6 ms·

> The misunderstandings around this drug stem from misunderstandings of basic statistics and the scientific method. This is why you shouldn't get your medical a

by tux1968 5y ago

> The misunderstandings around this drug stem from misunderstandings of basic statistics and the scientific method. This is why you shouldn't get your medical advice from Joe Rogan. You're 100% correct, of course. But the prevalent MSM response, of calling it horse medicine, was equally damaging. Since it is a well known, effective, and respected medicine used in humans, this characterization as "horse paste" made it easy to believe that it was additionally being unfairly maligned in regard to its effectiveness for Covid.

Macha 5y ago
To my understanding, this came about because of people trying to self treat with it and the most accessible way for a lay person to get access was the aforementioned horse medicine (which came with dosages way above those for people) I.e. it's not that ivermectin is horse medicine in all forms, but the forms of it which the people were taking in response to Trump's early promotion were horse medicine
baumandm 5y ago
Sure it's click-bait, but people were actually taking livestock versions of Ivermectin, in paste form. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/08/23/covid-warning-treatment-ivermectin-fda-mississippi/8244302002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/08/23/covid-...
- moistofreason 5y ago
  Many major pharmacies in the US refused to fill prescriptions for off-label use of IVM, due to the media freak out about it… Some people decided to go to farm supply stores and take the sterile bovine injectable form of IVM orally. This whole situation would not have happened if social media, YouTube, and major news outlets didn’t make such a stink about using a drug. It has virtually no negative side-effects, over 40 years of safety track record, and is safely taken prophylactically for other uses around the world. Its efficacy has yet to be proven and there are conflicting studies on this, but its safety is not disputable.
  - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
    Just because it's safe doesn't mean they should hand it out like candy to anyone who wants it.
    - FeepingCreature 5y ago
      That is literally what it means. Sorry, since when do we refuse to sell people things that are safe, on the basis that we've decided they shouldn't ought to want it?
    - moistofreason 5y ago
      They aren’t… they are refusing to fill prescriptions, you know, written by doctors.
      - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
        Sorry, you're saying that every one (or at least the majority) of those people who tried to buy the livestock version had valid prescriptions and it was only the pharmacists standing in the way of the legitimate medical use?
        tux1968 5y ago
        It became well known that getting it in a legitimate way wasn't possible, so those who were determined to get it, didn't even bother trying. If it was well known that you could get it by seeing your doctor, people would have gone that route, since it is much safer to take proper human dosage under supervision of a medical professional.
        SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
        > since it is much safer to take proper human dosage under supervision of a medical professional Well now I'm getting conflicting messages about its safety, compared to the user I originally responded to: > It has virtually no negative side-effects, over 40 years of safety track record, and is safely taken prophylactically for other uses around the world. Its efficacy has yet to be proven and there are conflicting studies on this, but its safety is not disputable. But regardless we come back to my original point - should it be handed out like candy just because they asked for it? Especially when its efficacy was questionable?
Loughla 5y ago
I think its less that MSM called the human, prescribed version "horse medicine" and more that people were actually taking horse medicine as a "preventative". In my part of flyover country, you had to provide evidence, from a veterinarian or a sale bill from an auction house, that you owned livestock to be able to buy livestock ivermectin. Because people were buying it to use on themselves. That's where the 'horse medicine' thing comes from. It's real.
- _ea1k 5y ago
  Those rules have been common in a lot of places in the US for a long time now. They were made to prevent people from using them on dogs, as livestock ivermectin is much less expensive than the various forms that are marketed for dogs.
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    I know it’s comforting to think that, but it’s really not the reason they were locking it up. The guy who lives next door to me got ivermectin from his vet (ostensibly for his dog) in case he got Covid. People were absolutely taking horse / dog medicine. Talk to any doctor in more rural areas (I have a few in my immediate family), tons of people were literally eating horse medicine and the reason Tractor Supply put it behind the counter was because people were taking it for human use.
  - Loughla 5y ago
    Not really. Because people were eating ivermectin. Like the other poster says, I know it feels nice to be able to say "this was already happening", but it just wasn't. Not in as many places and covering as many businesses. Veterinarians generally needed proof of livestock (seeing the animal) but also were just as prone to give you the meds based on your description and assessment as a farmer. Not anymore. You could walk into any farm store and walk out with antibiotics and/or wormer. Not anymore. And it's because people were eating it. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's the reason.
Dylan16807 5y ago
> this characterization as "horse paste" made it easy to believe that it was additionally being unfairly maligned in regard to its effectiveness for Covid. Would a more diplomatic wording have actually helped? I don't think it would have. And trying too hard to have diplomatic neutrality will often encourage the toxic idea that every debate has two valid and reasonable sides.
xadhominemx 5y ago
> was equally damaging In what way? Ivermectin was pitched as an alternative to vaccination, leading people to avoid the highly effective vaccines.
- MarcoZavala 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
stjohnswarts 5y ago
It isn't “equally damaging”. It was a social attempt to embarrass those who were pursing horse medicine for something it was absolutely never evaluated for and marked as credible medicine for covid. It was the right's attempt (at least in the USA) to cross their fingers and hope that the left was wrong. They are essentially antiscience but wanted to use a medicine that only came about because of science. Their mental dissonance must be deafening.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  And it backfired.
Nursie 5y ago
>> this characterization as "horse paste" Is likely because of the legions of people who have been dosing themselves with horse paste.

Macha 5y ago

To my understanding, this came about because of people trying to self treat with it and the most accessible way for a lay person to get access was the aforementioned horse medicine (which came with dosages way above those for people) I.e. it's not that ivermectin is horse medicine in all forms, but the forms of it which the people were taking in response to Trump's early promotion were horse medicine

baumandm 5y ago

Sure it's click-bait, but people were actually taking livestock versions of Ivermectin, in paste form. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/08/23/covid-warning-treatment-ivermectin-fda-mississippi/8244302002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/08/23/covid-...

moistofreason 5y ago
Many major pharmacies in the US refused to fill prescriptions for off-label use of IVM, due to the media freak out about it… Some people decided to go to farm supply stores and take the sterile bovine injectable form of IVM orally. This whole situation would not have happened if social media, YouTube, and major news outlets didn’t make such a stink about using a drug. It has virtually no negative side-effects, over 40 years of safety track record, and is safely taken prophylactically for other uses around the world. Its efficacy has yet to be proven and there are conflicting studies on this, but its safety is not disputable.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  Just because it's safe doesn't mean they should hand it out like candy to anyone who wants it.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    That is literally what it means. Sorry, since when do we refuse to sell people things that are safe, on the basis that we've decided they shouldn't ought to want it?
  - moistofreason 5y ago
    They aren’t… they are refusing to fill prescriptions, you know, written by doctors.
    - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
      Sorry, you're saying that every one (or at least the majority) of those people who tried to buy the livestock version had valid prescriptions and it was only the pharmacists standing in the way of the legitimate medical use?
      - tux1968 5y ago
        It became well known that getting it in a legitimate way wasn't possible, so those who were determined to get it, didn't even bother trying. If it was well known that you could get it by seeing your doctor, people would have gone that route, since it is much safer to take proper human dosage under supervision of a medical professional.
        SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
        > since it is much safer to take proper human dosage under supervision of a medical professional Well now I'm getting conflicting messages about its safety, compared to the user I originally responded to: > It has virtually no negative side-effects, over 40 years of safety track record, and is safely taken prophylactically for other uses around the world. Its efficacy has yet to be proven and there are conflicting studies on this, but its safety is not disputable. But regardless we come back to my original point - should it be handed out like candy just because they asked for it? Especially when its efficacy was questionable?

Loughla 5y ago

I think its less that MSM called the human, prescribed version "horse medicine" and more that people were actually taking horse medicine as a "preventative". In my part of flyover country, you had to provide evidence, from a veterinarian or a sale bill from an auction house, that you owned livestock to be able to buy livestock ivermectin. Because people were buying it to use on themselves. That's where the 'horse medicine' thing comes from. It's real.

_ea1k 5y ago
Those rules have been common in a lot of places in the US for a long time now. They were made to prevent people from using them on dogs, as livestock ivermectin is much less expensive than the various forms that are marketed for dogs.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  I know it’s comforting to think that, but it’s really not the reason they were locking it up. The guy who lives next door to me got ivermectin from his vet (ostensibly for his dog) in case he got Covid. People were absolutely taking horse / dog medicine. Talk to any doctor in more rural areas (I have a few in my immediate family), tons of people were literally eating horse medicine and the reason Tractor Supply put it behind the counter was because people were taking it for human use.
- Loughla 5y ago
  Not really. Because people were eating ivermectin. Like the other poster says, I know it feels nice to be able to say "this was already happening", but it just wasn't. Not in as many places and covering as many businesses. Veterinarians generally needed proof of livestock (seeing the animal) but also were just as prone to give you the meds based on your description and assessment as a farmer. Not anymore. You could walk into any farm store and walk out with antibiotics and/or wormer. Not anymore. And it's because people were eating it. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's the reason.

Dylan16807 5y ago

> this characterization as "horse paste" made it easy to believe that it was additionally being unfairly maligned in regard to its effectiveness for Covid. Would a more diplomatic wording have actually helped? I don't think it would have. And trying too hard to have diplomatic neutrality will often encourage the toxic idea that every debate has two valid and reasonable sides.

xadhominemx 5y ago

> was equally damaging In what way? Ivermectin was pitched as an alternative to vaccination, leading people to avoid the highly effective vaccines.

MarcoZavala 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

stjohnswarts 5y ago

It isn't “equally damaging”. It was a social attempt to embarrass those who were pursing horse medicine for something it was absolutely never evaluated for and marked as credible medicine for covid. It was the right's attempt (at least in the USA) to cross their fingers and hope that the left was wrong. They are essentially antiscience but wanted to use a medicine that only came about because of science. Their mental dissonance must be deafening.

FeepingCreature 5y ago
And it backfired.

Nursie 5y ago

>> this characterization as "horse paste" Is likely because of the legions of people who have been dosing themselves with horse paste.