6 ms·

Maybe nothing, maybe a lot. Big pharma has huge influence in the government. The vaccines are authorized under emergency use, which is predicated on not having

Maybe nothing, maybe a lot. Big pharma has huge influence in the government. The vaccines are authorized under emergency use, which is predicated on not having alternatives. That there is a campaign to discredit cheap off patent alternatives (Ivermectin) is at least concerning.

khuey 5y ago
There's a "campaign to discredit cheap off patent alternatives" because they don't actually work and people are going out and poisoning themselves with pills made for horses.
- seriousquestion 5y ago
  Taking a horse quantity of any drug is unwise, even one that won the 2015 Nobel Prize (Ivermectin). It still needs large scale RCTs for Covid-19 use, but there are some small trials that at least indicate it should be taken seriously and not outright discredited and smeared. "Meta-analysis of randomized trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection" - "there was a 56% reduction in mortality; p=0.004 .. with favorable clinical recovery and reduced hospitalization." https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214 https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/of... "Ivermectin was associated with decreased mortality in patients with COVID-19... The certainty of evidence for mortality reduction was low." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187140212100206X?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187140212...
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    We recently learn of strong indicators that the Ivermectin studies were entirely fabricated, much of it was content that was plagiarized from other studies. https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19-just-retracted/ https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-c... If a long life has taught me anything, it's that puzzlingly loud claims of conspiracy are often generated noise to conceal the fact that something simply isn't true.
    - swader999 5y ago
      One bad study that didn't even get past preprint? Try the ones here from reputable journals. https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/
  - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
    Of course. Veterinary pharmaceuticals have very different manufacturing standards, approvals, and dosages. It's unfortunate that so many have been pushed into this path by authoritarians who have in under a year turned the medical establishment's credibility into a pile of dust.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    I see a choice of going down the Invermectin rabbit-hole where the framing and presentation feels a lot like an MLM campaign (except saturated w/ conspiracy) - or walking into a local store and getting sound ~95% efficacy w/ a pair of free Moderna shots. The latter really seems more compelling to me.
    - seriousquestion 5y ago
      These shots are not FDA approved yet. Usually that's compelling enough to look for and consider alternatives. Especially existing cheap off patent drugs that have been used billions of times over the course of decades and recently won the Nobel Prize. If that plus many doctors and small trials indicate promise with Covid-19, we should take that seriously. That's all. "The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is a vaccine and may prevent you from getting COVID-19. There is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19." https://www.fda.gov/media/144638/download https://www.fda.gov/media/144638/download None of this is to say that the vaccines aren't safe or shouldn't be used. They should be, especially for those at risk. The vaccines may well be better than Ivermectin and so far it appears that way. But there is some nuance here and it's valid if people want an alternative until the shots are FDA approved and have long term data. Many are not engaging in critical thinking when it comes to this issue and suddenly have complete trust of big pharma. Which I find bizarre.
      - khuey 5y ago
        When the FDA finally grants full approval to the vaccines the goalposts will just move again to something else.
      - exmadscientist 5y ago
        > Many are not engaging in critical thinking when it comes to this issue and suddenly have complete trust of big pharma. I wasn't first in line to get any of these vaccines. Distrust of anything new is pretty rational! But hundreds of millions of doses delivered, with a complication rate significantly less than the disease itself... that's pretty powerful evidence, no? Especially compared against drugs that have yet to convincingly beat placebos in any large trial? Personally, I find it bizarre that anyone can weight those two sets of evidence so differently.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    Folks you need to realize the difference between 'material discussion' within the scientific community etc. and 'drug populism' i.e. people making stuff up on Twitter and that information flowing to millions. Nobody is 'smearing' the drug or even the people talking abot it. They're saying 'stop telling the public about it because it's not approved yet and potentially dangerous'. Whatever Donald Trump says - people believe. And they will go out in droves, self diagnose, self medicate, demand doctors prescribe them the 'cure' (when the doctor knows they shouldn't) etc.. And the amount of stupid conspiratorial memes that come up are pretty shocking. I avoid FB fro this reason and TikTok had a bunch of that for a bit, but I think they've shut down Ivermectin talk. I quite like Joe Rogan, but he's not a doctor, and neither is his partner in goofydom Brett Weinstein, they have zero medical credibility on the issue, they should straight up not be talking about the drug. If there is some kind of coverup, or there's hard evidence and the FDA is refusing to look at it, or if someone in Big Pharma bribed someone else ... then that's a story, but this is not that. Oxford has just launched a trial for Ivermectin, and there are others. When the results come in, and if it works and is safe, then CNN et. al. will talk about it and parameterize it appropriately. We'll all hear about it pretty quickly. The CDC can't stop Joe Rogan from talking about it and the haven't tried, but they can say 'STFU' until we have done the actual science, which is reasonable.
    - pumpkinandspice 5y ago
      > I quite like Joe Rogan, but he's not a doctor, and neither is his partner in goofydom Brett Weinstein, they have zero medical credibility on the issue, they should straight up not be talking about the drug. By this logic, this applies to every single person that aren’t doctors who shouldn’t be talking about the vaccine or the drugs. This includes data scientists and politicians. I’ve watched Dr. Pierre Kory’s full interview with Brett and seems clips of his testimony in front of the senate. He is extremely credible and should have a voice in this as a COVID-19 critical care doctor and who has done meta analysis of the drug (https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/F...). I think people like Joe and Brett help amplify voices of people like Dr. Pierre Kory similar to politicians who amplifies Dr. Fauci
  - raphlinus 5y ago
    It's not holding up so well in RCT's, like this one[1] that was just discussed on TWiV 778[2]. BTW, I've joined the legions who are addicted to TWiV. It's a time commitment for sure, but it's fascinating how different the perspective is on important topics (like delta variant) than the mainstream press. [1]: https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-06348-5 https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s128... [2]: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-778/ https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-778/
    - mcguire 5y ago
      [1]: "The mean age was 42 years (SD ± 15.5) and the median time since symptom onset to the inclusion was 4 days [interquartile range 3–6]. The primary outcome of hospitalization was met in 14/250 (5.6%) individuals in ivermectin group and 21/251 (8.4%) in placebo group (odds ratio 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.32–1.31; p = 0.227). Time to hospitalization was not statistically different between groups. The mean time from study enrollment to invasive mechanical ventilatory support (MVS) was 5.25 days (SD ± 1.71) in ivermectin group and 10 days (SD ± 2) in placebo group, (p = 0.019). There were no statistically significant differences in the other secondary outcomes including polymerase chain reaction test negativity and safety outcomes."
      - forcry 5y ago
        Only a very low dose of Ivermectin was used. From the study limitations.. > Low percentage of hospitalization events, dose of ivermectin and not including only high-risk population. I think one would at least use any of the protocols that were being used by the doctors who are seeing an efficacy.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    The 2015 prize was for its use against worms: https://www.isglobal.org/en/healthisglobal/-/custom-blog-portlet/ivermectina-un-medicamento-de-nobel-pero-poco-accesible/91127/0# https://www.isglobal.org/en/healthisglobal/-/custom-blog-por... It's not clear how that relates to respiratory medicine.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Did you have the same amount of confidence in your opinion when the lab leak theory was forbidden to discuss? If people are going to farm stores for medicine, that's a reflection on the absolutely deplorable state of credibility that the medical establishment has earned themselves over the past year. Doing more of the same isn't going to magically make trust in authority reappear, it's going to erode it even more.
- lawnchair_larry 5y ago
  No, you need to update your knowledge on that topic.
phonypc 5y ago
Even if ivermectin were as effective as some people would like to believe, and widely used for COVID, it wouldn't be an alternative to the vaccines in the sense of preventing their emergency use authorization.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Perhaps but being honest instead of resorting to the smear tactics of the past year would help start rebuilding the ruins of the medical establishment's credibility. What good is it to keep pushing out disinformation "for the public's own good" when it results in more and more people looking to alternative (and often very dubious) sources of medical advice? What we need is a policy of absolute honesty with a one-strike-and-your-out-forever punishment for any health authority that engages in propaganda, even if they had good intentions. Credibility matters. It matters a lot. All of these coy little word games and character assassinations being conducted in the name of the common good is achieving the exact opposite result. As it stands now, the credibility of the medical community might be forever tarnished especially since there appears to be no attempt to get it back but rather endless doubling downs on the slime tactics that should be to exclusive province of political campaign directors and used car salesmen.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    > What we need is a policy of absolute honesty with a one-strike-and-your-out-forever punishment for any health authority that engages in propaganda, even if they had good intentions. Won't work, unless there are multiple health authorities – but the average person isn't going to keep track of the reputation of multiple small health authorities, so the authorities will have comparatively less reputation at stake. You are onto something, though. Consider fleshing it out a bit before reading what other people are talking about. (ROT13: cerqvpgvba-onfrq zrqvpvar)
  - mcguire 5y ago
    "All of these coy little word games and character assassinations being conducted in the name of the common good is achieving the exact opposite result." You aren't kidding. That whole hydroxychloroquine thing was a mess.
pjc50 5y ago
Ivermectin is not and cannot be a vaccine. Even the people promoting it only claim an improvement in symptoms. And I've not seen an explanation of how it's alleged to work?

khuey 5y ago

There's a "campaign to discredit cheap off patent alternatives" because they don't actually work and people are going out and poisoning themselves with pills made for horses.

seriousquestion 5y ago
Taking a horse quantity of any drug is unwise, even one that won the 2015 Nobel Prize (Ivermectin). It still needs large scale RCTs for Covid-19 use, but there are some small trials that at least indicate it should be taken seriously and not outright discredited and smeared. "Meta-analysis of randomized trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection" - "there was a 56% reduction in mortality; p=0.004 .. with favorable clinical recovery and reduced hospitalization." https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214 https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/of... "Ivermectin was associated with decreased mortality in patients with COVID-19... The certainty of evidence for mortality reduction was low." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187140212100206X?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187140212...
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  We recently learn of strong indicators that the Ivermectin studies were entirely fabricated, much of it was content that was plagiarized from other studies. https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19-just-retracted/ https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-c... If a long life has taught me anything, it's that puzzlingly loud claims of conspiracy are often generated noise to conceal the fact that something simply isn't true.
  - swader999 5y ago
    One bad study that didn't even get past preprint? Try the ones here from reputable journals. https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Of course. Veterinary pharmaceuticals have very different manufacturing standards, approvals, and dosages. It's unfortunate that so many have been pushed into this path by authoritarians who have in under a year turned the medical establishment's credibility into a pile of dust.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  I see a choice of going down the Invermectin rabbit-hole where the framing and presentation feels a lot like an MLM campaign (except saturated w/ conspiracy) - or walking into a local store and getting sound ~95% efficacy w/ a pair of free Moderna shots. The latter really seems more compelling to me.
  - seriousquestion 5y ago
    These shots are not FDA approved yet. Usually that's compelling enough to look for and consider alternatives. Especially existing cheap off patent drugs that have been used billions of times over the course of decades and recently won the Nobel Prize. If that plus many doctors and small trials indicate promise with Covid-19, we should take that seriously. That's all. "The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is a vaccine and may prevent you from getting COVID-19. There is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19." https://www.fda.gov/media/144638/download https://www.fda.gov/media/144638/download None of this is to say that the vaccines aren't safe or shouldn't be used. They should be, especially for those at risk. The vaccines may well be better than Ivermectin and so far it appears that way. But there is some nuance here and it's valid if people want an alternative until the shots are FDA approved and have long term data. Many are not engaging in critical thinking when it comes to this issue and suddenly have complete trust of big pharma. Which I find bizarre.
    - khuey 5y ago
      When the FDA finally grants full approval to the vaccines the goalposts will just move again to something else.
    - exmadscientist 5y ago
      > Many are not engaging in critical thinking when it comes to this issue and suddenly have complete trust of big pharma. I wasn't first in line to get any of these vaccines. Distrust of anything new is pretty rational! But hundreds of millions of doses delivered, with a complication rate significantly less than the disease itself... that's pretty powerful evidence, no? Especially compared against drugs that have yet to convincingly beat placebos in any large trial? Personally, I find it bizarre that anyone can weight those two sets of evidence so differently.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Folks you need to realize the difference between 'material discussion' within the scientific community etc. and 'drug populism' i.e. people making stuff up on Twitter and that information flowing to millions. Nobody is 'smearing' the drug or even the people talking abot it. They're saying 'stop telling the public about it because it's not approved yet and potentially dangerous'. Whatever Donald Trump says - people believe. And they will go out in droves, self diagnose, self medicate, demand doctors prescribe them the 'cure' (when the doctor knows they shouldn't) etc.. And the amount of stupid conspiratorial memes that come up are pretty shocking. I avoid FB fro this reason and TikTok had a bunch of that for a bit, but I think they've shut down Ivermectin talk. I quite like Joe Rogan, but he's not a doctor, and neither is his partner in goofydom Brett Weinstein, they have zero medical credibility on the issue, they should straight up not be talking about the drug. If there is some kind of coverup, or there's hard evidence and the FDA is refusing to look at it, or if someone in Big Pharma bribed someone else ... then that's a story, but this is not that. Oxford has just launched a trial for Ivermectin, and there are others. When the results come in, and if it works and is safe, then CNN et. al. will talk about it and parameterize it appropriately. We'll all hear about it pretty quickly. The CDC can't stop Joe Rogan from talking about it and the haven't tried, but they can say 'STFU' until we have done the actual science, which is reasonable.
  - pumpkinandspice 5y ago
    > I quite like Joe Rogan, but he's not a doctor, and neither is his partner in goofydom Brett Weinstein, they have zero medical credibility on the issue, they should straight up not be talking about the drug. By this logic, this applies to every single person that aren’t doctors who shouldn’t be talking about the vaccine or the drugs. This includes data scientists and politicians. I’ve watched Dr. Pierre Kory’s full interview with Brett and seems clips of his testimony in front of the senate. He is extremely credible and should have a voice in this as a COVID-19 critical care doctor and who has done meta analysis of the drug (https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/F...). I think people like Joe and Brett help amplify voices of people like Dr. Pierre Kory similar to politicians who amplifies Dr. Fauci
- raphlinus 5y ago
  It's not holding up so well in RCT's, like this one[1] that was just discussed on TWiV 778[2]. BTW, I've joined the legions who are addicted to TWiV. It's a time commitment for sure, but it's fascinating how different the perspective is on important topics (like delta variant) than the mainstream press. [1]: https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-06348-5 https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s128... [2]: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-778/ https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-778/
  - mcguire 5y ago
    [1]: "The mean age was 42 years (SD ± 15.5) and the median time since symptom onset to the inclusion was 4 days [interquartile range 3–6]. The primary outcome of hospitalization was met in 14/250 (5.6%) individuals in ivermectin group and 21/251 (8.4%) in placebo group (odds ratio 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.32–1.31; p = 0.227). Time to hospitalization was not statistically different between groups. The mean time from study enrollment to invasive mechanical ventilatory support (MVS) was 5.25 days (SD ± 1.71) in ivermectin group and 10 days (SD ± 2) in placebo group, (p = 0.019). There were no statistically significant differences in the other secondary outcomes including polymerase chain reaction test negativity and safety outcomes."
    - forcry 5y ago
      Only a very low dose of Ivermectin was used. From the study limitations.. > Low percentage of hospitalization events, dose of ivermectin and not including only high-risk population. I think one would at least use any of the protocols that were being used by the doctors who are seeing an efficacy.
- pjc50 5y ago
  The 2015 prize was for its use against worms: https://www.isglobal.org/en/healthisglobal/-/custom-blog-portlet/ivermectina-un-medicamento-de-nobel-pero-poco-accesible/91127/0# https://www.isglobal.org/en/healthisglobal/-/custom-blog-por... It's not clear how that relates to respiratory medicine.
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Did you have the same amount of confidence in your opinion when the lab leak theory was forbidden to discuss? If people are going to farm stores for medicine, that's a reflection on the absolutely deplorable state of credibility that the medical establishment has earned themselves over the past year. Doing more of the same isn't going to magically make trust in authority reappear, it's going to erode it even more.
lawnchair_larry 5y ago
No, you need to update your knowledge on that topic.

phonypc 5y ago

Even if ivermectin were as effective as some people would like to believe, and widely used for COVID, it wouldn't be an alternative to the vaccines in the sense of preventing their emergency use authorization.

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Perhaps but being honest instead of resorting to the smear tactics of the past year would help start rebuilding the ruins of the medical establishment's credibility. What good is it to keep pushing out disinformation "for the public's own good" when it results in more and more people looking to alternative (and often very dubious) sources of medical advice? What we need is a policy of absolute honesty with a one-strike-and-your-out-forever punishment for any health authority that engages in propaganda, even if they had good intentions. Credibility matters. It matters a lot. All of these coy little word games and character assassinations being conducted in the name of the common good is achieving the exact opposite result. As it stands now, the credibility of the medical community might be forever tarnished especially since there appears to be no attempt to get it back but rather endless doubling downs on the slime tactics that should be to exclusive province of political campaign directors and used car salesmen.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > What we need is a policy of absolute honesty with a one-strike-and-your-out-forever punishment for any health authority that engages in propaganda, even if they had good intentions. Won't work, unless there are multiple health authorities – but the average person isn't going to keep track of the reputation of multiple small health authorities, so the authorities will have comparatively less reputation at stake. You are onto something, though. Consider fleshing it out a bit before reading what other people are talking about. (ROT13: cerqvpgvba-onfrq zrqvpvar)
- mcguire 5y ago
  "All of these coy little word games and character assassinations being conducted in the name of the common good is achieving the exact opposite result." You aren't kidding. That whole hydroxychloroquine thing was a mess.

pjc50 5y ago

Ivermectin is not and cannot be a vaccine. Even the people promoting it only claim an improvement in symptoms. And I've not seen an explanation of how it's alleged to work?