4 ms·

On The Media did a really good segment with a journalist from Mother Jones of all places. She broke down the rise of Ivermectin and the whiplash response to dem

by tootie 5y ago

On The Media did a really good segment with a journalist from Mother Jones of all places. She broke down the rise of Ivermectin and the whiplash response to demonize it even when, as you say, it is safe for human consumption and had at least some positive in vitro test results. As much as it is not worthy of being recommended as a treatment, it's unlikely to be harmful and has/had at least a slim chance of working. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/how-ivermectin-became-politicized-on-the-media https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/how-iverme...

rualca 5y ago
> As much as it is not worthy of being recommended as a treatment, it's unlikely to be harmful and has/had at least a slim chance of working. Keep in mind that Ivermectin is being pushed within antivaxers circles as a prophylactic and the true COVID-19 cure, in contrast with all COVID-19 vaccines and even mask mandates. Thus it's false to claim that this push towards Ivermectin is harmless as, at best, it's pushed as a placebo that empowers vulnerable people to catch and spread the disease, which ultimately means they are harming themselves and everyone around them.
- tootie 5y ago
  That's not the argument though. Listen to the segment. Giving people false hope and baseless medical advice is one thing, but the anti-ivermectin crowd was going overboard including amplifying specious stories about rampant ivermectin poisoning. Ivermectin is absolutely prescribed to humans for some conditions and is being actively studied as an anti-viral agent against other illnesses (notably dengue and yellow fever). Doctors can prescribe it to patients unable to be vaccinated within their discretion. The debate here is that you can't counter one form of misinformation with your own or else nobody is credible.
  - rualca 5y ago
    > That's not the argument though. It's not the argument? It is a statement of fact. There is no way around it. Consuming a placebo to subsequently validate and provide incentives to put yourself and others at risk is the whole reason why Ivermectin poses a major problem. No one complains that people take paracetamol even though it is not effective at reducing Covid19 spread. Why is that?
    - tootie 5y ago
      Just listen to it. It is absolutely not about advocating in favor of ivermectin. It is about very wrong information spread against ivermectin as a response to the misinformation spread in favor of it.
trainsplanes 5y ago
One problem is that people are self-treating with it. Eyeballing measurements of medicine bought at a farm supply store and sticking it in your child's mouth isn't good. Furthermore, enabling random unproven treatments is on the same level as saying we should stand by and support homeopathic treatments as a valid alternative to vaccines during a pandemic. We don't let people choose between a tetanus shot or a cup of green tea and olive oil when they step on a rusty nail. It doesn't make sense to let them choose between worm meds and a vaccine when it comes to covid.

by tootie 5y ago

rualca 5y ago

> As much as it is not worthy of being recommended as a treatment, it's unlikely to be harmful and has/had at least a slim chance of working. Keep in mind that Ivermectin is being pushed within antivaxers circles as a prophylactic and the true COVID-19 cure, in contrast with all COVID-19 vaccines and even mask mandates. Thus it's false to claim that this push towards Ivermectin is harmless as, at best, it's pushed as a placebo that empowers vulnerable people to catch and spread the disease, which ultimately means they are harming themselves and everyone around them.

tootie 5y ago
That's not the argument though. Listen to the segment. Giving people false hope and baseless medical advice is one thing, but the anti-ivermectin crowd was going overboard including amplifying specious stories about rampant ivermectin poisoning. Ivermectin is absolutely prescribed to humans for some conditions and is being actively studied as an anti-viral agent against other illnesses (notably dengue and yellow fever). Doctors can prescribe it to patients unable to be vaccinated within their discretion. The debate here is that you can't counter one form of misinformation with your own or else nobody is credible.
- rualca 5y ago
  > That's not the argument though. It's not the argument? It is a statement of fact. There is no way around it. Consuming a placebo to subsequently validate and provide incentives to put yourself and others at risk is the whole reason why Ivermectin poses a major problem. No one complains that people take paracetamol even though it is not effective at reducing Covid19 spread. Why is that?
  - tootie 5y ago
    Just listen to it. It is absolutely not about advocating in favor of ivermectin. It is about very wrong information spread against ivermectin as a response to the misinformation spread in favor of it.

trainsplanes 5y ago

One problem is that people are self-treating with it. Eyeballing measurements of medicine bought at a farm supply store and sticking it in your child's mouth isn't good. Furthermore, enabling random unproven treatments is on the same level as saying we should stand by and support homeopathic treatments as a valid alternative to vaccines during a pandemic. We don't let people choose between a tetanus shot or a cup of green tea and olive oil when they step on a rusty nail. It doesn't make sense to let them choose between worm meds and a vaccine when it comes to covid.