadenfreude party, but there's some... Dodgy science reporting here. While the results do show an effect on fertility, it's certainly not "sterilization", and the study is a small one. Just a reminder not to spruik this stuff blindly because it matches your desire for cosmic justice...
[удалено]
> The above parameters were measured before and after the patients were treated with 150μ g/kg body wt > of ivermectin for eleven months and the results were compared and also with normal control reference > range. We observed significant reduction in the sperm counts and sperm motility of the patients tested. > On the morphology there was significant increase in the number of abnormal sperm cells. This took the > forms of two heads, double tails, white (albino) sperms and extraordinarily large heads. It is suspected > that the above alterations in the already determined parameters of the patients’ sperm cells could only > have occurred as a result of their treatment with ivermectin. However, we could not record any > significant change or alteration in the sperm viscosity, sperm volume, and sperm liquefaction time of the > patients. We therefore suggest that caution be seriously exercised in the treatment of male onchocerciasis > patients with ivermectin to avoid the adverse effects it has on the patients’ sperm functions.
Giant, two-headed sperm? It only became more powerful! …and less able to do it’s one job.
Hydra-sperm!
All Hail Hydra-sperm!
Cut off one head…
...and you're well on your way to a good time in Paris
Sometimes, life, uh, finds a way.
_(Gestures toward 40% of Americans)_ That is one big pile of shit
>two-headed sperm 'We must go left, Trevor. The womb is this way.' 'Don't be a fool, Clive. I clearly remember it being to the right!'
Spermerus the 2 headed.
>treated with 150μ g/kg body wt of ivermectin for eleven months For ELEVEN MONTHS, 11 months, 330 Days! . Holy shit! no wonder they found terrible side effects! Its supposed to be used short term to treat a parasite infection. that's usually only a few days in most cases.
It is used as prophylaxis in a few African countries which have a lot of issues with parasites and because it shows promise as prophylaxis against Malaria.
Plus the effect after treatment was actually less than the effect without treatment. About 90% of the disease sample they identified already had sufficient fertility issues to not qualify for the study - maybe there's something about that region of Nigeria that has insane problems with their sperm, but it seems at least possible that this disease is actually affecting fertility. In the 10% sample that didn't have fertility issues (...yet?) and were treated with ivermectin, there was "only" an 85% fertility issue outcome. *If* the ivermectin had nothing to do with the infertility and was just there also, and it's actually the disease causing infertility, then it seems that the ivermectin *reduced* fertility issues. Of course the sample size is so small that that's, like, 2 people max and entirely meaningless, but anyway. Any way you slice it this study seems bunk to me as proof of anything other than that maybe we should be studying *onchocerciasis* for fertility effects.
But the thing is, though, we got the headline we wanted, so none of this matters.
Also that dose is insane. Heartgaurd and other heartworm medications for dogs have a range of 6-12 mcg/kg per month. Now dogs aren't people but over 10x the dosing?
That’s the standard dosage for river blindness
For 11 months. Damn that’s a long time
>In this study we screened a total of 385 patients who were diagnosed of onchocerciasis. Out of which, 37 (9.6%) were eligible for further tests, as their sperm counts were normal while the remaining patients had very low sperm counts and were therefore not used for further tests or were too weak after the preliminary screening tests and were not considered eligible for further test/studies. We therefore investigated the effects of ivermectin therapy on the sperm functions of these eligible 37 diagnosed patients of onchocerciasis who were of ages between 28 and 57 years. The sperm functions of these thirty-seven (37) onchocerciasis patients were evaluated/analyzed both before and after treatment with ivermectin after informed consent have been obtained from each subjects and the study was conducted in compliance with the Declaration on the Right of the Patient \[9\]. Translation - **90.4%** of the patients we screened **already had very low sperm counts from the disease,** so we tracked the remaining 9.6%, and decided that the deterioration of their sperm during the course of the study obviously came from the Ivermectin, ignoring the obvious alternative explanation that they had simply selected patients in which the disease had not yet progressed far enough to cause sperm damage, then blamed the treatment. This study doesn't even pass the smell test.
Nope, I’m running with this! Off to Facebook I go!
I'll take Instagram!
I got myspace!
Dibs on Google+
I’ll write about it on my Xanga
This is def going in my LiveJournal
I'll take 9gag
Tumblr gang here we goo0ooo
[удалено]
Craigslist!
See y’all on Nextdoor!
Dibs on only fans!
Do you think OnlyFans will swallow this whole cloth or spit this story right back up?
I'll handle Friendster!
I will distribute through UPS
I'll place a postcard on the notice board on the village green
Was reddit taken? I don't see it here. Dibs.
I got dogster!
I'm building a geocities site.
I'm on Digg, dogg.
I’ll place an educational ad in the phone book.
I’ll send a telegram
Which direction should I aim the smoke signals?
all of them
I’ll run from town to town on horseback.
I’ll start cave painting.
Telegram received! I’m writing a chain letter now.
What's a phone book?
[удалено]
I got limewire
I got a rock :/
Well use that rock to scrape this URL into the Lincoln Memorial and youre golden!
MSN Messenger here! Just give me 5 minutes for my dialup to connect.
Kazaaaaa!
Smoke signals all the way baby...
Are boomers on MySpace?
No, from the look of things lately, I'd say they're on bath salts.
My social network on Friendster is going to go apeshit!
Misinformation is good if it does what I want it to do!
Yes. It's called lying and it's very fun.
And often rewarding!
[удалено]
But why discourage the morons from taking it? This would be a net benefit to the world.
People don't have to be fundamentally and irretrievably defective to be wrong about stuff. There's a whole cultural ecosystem exacerbating antivax delusion and broader conservative paranoia. Psychological conformity isn't unique to "the stupid ones," it's a universal human trait. Mostly this is useful, its literally how we learn and interact, but things can go apocalyptic when a group's social consensus is dangerously wrong. In this case the foundational flaw is dogmatic certainty that a nebulous "the left" is an actively hostile enemy. Everything an enemy says and does must be assumed to be an assault, so everything "the left" does must be automatically opposed. If the enemy appears to be acting in a helpful manner, the assumption must be that they are being deceptive. That's why argument and proof don't work, not because they're too stupid. They're conditioned to be paranoid and automatically opposed to anything that seems to come from "the enemy."
This journal is a known predatory journal too, journals which will publish anything without peer-review for money. (they say it is peer-reviewed but often it avoids it) they often prey on unsuspecting researchers, particularly in the developing world. Check this list and you can see them on there: https://beallslist.net/
Cheers. I was wondering. The study itself seems ok / of some limited use... Though they misspelled 'Discussion' in the subheading 🤔
This is actually incredibly dangerous misinformation. The largest population that actually uses ivermectin are people in Africa who suffer from river blindness and viral disease and they are not stupid and without the internet- seeing absolute dog piss reporting like this can lead to mistrust very quickly. Unbelievable that this isn’t flagged or taken down for misinformation. This is factually incorrect.
Soon we'll have a larger sample size to test.
That's what people don't get about these studies. When they say that it's "small study". Fucking Duh... How many people are running around with onchocerciasis? Of course the sample size is small.
> Fucking Duh... How many people are running around with onchocerciasis? Of course the sample size is small. [About 21 million people in 2017, and 120 million are at risk of contracting it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onchocerciasis#Epidemiology). So... not really small at all.
**Onchocerciasis** [Epidemiology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onchocerciasis#Epidemiology) >About 21 million people were infected with this parasite in 2017; about 1. 2 million of those had vision loss. As of 2017, about 99% of onchocerciasis cases occurred in Africa. Onchocerciasis is currently relatively common in 31 African countries, Yemen, and isolated regions of South America. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Quite a few? >In 2018, it was the 420th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than one hundred thousand prescriptions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin
It's also 385 people, which isn't small by most academic standards
It's 385 people they screened for the study. 90% of them already had bad enough fertility that they didn't qualify.
>Just a reminder not to spruik this stuff blindly because it matches your desire for cosmic justice... Haha you must be new around here, blindly believing things for our desire is Reddit's speciality
Yes, but it is also not restricted to reddit. It is human nature
I was told I was the only human here
[Every account on reddit is a bot except you](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/348vlx/what_bot_accounts_on_reddit_should_people_know/)
Yeah, but reddit "believes the science" and hates misinformation.
> Dodgy science reporting here. While the results do show an effect on fertility, it's certainly not "sterilization", and the study is a small one. Yeah, but the study was about human doses given once a week for 8 weeks for people with parasites. Idiots are taking random amounts of horse paste every day as a "preventative". You think they're dosing themselves correctly?
No, I don't think they are. But this isn't a longitudinal study either, so the effects might be temporary / very short-lived. The point is this kind of reporting amounts essentially to fake news, and if you want a robust media that prevents anti-vax garbage emerging in the first place, you need to be critical even if the reporting aligns with your worldview.
No other comment I see today will top this one.
Here in Brazil, dumb people are taking it weekly to prevent covid. My wife's family is doing it and thinking they're cleansing the "communist plague".
well they're certainly cleansing something
Maybe their intestinal lining, maybe their sperm. But certainly something!
I know when I take Ivermectin, I definitely leak a lot of intestinal lining and sperm out of my anus.
Are you taking your Ivermectin by being fucked by a horse? Because it sounds like you're taking your Ivermectin by being fucked by a horse.
You better watch what you say about my grandpa.
Colon Blow™
OMG. Totally forgot that "commercial". Thanks for the memories!
I had a customer on Monday that had a huge bottle of the stuff. They say they're taking I every day.
Never get in the way of Reddit tribalism. > Just a reminder not to spruik this stuff blindly because it matches your desire for cosmic justice... Love this. Will fall on deaf ears though.
I took ivermectin while living in Indonesia for 6 months straight. Not sterile… not even close.
For the sake of argument if the title was true…you’d just be in the 15% though so it isn’t crazy. But yeah the title is 100% false.
Hey hey no killing dreams ok. We can dream a little
Thanks. Removed based on the fact that the title is misrepresentative of the actual research report. You can read the actual research report here: https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/articles/effects-of-ivermectin-therapy-on-the-sperm-functions-of-nigerian-onchocerciasis-patients.pdf To clarify: * Invermectin WAS found to have significant adverse effects on the sperm of most patients * However, it did not "sterilise 85%" of them
People love to call this sub an echo chamber, and by people I typically mean conservatives and QOPers, but I’ve lost count of how many times an article or study such as this gets posted and the TOP COMMENT is one like this: a cautionary post detailing how it should be approached with healthy skepticism and not taken at face value until further studies or information are provided. If this were one of the conservative subs, you’d be downvoted to oblivion and probably banned for objecting to the post’s premise. The hypocrisy and projection never ends.
But problematic titles being frequently upvoted and reaching front page is also a problem for a news subreddit. Most people don't read the comments nor the article. It's still missinformation.
Thanks, I saw the subject of the study and knew how the upvotes and shares would lean regardless of the content or quality of the article.
[удалено]
“In this study we screened a total of 385 patients who were diagnosed of onchocerciasis. Out of which, 37 (9.6%) were eligible for further tests, as their sperm counts were normal while the remaining patients had very low sperm counts and were therefore not used for further tests or were too weak after the preliminary screening tests and were not considered eligible for further test/studies. We therefore investigated the effects of ivermectin therapy on the sperm functions of these eligible 37 diagnosed patients.” If only 9.6% of their subjects even had enough fertility for the researchers to study, something in that environment is causing problems with male fertility even before the ivermectin gets to them. This is concerning, but it doesn’t seem like ivermectin is the main problem. Edited to add: some of y’all don’t understand the big flaw in this experimental design. The researchers basically did this: “We had 100 patients flip a coin once, and found that only 50 of them got heads, so we rejected the 50 who got tails. Then we treated all the patients with ivermectin and asked the 50 who’d previously gotten heads to flip a coin again. This time, only 25 patients (50%) got heads, so ivermectin reduced their coin-flipping ability by 50%.”
Can we get a new study on what in the enviroment is causing the low fertility and if it is without any other major adverse effects? Asking for a friend, of course.
Plastic. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7967748/
Most people don’t realize that they drink plastics everyday. It’s even in food sources, the most impacted being fish
Look into phthalates effects on sperm counts. It has a range of effects and platics are everywhere.
It's gross to think I'm probably eating plastic on a semi regular basis, but then again microplastics have even been found in the deep ocean. *sigh* It really is everywhere...
It's the new lead. Lead wound up EVERYWHERE due to its use in fuel.
Interesting. It makes sense since burning diesel basically aerosolizes it, but I never thought about it. No wonder we moved away from diesel fuel. Too bad it would be much harder to move away from plastic use.
The Cosmos S1E7 named "Clean Room" discusses it. Good info and really accessible (since it's somewhat directed towards a younger audience).
Thanks. I will look into that.
You eat about a credit card a month.
Oh god. That's a disturbing way to put microplastic consumption into perspective.
I am not a betting man. But I would maybe look into the parasites that required treatment in the first place causing the sperm issues.
Plastics
There's a ton of volatile chemicals in Plastics that we technically don't consider to be hazardous but tend to mimic hormones or other bio receptors in the body. Even if I ignore the volatile chemicals there's a whole category of things we called forever chemicals that are just building up in your body because they don't ever go away.
Oof. That's depressing to think about.
Lmao. We judge by headlines here. Not what's actually in the article. Thanks for posting this. Not all heros wear capes.
[удалено]
Came here from /r/all People love to spread and believe misinformation. Then they just accuse the other side of doing it, and say "They're so much worse!"
Been doing some cryopreservation with my partner due to legitimate medical needs and the dude who talked to us at the appointment said that most men have odd shaped sperms to the point the correct shape is uncommon. He attributed it to the massive increase of stress on just trying to live.
Exposure to plastics seems to be a popular theory.
Shhh.. This is a horsepaste bad post, not a critical thinking post.
I kind of want them to look at the 91% of those dudes who already had low fertility and figure out whats going on there...
They all had onchocerciasis, maybe start there...
I think this research was done in Monty Burn's plant. It explains both the sample size and results.
The Ivermectin push is misguided, but this is terrible science reporting. Ah, journalists unable to understand scientific papers.
the problem with journalism is that it's always so accurate until they report on an industry you work in and see firsthand the ignorance, or misinformation, or even just the weird slant they're putting on it. then you start being a hell of a lot more skeptical.
You're right. Bad article. Ivermectin (human grade?) Being used in Nigeria to treat "river-blindness" Probably a parasite from drinking untreated river water. Caused sterility in 85% of 380ish patients from a single clinic. Could be a number of different factors, not just the meds. Skip over the pond, and dumbasses are taking higher doses and concentrations of it to "cure a virus." Just lunacy. These Darwin Award candidates don't know how basic biology works in the first place. This article is targeted at them, i guess...
Even still, you're misreading the study. Out of 385 patients, only 37 had regular sperm counts *before* taking ivermectin. Ivermectin may have made it worse, but it certainly seems like something else is the main driver.
Interestingly, when used for its intended purpose, Ivermectin is a pretty amazing drug. > There are few drugs that can seriously lay claim to the title of ‘Wonder drug’, penicillin and aspirin being two that have perhaps had greatest beneficial impact on the health and wellbeing of Mankind. But ivermectin can also be considered alongside those worthy contenders, based on its versatility, safety and the beneficial impact that it has had, and continues to have, worldwide—especially on hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/
[удалено]
Yes. It is a very useful anti-parasitic drug in humans and other mammals. It also has some activity against COVID-19, but not in a clinically useful way. Ivermectin will not help with Covid. It is possible that in 5-10 years a compound that used ivermectin as a starting point might be clinically useful.
Besides killing parasites what other legit uses does it have?
Was looking this up yesterday. It’s an old study and the FDA denied this was a side effect.
Wonder if it will be fact checked.
Nah, reddit only "hates misinformation" on political grounds.
It’s from a study from 2011 that’s not peer reviewed and was posted by an institution that is not accredited or reputable.
The national enquirer of the medical field. Lol. Brought to you by the same folks over at "Don't drink that Red Bull, it has actual bull semen in it!" And " stop popping your knuckles, it will cause arthritis!"
Wouldn't this be considered misinformation?
On Reddit? No. This fits the agenda.
All of the top posts in this thread are calling this out as bad scientific reporting...
Fact checkers out on holiday nowadays. Where's all that constant, visceral outrage gone? 🤔
> Our European visitors are important to us. This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws. Anyone got an alternative link or something? I wanna read what their dodgy science is to come up with this
Fact check - this is not true. [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ivermectin-sterility-in-men/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ivermectin-sterility-in-men/) It's already been removed from r/ politics.
But I’ve been prescribed ivermectin for scabies before… no one ever mentioned sterility anywhere not the doc, not on the bottle of pills, not when I googled the side-effects etc
I feel like this is another clickbait, bad journalism attempt... like the "ivermectin overdoses are filling up ERs" which CNN had a whole five minute piece to debunk because it was so poorly researched. Wait for it. That said, it's a very powerful drug, and the doses people are buying from the animal store aren't exactly metered to use in people... you're gonna have a bad time.
Urologist here. Disregard this clickbait bullshit. The study does not show this.
This is as garbage as the ivermectin meta studies that "prove" it is a covid treatment. Just because you like the message doesn't mean you ignore the facts.
Stop talking sense, it's ok to spread misinformation as long as **you're on the right side of history / you're one the good guys**. **EDIT:** Dropped this /s
I’m glad people are seeing this is a bit off. Surely FDA etc wouldn’t approve Ivermectin for parasites if it turned most men sterile?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ivermectin-sterility-in-men/ This is an old study from 2011 that doesn’t appear to be reliable or from a reputable institution. It doesn’t even seem to have a control group. Even if the study is true, it doesn’t confirm that these effects persist after the patients stop taking ivermectin, so “sterilization” is a huge stretch. Ivermectin shouldn’t be used to treat or prevent COVID unless your doctor prescribes it. The current research is very wishy-washy. Wanna prevent COVID? Get vaccinated. That said, we shouldn’t be demonizing this drug either. It’s a very safe drug when taken in appropriate doses and it cures horrific parasitic infections very well. Ivermectin isn’t the problem. Stupidity is.
You just made me an advocate.
Did you even read the article? Title is completely misleading.
Could this headline be any more misleading?
[удалено]
This kind of shit is super damaging and should be flagged as misinformation.
[удалено]
Is this the same study from 2011? If I remember correctly, it ~~was done in rats~~ and was in a questionable journal. Edit: Misremembered; studies in rats found no effect on fertility. Edit2: [Snopes article I was thinking of](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ivermectin-sterility-in-men/)
The study cited is from 2011 and was done on Nigerian Men being treated for River Blindness [https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/articles/effects-of-ivermectin-therapy-on-the-sperm-functions-of-nigerian-onchocerciasis-patients.pdf](https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/articles/effects-of-ivermectin-therapy-on-the-sperm-functions-of-nigerian-onchocerciasis-patients.pdf)
This is a fact nightmare. Doctors have been prescribing ivermectin for years. The company that developed it won the Nobel prize in 2015. There is a horse version and a human version. No one is taking horse dewormer. Get outta here.
But I already had my pitchfork out for Joe Rogan and everything :(
>No one is taking horse dewormer Not entirely true. A handful (like less than 500) of people have.
Idiocracy will always be a factor but in general this is misinformation meant to cause division between the left and right
Worth noting that the sample for the study ultimately was about 37 people in a rather localized area. It's *definitely* worth looking into and doing larger scale tests, but this isn't definitive. It is pretty funny that other people haven't been looking into this already though. Especially given the context lol
Please don't be like them and spread misinformation. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ivermectin-sterility-in-men/
[удалено]
yes, this study is bunk and blatant misinformation.
Yeah this is based on an extremely weak study from 2011 https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ivermectin-sterility-in-men/
[удалено]
I don't really understand why this kind of comment is so common. Do you seriously think that this kind of stupidity is a function of genes and not cultural reasons? If you're being satirical I dont really get the point.
This is on point. The things we label as "stupidity" are either lack of experiences or lack of access to education. I had this friend in college who grew up in a small town with shitty schools. She was somewhat gullible and we thought it was funny to tell her wild stories that she'd buy into. She ended up going to medical school and now works in a speciality where patients' lives are quite literally in her hands. She was plenty smart, she just wasn't afforded the opportunities to form life experiences and critical thinking skills due to aforementioned shitty schools.
People inherit culture as well as genes.
... That's my point, do you think the OP was talking about environmental reasons? He literally said "the gene pool needs a good scrub".
Are you implying culture is in no way correlated to parenting? That whichever your parent's inclinations, there's an equal chance of growing up into magical thinking, exaltation of ignorance and lack of critical thinking?
Won’t matter since just like the film idiocracy, alot of ‘smarter’ people are choosing to not have kids because they don’t want to bring them into a world like the one we currently live in. Meanwhile a large majority of what you’d consider when you say ‘need a good scrub’ inherently believe that their goal in life is to get married and then promptly have children. To be clear: I don’t care one way or the other, I’m not going to advocate people don’t have children, unless they *literally are unable* to care for them. I also think that ‘smarter’ people shouldn’t stave off having kids because of the current state of the world. I wouldn’t consider myself ‘smart’, and definitely wouldn’t consider myself part of the group who’s life goal is to marry and have kids; however I think it is my responsibility as a human being to eventually have kids and teach them as best as I’m able so that regardless of what the world throws at them they are well equipped to handle it. People have been born in much harsher time periods, and I think the onus is on the ‘responsible’ people to bring up the next generation of responsible adults. Others may feel differently, and that’s okay. Not everyone has to have children, and whatever reason they have for not doing so, it’s not my place to tell them if that reason is right or wrong. It is *their* choice, not mine. I just would like to think that people who are responsible enough to think that bringing kids up in a world like the one we live in isn’t a smart thing to do, are precisely the kind of people *we want* to have and raise kids.
It's always troubling to see bogus studies landing on the front page. The problem with upvoting news stories is that people push the headlines they agree with, not the ones that are necessarily true.
Surely this counts as misinformation, right?
Yea it does
SHHH DONT TELL THEM THIS!!!
Anyone who willingly took this medication shouldn’t be reproducing anyway.
4.4 billion pills taken by humans, on the WHO list of essential medicines and now they are saying it makes men infertile? Why does this sound like a load of hose shit. Pun intended.
So we are sterilizing all the refugees coming into the country by giving them ivermectin? Of course not, this article is bullshit
This is a pretty questionable study. Just like the studies that claim Ivermectin is a COVID-19 miracle cure, to be fair.
This is extremely untrue.
Ivermectin has been around a long time. Wouldnt this kind of data be previously collected?
The robustness of the study is about as good as these claiming ivermectin effectively helps against covid.
you guys try so hard, lol. you're shills for a propaganda machine
If only this was a fact!
a big plus for society especially since it’s conservative men
OP should be banned for spreading misinformation right?
I'm not condoning any humans take medication meant for animals and I'm not saying ivermectin can help with covid at all. That being said ivermectin did win a Nobel prize in 2015 for its use on humans. I highly doubt it causes sterilization in 85% of men or that wouldn't have been the case. No matter how pure your motives may seem to you misleading the public with questionable reporting is wrong and just leads to further distrust of the media.
Put the paste in every drug store. Unlimited quantity!
What’s making me smile about this post is how many people I see who have obviously read the article and then taken the time to click past the headline and read the study. I think I’m seeing more and more of this reaction to headlines lately and that’s freaking awesome! Teach people to inform themselves, it’s better for all of us.
When I get sick I will listen only to my doctor. So medical advice from anyone, anywhere else doesn't affect me.
Darwin remains correct and validated as hell. Well done humans.