3 ms·

Sick people trying the human doses of Ivermectin should be the easiest risk-management decision in the history of humanity. You have a drug that is safe in hum

Sick people trying the human doses of Ivermectin should be the easiest risk-management decision in the history of humanity. You have a drug that is safe in human doses, cheap, and reported to have a positive effect. You lose nothing by trying it and gaining more data.

timmytokyo 5y ago
If people are taking Ivermectin instead of a vaccine, then we as a society have a lot to lose. There is no clinically significant evidence that Ivermectin prevents COVID-19 or reduces its severity. Whereas there is abundant evidence that the vaccines do.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  Ivermectin use and vaccination are not mutually exclusive. Or are you suggesting that if anti-vaxxers were convinced to not use ivermectin, or otherwise prevented from using it, they'd be more likely to get the vaccine?
- logicalmonster 5y ago
  * Short of using force, most people who are hesitant about the vaccines at this point are not going to rush to vaccinate anytime soon. A non-trivial portion of the population may never choose to get it. If there is some treatment that works, it basically starts to wind Covid down today. * Do I know if Ivermectin is effective? No, that's why I'd like sick people to have the option to try, to both attempt and save their lives, as well as gather more data. It's an easy decision. * There is evidence that leaky vaccines can drive mutations and cause worse problems. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vaccines-enhance-spread-of-deadlier-chicken-viruses https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vac...
  - jleyank 5y ago
    If they won’t take a rapidly developed vaccine, why would they take a rapidly developed treatment? By the time things are “safely tested”, they’ll either be dead from COVID or recovered from it. Long COVID would suck, though.
    - logicalmonster 5y ago
      > If they won’t take a rapidly developed vaccine, why would they take a rapidly developed treatment? * Ivermectin has long since been approved for human usage. It might not treat Covid very well (this is very much unproven) but a proper dose wouldn't kill you. * People who are resisting the vaccines are famously seeking out the version of Ivermectin made for horses. Of course there's interest in trying this out.
- nradov 5y ago
  I recommend that everyone get vaccinated if they can, but the vaccines aren't 100% effective so we still need other treatments. Some small controlled clinical trials have shown statistically significant benefits from ivermectin. But larger studies will be needed to reach any reliable conclusions. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/6/989 https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/6/989
duxup 5y ago
The problem with random people taking it is that's not "more data". They're not in a study, and they're likely to not try other treatment.

timmytokyo 5y ago

If people are taking Ivermectin instead of a vaccine, then we as a society have a lot to lose. There is no clinically significant evidence that Ivermectin prevents COVID-19 or reduces its severity. Whereas there is abundant evidence that the vaccines do.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
Ivermectin use and vaccination are not mutually exclusive. Or are you suggesting that if anti-vaxxers were convinced to not use ivermectin, or otherwise prevented from using it, they'd be more likely to get the vaccine?
logicalmonster 5y ago
* Short of using force, most people who are hesitant about the vaccines at this point are not going to rush to vaccinate anytime soon. A non-trivial portion of the population may never choose to get it. If there is some treatment that works, it basically starts to wind Covid down today. * Do I know if Ivermectin is effective? No, that's why I'd like sick people to have the option to try, to both attempt and save their lives, as well as gather more data. It's an easy decision. * There is evidence that leaky vaccines can drive mutations and cause worse problems. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vaccines-enhance-spread-of-deadlier-chicken-viruses https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vac...
- jleyank 5y ago
  If they won’t take a rapidly developed vaccine, why would they take a rapidly developed treatment? By the time things are “safely tested”, they’ll either be dead from COVID or recovered from it. Long COVID would suck, though.
  - logicalmonster 5y ago
    > If they won’t take a rapidly developed vaccine, why would they take a rapidly developed treatment? * Ivermectin has long since been approved for human usage. It might not treat Covid very well (this is very much unproven) but a proper dose wouldn't kill you. * People who are resisting the vaccines are famously seeking out the version of Ivermectin made for horses. Of course there's interest in trying this out.
nradov 5y ago
I recommend that everyone get vaccinated if they can, but the vaccines aren't 100% effective so we still need other treatments. Some small controlled clinical trials have shown statistically significant benefits from ivermectin. But larger studies will be needed to reach any reliable conclusions. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/6/989 https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/6/989

duxup 5y ago

The problem with random people taking it is that's not "more data". They're not in a study, and they're likely to not try other treatment.