3 ms·

Then we need better, more humane laws for this topic. What's so hard about saying "Regulations force me to say and I personally believe that you should not take

Then we need better, more humane laws for this topic. What's so hard about saying "Regulations force me to say and I personally believe that you should not take this medication, but if you insist on taking it please observe the following rules or you risk death and disability." Meanwhile people regularly and irreparably blow up their livers with paracetamol and no one gives a damn.

pjc50 4y ago
Paracetamol is weird; it's clearly been grandfathered in as you'd never get it approved now. The UK sells it without a prescription, but you're not allowed by the shop (often enforced by the POS software!) to buy too much at once. Then there's cocodamol, where in an effort to avoid "addiction" issues the relatively safe opiates are cut with relatively low-LD50 paracetamol. I don't think an informational campaign would have helped with the ivermectin problem. Underlying that was the conspiracist belief that people were lying to them. Why would they believe a safety leaflet?
- pas 4y ago
  They got their hands on ivermectin anyway. Sure, making it easier to try would have lead to more abuses. However, in theory thats why people have GPs or PCPs, to oversee their treatment. Yes, they were overloaded (as they always are), but if people want to try a treatment, in general we shouldn't say no. We should enroll them in a trial, etc. And we should say no when we have enough data to be sure that it's very unlikely to work, and still, in general fighting scammers/fraudsters and various snakeoil salesfolk should be done through prosecution of those who knowingly make false statements, thereby intentionally defrauding vulnerable people, not through right to sell shit. (And yes, this is a very hairy topic, because everything is fucking expensive when it comes to medicine. But that's one more reason to streamline it instead of having a cottage industry is these trial runners hemorrhage money into a thousand pockets.)
- notahacker 4y ago
  > I don't think an informational campaign would have helped with the ivermectin problem. Underlying that was the conspiracist belief that people were lying to them. Why would they believe a safety leaflet? And also afaik the biggest problem with Invermectin wasn't that people were overdosing on it, it's that they were treating it as a prophylactic or potential miracle cure which meant they didn't have to worry about catching or spreading COVID (or get vaccinated, when the vaccines were introduced). "Homeopathy doesn't cure HIV, but here are the dosages of homeopathic remedies which people looking to manage their HIV status with homeopathy rather than antiretroviral drugs and condoms should take", said no public health information campaign ever Afaik Invermectin has all the safety information regarding its dosages on the packet anyway (at least the packets designed for human use...). Doesn't mean people getting health advice from people shouting about the evils of the medical profession on talk radio or Facebook necessarily acknowledged them.

pjc50 4y ago

Paracetamol is weird; it's clearly been grandfathered in as you'd never get it approved now. The UK sells it without a prescription, but you're not allowed by the shop (often enforced by the POS software!) to buy too much at once. Then there's cocodamol, where in an effort to avoid "addiction" issues the relatively safe opiates are cut with relatively low-LD50 paracetamol. I don't think an informational campaign would have helped with the ivermectin problem. Underlying that was the conspiracist belief that people were lying to them. Why would they believe a safety leaflet?

pas 4y ago
They got their hands on ivermectin anyway. Sure, making it easier to try would have lead to more abuses. However, in theory thats why people have GPs or PCPs, to oversee their treatment. Yes, they were overloaded (as they always are), but if people want to try a treatment, in general we shouldn't say no. We should enroll them in a trial, etc. And we should say no when we have enough data to be sure that it's very unlikely to work, and still, in general fighting scammers/fraudsters and various snakeoil salesfolk should be done through prosecution of those who knowingly make false statements, thereby intentionally defrauding vulnerable people, not through right to sell shit. (And yes, this is a very hairy topic, because everything is fucking expensive when it comes to medicine. But that's one more reason to streamline it instead of having a cottage industry is these trial runners hemorrhage money into a thousand pockets.)
notahacker 4y ago
> I don't think an informational campaign would have helped with the ivermectin problem. Underlying that was the conspiracist belief that people were lying to them. Why would they believe a safety leaflet? And also afaik the biggest problem with Invermectin wasn't that people were overdosing on it, it's that they were treating it as a prophylactic or potential miracle cure which meant they didn't have to worry about catching or spreading COVID (or get vaccinated, when the vaccines were introduced). "Homeopathy doesn't cure HIV, but here are the dosages of homeopathic remedies which people looking to manage their HIV status with homeopathy rather than antiretroviral drugs and condoms should take", said no public health information campaign ever Afaik Invermectin has all the safety information regarding its dosages on the packet anyway (at least the packets designed for human use...). Doesn't mean people getting health advice from people shouting about the evils of the medical profession on talk radio or Facebook necessarily acknowledged them.