4 ms·

The only reason you think it's inherently shitty and incompetent for a doctor to prescribe ivermectin off-label for Covid is because you've bought into the dumb

The only reason you think it's inherently shitty and incompetent for a doctor to prescribe ivermectin off-label for Covid is because you've bought into the dumb culture war politicization of it. I'm not a Bill Maher fan but he made a good point when he said "ivermectin isn't a registered Republican, it's a drug." Maybe it doesn't actually work (unlike so many on the other side of this issue I am at least willing to grant that the evidence is mixed), but in the doses it's being prescribed it has a very safe side-effect profile. Why is it that the only correct standard of care for an early-onset Covid case is "sit at home and hope it doesn't get worse"?

tomnipotent 5y ago
> dumb culture war politicization of it Maybe I'm a fan of science, of which there is NO evidence that Ivermectin works against COVID. It seems like maybe you're the one that bought into something. These doctors are doing nothing more than profiting off the fear of their patients, while offering no value other than what might be argued is a placebo. That doesn't stop these people from infecting others around them.
- zepto 5y ago
  There certainly is evidence. It’s just inconclusive. There is sufficient evidence that more studies are being done. If you are a fan of science, I’m sure you’ll acknowledge this.
  - tomnipotent 5y ago
    Like all the evidence we had around the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine? The paper from Argentina around Ivermectin is already suspected of fraud. I won't hold my breath it'll end up with good results.
    - zepto 5y ago
      If you were a believer in science, you’d understand that there is no connection between hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Edit: you dishonestly added the following to your comment after I replied: “The paper from Argentina around Ivermectin is already suspected of fraud. I won't hold my breath it'll end up with good results.” For what it’s worth, I’m not referring to that paper. But again, if you understood science, you would know better than to make assumptions about the results of a paper you have never seen.
      - tomnipotent 5y ago
        Within a minute of posting it. > there is no connection between hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin You mean a connection like being pushed as a cure for the same disease while lacking any substantial, peer-reviewed data to back it up? I think maybe we have different ideas of how science and the scientific method works. > For what it’s worth, I’m not referring to that paper. So you're not referring to any science at all, then? I'm unable to find any other published literature on the subject.
        zepto 5y ago
        > You mean a connection like being pushed as a cure for the same disease while lacking any substantial, peer-reviewed data to back it up? If you believed in science you’d know that’s a political connection not a scientific one. > I think maybe we have different ideas of how science and the scientific method works. Yes, you are mistaking politics for science. More edits you dishonestly added after my reply: “So you're not referring to any science at all, then? I'm unable to find any other published literature on the subject.”
        tomnipotent 5y ago
        How is it ANY different from the current situation other than your own personal opinion? Moving the goal posts doesn't help your argument. > Yes, you are mistaking politics for science. This isn't very convincing. What makes your position non-political or more scientific? Talk about dishonesty.
- choward 5y ago
  You sound more like a fan of the mainstream narrative than science. The studies on ivermectin are ongoing. By just ignorantly saying "there is no evidence" as meaning that it's been proven to be ineffective, you show how scientifically illiterate you are. No evidence doesn't guarantee something isn't true. In fact, if you had read the article you would have learned that they haven't ruled out ivermectin and are still researching it along with other treatments. If you want to take ivermectin they want you to be part of the study. This is how science works. "The NIH is studying the drug in a large trial comparing a half-dozen established drugs to see if they have some effect against COVID-19. Experts say those interested in ivermectin should ask about enrolling in such studies."
  - kergonath 5y ago
    > By just ignorantly saying "there is no evidence" as meaning that it's been proven to be ineffective, you show how scientifically illiterate you are. There is less than no evidence, and yet there are several studies already. It’s chloroquine all over again. The quacks are those who jump at any random drug, justifying the lack of evidence as a reason for their support, while decrying vaccines for a supposed lack of evidence. A study being done is not a reason to support prescribing a drug.
  - sixstringninja 5y ago
    Agreed. I have a friend who is a dr who already says a “hard no” on ivermectin even after I’ve stated that I’m ok being wrong about the issue and I want further investigation. I just don’t want this drug to be politicized but here we are. Full stop, you can’t talk about the drug, etc. I’m just trying to keep an open mind here
belltaco 5y ago
>The only reason you think it's inherently shitty and incompetent for a doctor to prescribe ivermectin off-label for Covid is because you've bought into the dumb culture war politicization of it Right wing politicians and right wing media politicized it to minimize impact of covid on the 2020 election. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o On the other hand democrats and CDC/FDA have been mostly following the real science.

tomnipotent 5y ago

> dumb culture war politicization of it Maybe I'm a fan of science, of which there is NO evidence that Ivermectin works against COVID. It seems like maybe you're the one that bought into something. These doctors are doing nothing more than profiting off the fear of their patients, while offering no value other than what might be argued is a placebo. That doesn't stop these people from infecting others around them.

zepto 5y ago
There certainly is evidence. It’s just inconclusive. There is sufficient evidence that more studies are being done. If you are a fan of science, I’m sure you’ll acknowledge this.
- tomnipotent 5y ago
  Like all the evidence we had around the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine? The paper from Argentina around Ivermectin is already suspected of fraud. I won't hold my breath it'll end up with good results.
  - zepto 5y ago
    If you were a believer in science, you’d understand that there is no connection between hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Edit: you dishonestly added the following to your comment after I replied: “The paper from Argentina around Ivermectin is already suspected of fraud. I won't hold my breath it'll end up with good results.” For what it’s worth, I’m not referring to that paper. But again, if you understood science, you would know better than to make assumptions about the results of a paper you have never seen.
    - tomnipotent 5y ago
      Within a minute of posting it. > there is no connection between hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin You mean a connection like being pushed as a cure for the same disease while lacking any substantial, peer-reviewed data to back it up? I think maybe we have different ideas of how science and the scientific method works. > For what it’s worth, I’m not referring to that paper. So you're not referring to any science at all, then? I'm unable to find any other published literature on the subject.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > You mean a connection like being pushed as a cure for the same disease while lacking any substantial, peer-reviewed data to back it up? If you believed in science you’d know that’s a political connection not a scientific one. > I think maybe we have different ideas of how science and the scientific method works. Yes, you are mistaking politics for science. More edits you dishonestly added after my reply: “So you're not referring to any science at all, then? I'm unable to find any other published literature on the subject.”
        tomnipotent 5y ago
        How is it ANY different from the current situation other than your own personal opinion? Moving the goal posts doesn't help your argument. > Yes, you are mistaking politics for science. This isn't very convincing. What makes your position non-political or more scientific? Talk about dishonesty.
choward 5y ago
You sound more like a fan of the mainstream narrative than science. The studies on ivermectin are ongoing. By just ignorantly saying "there is no evidence" as meaning that it's been proven to be ineffective, you show how scientifically illiterate you are. No evidence doesn't guarantee something isn't true. In fact, if you had read the article you would have learned that they haven't ruled out ivermectin and are still researching it along with other treatments. If you want to take ivermectin they want you to be part of the study. This is how science works. "The NIH is studying the drug in a large trial comparing a half-dozen established drugs to see if they have some effect against COVID-19. Experts say those interested in ivermectin should ask about enrolling in such studies."
- kergonath 5y ago
  > By just ignorantly saying "there is no evidence" as meaning that it's been proven to be ineffective, you show how scientifically illiterate you are. There is less than no evidence, and yet there are several studies already. It’s chloroquine all over again. The quacks are those who jump at any random drug, justifying the lack of evidence as a reason for their support, while decrying vaccines for a supposed lack of evidence. A study being done is not a reason to support prescribing a drug.
- sixstringninja 5y ago
  Agreed. I have a friend who is a dr who already says a “hard no” on ivermectin even after I’ve stated that I’m ok being wrong about the issue and I want further investigation. I just don’t want this drug to be politicized but here we are. Full stop, you can’t talk about the drug, etc. I’m just trying to keep an open mind here

belltaco 5y ago

>The only reason you think it's inherently shitty and incompetent for a doctor to prescribe ivermectin off-label for Covid is because you've bought into the dumb culture war politicization of it Right wing politicians and right wing media politicized it to minimize impact of covid on the 2020 election. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o On the other hand democrats and CDC/FDA have been mostly following the real science.