4 ms·

What's the deal with Ivermectin and COVID?

spadez 5y ago
>If an intervention is shown to be effective in treating COVID-19, the design allows the replacement of the placebo group with the effective intervention. Is't that kind of bad? Say, if by pure chance, there is an intervention that is equally effective as Ivermectin, wouldn't it cause the whole thing to zero out, or show very little benefit for the Ivermectin? EDIT: They also say.. > It would not take much of a clinical trial to know whether that was true or not, and almost every physician would be able to spot really quickly whether there was a drug that miraculously was helping people. But we’re not getting that feedback from physicians Isn't that the exact kind of feedback that is being neglected right now?
boredprograming 5y ago
Does it matter? We have vaccines that are almost 100% effective at preventing hospitalization. I keep seeing this stuff being pushed by anti vaxxers on Facebook as an alternative to getting vaccinated. Do we see drugs being pushed for smallpox or measles? No. Because the vaccine is cheap and more effective. Get vaccinated.
- spadez 5y ago
  > Get vaccinated. Can you give me a good reason why Covid vaccines are not included here in "The Reportable Events Table (RET) reflects what is reportable by law" https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_Following_Vaccination.pdf https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_...
  - boredprograming 5y ago
    Yes. Most of these vaccines are live virus or toxoids. All COVID vaccines are mRNA or chimeric replication incompetent viruses that don't have the same risks.
    - spadez 5y ago
      Does not make sense to me. It might not have the "same" risks, but it could have entirely different risks, which we don't know. So does not make sense to exclude them (in law) from being reported.
      - boredprograming 5y ago
        A vaccine that cant replicate is as risky as one thats a weakened version of the live virus? Or an injection of the toxin that causes symptoms? Not every vaccine is on this list you know. Only the ones deemed risky. They haven't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky enough to be on the list. If you don't want to believe the scientists behind that decision there's no point debating you. "We don't know" should be "I don't know". There's been hundreds of studies on mRNA vaccines and chimeric viruses. You're pointing towards this list as if it's some oracle for vaccine safety. Its not. It's just a way to collect incidents of adverse effects in vaccines with known dangers
        spadez 5y ago
        >They haven't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky enough Sounds like circular reasoning to me. They have't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky, because they don't have the data from population wide use. And they don't have the data, because they don't consider them to be risky. >If you don't want to believe the scientists behind that decision I surely don't want to believe these hypothetical scientists who are afraid of data.
        boredprograming 5y ago
        It's really not. It's like mandatory reporting for diseases like whooping cough and west Nile virus. Something only gets on the list if it has known risks. Afraid of what data? Should we start collecting data on every time anyone gets the sniffles? To get on this list the vaccines need to have proven risks
        5y ago

>If an intervention is shown to be effective in treating COVID-19, the design allows the replacement of the placebo group with the effective intervention. Is't that kind of bad? Say, if by pure chance, there is an intervention that is equally effective as Ivermectin, wouldn't it cause the whole thing to zero out, or show very little benefit for the Ivermectin? EDIT: They also say.. > It would not take much of a clinical trial to know whether that was true or not, and almost every physician would be able to spot really quickly whether there was a drug that miraculously was helping people. But we’re not getting that feedback from physicians Isn't that the exact kind of feedback that is being neglected right now?

boredprograming 5y ago

Does it matter? We have vaccines that are almost 100% effective at preventing hospitalization. I keep seeing this stuff being pushed by anti vaxxers on Facebook as an alternative to getting vaccinated. Do we see drugs being pushed for smallpox or measles? No. Because the vaccine is cheap and more effective. Get vaccinated.

spadez 5y ago
> Get vaccinated. Can you give me a good reason why Covid vaccines are not included here in "The Reportable Events Table (RET) reflects what is reportable by law" https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_Following_Vaccination.pdf https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_...
- boredprograming 5y ago
  Yes. Most of these vaccines are live virus or toxoids. All COVID vaccines are mRNA or chimeric replication incompetent viruses that don't have the same risks.
  - spadez 5y ago
    Does not make sense to me. It might not have the "same" risks, but it could have entirely different risks, which we don't know. So does not make sense to exclude them (in law) from being reported.
    - boredprograming 5y ago
      A vaccine that cant replicate is as risky as one thats a weakened version of the live virus? Or an injection of the toxin that causes symptoms? Not every vaccine is on this list you know. Only the ones deemed risky. They haven't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky enough to be on the list. If you don't want to believe the scientists behind that decision there's no point debating you. "We don't know" should be "I don't know". There's been hundreds of studies on mRNA vaccines and chimeric viruses. You're pointing towards this list as if it's some oracle for vaccine safety. Its not. It's just a way to collect incidents of adverse effects in vaccines with known dangers
      - spadez 5y ago
        >They haven't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky enough Sounds like circular reasoning to me. They have't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky, because they don't have the data from population wide use. And they don't have the data, because they don't consider them to be risky. >If you don't want to believe the scientists behind that decision I surely don't want to believe these hypothetical scientists who are afraid of data.
        boredprograming 5y ago
        It's really not. It's like mandatory reporting for diseases like whooping cough and west Nile virus. Something only gets on the list if it has known risks. Afraid of what data? Should we start collecting data on every time anyone gets the sniffles? To get on this list the vaccines need to have proven risks
        5y ago