6 ms·

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/co

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?
        moistofreason 5y ago
        Quit it with the straw man BS. You can overdose on any substance. Taking a medication is always going to be safer under supervision. My issue is that the use of IVM got politicized and as a result the will of many doctors and patients was undermined. A large number of the people who took it illicitly did it so because pharmacies stopped filling valid prescriptions. If you want to talk about safety: The same crowd bitching about IVM happened to be the people pushing a vaccine with much less data supporting its safety and questionable efficacy on people under 50. Their logic: - Mandate a new drug, using a new technology on the entire world, even though there were no real Phase III trials. - Don’t look into prophylactic treatment options which are cheaper and known to be safe. - Call anyone who studies anything else a conspiracy theorist and a quack - Actively suppress peer reviewed articles that don’t follow the narrative. (Including refusing to publish or unpublishing work in major journals)
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >Many major pharmacies in the US refused to fill prescriptions Many doctors also refused to write prescriptions for patients who requested a drug for which there was no reliable evidence. Seems a responsible position when there are other approved treatments available. >but its safety is not disputable It's not just a question of safety, but efficacy. >situation would not have happened if social media, YouTube, and major news outlets didn’t make such a stink about using a drug. The rabid disinformation and conspiracy theories around COVID played the primary role. From anti-vaccine conspiracies to hydrochloroquine to ivermectin to the full on politicization of what should have been strictly a public health crisis. There was a deliberate sowing of mistrust in government and public health agencies/officials, which led to a wave of aggressive anti-science sentiment and a somewhat bizarre willingness for many to try anything except approved treatments. That was the biggest "stink". It's against this backdrop that doctors/pharmacies had to make decisions about whether to grant prescriptions for unproven treatments.

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?
        moistofreason 5y ago
        Quit it with the straw man BS. You can overdose on any substance. Taking a medication is always going to be safer under supervision. My issue is that the use of IVM got politicized and as a result the will of many doctors and patients was undermined. A large number of the people who took it illicitly did it so because pharmacies stopped filling valid prescriptions. If you want to talk about safety: The same crowd bitching about IVM happened to be the people pushing a vaccine with much less data supporting its safety and questionable efficacy on people under 50. Their logic: - Mandate a new drug, using a new technology on the entire world, even though there were no real Phase III trials. - Don’t look into prophylactic treatment options which are cheaper and known to be safe. - Call anyone who studies anything else a conspiracy theorist and a quack - Actively suppress peer reviewed articles that don’t follow the narrative. (Including refusing to publish or unpublishing work in major journals)
unclebucknasty 5y ago
>Many major pharmacies in the US refused to fill prescriptions Many doctors also refused to write prescriptions for patients who requested a drug for which there was no reliable evidence. Seems a responsible position when there are other approved treatments available. >but its safety is not disputable It's not just a question of safety, but efficacy. >situation would not have happened if social media, YouTube, and major news outlets didn’t make such a stink about using a drug. The rabid disinformation and conspiracy theories around COVID played the primary role. From anti-vaccine conspiracies to hydrochloroquine to ivermectin to the full on politicization of what should have been strictly a public health crisis. There was a deliberate sowing of mistrust in government and public health agencies/officials, which led to a wave of aggressive anti-science sentiment and a somewhat bizarre willingness for many to try anything except approved treatments. That was the biggest "stink". It's against this backdrop that doctors/pharmacies had to make decisions about whether to grant prescriptions for unproven treatments.