11 ms·

The current “ivermectin is a dangerous horse dewormer” debacle has been the biggest example of a moment where I’m not sure whether everyone is lying at this poi

• devwastaken 5y ago
  Being studied, not accepted in use in humans for COVID. Blame the idiots injecting themselves with the actual horse versions, and the doctors/vets illigally prescribing it. IVM is as useful as eating dirt in relation to COVID, until proven otherwise with studies that aren't fabricated data or otherwise p-hacked to death - it's disinformation, and rightfully removed.
  • vorpalhex 5y ago
    Remember when posting the lab leak hypothesis on Facebook would get you banned and now it's, as best as we can figure, the most plausible theory? There is no human run group fit to decide what is or is not "disinformation".
    • slightwinder 5y ago
      To be fair, the bans usually were about china fabricating the virus on purpose and releasing it with intention, accompanied by racism against Asians. This is pretty different from the accidental leak of a research-object, which is now the accepted theory.
      • vorpalhex 5y ago
        The media did themselves and the public a disservice by gluing the two theories together and blending them. Several friends - college educated, intelligent professionals - were confused enough to approach and ask me about the lab leak/release theories. The intentional lab release theory is the stuff of nonsense conspiracy theories. The accidental leak theory has always had some support but is now more widely accepted (but will likely never have hard proof). For a time, both were bannable offenses on Facebook, Youtube and others. Likely because the media glued them together and assigned them both as "disinformation".
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
        • slightwinder 5y ago
          It wasn't really the media doing that. It was more a combination between nut heads, meme heads with their umbrella-connection and the first panic. The media just amplified it and rode the wave, as usual. And after the message was out, it was hard to turn it around. And I guess the platforms were just unable to distinguish between them, as also had more interest to wait till the nutty wave died down.
          • vorpalhex 5y ago
            > It wasn't really the media doing that. [1] - https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2021/06/covid-lab-leak-theory-rare-genetic-sequence-doesnt-mean-the-virus-was-engineered/ https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2021/06/covid-la... [2] - https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/coronavirus-lab-theory-yan-bannon-invs/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/coronavirus-lab-theo... [3] - https://www.politifact.com/li-meng-yan-fact-check/ https://www.politifact.com/li-meng-yan-fact-check/
            • slightwinder 5y ago
              Not sure what you mean. These articles are all from 6+ months after the first panic. At that point, the theories were already long merged and spreading wild. They were already present from the first days in January 2020, when China's situation became epidemic. And this didn't really change till spring 2021 when everyone cooled down a bit and sanity returned a bit.
        • shadowgovt 5y ago
          On YouTube and Facebook, "the media" is just "stuff people are saying in videos they post." So this point reduces to "both were bannable offenses because people were posting videos that glued them together," which... Yes, that's why.
      • bart_spoon 5y ago
        > To be fair, the bans usually were about china fabricating the virus on purpose and releasing it with intention, accompanied by racism against Asians. This is pretty different from the accidental leak of a research-object, which is now the accepted theory. No, both versions were lumped into the same bucket.
    • commandlinefan 5y ago
      In fact, most of the "people are dying because they're injecting themselves with horse dewormer" story can be traced back to a rolling stone article that quoted a doctor who said so. The only problem was, they actually quoted the doctor's name as well as an actual hospital he supposedly worked at - and the hospital issued a statement that that doctor neither worked there nor had they treated any Ivermectin overdoses (https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/rolling-stone-s-ivermectin-fiction-shows-why-republicans-don-t-trust-media/ar-AAO7RuQ https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/rolling-stone-s-ive...). In other words, "people overdosing on horse dewormer" is actual misinformation... which isn't being censored.
      • smallbizdev420 5y ago
        Relying on one source for information is wrong, the hearsay article which reported what the doc in Oklahoma said without verifying the claims about ivermectin overdoses was wrong. What is not wrong is this: According to the National Poison Data System (NPDS), which collects information from the nation's 55 poison control centers, there was a 245% jump in reported exposure cases from July to August — from 133 to 459. Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/09/04/1034217306/ivermectin-overdose-exposure-cases-poison-control-centers https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0... On the one hand, it's nice to know this number is low, on the other hand the numbers are likely under-reporting. Low toxicity doses and symptoms are likely unrecorded. Self medication with prescription drugs is a bad idea.
      • etchalon 5y ago
        No. The Rolling Stone debacle literally just happened. The idea "most of the story" is traced backed to one bad article, from two days ago, when it's been a story for over a month is ridiculous nut-picking.
        • jessaustin 5y ago
          Ahem, I believe that's "nitpicking". b^)
          • 5y ago
    • refenestrator 5y ago
      It became 'plausible' based on fashion -- the evidence didn't change at all. Which is even crazier.
    • devwastaken 5y ago
      "most plausible theory" according to whom? It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis with little tangible but evidence due to the nature of chinas control. It could have happened, it may not have. The problem with lab leak discussion on YouTube/Facebook is it was heavily associated with politics, and incredible unsubstantiated claims. "Experts" from nowhere, hired degrees talking about a lab they know nothing about, anonymous and convenient unheard of "researchers" supposedly "exposing the lab leak". The disinformation was incredible. Even if lab leak did happen - very few had the actual proof or good arguments to back it.
  • concordDance 5y ago
    > IVM is as useful as eating dirt in relation to COVID, until proven otherwise with studies Um. No. IVM is useful or not useful regardless of whether studies have been done. Studies are useful for finding out whether it is useful, but they do not affect the result. If people take it now and then it turns out it's a miracle cure that halts ageing the people taking it now will have benefited. If instead it actually causes incurable cancer in five years the people taking it now are in the shitter. These things are true or false regardless of whether we know them and regardless of whether we got that knowledge from formal studies.
    • mseepgood 5y ago
      > IVM is useful or not useful regardless of whether studies have been done Just like dirt.
  • kragen 5y ago
    Injecting? When I took ivermectin (for parasites, not covid, of course) I took it orally. Why on Earth would you inject it?
    • giardini 5y ago
      I've used the "pour-on" version of IVM which is used on livestock. I could hardly avoid it: we were deworming and branding a herd of cattle; the method of application was to pour IVM on each critter's back and spread it with your hands. Doing so probably put enough ivermectin in my system to kill any parasites I had 50 times over. Never suffered any consequences AFAICT. I have noticed that the guys who regularly do this are extremely healthy but they're all cowboys, so a selection bias is likely present.
      • kragen 5y ago
        I don't think it absorbs that well through the skin; there are topical ivermectin preparations that are supposed to be safer for kittens and the white-footed dog breeds that have a defect in the enzyme that detoxifies it. In general, though, people panicking about ivermectin poisoning is ridiculous. Mass ivermectin administration is a common parasite-extermination measure.
      • jessaustin 5y ago
        When we use pour-on we just pour it on. I've never seen any instructions to rub it on with your hands. Liquid that gets stuck to your hands is liquid that isn't still on the animal's skin where it will have therapeutic effect. But sure, it's completely safe for human beings to be exposed to ivermectin. WHO wouldn't recommend it otherwise.
        • kragen 5y ago
          The dose makes the poison; nothing is completely safe to be exposed to. The lethal dose of ivermectin is about 10 mg/kg orally, so it's about 250 times more poisonous than table salt, which from my point of view puts it in the "dangerous poisons" category. But that's about 30 times the standard therapeutic dose, so it's pretty unlikely to happen by accident. However, that's the standard therapeutic dose for parasites. To work as an antiviral it needs to interfere with viral replication somehow, and since viruses replicate using normal somatic-cell metabolic processes, you'd probably have to take a high enough dose of ivermectin for it to interfere with normal somatic-cell metabolic processes. That, in turn, means you're going to see side effects you wouldn't see at the normal antiparasitic doses. Nevertheless, there isn't in fact an epidemic of serious ivermectin poisoning, horse dewormers or no. Maybe one in ten million people in the US, less elsewhere.
• onei 5y ago
  There's a difference between trials and it being suitable for public use though, right? It is undeniably a horse dewormer, and has had some use on humans, but not as a covid treatment. For me, it's about preventing people that aren't medical professionals from self-medicating with a potentially harmful substance. Plus there's been some less than stellar suggestions of covid treatments in the past ranging from dubious to lethal. If it turns out to be safe, then doctors will no doubt prescribe it as necessary.
  • sprafa 5y ago
    I would hope so. My point about “horse dewormer” is that some articles in the media list it as just that without mentioning at all that it is also human medication. Look at the recent articles about Joe Rogan, they couldn’t stop themselves. Afaik the only difference between human and animal ivm are levels of impurity.
    • sophacles 5y ago
      That's because people are literally buying and eating horse dewormer. Its in a package that says "horse dewormer" on it. It's sold at livestock stores in the "horse medicine" section. The media is 100% correct to call what people are poisoning themselves with "horse dewormer". I bet you get mad at the news for reporting rain because water exists in other forms, and has other ways of moving about besides rain right?
      • pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
        Did Joe Rogan literally buy and eat something from a package that says "horse dewormer" on it? You willingly ignored the salient parts of the comment you responded to (ironically providing more evidence of the very phenomenon that they're trying to discuss).
        • numeromancer 5y ago
          No, it was prescribed by his doctor. Which brings up another point: some pharmacies are refusing to fill it, even when prescribed by a doctor. If you want to place the blame for people getting "horse dewormer", such pharmacies deserve part of the blame.
• blitzar 5y ago
  > ivm is being actually studied right now by Oxford Uni/NHS in their big covid trials in the UK So you are saying because something is being investigated it must have strong positive properties? Well - have I got something for you ... You know when you take a poo and flush it down the toilet? Did you know all this time you could be eating it, and it would have tremendous health benefits? Dont believe me? They did a study on eating shit once, so it must be true, and I must be only just touching on the health benefits of Coprophagia. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3168083/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3168083/
  • sprafa 5y ago
    I never said anything of the sort.
    • blitzar 5y ago
      You said the proof it is a 'hit job by the media' is because the medication is 'being actually studied right now by Oxford Uni'
      • concordDance 5y ago
        Which is a reasonable proof. Media shouldn't be shitting on stuff that might work.
        • Reubachi 5y ago
          Weird this needs to be reiterated in Covid 2021....What do you think "media" should be doing? Remember, media =/= op-ed journalists that you want to have the same opinion as you. "media" should not have to do anything by anyone's standards. it is a omnipresent, global, ever changing opinion glued transparently to percieved values and morays of the time. If you click on a link/article that says "X will not work and we do not like it", then that media outfit is doing exactly what it needs to do as a media outfit.
        • fireflash38 5y ago
• uj8efdkjfdshf 5y ago
  I mean, it's quite likely the ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine has some effect against the virus in the early stages of infection, but their use needs to be balanced against their side effects, of which there are many. It's like how bleach kills cancer cells, but you really shouldn't be treating cancer with it...
  • sprafa 5y ago
    I believe ivermectin is a far safer drug than HCQ.
    • kieselguhr_kid 5y ago
      I mean, it's great that you personally believe something, but to make ethical medical decisions we need lots of clinical data. If your belief is well founded, which it damn well might be, the data should bear that out.
      • hajile 5y ago
        The data on the safety of Ivermectin is very well established. It's well-known to be very safe with pretty minimal side effects and extremely low serious side effect rates despite the billions of doses handed out over the past decades. The real question is about its anti-viral properties. We know they exist, but don't know why or to what extent. Further, we don't know if they extend to COVID and we don't now if the effective dosage is high enough to increase the rates of side effects (especially bad ones). The result is extremists on both sides saying wild garbage. Either it's the salvation of mankind hidden from you by the grand conspiracy or it's toxic horse dewormer that will certainly kill anyone who even approaches it. This is a real problem. If I were researching Ivermectin and COVID, I'd be scared that loonies from one side or the other might attempt to hurt me or ruin my life over their delusions.
      • kragen 5y ago
        We have lots of clinical data, their belief is well founded, and the data does bear that out. It's as if you commented without even skimming the Wikipedia article about ivermectin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#Contraindications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#Contraindications