3 ms·

Ivermectin is not a newly-discovered drug. There were hundereds of millions of courses administered world wide (it even got a Nobel prize). It has been used for

Ivermectin is not a newly-discovered drug. There were hundereds of millions of courses administered world wide (it even got a Nobel prize). It has been used for decades. [1] The only unknown right now is the long term effect of ivermectin in patients with covid. It seems to me that it's the same unknown as with the vaccines. You don't have a clinical trial for effects of the vaccines after 5 years, do you? Why don't we wait for it, just to make sure? And it's even worse for the mRNA vaccines, which have not been around for decades and only got the emergency authorization. Btw the emergency authorization can only be granted by the FDA if there are no alternatives. [2] > For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. I'm not sure if "approved" (as a treatment for covid) would have applied to Ivermectin at the time the EUA was granted but it's not like there were trials to decide that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#Cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#Cost [2] https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/emergency-use-authorization-medical-products-and-related-authorities#criteria https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidan...

LegitShady 5y ago
>Btw the emergency authorization can only be granted by the FDA if there are no alternatives. [2] Bingo. If there was a treatment for covid they couldn't administer the vaccines anymore. There are a lot of entrenched positions and people in power who stand to lose lots of dollars.
- manwe150 5y ago
  And such hypothetical alternative would also only have EUA under your argument. But that then wouldn’t stop them from administering the vaccine, as many of the various not-hypothetical vaccines work well and are cheap, so your overall statement seems a non-sequitur. E.g. it may have been true 6-12 months ago, but the available information has changed.
dehrmann 5y ago
> mRNA vaccines, which have not been around for decades and only got the emergency authorization This is mostly true, but mRNA vaccines have gone through human trials before covid.
- micouay 5y ago
  Yep, but these are completely different scales.
zozbot234 5y ago
> There were hundereds of millions of courses administered world wide Except that the doses involved are way lower than what's being speculated about (on flimsy evidence) as a possible COVID-19 treatment. And this drug has severe side effects at such higher doses. There's no way in hell that this stuff is ever going to be safer than mRNA vaccines, let alone more effective.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ds206 5y ago
  That's not true. Here is a 12 min clip with Bret and Pierre Kory about Ivermectin use for Covid / safety record: https://youtu.be/4O7uy4tzI8A https://youtu.be/4O7uy4tzI8A
- lawnchair_larry 5y ago
  No, you’re like a year behind on that rebuttal. Go look at the doses they are recommending. They are talking around 25mg, and it’s demonstrably safer already. Efficacy is less clear, but very compelling. The issue is the refusal to do an RCT, probably because it would wipe out billions of dollars of it succeeds. Merck announced a $3000/dose drug with billions in preorders just a few days ago. They aren’t interested in seeing if $3 ivermectin, which they also make, works.

LegitShady 5y ago

>Btw the emergency authorization can only be granted by the FDA if there are no alternatives. [2] Bingo. If there was a treatment for covid they couldn't administer the vaccines anymore. There are a lot of entrenched positions and people in power who stand to lose lots of dollars.

manwe150 5y ago
And such hypothetical alternative would also only have EUA under your argument. But that then wouldn’t stop them from administering the vaccine, as many of the various not-hypothetical vaccines work well and are cheap, so your overall statement seems a non-sequitur. E.g. it may have been true 6-12 months ago, but the available information has changed.

dehrmann 5y ago

> mRNA vaccines, which have not been around for decades and only got the emergency authorization This is mostly true, but mRNA vaccines have gone through human trials before covid.

micouay 5y ago
Yep, but these are completely different scales.

zozbot234 5y ago

> There were hundereds of millions of courses administered world wide Except that the doses involved are way lower than what's being speculated about (on flimsy evidence) as a possible COVID-19 treatment. And this drug has severe side effects at such higher doses. There's no way in hell that this stuff is ever going to be safer than mRNA vaccines, let alone more effective.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ds206 5y ago
That's not true. Here is a 12 min clip with Bret and Pierre Kory about Ivermectin use for Covid / safety record: https://youtu.be/4O7uy4tzI8A https://youtu.be/4O7uy4tzI8A
lawnchair_larry 5y ago
No, you’re like a year behind on that rebuttal. Go look at the doses they are recommending. They are talking around 25mg, and it’s demonstrably safer already. Efficacy is less clear, but very compelling. The issue is the refusal to do an RCT, probably because it would wipe out billions of dollars of it succeeds. Merck announced a $3000/dose drug with billions in preorders just a few days ago. They aren’t interested in seeing if $3 ivermectin, which they also make, works.