5 ms·

> Why does being pro-vaccine necessitate being hostile to treatment options? There are treatment options. Remdesivir, dexomethazone, monoclonal antibodies, ant

> Why does being pro-vaccine necessitate being hostile to treatment options? There are treatment options. Remdesivir, dexomethazone, monoclonal antibodies, anti-clotting drugs, etc. NIH has put out guidelines [1], especially p. 62-63. One year or one year and a half ago not much was known about Covid, so people were looking at vitamin D, aspirin, hydroxychloroquine, etc. Now there are quite a few options. As you can see, the NIH continues to investigate additional options like Ivermectin. There's no grand conspiracy to hide cures from people. The need for people to experiment by themselves is simply not there. It probably was in the first half of 2020, but not anymore. [1] https://files.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/guidelines/covid19treatmentguidelines.pdf https://files.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/guidelines/...

s1artibartfast 5y ago
I feel like you are side stepping the thrust of my question and mischaracterizing my argument. 1) I am glad the NIH continues to investigate additional options like Ivermectin, and acknowledge that some treatments currently exist. Thank you for sharing some of the more recent NIH studies that I was not aware of. 2) Im not claiming any grand conspiracy to hide cures, just a general public resentment of people trying experimental therapeutics. 3) I am disheartened by vitriol, outrage, and focus on people making medical decisions in consultation with their doctors. I don't understand how it is newsworthy or worthy of outside criticism/condemnation. 4) Despite known treatments, there have been 400k deaths in the last 12 months, so there is clearly room for improvement. If I put myself in the shoes of someone hospitalized with Covid, I would want to look to what additional drugs are being studied, and ask my doctor if the risk/benefit based on current data warrants administration. I wouldn't want to be shamed for enrolling in an RCT for Ivermectin, or being prescribed it by my doctor off label if he thought it had benefit. I wouldn't want a pharmacy overruling my doctors prescription. 5) I was curious about your take on the negative reaction to people seeking and trying potential therapeutics, but you dont seem interested in engaging on why this might be. If your position is that people & doctors should not be able to deviate from the NIH guidelines, that's OK, but we disagree, and I don't know why. Are you saving them from themselves? Is it to enshrine control or keep costs down?
- credit_guy 5y ago
  You are right that I didn't address that part of your question. I simply don't know much about it. I am not following a lot social media (outside Hacker News) or regular media, and I'm simply not in the loop with the topic. The only thing I have noticed myself was that the CDC and the FDA (and the NIH) are quite conservative institutions. If some drug does not have the solid evidence showing it is effective, they will not endorse it. Sometimes this is frustrating, but if you put yourself in their shoes, what else can you do? When you judge a drug for yourself, you have a lot of information, you know everything about your own body, what it tolerates, what it doesn't, etc. But these organizations have to make a judgment that potentially affects the lives of hundreds of millions of people. They will err on the side of being conservative: it's better from their point of view if 1 million people die because they don't use an unproven drug than if 1 million people are saved, but 100k other people die of side-effects. For the simple reason that the 1 million who are saved will become invisible, and only the 100k who die of side-effects will be the center of attention in the media. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Thanks for understanding where I was coming from. I understand the FDA's caution, and actually support it when it comes to claims of efficacy. Most of my objection is to the media and public politicizing personal health decisions.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

I feel like you are side stepping the thrust of my question and mischaracterizing my argument. 1) I am glad the NIH continues to investigate additional options like Ivermectin, and acknowledge that some treatments currently exist. Thank you for sharing some of the more recent NIH studies that I was not aware of. 2) Im not claiming any grand conspiracy to hide cures, just a general public resentment of people trying experimental therapeutics. 3) I am disheartened by vitriol, outrage, and focus on people making medical decisions in consultation with their doctors. I don't understand how it is newsworthy or worthy of outside criticism/condemnation. 4) Despite known treatments, there have been 400k deaths in the last 12 months, so there is clearly room for improvement. If I put myself in the shoes of someone hospitalized with Covid, I would want to look to what additional drugs are being studied, and ask my doctor if the risk/benefit based on current data warrants administration. I wouldn't want to be shamed for enrolling in an RCT for Ivermectin, or being prescribed it by my doctor off label if he thought it had benefit. I wouldn't want a pharmacy overruling my doctors prescription. 5) I was curious about your take on the negative reaction to people seeking and trying potential therapeutics, but you dont seem interested in engaging on why this might be. If your position is that people & doctors should not be able to deviate from the NIH guidelines, that's OK, but we disagree, and I don't know why. Are you saving them from themselves? Is it to enshrine control or keep costs down?

credit_guy 5y ago
You are right that I didn't address that part of your question. I simply don't know much about it. I am not following a lot social media (outside Hacker News) or regular media, and I'm simply not in the loop with the topic. The only thing I have noticed myself was that the CDC and the FDA (and the NIH) are quite conservative institutions. If some drug does not have the solid evidence showing it is effective, they will not endorse it. Sometimes this is frustrating, but if you put yourself in their shoes, what else can you do? When you judge a drug for yourself, you have a lot of information, you know everything about your own body, what it tolerates, what it doesn't, etc. But these organizations have to make a judgment that potentially affects the lives of hundreds of millions of people. They will err on the side of being conservative: it's better from their point of view if 1 million people die because they don't use an unproven drug than if 1 million people are saved, but 100k other people die of side-effects. For the simple reason that the 1 million who are saved will become invisible, and only the 100k who die of side-effects will be the center of attention in the media. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Thanks for understanding where I was coming from. I understand the FDA's caution, and actually support it when it comes to claims of efficacy. Most of my objection is to the media and public politicizing personal health decisions.