5 ms·

Your post is assuming a lot of this science is "settled". I don't think science is settled - especially in this field. Acknowledging that your own statements ma

Your post is assuming a lot of this science is "settled". I don't think science is settled - especially in this field. Acknowledging that your own statements may be incorrect might help you down the path to figuring out a fix. Hint: as soon as you know you're right, and you make statements based on that, when you're inevitably wrong (not saying this in a disparaging way - making sense and being right through all this is nearly impossible), you will lose all trust.

atty 5y ago
Settled is a strong claim, but as far as I’m aware (I have many connections amongst the medical and epidemiological communities), the general consensus is that ivermectin does not work. For instance, the FDA, WHO, the AMA, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists all say it should not be used outside of clinical trials because there is no good evidence for it, and even Merck, the manufacturer, specifically states it should not be used for COVID at all. I’m not saying no discourse or testing should happen. I’m a scientist, I believe scientific freedom, and of course, that includes a lot of disagreements. But those disagreements happen in the scientific community, not in the general public. What’s happening in the general public is not at all connected to what’s happening in the research. Instead, I’m interested in how these “treatments” with no strong evidence are getting weaponized by motivated agents (like the anti-vax crowd) to sow distrust both in scientific organizations (the CDC, and the FDA, Pfizer, Moderna, et al), and in the use of tools with proven effectiveness, like the vaccines themselves.
- evv555 5y ago
  >Instead, I’m interested in how these “treatments” with no strong evidence are getting weaponized by motivated agents (like the anti-vax crowd) to sow distrust both in scientific organizations (the CDC, and the FDA, Pfizer, Moderna, et al), and in the use of tools with proven effectiveness, like the vaccines themselves. In this polarized environment CDC/FDA/WHO/AMA are political organizations first and authoritative ones second. The conflict of interest here is legitimate and the loss of their authority with the public is in great part their own doing.
  - hellotomyrars 5y ago
    Sorry what is the conflict of interest in offering the most accurate information they can? Even discarding whether we drill into the issues with the relatively small body of ivermectin studies, for or against. There isn’t anything approaching a consensus there. On the other hand what does have a consensus is that the vaccines work. Recommending the best possible action is pretty clear and obvious. Using ivermectin as a prophylactic isn’t close to settled and even if it did have a positive result that doesn’t necessarily make it as effective as the vaccines. Nor is it as reasonable a treatment regimen. As far as actually treating active/severe COVID cases we do have verifiable and working treatment mechanisms. Let’s just actually use what we know works. Makes more sense for everyone. I’m all for having more, and better studies don on ivermectin. But this is absurd. The loss of authority with the public is certainly about politics. But it is very obviously a political action being taken upon them, rather than one they’ve put out themselves. They have been politicized, as have many things in recent history for outside political gain. I have some pretty serious issues with the FDA around many aspects of policy but unless you actually believe (and maybe you do I don’t know) that the vaccines are harmful ( in which case nobody can dissuade you no matter what), then the current advice is pretty obvious and clear cut. Ideally ivermectin would show a clinical benefit because the best ways we have to treat an active/severe case are very expensive (Remdesivir/monoclonal antibodies) are unlikely to trickle out to most of the world.
    - evv555 5y ago
      >Sorry what is the conflict of interest in offering the most accurate information they can? * When Fauci was telling people masks aren't needed was he speaking as a scientific authority giving "most accurate information" or was he speaking as a bureaucrat concerned about ppp availability for hospitals? * When WHO goes against the booster shot narrative is it because of the science or is it because they want vaccines distributed to other parts of the world? * When these organizations were casting doubt and even CENSORING the Wuhan lab origin theory is it because of the science or because of potential gain of function research and their association? These "authorities" have chosen to act as political bureaucrats first and they have done it poorly. This is the result.
- Izkata 5y ago
  > but as far as I’m aware (I have many connections amongst the medical and epidemiological communities), the general consensus is that ivermectin does not work. > For instance, the FDA, WHO, the AMA, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists all say it should not be used outside of clinical trials because there is no good evidence for it These two statements don't mean the same thing. The stance for the FDA in particular is not "does not work" but is "we don't know (trials are ongoing), so we don't recommend it".
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  > scientific organizations (the CDC, and the FDA) Are these the same organizations that told us we don't need a mask? Are these the same organizations that said that controls on international and local travel were not needed? Are these the same organizations now pushing N95 masks for health workers? Are these the same organizations that were funding gain-of-function chimeric coronavirus research in Wuhan China? Are these the same organizations that distanced themselves from a vaccine mandate, now in favor of them? Are these the same organizations that failed to put out treatment guides for outpatient & inpatient care for COVID, but when they did, eventually, liberally plagiarized from the very doctors they attacked?

atty 5y ago

Settled is a strong claim, but as far as I’m aware (I have many connections amongst the medical and epidemiological communities), the general consensus is that ivermectin does not work. For instance, the FDA, WHO, the AMA, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists all say it should not be used outside of clinical trials because there is no good evidence for it, and even Merck, the manufacturer, specifically states it should not be used for COVID at all. I’m not saying no discourse or testing should happen. I’m a scientist, I believe scientific freedom, and of course, that includes a lot of disagreements. But those disagreements happen in the scientific community, not in the general public. What’s happening in the general public is not at all connected to what’s happening in the research. Instead, I’m interested in how these “treatments” with no strong evidence are getting weaponized by motivated agents (like the anti-vax crowd) to sow distrust both in scientific organizations (the CDC, and the FDA, Pfizer, Moderna, et al), and in the use of tools with proven effectiveness, like the vaccines themselves.

evv555 5y ago
>Instead, I’m interested in how these “treatments” with no strong evidence are getting weaponized by motivated agents (like the anti-vax crowd) to sow distrust both in scientific organizations (the CDC, and the FDA, Pfizer, Moderna, et al), and in the use of tools with proven effectiveness, like the vaccines themselves. In this polarized environment CDC/FDA/WHO/AMA are political organizations first and authoritative ones second. The conflict of interest here is legitimate and the loss of their authority with the public is in great part their own doing.
- hellotomyrars 5y ago
  Sorry what is the conflict of interest in offering the most accurate information they can? Even discarding whether we drill into the issues with the relatively small body of ivermectin studies, for or against. There isn’t anything approaching a consensus there. On the other hand what does have a consensus is that the vaccines work. Recommending the best possible action is pretty clear and obvious. Using ivermectin as a prophylactic isn’t close to settled and even if it did have a positive result that doesn’t necessarily make it as effective as the vaccines. Nor is it as reasonable a treatment regimen. As far as actually treating active/severe COVID cases we do have verifiable and working treatment mechanisms. Let’s just actually use what we know works. Makes more sense for everyone. I’m all for having more, and better studies don on ivermectin. But this is absurd. The loss of authority with the public is certainly about politics. But it is very obviously a political action being taken upon them, rather than one they’ve put out themselves. They have been politicized, as have many things in recent history for outside political gain. I have some pretty serious issues with the FDA around many aspects of policy but unless you actually believe (and maybe you do I don’t know) that the vaccines are harmful ( in which case nobody can dissuade you no matter what), then the current advice is pretty obvious and clear cut. Ideally ivermectin would show a clinical benefit because the best ways we have to treat an active/severe case are very expensive (Remdesivir/monoclonal antibodies) are unlikely to trickle out to most of the world.
  - evv555 5y ago
    >Sorry what is the conflict of interest in offering the most accurate information they can? * When Fauci was telling people masks aren't needed was he speaking as a scientific authority giving "most accurate information" or was he speaking as a bureaucrat concerned about ppp availability for hospitals? * When WHO goes against the booster shot narrative is it because of the science or is it because they want vaccines distributed to other parts of the world? * When these organizations were casting doubt and even CENSORING the Wuhan lab origin theory is it because of the science or because of potential gain of function research and their association? These "authorities" have chosen to act as political bureaucrats first and they have done it poorly. This is the result.
Izkata 5y ago
> but as far as I’m aware (I have many connections amongst the medical and epidemiological communities), the general consensus is that ivermectin does not work. > For instance, the FDA, WHO, the AMA, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists all say it should not be used outside of clinical trials because there is no good evidence for it These two statements don't mean the same thing. The stance for the FDA in particular is not "does not work" but is "we don't know (trials are ongoing), so we don't recommend it".
OrvalWintermute 5y ago
> scientific organizations (the CDC, and the FDA) Are these the same organizations that told us we don't need a mask? Are these the same organizations that said that controls on international and local travel were not needed? Are these the same organizations now pushing N95 masks for health workers? Are these the same organizations that were funding gain-of-function chimeric coronavirus research in Wuhan China? Are these the same organizations that distanced themselves from a vaccine mandate, now in favor of them? Are these the same organizations that failed to put out treatment guides for outpatient & inpatient care for COVID, but when they did, eventually, liberally plagiarized from the very doctors they attacked?