4 ms·

>You don't give any examples for the specific criticism you make (circular logic) They linked to the Wikipedia page. Which appears to say that the effect found

>You don't give any examples for the specific criticism you make (circular logic) They linked to the Wikipedia page. Which appears to say that the effect found "in vitro" is unobtainable unless you take a massive OD. Useful drugs have an OD amount that is greater than the effective dose. https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/ Supposedly larger scale tests are being done, so we'll see.

ALittleLight 5y ago
The idea is to take Ivermectin as a prophylactic. Weinstein is not suggesting taking a massive overdose of Ivermectin. He makes this clarification repeatedly.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  Fyi, Ivermectin only works at very high doses. Taking it at safe doses doesn't work at a prophylactic or anything else. It's overdose or nothing.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    This is exactly the subject under discussion. I don't think it's anywhere near as clear as you make it out to be. There is insufficient evidence at this point to say definitively how useful Ivermectin is or isn't.
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      Isn't this exactly the point? There are millions of substances that haven't been disproven to work in some niche way against some disease. No one should recommend them or claim there is a conspiracy against them when they recommend them and get laughed at, demonitised etc. Maybe low dose cyanide is the cure, but I won't recommend it till there IS evidence.
      - perl4ever 5y ago
        >Maybe low dose cyanide is the cure Is that just random, or are you specifically alluding to laetrile? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin
        LatteLazy 5y ago
        Just random but that's a very interesting link, thanks!
      - ALittleLight 5y ago
        Ivermectin is not simply one of an innumerable number of things without evidence of efficacy against covid. There is evidence, including a number of published studies which have already been linked in this thread. The evidence is disputed in that some studies find smaller or no beneficial effects - but it is not correct to say that the use of Ivermectin is without supporting evidence. Describing the function of Ivermectin as a prophylactic as working in some "niche way" is also incorrect. A prophylactic is the opposite of a niche - it would be broadly useful to pretty much everyone. Describing Ivermectin in this way continues a pattern in your comments of being misleading and unfair towards the claims which you are discussing. This unfair pattern is continued when you suggest the use of Ivermectin is being "laughed at". Some researchers don't think Ivermectin is promising, but nobody who is actually reading the research thinks the claims are laughable. As I mentioned before, throughout large parts of the world Ivermectin is in use and there are a number of scholarly articles supporting its use.

ALittleLight 5y ago

The idea is to take Ivermectin as a prophylactic. Weinstein is not suggesting taking a massive overdose of Ivermectin. He makes this clarification repeatedly.

LatteLazy 5y ago
Fyi, Ivermectin only works at very high doses. Taking it at safe doses doesn't work at a prophylactic or anything else. It's overdose or nothing.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  This is exactly the subject under discussion. I don't think it's anywhere near as clear as you make it out to be. There is insufficient evidence at this point to say definitively how useful Ivermectin is or isn't.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    Isn't this exactly the point? There are millions of substances that haven't been disproven to work in some niche way against some disease. No one should recommend them or claim there is a conspiracy against them when they recommend them and get laughed at, demonitised etc. Maybe low dose cyanide is the cure, but I won't recommend it till there IS evidence.
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      >Maybe low dose cyanide is the cure Is that just random, or are you specifically alluding to laetrile? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin
      - LatteLazy 5y ago
        Just random but that's a very interesting link, thanks!
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      Ivermectin is not simply one of an innumerable number of things without evidence of efficacy against covid. There is evidence, including a number of published studies which have already been linked in this thread. The evidence is disputed in that some studies find smaller or no beneficial effects - but it is not correct to say that the use of Ivermectin is without supporting evidence. Describing the function of Ivermectin as a prophylactic as working in some "niche way" is also incorrect. A prophylactic is the opposite of a niche - it would be broadly useful to pretty much everyone. Describing Ivermectin in this way continues a pattern in your comments of being misleading and unfair towards the claims which you are discussing. This unfair pattern is continued when you suggest the use of Ivermectin is being "laughed at". Some researchers don't think Ivermectin is promising, but nobody who is actually reading the research thinks the claims are laughable. As I mentioned before, throughout large parts of the world Ivermectin is in use and there are a number of scholarly articles supporting its use.