3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        Well I am glad some researchers and the NIH have their heads screwed on right. Thanks for sharing this. Any thoughts on why this topic is so polarized in public discourse and what we can do to unwind it? It seems like we are in a really unhealthy place where specific medicines are bashed. In the media people are shamed for perusing experimental treatment under their doctors supervision. Of course people should be cautioned against self diagnosis and self prescription, but surely there is some middle ground. Hopefully one without villianizing patients and doctors.
        credit_guy 5y ago
        > In the media people are shamed for perusing experimental treatment under their doctors supervision. Instead of perusing such experimental treatments, they could just get vaccinated. Story time: this Monday (i.e. 2 days ago) I got Covid. Terrible headache, complete loss of taste. But I had the vaccine (Moderna). The whole experience was just some amusing thing for me. I took some ibuprofen, aleve and tylenol to deal with the headache (yes, I had to take multiple medications, it was that bad) and aspirin, just to be on the safe side with the potential blood clots. Yesterday I had just a slight headache, and right now I'm absolutely fine. I did not need to do any sort of experiments with Ivermectin, or anything else. The vaccine just took care of it.
ipspam 5y ago
The serious malfeasance part is more the media blitz to demonize, and the public health push to inject beaurocratic restrictions between patients and doctors, going so far as to tell pharmacies not to fill prescriptions. Anyone trying to convince people Ivermectin is an animal drug also falls into this malfeasance category

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.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      Well I am glad some researchers and the NIH have their heads screwed on right. Thanks for sharing this. Any thoughts on why this topic is so polarized in public discourse and what we can do to unwind it? It seems like we are in a really unhealthy place where specific medicines are bashed. In the media people are shamed for perusing experimental treatment under their doctors supervision. Of course people should be cautioned against self diagnosis and self prescription, but surely there is some middle ground. Hopefully one without villianizing patients and doctors.
      - credit_guy 5y ago
        > In the media people are shamed for perusing experimental treatment under their doctors supervision. Instead of perusing such experimental treatments, they could just get vaccinated. Story time: this Monday (i.e. 2 days ago) I got Covid. Terrible headache, complete loss of taste. But I had the vaccine (Moderna). The whole experience was just some amusing thing for me. I took some ibuprofen, aleve and tylenol to deal with the headache (yes, I had to take multiple medications, it was that bad) and aspirin, just to be on the safe side with the potential blood clots. Yesterday I had just a slight headache, and right now I'm absolutely fine. I did not need to do any sort of experiments with Ivermectin, or anything else. The vaccine just took care of it.

ipspam 5y ago

The serious malfeasance part is more the media blitz to demonize, and the public health push to inject beaurocratic restrictions between patients and doctors, going so far as to tell pharmacies not to fill prescriptions. Anyone trying to convince people Ivermectin is an animal drug also falls into this malfeasance category