3 ms·

Many countries are using ivermectin...Mexico, India, it's even being prescribed in the US and UK. What it is missing is quality studies, but there are millions

Many countries are using ivermectin...Mexico, India, it's even being prescribed in the US and UK. What it is missing is quality studies, but there are millions of prescriptions being written based off of clinical discretion. So yes, there are more countries, and many ARE accepting ivermectin for treating COVID. And again, I don't know or care if it works, I'm vaccinated and wouldn't take it, nor am I a conspiracy theorist, your point is just not correct.

bsder 5y ago
> What it is missing is quality studies Um, exactly? We have millions of scrips issued and still nobody can produce data. Now, what we can posit is that there is a worldwide conspiracy to suppress the fact that ivermectin is effective OR we can posit that ivermectin doesn't actually work very well for Covid. The problem with anecdotal medical treatments is that the human organism is highly variable. Just about any disease "treatment" will work for somebody, somewhere. But that's not enough to proclaim that something works. This is going to be especially true in countries where parasitic infestation (which ivermectin does treat) is more common. If a significant fraction of your population got their parasitic infestation cured, their Covid numbers are going to look quite a bit better, too. If we're trading on anecdotes, then I'll say that ivermectin doesn't work. We had lots of people taking ivermectin at various level in US Red State land. Their hospitals still got overrun. If anything, ivermectin use is correlated with more hospitalization. This is, in fact, a tautology--but not because ivermectin makes Covid worse (or better) but because people were getting poisoned by ivermectin and most ivermectin users were in red state areas which had lower vaccination rates. This is why you don't believe claims without data. > And again, I don't know or care if it works, I'm vaccinated and wouldn't take it, nor am I a conspiracy theorist, your point is just not correct. The problem is that your "I'm just a skeptic" ignores the fact that nobody can cough up any data. Continuing to promulgate things in the absence of data articulates your position quite clearly.
- ralusek 5y ago
  I'm not saying "I'm just a skeptic." People keep putting words in my mouth or arguing against points that I didn't make. My original argument was against the poster who said that there was no reason to lie about the utility of ivermectin. I said that there was. In arguing against points that I didn't make, though, you keep making points that I still disagree with. Such as this false dichotomy you keep laying out: > Now, what we can posit is that there is a worldwide conspiracy to suppress the fact that ivermectin is effective OR we can posit that ivermectin doesn't actually work very well for Covid. Those aren't the only two options. A third option is that ivermectin does actually have some mechanism of action that has some utility in treating COVID, and that the informal clinical data which continues its usage is because of that. You're acting as if there are formal studies which indicate that it has no utility, but all of the data debunking the utility of ivermectin instead suggests that there is simply not a rigorous study formally demonstrating the utility. For the third or fourth time, I'm not even saying that I believe that it does have utility. I actually don't care about ivermectin. > If we're trading on anecdotes, then I'll say that ivermectin doesn't work I don't remember laying out an anecdote saying that ivermectin does work. An argument was put forth saying that if ivermectin did work, there would be scientists and doctors all over the world studying and using it. I said that there were scientists and doctors all over the world studying and using it. I think it's entirely possible it does nothing and those things could still be true. You're the only one between us who is actually making a claim about the utility of the drug. > This is why you don't believe claims without data. I don't know what claim I'm purported to be believing.

bsder 5y ago

> What it is missing is quality studies Um, exactly? We have millions of scrips issued and still nobody can produce data. Now, what we can posit is that there is a worldwide conspiracy to suppress the fact that ivermectin is effective OR we can posit that ivermectin doesn't actually work very well for Covid. The problem with anecdotal medical treatments is that the human organism is highly variable. Just about any disease "treatment" will work for somebody, somewhere. But that's not enough to proclaim that something works. This is going to be especially true in countries where parasitic infestation (which ivermectin does treat) is more common. If a significant fraction of your population got their parasitic infestation cured, their Covid numbers are going to look quite a bit better, too. If we're trading on anecdotes, then I'll say that ivermectin doesn't work. We had lots of people taking ivermectin at various level in US Red State land. Their hospitals still got overrun. If anything, ivermectin use is correlated with more hospitalization. This is, in fact, a tautology--but not because ivermectin makes Covid worse (or better) but because people were getting poisoned by ivermectin and most ivermectin users were in red state areas which had lower vaccination rates. This is why you don't believe claims without data. > And again, I don't know or care if it works, I'm vaccinated and wouldn't take it, nor am I a conspiracy theorist, your point is just not correct. The problem is that your "I'm just a skeptic" ignores the fact that nobody can cough up any data. Continuing to promulgate things in the absence of data articulates your position quite clearly.

ralusek 5y ago
I'm not saying "I'm just a skeptic." People keep putting words in my mouth or arguing against points that I didn't make. My original argument was against the poster who said that there was no reason to lie about the utility of ivermectin. I said that there was. In arguing against points that I didn't make, though, you keep making points that I still disagree with. Such as this false dichotomy you keep laying out: > Now, what we can posit is that there is a worldwide conspiracy to suppress the fact that ivermectin is effective OR we can posit that ivermectin doesn't actually work very well for Covid. Those aren't the only two options. A third option is that ivermectin does actually have some mechanism of action that has some utility in treating COVID, and that the informal clinical data which continues its usage is because of that. You're acting as if there are formal studies which indicate that it has no utility, but all of the data debunking the utility of ivermectin instead suggests that there is simply not a rigorous study formally demonstrating the utility. For the third or fourth time, I'm not even saying that I believe that it does have utility. I actually don't care about ivermectin. > If we're trading on anecdotes, then I'll say that ivermectin doesn't work I don't remember laying out an anecdote saying that ivermectin does work. An argument was put forth saying that if ivermectin did work, there would be scientists and doctors all over the world studying and using it. I said that there were scientists and doctors all over the world studying and using it. I think it's entirely possible it does nothing and those things could still be true. You're the only one between us who is actually making a claim about the utility of the drug. > This is why you don't believe claims without data. I don't know what claim I'm purported to be believing.