4 ms·
It'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 p
by thu2111 5y ago
It'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.
- manwe150 5y agoRegardless, the link you sent says that treatment is not a sufficient option, and that protection (prophylaxis) is needed until vaccination.
- thu2111 5y agoHmm I'm not trying to be difficult but where does it say that? I can't find any language like that on the page. Rather the opposite, it says: "Special emphasis must be placed on the harm of excluding trials data supporting ivermectin in the prevention of COVID-19. If the preventive efficacy of ivermectin were to be known or accepted, this would allow deployment in regions without vaccines."
- manwe150 5y agoI wouldn’t say that is the opposite, as it is suggesting both that ivermectin would be needed to be take as a preventative to slow the spread, and implies that vaccination is needed to stop it. My quote is taken from this page: https://covid19criticalcare.com/guide-for-this-website/expanding-our-strategy-to-end-the-pandemic/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/guide-for-this-website/expan...