4 ms·

So interesting. They basically admit that Ivermectin might be effective, has low toxicity, is cheap, BUT, the science community has spent 18 months pushing vacc

by ipspam 5y ago

So interesting. They basically admit that Ivermectin might be effective, has low toxicity, is cheap, BUT, the science community has spent 18 months pushing vaccines and refuse to seriously look into Ivermectin. This is serious, serious malfeasance. The amount of effort out into destroying the doctor patient relationship and taking ivermectin out of the doctors toolbox is too great. That energy should have instead been spent answering the question. "One very large trial in humans appeared to show that ivermectin was effective against COVID-19, but it was later withdrawn following accusations of plagiarism and manipulated data. Since then, a number of small, variable-quality trials have had varying results. An analysis of the state of the field published in late July indicated it wasn't possible to use these studies to determine if ivermectin was helpful or harmful. The situation doesn't seem to have changed dramatically since. Currently, most health authorities indicate that there is no evidence supporting ivermectin's use against COVID-19." "None of this is to say that more definitive studies won't eventually determine that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. But experienced public health authorities have concluded that those studies haven't been done yet and that the studies that have been done don't collectively amount to evidence."

credit_guy 5y ago
> the science community has spent 18 months pushing vaccines and refuse to seriously look into Ivermectin. The thing is, vaccines just work. They don't "might be effective", "could be", "maybe, perhaps". They just work. Ivermectin, might work, with "might" the crucial word. Running randomized double blind trials is not cheap. The "science community" is not a monolith, and doesn't have infinite resources. > This is serious, serious malfeasance. Who exactly is guilty of that "malfeasance"? Who had the money and the mandate to run the trials for Ivermectin and didn't? The US Government had the money and the Congressional mandate to run the Warp Speed program, and some of the programs it has underwritten have ended up in success (Pfizer, Moderna, J&J), and some didn't. Ivermectin was not part of Warp Speed. Again, who was supposed to do the trials, and is therefore guilty of "malfeasance" ?
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  It would have been nice if the congress spent a few 10s of millions for a RCT. Funding could easily be through the NIH. Treatment options with even minor impact could have huge returns on investment given that we have seen 600k deaths and millions of severe cases. Treatment options are not a substitute for vaccination and are only framed as such out of political dogma. The government has an ethical mandate to overcome such dogma and act in the interests of saving lives, especially when the the cost is so low compared to trillions thrown around wildly in pandemic spending. People with public trust who are categorically opposed to treatment research are morally culpable for the deaths that could be prevented.
  - credit_guy 5y ago
    Do you have in mind something like this? https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initiatives/activ/covid-19-therapeutics-prioritized-testing-clinical-trials#activ6 https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initi...
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      Yes, this exactly. I would have liked to see this type of work start much earlier given the potential to save lives in the US and globally. A completion date of 2022/2023 is pretty unreasonable for a pandemic starting in 2019. On a social level, I think we should all be hope such treatments to be a success, and don't understand people rooting for them to fail.
      - credit_guy 5y ago
        > I would have liked to see this type of work start much earlier given the potential to save lives in the US and globally. In that case you will be delighted to learn that this type of work did start much earlier. If you follow the link I provided above, you'll see that the trials for Activ-1 started on 15-Oct-2020, for Activ-2 on 19-Aug-2020, for Activ-3 on 4-Aug-2020, for Activ-4 on 4-Sep-2020, for Activ-5 on 5-Oct-2020, etc. Even before that, on 19-Mar-2020, there's the start of the Recovery trial, which tested, among others, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and tocilizumab (and about a dozen more) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04381936 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04381936 There were other trials as well. Not all were unsuccessful. In particular dexomethazone came out as an effective treatment after such a trial.

by ipspam 5y ago

credit_guy 5y ago

> the science community has spent 18 months pushing vaccines and refuse to seriously look into Ivermectin. The thing is, vaccines just work. They don't "might be effective", "could be", "maybe, perhaps". They just work. Ivermectin, might work, with "might" the crucial word. Running randomized double blind trials is not cheap. The "science community" is not a monolith, and doesn't have infinite resources. > This is serious, serious malfeasance. Who exactly is guilty of that "malfeasance"? Who had the money and the mandate to run the trials for Ivermectin and didn't? The US Government had the money and the Congressional mandate to run the Warp Speed program, and some of the programs it has underwritten have ended up in success (Pfizer, Moderna, J&J), and some didn't. Ivermectin was not part of Warp Speed. Again, who was supposed to do the trials, and is therefore guilty of "malfeasance" ?

s1artibartfast 5y ago
It would have been nice if the congress spent a few 10s of millions for a RCT. Funding could easily be through the NIH. Treatment options with even minor impact could have huge returns on investment given that we have seen 600k deaths and millions of severe cases. Treatment options are not a substitute for vaccination and are only framed as such out of political dogma. The government has an ethical mandate to overcome such dogma and act in the interests of saving lives, especially when the the cost is so low compared to trillions thrown around wildly in pandemic spending. People with public trust who are categorically opposed to treatment research are morally culpable for the deaths that could be prevented.
- credit_guy 5y ago
  Do you have in mind something like this? https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initiatives/activ/covid-19-therapeutics-prioritized-testing-clinical-trials#activ6 https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initi...
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Yes, this exactly. I would have liked to see this type of work start much earlier given the potential to save lives in the US and globally. A completion date of 2022/2023 is pretty unreasonable for a pandemic starting in 2019. On a social level, I think we should all be hope such treatments to be a success, and don't understand people rooting for them to fail.
    - credit_guy 5y ago
      > I would have liked to see this type of work start much earlier given the potential to save lives in the US and globally. In that case you will be delighted to learn that this type of work did start much earlier. If you follow the link I provided above, you'll see that the trials for Activ-1 started on 15-Oct-2020, for Activ-2 on 19-Aug-2020, for Activ-3 on 4-Aug-2020, for Activ-4 on 4-Sep-2020, for Activ-5 on 5-Oct-2020, etc. Even before that, on 19-Mar-2020, there's the start of the Recovery trial, which tested, among others, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and tocilizumab (and about a dozen more) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04381936 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04381936 There were other trials as well. Not all were unsuccessful. In particular dexomethazone came out as an effective treatment after such a trial.