3 ms·

"Superstition" does a disservice to the fact that many scientists internationally were reporting on efficacy with ivermectin. Meanwhile the information coming

"Superstition" does a disservice to the fact that many scientists internationally were reporting on efficacy with ivermectin. Meanwhile the information coming from "reputable" sources in the world have proven to be less than accurate if not complete misrepresentation Edit: There is no such thing as 'the science'. There is science. Which is testing and questioning to determine facts. Anything more must be "trust in the science of..." some actual thing. And that actual thing is not public policy. We have sufficient evidence that the CDC and NIH are interested in appeasing their corporate sponsors and otherwise believe themselves to be beyond reproach

ncmncm 4y ago
Many scientists (and... others) internationally were publishing claims of efficacy that collapsed under light scrutiny. The small handful that did not collapse showed a very small effect that could be accounted for by decreased parasite load. Reputable sources said, correctly, that there was no good evidence that ivermectin worked against COVID. Later, they were able to say they had good evidence it did not work, a stronger statement. They could not honestly say that, early on, and did not; but we all know that almost everything doesn't work. So, anything claimed to work deserves skeptical scrutiny. Biochemically, it would not have been surprising if ivermectin helped some. But "not surprising if" is a very, very long way from "does". Reputable sources made, in the end, the correct call. Meanwhile, people draining the ivermectin supply did themselves no good, but made it harder for those afflicted with parasites to get needed treatment. Those using ivermectin instead of getting vaccinated made themselves carriers, contributing to spread and mortality.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  > draining supply... I don't find this to be likely or relevant. Commercially available and otc worldwide, generics. It does have an impact by reducing parasitic load and inflammation. This can be seen in countries with high rates of parasitic infection. Reputable sources in the US hammered the one sized solution that runs contrary to immunization history and theory. Vaccination does not 'stop the spread' which is an absurd point to make at this stage. That is absolutely evident from case counts across the US as vaccinations increased.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    What has been clinically demonstrated is that vaccinated people who get COVID anyway shed virus for a shorter period. And, also (this is important), don't die. We will all catch it, sooner or later, likely as not from our pet. Some of us might be so lucky as not to notice. In fact, ivermectin supplies really were depleted for quite some time.
    - upsidesinclude 4y ago
      Ho, you might want to get up to date on those studies. Boosted and vaccinated are carrying viral loads longer than unvaccinated as of Omicron And more importantly, it would seem that all deaths in recent studies of the later omicron variants were in the boosted and eligible for booster cohorts.

ncmncm 4y ago

Many scientists (and... others) internationally were publishing claims of efficacy that collapsed under light scrutiny. The small handful that did not collapse showed a very small effect that could be accounted for by decreased parasite load. Reputable sources said, correctly, that there was no good evidence that ivermectin worked against COVID. Later, they were able to say they had good evidence it did not work, a stronger statement. They could not honestly say that, early on, and did not; but we all know that almost everything doesn't work. So, anything claimed to work deserves skeptical scrutiny. Biochemically, it would not have been surprising if ivermectin helped some. But "not surprising if" is a very, very long way from "does". Reputable sources made, in the end, the correct call. Meanwhile, people draining the ivermectin supply did themselves no good, but made it harder for those afflicted with parasites to get needed treatment. Those using ivermectin instead of getting vaccinated made themselves carriers, contributing to spread and mortality.

upsidesinclude 4y ago
> draining supply... I don't find this to be likely or relevant. Commercially available and otc worldwide, generics. It does have an impact by reducing parasitic load and inflammation. This can be seen in countries with high rates of parasitic infection. Reputable sources in the US hammered the one sized solution that runs contrary to immunization history and theory. Vaccination does not 'stop the spread' which is an absurd point to make at this stage. That is absolutely evident from case counts across the US as vaccinations increased.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  What has been clinically demonstrated is that vaccinated people who get COVID anyway shed virus for a shorter period. And, also (this is important), don't die. We will all catch it, sooner or later, likely as not from our pet. Some of us might be so lucky as not to notice. In fact, ivermectin supplies really were depleted for quite some time.
  - upsidesinclude 4y ago
    Ho, you might want to get up to date on those studies. Boosted and vaccinated are carrying viral loads longer than unvaccinated as of Omicron And more importantly, it would seem that all deaths in recent studies of the later omicron variants were in the boosted and eligible for booster cohorts.