3 ms·

Wide spread use of an effective prophylactic would help a lot in reducing case numbers and spread. This is about using a multifaceted approach to get covid unde

Wide spread use of an effective prophylactic would help a lot in reducing case numbers and spread. This is about using a multifaceted approach to get covid under control. Wearing a mask or socially distancing today wont protect you in 6months either in a direct sense, but doing those things can assist in reducing the prevalence of the virus which does decrease your likelihood of contracting it.

geofft 5y ago
Yes, but if the proposal is "everyone takes ivermectin and they get the vaccine when vaccines are available locally," that's strictly more profitable for pharma companies than "everyone gets the vaccine when vaccines are available." There's no reason for Big Pharma to suppress that, if it worked. (Speaking of vitamin D, I personally did exactly that with vitamin D + vaccine. My doctor told me a few years back I was low on vitamin D and should supplement anyway, and the vague evidence that it maybe helps against covid was enough for me to decide to take it regularly at a high dose, because there aren't really any downsides besides getting through my bottle faster. But I also got the vaccine!)
- SailingSperm 5y ago
  The thing also with the vaccines and ivermectin possibly causing an issue for big phrama vaccines is that - The COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson have all received an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA. EUAs may be granted only during a public health emergency *and when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.* If ivermectin was found to be safe and effective and got FDA approval itself, the vaccines of Pfizer, Moderna and J&J would need to get full approval - meaning longer and more rigorous clinical trial and safety testing. (not that they haven't gone through a certain level of those things, just the bar is set lower with EUAs) p.s. Sounds like you talked to your doctor about supplementing VitD - but you're mistaken to say there aren't any downsides (especially for regular high doses of D) --- It can cause hypervitaminosis D which in turn causes hypercalcemia (a buildup of calcium in your blood). Just saying as it may be worth double checking :)
  - geofft 5y ago
    Isn't "adequate" the key word there, though? We do have an alternative that works in theory - if everyone wore an N95 (or knockoff, even!) mask at all times in public, indoors and outdoors, and if all restaurants did takeout only, the risk of transmission would be extraordinarily low. And it's not zero even with the vaccine. The vaccine does different things from masks, though. I think money-grubbing Big Pharma execs who were recently regulators on the other side of the revolving door would easily be able to argue that ivermectin (or vitamin D, or whatever), useful as it may be, is not an adequate alternative to the vaccine, just (as you put it) another facet in a multifaceted approach, and the vaccine still needs an EUA.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    Ivermectin would have to go through similar approval to put treatment of Covid on the label, so no.

geofft 5y ago

Yes, but if the proposal is "everyone takes ivermectin and they get the vaccine when vaccines are available locally," that's strictly more profitable for pharma companies than "everyone gets the vaccine when vaccines are available." There's no reason for Big Pharma to suppress that, if it worked. (Speaking of vitamin D, I personally did exactly that with vitamin D + vaccine. My doctor told me a few years back I was low on vitamin D and should supplement anyway, and the vague evidence that it maybe helps against covid was enough for me to decide to take it regularly at a high dose, because there aren't really any downsides besides getting through my bottle faster. But I also got the vaccine!)

SailingSperm 5y ago
The thing also with the vaccines and ivermectin possibly causing an issue for big phrama vaccines is that - The COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson have all received an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA. EUAs may be granted only during a public health emergency *and when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.* If ivermectin was found to be safe and effective and got FDA approval itself, the vaccines of Pfizer, Moderna and J&J would need to get full approval - meaning longer and more rigorous clinical trial and safety testing. (not that they haven't gone through a certain level of those things, just the bar is set lower with EUAs) p.s. Sounds like you talked to your doctor about supplementing VitD - but you're mistaken to say there aren't any downsides (especially for regular high doses of D) --- It can cause hypervitaminosis D which in turn causes hypercalcemia (a buildup of calcium in your blood). Just saying as it may be worth double checking :)
- geofft 5y ago
  Isn't "adequate" the key word there, though? We do have an alternative that works in theory - if everyone wore an N95 (or knockoff, even!) mask at all times in public, indoors and outdoors, and if all restaurants did takeout only, the risk of transmission would be extraordinarily low. And it's not zero even with the vaccine. The vaccine does different things from masks, though. I think money-grubbing Big Pharma execs who were recently regulators on the other side of the revolving door would easily be able to argue that ivermectin (or vitamin D, or whatever), useful as it may be, is not an adequate alternative to the vaccine, just (as you put it) another facet in a multifaceted approach, and the vaccine still needs an EUA.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  Ivermectin would have to go through similar approval to put treatment of Covid on the label, so no.