5 ms·

I don't get it. I don't understand anything about medicine but as far as I know the Japanese used ivermectin to treat COVID so it's not just some developing cou

I don't get it. I don't understand anything about medicine but as far as I know the Japanese used ivermectin to treat COVID so it's not just some developing countries that use it. I'm from Finland and our national news company even reported about some Finnish pharma companies that developed a nasal spay that could treat COVID. That nasal spray included ivermectin and they said it's such a shame ivermectin has such a bad press because supposedly some yanks overdosed on horse dewormer after listening to Joe Rogan too much, but they still insisted that it's an effective drug to treat COVID. I don't know what to believe anymore. To me it seems that not even the trustworthy media can't decide whether it's effective or not. The most bizarre part of this whole ordeal is how there was such a huge backlash to ivermectin usage as if it was some kind of a dangerous drug when that's clearly not the case. Even my layman's knowledge is enough to understand that much. If it's placebo at worst then why did the media try to demonize it so hard?

tinus_hn 5y ago
- phoinix 5y ago
jeroenhd 5y ago
The danger was not that the medicine itself, but the fact that it was a) unproven to have any effect, b) often taken in horse doses causing nasty side effects (because horse medicine if often good enough for human consumption, even if it's not held to the same standard) and above all c) seen as an alternative to proper measures like vaccination, masks, the whole ordeal. It's a pretty good way to get rid of parasites, but the association with COVID caused a lot of problems.
- janmarsal 5y ago
  https://yle.fi/news/3-11946611 https://yle.fi/news/3-11946611 ^ Okay so if "a)" is true then are these nasal spray companies full of shit or what? The part "b)" about horse dewormer overdoses have been confirmed to be fake news long ago so I think don't need to dwell on that too much. I still don't know whether ivermectin is effective or not though. If it's not then I still don't understand what's the big deal. Why does it have to be smeared so hard. And this whole "c)" thing. That's the most disturbing part to me. That's basically like religious fundamentalism to me. I just can't wrap my head around it. Why should vaccination be the only acceptable way to treat COVID and that we shouldn't even consider the alternatives as if they were some kind of heresies? I just don't understand. To me it seems like the vaccine fundamentalists are more interested in obedience than science. In science we need opposing views and this obviously means that some of those views will be proven to be false, but if you try to effectively SUPPRESS those opposing views then you can't call it science anymore. Also, there's always a good chance that the mainstream view can be false. I mean, just like with religions but that's one of those worm cans that only make people mad if we pop it open. My whole life I was taught that trying to cure seasonal flu with vaccine is silly because the flu mutates too fast and it just leads to an endless loop of seasonal vaccines. Then covid happens and suddenly I should forget everything I knew about vaccines even though with the talk about all these booster shots it only makes it seems like the old knowledge makes more sense than this new knowledge. My brain refuses to accept this nonsense, I can't help it.
  - sixothree 5y ago
    You tried very hard to ignore the points he was making. > Why should vaccination be the only acceptable way to treat COVID It's not a treatment. Vaccines are prevention. We have treatments. Ivermectin isn't one of them. > In science we need opposing views That sounds so childish. We don't need "views" in science. We need results that people can trust. You have my permission to try and prove ivermectin is effective. So far everyone trying has failed. That's not a view. It's fact. > trying to cure seasonal flu with vaccine is silly It's not. We can get rid of seasonal flu if we try hard enough. > To me it seems like the vaccine fundamentalists are more interested in obedience than science. "vaccine fundamentalists" suggests to me a complete disingenuous argument. We know how to prevent covid. We know how to eradicate covid. We have watched countries do just that. Even if we don't do the things those places do, we can reduce the death count here. But with small-minded attitudes like yours, that simply is never going to happen.
    - janmarsal 5y ago
      >It's not a treatment. Vaccines are prevention. We have treatments. Ivermectin isn't one of them. I'm not an expert on medicine and I admit I have no idea what I'm talking about but are you trying to make some kind of a point here or are you just arguing about semantics? >You have my permission to try and prove ivermectin is effective. So far everyone trying has failed. No I'm not qualified for that. This is why I gave you a link about COVID nasal sprays that have ivermectin in them and asked whether they're bullshit or not. Enlighten me if you can or don't reply. >It's not. We can get rid of seasonal flu if we try hard enough. I'm too pessimistic to fall for that kind of wishful thinking. >But with small-minded attitudes like yours, that simply is never going to happen. Come on. You don't want me to be open-minded. You want me to be small-minded with you. To align my views with yours. Open-mindedness requires you to accept opposing view points. What even makes me small-minded exactly? I'm not against vaccines and I'm not against ivermectin. I'm merely baffled by the anti-ivermectin narrative and the totalitarian vaccine campaigns that leave no other options except mandatory vaccines. I may be ignorant and I may be wrong but I'm certainly not small-minded.
  - the_af 5y ago
- liquid_bluing 5y ago
  The dose per kg is the same for horses and humans.
  - jeroenhd 5y ago
    Of course! The problem is that when laypeople buy veterinary doses (because you can't get a package of human pills for a decent price), it's very easy to underestimate the effective concentration of the medicine. There's also a risk that the material the effective ingredient is wrapped in (flavouring, gelling agents, etc.) doesn't go down well with the human body, or that the higher concentration has an effect on the human body. If you compensate for the body weight and ensure that the gel agent the animal medicine comes in doesn't have any adverse effects on the human body (it probably doesn't) then consuming animal medicine can be an excellent way to treat parasitic infections if you're awfully poor and don't qualify for any insurance. Consuming any chemical not made for human consumption is dangerous, but if you don't have another option, it's better than doing nothing. People ridicule the whole horse dewormer story, but it's no secret that people around the world have turned to animal medicine out of necessity due to prices of medication.
Hallucinaut 5y ago
Because it's emblematic of laymen without understanding of medicine both demanding treatment with no evidence behind it and claiming the establishment NOT providing it is evidence of some vast, many-tentacled conspiracy. However, one of your comments shows the true problem. It's not FOR the media to decide. Murdoch may disagree but the media is just reflecting the establishment. You can argue about the effectiveness of said establishments because they're all dysfunctional, like any organization of any size, but to claim that we should just throw away scientific process in anathema to modern society. There were multiple reports of people refusing treatment (and, of course, vaccines before that) because they wanted ivermectin. Prior to that, people poisoning themselves with household products due to Trump's careless speculation on treatment. It's ironic as those who don't trust vaccines seem to flock to the medical advice of those without any training. The backlash has never been primarily about the dangers of ivermectin specifically, but the rejection of established protocol, scientific procedure and basically everything that humanity has moved forward with in the past century or so.
- sixothree 5y ago
  The worst part of this is that we _know_ how to prevent covid. But the people insisting on their right to use ivermectin were the same people insisting they needed to take zero personal responsibility to prevent themselves from getting covid in the first place.
- the_af 5y ago
  > It's ironic as those who don't trust vaccines seem to flock to the medical advice of those without any training. This is a trend I've observed in proponents of New Age alternative "medicine", way before COVID. They can simultaneously believe that Western medicine is "unproven" or a "hoax", and that doctors are "untrustworthy" and "big pharma" wants you to buy unproven stuff, and no amount of qualifications will convince them. Yet they have no trouble believing Bach flower remedies will cure anything, they follow homeopathy religiously, and it's enough evidence that some healer is the real deal because they heard someone at the grocery store say so and she seemed like such a nice person. Or some TV celebrity said so, and why would he lie?
xadhominemx 5y ago
> If it's placebo at worst then why did the media try to demonize it so hard? Because anti-vaxxers pitched it as an alternative to vaccination, and many people listened.
- janmarsal 5y ago
  Why is an alternative to vaccination a bad thing exactly? I'm vaccinated and I'm certainly not against vaccines per se, but when they're talking about 4th booster shot then to me it only indicates that maybe vaccines wasn't the right way to treat this pandemic. Why is this such a a dangerous thought? Why should I accept vaccines as the only way forward? That's probably my biggest question here. Almost make me feel like they're scared of someone finding a better way out of this.
  - bena 5y ago
    First, many vaccines come in many rounds. Hell, there's an annual flu shot. Second, a viable alternative to vaccination wouldn't be a bad thing. But Ivermectin is not that. So suggesting that it is is a bad thing. And no one is suggesting you accept vaccines as "the only way forward". Pfizer is developing a treatment for after you've caught COVID. Work is being done in that direction. Currently, vaccines are your best safety measure. That's been borne out by the data available. Any way you look at it.
  - xadhominemx 5y ago
    Alternatives to vaccination are not a bad thing per se, for the reasons you point out. But pitching Ivermectin as an alternative to vaccination is bad because Ivermectin does not work and the vaccines work very well.
  - the_af 5y ago
    > when they're talking about 4th booster shot then to me it only indicates that maybe vaccines wasn't the right way to treat this pandemic Can you elaborate? Why does the number of booster shots tell you anything about the right way to treat this pandemic? I honestly don't follow.
  - 5y ago
giarc 5y ago
You've been duped. The Japanese, well at least the Japanese government did not approve it for use in COVID patients. It was a common claim by certain groups, but if you go to the source, you can see it was not approved. The 2\website below is the Japanese governments website for approved drugs/vaccines/testing/medical equipment for COVID. https://www.pmda.go.jp/english/about-pmda/0002.html https://www.pmda.go.jp/english/about-pmda/0002.html
greydius 5y ago
> the Japanese used ivermectin to treat COVID This is not true. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-japan-ivermectinandmandate-idUSL1N2TX1GK https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-japan-ivermectinan...

tinus_hn 5y ago

phoinix 5y ago

jeroenhd 5y ago

The danger was not that the medicine itself, but the fact that it was a) unproven to have any effect, b) often taken in horse doses causing nasty side effects (because horse medicine if often good enough for human consumption, even if it's not held to the same standard) and above all c) seen as an alternative to proper measures like vaccination, masks, the whole ordeal. It's a pretty good way to get rid of parasites, but the association with COVID caused a lot of problems.

janmarsal 5y ago
https://yle.fi/news/3-11946611 https://yle.fi/news/3-11946611 ^ Okay so if "a)" is true then are these nasal spray companies full of shit or what? The part "b)" about horse dewormer overdoses have been confirmed to be fake news long ago so I think don't need to dwell on that too much. I still don't know whether ivermectin is effective or not though. If it's not then I still don't understand what's the big deal. Why does it have to be smeared so hard. And this whole "c)" thing. That's the most disturbing part to me. That's basically like religious fundamentalism to me. I just can't wrap my head around it. Why should vaccination be the only acceptable way to treat COVID and that we shouldn't even consider the alternatives as if they were some kind of heresies? I just don't understand. To me it seems like the vaccine fundamentalists are more interested in obedience than science. In science we need opposing views and this obviously means that some of those views will be proven to be false, but if you try to effectively SUPPRESS those opposing views then you can't call it science anymore. Also, there's always a good chance that the mainstream view can be false. I mean, just like with religions but that's one of those worm cans that only make people mad if we pop it open. My whole life I was taught that trying to cure seasonal flu with vaccine is silly because the flu mutates too fast and it just leads to an endless loop of seasonal vaccines. Then covid happens and suddenly I should forget everything I knew about vaccines even though with the talk about all these booster shots it only makes it seems like the old knowledge makes more sense than this new knowledge. My brain refuses to accept this nonsense, I can't help it.
- sixothree 5y ago
  You tried very hard to ignore the points he was making. > Why should vaccination be the only acceptable way to treat COVID It's not a treatment. Vaccines are prevention. We have treatments. Ivermectin isn't one of them. > In science we need opposing views That sounds so childish. We don't need "views" in science. We need results that people can trust. You have my permission to try and prove ivermectin is effective. So far everyone trying has failed. That's not a view. It's fact. > trying to cure seasonal flu with vaccine is silly It's not. We can get rid of seasonal flu if we try hard enough. > To me it seems like the vaccine fundamentalists are more interested in obedience than science. "vaccine fundamentalists" suggests to me a complete disingenuous argument. We know how to prevent covid. We know how to eradicate covid. We have watched countries do just that. Even if we don't do the things those places do, we can reduce the death count here. But with small-minded attitudes like yours, that simply is never going to happen.
  - janmarsal 5y ago
    >It's not a treatment. Vaccines are prevention. We have treatments. Ivermectin isn't one of them. I'm not an expert on medicine and I admit I have no idea what I'm talking about but are you trying to make some kind of a point here or are you just arguing about semantics? >You have my permission to try and prove ivermectin is effective. So far everyone trying has failed. No I'm not qualified for that. This is why I gave you a link about COVID nasal sprays that have ivermectin in them and asked whether they're bullshit or not. Enlighten me if you can or don't reply. >It's not. We can get rid of seasonal flu if we try hard enough. I'm too pessimistic to fall for that kind of wishful thinking. >But with small-minded attitudes like yours, that simply is never going to happen. Come on. You don't want me to be open-minded. You want me to be small-minded with you. To align my views with yours. Open-mindedness requires you to accept opposing view points. What even makes me small-minded exactly? I'm not against vaccines and I'm not against ivermectin. I'm merely baffled by the anti-ivermectin narrative and the totalitarian vaccine campaigns that leave no other options except mandatory vaccines. I may be ignorant and I may be wrong but I'm certainly not small-minded.
- the_af 5y ago
liquid_bluing 5y ago
The dose per kg is the same for horses and humans.
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  Of course! The problem is that when laypeople buy veterinary doses (because you can't get a package of human pills for a decent price), it's very easy to underestimate the effective concentration of the medicine. There's also a risk that the material the effective ingredient is wrapped in (flavouring, gelling agents, etc.) doesn't go down well with the human body, or that the higher concentration has an effect on the human body. If you compensate for the body weight and ensure that the gel agent the animal medicine comes in doesn't have any adverse effects on the human body (it probably doesn't) then consuming animal medicine can be an excellent way to treat parasitic infections if you're awfully poor and don't qualify for any insurance. Consuming any chemical not made for human consumption is dangerous, but if you don't have another option, it's better than doing nothing. People ridicule the whole horse dewormer story, but it's no secret that people around the world have turned to animal medicine out of necessity due to prices of medication.

Hallucinaut 5y ago

Because it's emblematic of laymen without understanding of medicine both demanding treatment with no evidence behind it and claiming the establishment NOT providing it is evidence of some vast, many-tentacled conspiracy. However, one of your comments shows the true problem. It's not FOR the media to decide. Murdoch may disagree but the media is just reflecting the establishment. You can argue about the effectiveness of said establishments because they're all dysfunctional, like any organization of any size, but to claim that we should just throw away scientific process in anathema to modern society. There were multiple reports of people refusing treatment (and, of course, vaccines before that) because they wanted ivermectin. Prior to that, people poisoning themselves with household products due to Trump's careless speculation on treatment. It's ironic as those who don't trust vaccines seem to flock to the medical advice of those without any training. The backlash has never been primarily about the dangers of ivermectin specifically, but the rejection of established protocol, scientific procedure and basically everything that humanity has moved forward with in the past century or so.

sixothree 5y ago
The worst part of this is that we _know_ how to prevent covid. But the people insisting on their right to use ivermectin were the same people insisting they needed to take zero personal responsibility to prevent themselves from getting covid in the first place.
the_af 5y ago
> It's ironic as those who don't trust vaccines seem to flock to the medical advice of those without any training. This is a trend I've observed in proponents of New Age alternative "medicine", way before COVID. They can simultaneously believe that Western medicine is "unproven" or a "hoax", and that doctors are "untrustworthy" and "big pharma" wants you to buy unproven stuff, and no amount of qualifications will convince them. Yet they have no trouble believing Bach flower remedies will cure anything, they follow homeopathy religiously, and it's enough evidence that some healer is the real deal because they heard someone at the grocery store say so and she seemed like such a nice person. Or some TV celebrity said so, and why would he lie?

xadhominemx 5y ago

> If it's placebo at worst then why did the media try to demonize it so hard? Because anti-vaxxers pitched it as an alternative to vaccination, and many people listened.

janmarsal 5y ago
Why is an alternative to vaccination a bad thing exactly? I'm vaccinated and I'm certainly not against vaccines per se, but when they're talking about 4th booster shot then to me it only indicates that maybe vaccines wasn't the right way to treat this pandemic. Why is this such a a dangerous thought? Why should I accept vaccines as the only way forward? That's probably my biggest question here. Almost make me feel like they're scared of someone finding a better way out of this.
- bena 5y ago
  First, many vaccines come in many rounds. Hell, there's an annual flu shot. Second, a viable alternative to vaccination wouldn't be a bad thing. But Ivermectin is not that. So suggesting that it is is a bad thing. And no one is suggesting you accept vaccines as "the only way forward". Pfizer is developing a treatment for after you've caught COVID. Work is being done in that direction. Currently, vaccines are your best safety measure. That's been borne out by the data available. Any way you look at it.
- xadhominemx 5y ago
  Alternatives to vaccination are not a bad thing per se, for the reasons you point out. But pitching Ivermectin as an alternative to vaccination is bad because Ivermectin does not work and the vaccines work very well.
- the_af 5y ago
  > when they're talking about 4th booster shot then to me it only indicates that maybe vaccines wasn't the right way to treat this pandemic Can you elaborate? Why does the number of booster shots tell you anything about the right way to treat this pandemic? I honestly don't follow.
- 5y ago

giarc 5y ago

You've been duped. The Japanese, well at least the Japanese government did not approve it for use in COVID patients. It was a common claim by certain groups, but if you go to the source, you can see it was not approved. The 2\website below is the Japanese governments website for approved drugs/vaccines/testing/medical equipment for COVID. https://www.pmda.go.jp/english/about-pmda/0002.html https://www.pmda.go.jp/english/about-pmda/0002.html

greydius 5y ago

> the Japanese used ivermectin to treat COVID This is not true. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-japan-ivermectinandmandate-idUSL1N2TX1GK https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-japan-ivermectinan...