5 ms·
Remember if Ivermectin was considered a safe treatment, there would have been no Emergency Use Authorization for vaccines. There was huge incentives to suppress
by mgamache 5y ago
Remember if Ivermectin was considered a safe treatment, there would have been no Emergency Use Authorization for vaccines. There was huge incentives to suppress the Ivermectin story until the vaccines were approved. Merck claimed it's own drug (off patent) did not have enough safety data. This is a drug taken by millions of people every month for decades.
- jhayward 5y agoThis is a conspiracy theory. Why is it that everyone who pushes Ivermectin as a miracle cure for COVID is also a conspiracy aficionado?
- guscost 5y agoSimple. You have defined the latter as some variation on the former.
- jhayward 5y agoNo, "there is a worldwide conspiracy to suppress Ivermectin so that Big Pharma can make vaccines" is clearly a conspiracy theory, it's not a tautology. Seriously, why all the tinfoil?
- mgamache 5y agoWhy the tinfoil? When the WHO and the CDC/NIH and public officials lie repeatedly and demonstrably you can not trust them. Sort of invites wondering what the game is, because it's not public health.
- andreilys 5y agoPeople called the lab leak theory a conspiracy theory (because it was associated with Trump and “racism”). Now we have blue-chip liberal celebrities like Jon Stewart coming out in favor of the lab leak hypothesis.
- happytoexplain 5y agoGiving the benefit of the doubt (that new evidence is compelling), that still doesn't retroactively justify anything. The information available in the past is not affected by the informative available in the future. If we discover that Bush irrefutably orchestrated 9/11, that doesn't make the conspiracy theorists' rationales more rational. It feels natural to make that connection, but that's only in service of our side-taking tendencies.
- andreilys 5y agoThe problem is that the quality/quantity of evidence has not changed. Plenty of folks have been drawing attention to the lab leak hypothesis way before it reached mainstream, and they were using the exact same arguments and facts that the mainstream is co-opting now. The only difference is that Trump is out of office, so people are less afraid to associate with the idea that the Lab Leak Hypothesis is worth investigating
- mgamache 5y agoAll I said was there was a disincentive and claimed it's being wrongly characterized as 'unsafe' by the company that brought it to market. Are either of those statements incorrect?
- jsnell 5y agoYes. I believe it is factually incorrect that a treatment with the claimed efficacy numbers would have prevented an EUA, given the vaccines we got were both safe and more effective.
- mgamache 5y agoThe vaccine is experimental and the full safety profile is still being discovered. The EUA specially requires that there is "no adequate, approved, and available alternatives". The conclusion: "large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin" suggests it may be a viable alternative to widescale deployment of a vaccine that did not go through the full approval process.
- jsnell 5y agoNo, sorry. The linked study suggests a 60% reduction in deaths from this drug. Even if it were true, it is nowhere enough to be an adequeate alternative to the vaccines, that were both vastly more effective at reducing deaths and could also significantly reduce transmission.
- wrycoder 5y agoIf you got the first dose of vaccine and then presented with COVID (that does happen), a short course of ivermectin immediately could likely do you some real good.
- jsnell 5y agoThat is totally irrelevant to the subject at hand: whether use of this drug would have prevented EUAs for vaccines. It clearly would not have, this is just a pure conspiracy theory.
- whoooooo123 5y agoYou mean it's implausible that Big Pharma might do reprehensible things for profit?
- guscost 5y agoHey investigative journalists, pull on this thread! This one right over here!
- jiofih 5y agoHmm.. how about scientists instead?