4 ms·

This idiocy is killing people. Stop peddling it. Get the vaccine.

by stewartbutler 5y ago

refurb 5y ago
Get both?
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  Ivermectin has a lot more side effects and no proven effect on Covid-19. So no, don't take it for this reason. It gets worse when people use the doses intended for horses and cows.
  - vibrato2 5y ago
    Citation needed for “more side effects” this is a Nobel prize winning drug which has a markedly safe profile. Not like the vaccines which fda admits have no long term data available.
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      Just google Ivermectin. There is no shortage of information. No sane honest person can portray that list of side effects as less than those seen with the vaccine. There is no such thing as a "safe" medication, it's always a risk-benefit analysis and dose-dependency. It is complete insane bullshit to believe those vaccines might somehow exhibit "long term" side effects that have eluded the whole world for more than six months after hundreds of millions of applications. No vaccine has ever done that, not even those who didn't make it through clinical trials.
      - fcurts 5y ago
        The insanity is to be more afraid of unknown risks of vaccination than known risks of infection and the risk of relying on unproven treatments that are harmful or ineffective.
      - deodorel 5y ago
        Actually there was that flu vaccine that triggered narcolepsy very rarely in young people after 12 - 24 months. But this is the only example i heard of.
        bayesian_horse 5y ago
        Yes, but very rarely, and the cost/benefit analysis would still be positive, as compared to the virus that virtually everyone will eventually get. Also that particular virus also caused narcolepsy, rarely, by a similar immunological mechanism.
      - refurb 5y ago
        If you stated that 2nd paragraph at an FDA meeting you’d be laughed out of the room. Voixx was pulled from the market 5 years after approval when they finally determined it caused heart attacks. It took a lot of work to figure that out. There a multiple examples of fatal or severe side effects popping up years later. And every single one said “weve never seen it before” or “there is no scientific reason it should do that”. The landscape is littered with drugs where people waved their hands and said “there is no way this drug is harmful” and that we’re subsequently found to be so. Not saying people shouldn’t get vaccinated, I did. But your claim is ridiculous.
        bayesian_horse 5y ago
        Note: you are talking about drugs, not vaccines. There is a big difference in how they act and especially in the frequency they are given. This results in significant differences in the associated risks. And even then, in the case of Voixx it was a comparison against other drugs that ultimately made regulators pull the plug. Additionally, the manufacturer concealed the side effects, so the argument about long-term effects is even weaker.
    - yodon 5y ago
      The recent Ivermectin poison statistics are more than a little at odds with your "markedly safe" categorization.
      - vibrato2 5y ago
        It'd be useful if you linked to them. Here's a human study referring to their safety. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/
      - verdverm 5y ago
        Those are likely related to people consuming the animal grade ivermectin, not the prescription based for humans. More than 700 million people have taken ivermectin as an anti parasitic medicine. Something like 4B doses have been given. The WHO lists Ivermectin as an essential medicine.
        bayesian_horse 5y ago
        "Essential" and "safe" doesn't mean it doesn't have side-effects. Both at the recommended dosing and above. Some people react to Ivermectin more than others. That's why you should not be using it unless there is a clear benefit. For the 700 million people taking it as anti parasitic medicine it does have a clear benefit, but some of them still experience side effects, some of them even might have died.
rdevsrex 5y ago
Oh antivax has many more causes than just ivermectin. Many religious fundamentalists think it's the mark of the beast, and anti-goverment people are against it for reasons that have nothing to do with ivermectin, or just the fact that the vaccine companies are shielded from immunity.
verdverm 5y ago
How do you jump from open mindedness about anti viral treatments to not getting the vaccine? I don't get where the anti-anti-viral for treatment comes from. We know the vaccine is not 100% effective. Why are you against also having medicines for when people get sick?
- drcongo 5y ago
  Medicines for when people get sick are great. Everybody loves those. However this medicine doesn't work for this sickness, as has been shown here, in this very study. How do you jump from a scientific study telling you something doesn't work, to "open mindedness about anti viral treatments"? Ivermectin is ley-lines and crystals for the 21st century.
  - vibrato2 5y ago
    Except ivermectin won the 2015 Nobel prize in medicine. The minute crystals win the Nobel prize in medicine, let me know. I’ll buy a nice stock.
    - drcongo 5y ago
      Not for treating COVID-19 though. You're obviously unaware, but the 19 in COVID-19 is the year it was first discovered. The 2015 Nobel prize happened in 2015, again, the clue is in the name.
      - vibrato2 5y ago
        You compared it to crystals, which are not recognized by the scientific community for anything. As you can see from my posted study, there is a lot of evidence that ivermectin is efficacious against covid, and some that it isn’t. I suspect those are similar to the now retracted study denigrating Hydroxychloroquine
  - verdverm 5y ago
    This study did not use ivermectin like a normal antiviral dosage, I don't think it's conclusive. You can't take one meta study and make claims that it doesn't work. What happened to the randomized controlled trials argument?

This idiocy is killing people. Stop peddling it. Get the vaccine.

refurb 5y ago

Get both?

bayesian_horse 5y ago
Ivermectin has a lot more side effects and no proven effect on Covid-19. So no, don't take it for this reason. It gets worse when people use the doses intended for horses and cows.
- vibrato2 5y ago
  Citation needed for “more side effects” this is a Nobel prize winning drug which has a markedly safe profile. Not like the vaccines which fda admits have no long term data available.
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    Just google Ivermectin. There is no shortage of information. No sane honest person can portray that list of side effects as less than those seen with the vaccine. There is no such thing as a "safe" medication, it's always a risk-benefit analysis and dose-dependency. It is complete insane bullshit to believe those vaccines might somehow exhibit "long term" side effects that have eluded the whole world for more than six months after hundreds of millions of applications. No vaccine has ever done that, not even those who didn't make it through clinical trials.
    - fcurts 5y ago
      The insanity is to be more afraid of unknown risks of vaccination than known risks of infection and the risk of relying on unproven treatments that are harmful or ineffective.
    - deodorel 5y ago
      Actually there was that flu vaccine that triggered narcolepsy very rarely in young people after 12 - 24 months. But this is the only example i heard of.
      - bayesian_horse 5y ago
        Yes, but very rarely, and the cost/benefit analysis would still be positive, as compared to the virus that virtually everyone will eventually get. Also that particular virus also caused narcolepsy, rarely, by a similar immunological mechanism.
    - refurb 5y ago
      If you stated that 2nd paragraph at an FDA meeting you’d be laughed out of the room. Voixx was pulled from the market 5 years after approval when they finally determined it caused heart attacks. It took a lot of work to figure that out. There a multiple examples of fatal or severe side effects popping up years later. And every single one said “weve never seen it before” or “there is no scientific reason it should do that”. The landscape is littered with drugs where people waved their hands and said “there is no way this drug is harmful” and that we’re subsequently found to be so. Not saying people shouldn’t get vaccinated, I did. But your claim is ridiculous.
      - bayesian_horse 5y ago
        Note: you are talking about drugs, not vaccines. There is a big difference in how they act and especially in the frequency they are given. This results in significant differences in the associated risks. And even then, in the case of Voixx it was a comparison against other drugs that ultimately made regulators pull the plug. Additionally, the manufacturer concealed the side effects, so the argument about long-term effects is even weaker.
  - yodon 5y ago
    The recent Ivermectin poison statistics are more than a little at odds with your "markedly safe" categorization.
    - vibrato2 5y ago
      It'd be useful if you linked to them. Here's a human study referring to their safety. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/
    - verdverm 5y ago
      Those are likely related to people consuming the animal grade ivermectin, not the prescription based for humans. More than 700 million people have taken ivermectin as an anti parasitic medicine. Something like 4B doses have been given. The WHO lists Ivermectin as an essential medicine.
      - bayesian_horse 5y ago
        "Essential" and "safe" doesn't mean it doesn't have side-effects. Both at the recommended dosing and above. Some people react to Ivermectin more than others. That's why you should not be using it unless there is a clear benefit. For the 700 million people taking it as anti parasitic medicine it does have a clear benefit, but some of them still experience side effects, some of them even might have died.

rdevsrex 5y ago

Oh antivax has many more causes than just ivermectin. Many religious fundamentalists think it's the mark of the beast, and anti-goverment people are against it for reasons that have nothing to do with ivermectin, or just the fact that the vaccine companies are shielded from immunity.

verdverm 5y ago

How do you jump from open mindedness about anti viral treatments to not getting the vaccine? I don't get where the anti-anti-viral for treatment comes from. We know the vaccine is not 100% effective. Why are you against also having medicines for when people get sick?

drcongo 5y ago
Medicines for when people get sick are great. Everybody loves those. However this medicine doesn't work for this sickness, as has been shown here, in this very study. How do you jump from a scientific study telling you something doesn't work, to "open mindedness about anti viral treatments"? Ivermectin is ley-lines and crystals for the 21st century.
- vibrato2 5y ago
  Except ivermectin won the 2015 Nobel prize in medicine. The minute crystals win the Nobel prize in medicine, let me know. I’ll buy a nice stock.
  - drcongo 5y ago
    Not for treating COVID-19 though. You're obviously unaware, but the 19 in COVID-19 is the year it was first discovered. The 2015 Nobel prize happened in 2015, again, the clue is in the name.
    - vibrato2 5y ago
      You compared it to crystals, which are not recognized by the scientific community for anything. As you can see from my posted study, there is a lot of evidence that ivermectin is efficacious against covid, and some that it isn’t. I suspect those are similar to the now retracted study denigrating Hydroxychloroquine
- verdverm 5y ago
  This study did not use ivermectin like a normal antiviral dosage, I don't think it's conclusive. You can't take one meta study and make claims that it doesn't work. What happened to the randomized controlled trials argument?