5 ms·
This is kind of doing the same thing that the “fact checkers” are doing. There is indeed a lack of proper studies to validate it. That’s the problem. There are
by lawnchair_larry 5y ago
This is kind of doing the same thing that the “fact checkers” are doing. There is indeed a lack of proper studies to validate it. That’s the problem. There are mountains of evidence that show it as very promising and worthy of a proper study. That’s what people are asking for. The FDA keeps saying not to use it, because we don’t know for certain that it works, because we haven’t had any rigorous RCTs to validate it, even though it appears by all accounts to be an extremely valuable tool. They don’t claim that it doesn’t work. They don’t claim that it’s harmful (we know it’s not, it’s been broadly deployed for like 30 years and is known to be far safer than the vaccines, which are already quite safe, at least in the short to medium term). Also, this article is misinformed on the dosage requirement, which has been raised and addressed - looks like sibling comment called this out as well. See, it’s clear who actually follows the science, and who disregards the science but brow beats others with phrases like “follow the science.” Other things known to people following the science? Schools are safe to open and masks don’t do shit outdoors because the probability of infection is < 0.1%. Many of us knew this was the latest science long ago, but again, we weren’t allowed to talk about it, lest someone call us the R word (republican).
To not drop everything and study this aggressively is criminally negligent imo. I believe I read that we have finally decided to fund looking into validating what appears to be strong evidence. But it’s 30 years old, dirt cheap, and not patented. And all of this only came to light well after we sunk billions into vaccines. So, there is not exactly a profit motive or a strong appetite to potentially upend all of that. But if people unwilling to be vaccinated are willing to take that instead, it might be the only hope for herd immunity. Because there is no way we will get there by vaccines alone. Too much of the population are refusing the vaccines.
- admax88q 5y agoThe FDA doesn't tell people what to research, it tells the public what existing research confirms is safe to use. If a bunch of scientists think iverwhatever is viable they can do a proper study on it and get it published and peer reviewed. To "drop everything" would be criminally negligent, there's lots of things that can and should be researched in parallel.
- shaicoleman 5y agoPart of the problem that there is censorship on publishing in the big journals. That said, there are published RCT showing Ivermectin effectiveness. In my second link on my first comment, there's a talk about the overwhelming data, censorship and hindrances for publishing. Sharing evidence on Ivermectin - Dr. Tess Lawrie https://player.vimeo.com/video/554350476?autoplay=1#t=5756 https://player.vimeo.com/video/554350476?autoplay=1#t=5756
- mike_d 5y agoEffectiveness is not the only criteria that experts need to evaluate for treatments. Ivermectin is fairly easy to overdose on, and people started self-treating prophylactically because it was easy to find from veterinary supply chains. The majority of available Ivermectin also contained inactive ingredients that had no been safety tested on humans, again because of its primary veterinary uses. WHO looked at these facts and data from 16 trials that yielded “very low certainty" of efficacy before recommending against its use, but leaving the door open for further research suggesting additional trials were needed.
- codeflow2202 5y agoThis is exactly what is being put into discussion. This “very low certainty" doesn't stand against the amount of research that is being released on a daily basis. It's also weird that so many people can selectively blindly trust the WHO on this topic, while at the same time, commenting on how the whole scientific apparatus can be so wrong on a related subject. Also I'm not buying into this theory that we shouldn't allow an effective treatment, just because someone is supposedly overdosing the veterinary version of the drug. It might be partially true for addicting drugs I suppose, but even in this case, that's why we have doctors and prescriptions.
- shaicoleman 5y agoIvermectin is at least an order of magnitude safer than paracetamol. There's 30 years of safety data, more than 3.7 billion doses, and on average less than 1 death per year. In the talk above, the Ivermectin safety profile is specifically discussed here: [1] "Ivermectin was generally well tolerated, with no indication of associated CNS toxicity for doses up to 10 times the highest FDA-approved dose of 0.2mg/kg." [2] The only way you can overdose is if you use horse paste, and get the dose wrong by more than an order of magnitude. Even then, it's unlikely to result in hospitalization or death. The only reason people have to use horse paste is because they are unable to safely obtain Ivermectin by other means. 1. https://player.vimeo.com/video/554350476?autoplay=1#t=6300 https://player.vimeo.com/video/554350476?autoplay=1#t=6300 2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12362927/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12362927/