4 ms·
You seem to be getting reflexive downvotes, but let's stop for a minute and see what you are actually proposing according to the rules you mentioned: If someth
by manwe150 5y ago
You seem to be getting reflexive downvotes, but let's stop for a minute and see what you are actually proposing according to the rules you mentioned:
If something else gets an EUA at this point, it would have to have nothing comparable and solve a critical issue in the US. We have now considerable evidence that multiple different vaccines are highly effective at training your body to defend itself against COVID. Therefore, your statement implies this is new wonder drug which does better. So, it must both reverse permanent damage and be almost 100% effective at stopping and curing COVID. And it must both be something we've always known about and is something we have never seen before.
Clearly this wasn't true 9-12 months ago before the vaccine trials finished, so this would have been quite different then, but I digress: we probably don't have a time machine (or do we? Pfizer et al. might stand to lose a great deal if we do).
And, yes, if somehow all that happened, I think we'd all be very happy, even Pfizer et al. Also very confused. But happy.
- thu2111 5y agoIt's actually not a new wonder drug. It's an old generic drug that doctors have been experimenting with for COVID treatment for quite some time now, which has passed all safety trials a long time ago, and which is cheap and widely available. You aren't aware of these things because Ivermectin has been the target of a massive campaign of information suppression, exactly of the type that is being reported on here. In contrast vaccines have been given emergency approval without finishing their trials, despite being based on entirely new technology, despite absolute risk reductions of less than 1% and despite that giving any medical treatment to an entire population including healthy people must always raise the question of side effects vs disease severity - questions that are also being suppressed. For example, here is an open letter written by some doctors who have run out of patience with medical authorities and their refusal to talk about early drug-based treatment: https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-releases/flccc-alliance-statement-on-the-irregular-actions-of-public-health-agencies-and-the-widespread-disinformation-campaign-against-ivermectin/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-relea...
- manwe150 5y agoI am aware of Ivermectin. It is hard not to be, given how often people talk about it being censured. The site you link seems to be asking for a EUA for giving it to the entire population, despite being less effective and higher side effects than vaccines. That does not meet the criteria for a hypothetical wonder drug. Looking somewhat briefly, I will note that site you link even states that the current vaccines are preferable, but that Ivermectin should have been considered as an interim measure.
- thu2111 5y agoLess reliable according to the people who are refusing the approval, but not according to the people arguing for it.
- manwe150 5y agoI’m quoting your link, by the people who argue for ivermectin: “We understand why policymakers are focused on vaccines. Vaccines will offer better, or longer-lasting, protection than any drug.”
- thu2111 5y agoYes, they will, but protection is not the only way to solve a health problem, and if that protection comes at unacceptable cost, then it's possible for treatment to be the better option. It doesn't mean that's the case here, but it's certainly possible. The suppression of discussion of it means it's hard to really know.