3 ms·

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

by 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.
    - hellotomyrars 5y ago
      With respect, Decisions have to be made and in the early days surrounding the pandemic PPE for hospitals is an important thing to have. If that is the motivation that is quite literally a medical and health authority decision and also valid. Information in hindsight change things. Triage isn’t politics. You can disagree but I think calling it playing politics is pretty absurd. Re: Booster shots So which health authority here then is acting as a political agent? Kind of muddies your perspective. Regardless all authorities don’t explicitly have to agree to be offering good advice. Do we expect everyone to have the right answer all the time? There are also competing interest here. Makes sense for WHO to prefer vaccination go wide. Also makes sense for the US to work to protect its citizens as much as possible, potentially at the expense of the rest of the globe. Does one do more good than the other? How do you quantify that result objectively? Nothing about the wuhan lab origin is particularly relevant or important as far as the issues of treatment go. I agree this is an entirely political issue, but it is also divorced from what has become politicized as far as COVID treatment and vaccines. I think it’s a bad faith argument to say the majority of the `political` aspects of the pandemic response are a result of health authorities losing trust because they are acting as political agents. The counter narrative (if you want to call it that, I don’t know what would be the best thing to call it really) of anti-vax, anti-mask, and alternative (unproven) treatments is decades in the making of a general trend that I do agree is (From an American perspective) a general lack of faith in government. But I also think that a lot of that is political in its inception. And surrounding COVID especially, these are the ideas being amplified by mainstream political figures in an unprecedented way. There have always been people skeptical of the government. There have always been antivax people. But the flames that are fanning these, especially now are explicitly being done so by political elements for their own personal political gain. There is barely any defensible basis for the majority of the backlash here. It’s would be kind of funny if it wasn’t so depressing. You’ve got military personnel making grandiose statements against their vaccine requirements. All of them got several when they enlisted, and there was no issue then for some reason. The anthrax vaccine really did have some major issues (identified pretty much immediately when it was rolled out) but we didn’t have this kind of narrative about it then. Ultimately this really just reinforces the `politics` aspect to me. Are there valid areas of debate to have on pandemic response? Absolutely. Do some of them have political implications? (Boosters)? Sure Does rejecting (especially) vaccines and masks in spite of the quantifiable data about their efficacy make sense? No. Does advocating the use of debatably useful substances as an alternative because you’ve chosen to ignore what we do know (for political reasons, in this case your personal politics) make sense? No. People are allowing their personal politics to override something that isn’t political. The politics are largely coming from outside, especially about pandemic response.
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?

by atty 5y ago

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.
  - hellotomyrars 5y ago
    With respect, Decisions have to be made and in the early days surrounding the pandemic PPE for hospitals is an important thing to have. If that is the motivation that is quite literally a medical and health authority decision and also valid. Information in hindsight change things. Triage isn’t politics. You can disagree but I think calling it playing politics is pretty absurd. Re: Booster shots So which health authority here then is acting as a political agent? Kind of muddies your perspective. Regardless all authorities don’t explicitly have to agree to be offering good advice. Do we expect everyone to have the right answer all the time? There are also competing interest here. Makes sense for WHO to prefer vaccination go wide. Also makes sense for the US to work to protect its citizens as much as possible, potentially at the expense of the rest of the globe. Does one do more good than the other? How do you quantify that result objectively? Nothing about the wuhan lab origin is particularly relevant or important as far as the issues of treatment go. I agree this is an entirely political issue, but it is also divorced from what has become politicized as far as COVID treatment and vaccines. I think it’s a bad faith argument to say the majority of the `political` aspects of the pandemic response are a result of health authorities losing trust because they are acting as political agents. The counter narrative (if you want to call it that, I don’t know what would be the best thing to call it really) of anti-vax, anti-mask, and alternative (unproven) treatments is decades in the making of a general trend that I do agree is (From an American perspective) a general lack of faith in government. But I also think that a lot of that is political in its inception. And surrounding COVID especially, these are the ideas being amplified by mainstream political figures in an unprecedented way. There have always been people skeptical of the government. There have always been antivax people. But the flames that are fanning these, especially now are explicitly being done so by political elements for their own personal political gain. There is barely any defensible basis for the majority of the backlash here. It’s would be kind of funny if it wasn’t so depressing. You’ve got military personnel making grandiose statements against their vaccine requirements. All of them got several when they enlisted, and there was no issue then for some reason. The anthrax vaccine really did have some major issues (identified pretty much immediately when it was rolled out) but we didn’t have this kind of narrative about it then. Ultimately this really just reinforces the `politics` aspect to me. Are there valid areas of debate to have on pandemic response? Absolutely. Do some of them have political implications? (Boosters)? Sure Does rejecting (especially) vaccines and masks in spite of the quantifiable data about their efficacy make sense? No. Does advocating the use of debatably useful substances as an alternative because you’ve chosen to ignore what we do know (for political reasons, in this case your personal politics) make sense? No. People are allowing their personal politics to override something that isn’t political. The politics are largely coming from outside, especially about pandemic response.

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?