4 ms·

> I don't think it would have made the doofuses who took ivermectin act differently though from NIH https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/ https

> I don't think it would have made the doofuses who took ivermectin act differently though from NIH https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/ "Ivermectin: an award-winning drug with expected antiviral activity against COVID-19... with demonstrated antiviral activity against a number of DNA and RNA viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)" Whether or not ivermectin ultimately turned out to be efficacious against Covid19 is not the main point, it was/is a widely known, completely safe, anti-viral, and while everything else in the toolbag was being thrown at Covid19, ivermectin was a good candidate, especially since it showed positive results in some clinical conditions. (and I've heard it pointed out that in order to get profitable approval for experimental mRNA vaccines to be released, there was a huge financial incentive to declare a priori that ivermectin did not work) If you "believe in science" you wouldn't call people who tried ivermectin "doofuses", doing so you're simply looking in the doofus mirror. It's best not to join one partisan camp or the other and politicize science, but look at evidence. Ivermectin has well known antiviral properties, and coronavirus is a virus. > I don't think that we would have done anything differently if we knew that China was responsible you are fixating on the wrong aspect. Whether or not covid19 is the result of the leak of "man-made" gain-of-function research is extremely important to what we do in the future. The public has a right to know. you keep arguing your own point here, that "no harm is no foul and we wouldn't have done anything differently so we don't need to look" and to me that's simply you saying you support the politics that played out and you don't want to look at it. To me, science was ignored in favor of politics and it's all exactly what I want to look at.

rnk 3y ago
I just don't buy the international conspiracy to block ivermectin. I've considered it and discussed it with my poor father who became convinced by Fox News and endless Facebook forwarded postings. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of drugs and substances that have an antiviral effect. Ivermectin was one that was tested and there were some early results that were positive but then later with more thorough testing it didn't appear as efficacious. There are plenty of other drugs that were also promoted as blocking COVID, that lupus drug. It became a conservative conspiratorial fantasy that there was a widespread governmental attempt to block them from using other things than coronavirus vaccines. My father went out and found alternative sources for these substances. Fortunately he never took any of them. I do think knowing the actual source of COVID is good information to have.
- bonadrag 3y ago
  > I just don't buy the international conspiracy to block ivermectin. I agree, there is no conspiracy. It is just that when scientists, journalists and public servants are usually on the same side of the political spectrum, there is no need to central coordination (conspiracy). Society seems more polarized than recent times which leads to greater uniformity of ideas on each side. Regarding Ivermectin, though the evidence was flimsy, it got quickly identified by one side as a problem because it put at risk some core beliefs on how to combat the pandemic (lockdowns, forced vaccination, sanitary passes). Even though the evidence for some of these beliefs were also flimsy or speculative.
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    > It is just that when scientists, journalists and public servants are usually on the same side of the political spectrum, there is no need to central coordination (conspiracy). The last time this happened we created the Nuremberg Code.
    - bavell 3y ago
      I'll never forget how inhumanely some people were treated and how little some truly care for bodily autonomy. The coercion and gaslighting from all directions has been nauseating. The trust I lost in so many institutions wont be replaced anytime soon, perhaps ever. What would a modern day Nuremberg trial look like?
  - throwawaylinux 3y ago
    The evidence was flimsy that vaccinations prevented trasmission of the disease, but that didn't stop all the "experts" spreading damaging misinformation about it though. Therefore evidence was not among the criteria that governed their decision making, so their decisions about ivermectin must have been motivated by something else.
    - n4r9 3y ago
      The evidence was not flimsy. Certainly not as flimsy as for Ivermectin. VACCINES https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31494-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31494-y > Our results demonstrate that vaccinations reduce susceptibility to infection as well as infectiousness, which should be considered by policy makers when seeking to understand the public health impact of vaccination against transmission of SARS-CoV-2. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... > The SAR [secondary attack rate] in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% (95% CI 18–33) for fully vaccinated individuals compared with 38% (24–53) in unvaccinated individuals. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9807772/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9807772/ > SAR was 35% and 23% for unvaccinated and vaccinated delta variant exposed contacts, respectively. SAR was 44% and 41% for unvaccinated and vaccinated omicron exposed contacts, respectively. Booster dose immunisation of contacts or vaccination of index cases reduced SAR of vaccinated omicron variant exposed contacts. IVERMECTIN https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD... > For outpatients, there is currently low‐ to high‐certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID‐19. Based on the very low‐certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low‐certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9308124/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9308124/ > The evidence suggests that ivermectin does not reduce mortality risk and the risk of mechanical ventilation requirement. Although we did not observe an increase in the risk of adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding this endpoint.
paulwilsondev 3y ago
worked for me. knocked the sucker out in under 3 hours. was clear for travel to japan within 48 hours.
zimpenfish 3y ago
> Firstly, it is important to note that the drug was only tested in vitro using a single line of monkey kidney cells engineered to express human signaling lymphocytic activation molecule (SLAM), also known as CDw150, which is a receptor for the measles virus > Also, ivermectin has not been tested in any pulmonary cell lines, which are critical for SARS-CoV-2 in humans > Furthermore, these authors did not show whether the reduction seen in RNA levels of SARS-CoV-2 following treatment with ivermectin would indeed lead to decreased infectious virus titers. > Importantly, the drug concentration used in the study (5 μM) to block SARS-CoV-2 was 35-fold higher than the one approved by the FDA for treatment of parasitic diseases "demonstrated" is doing a lot of lifting in that abstract given those caveats (and there's several more pages of caveats and "could", "maybe", "might", "may" hedging after those.)

rnk 3y ago

I just don't buy the international conspiracy to block ivermectin. I've considered it and discussed it with my poor father who became convinced by Fox News and endless Facebook forwarded postings. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of drugs and substances that have an antiviral effect. Ivermectin was one that was tested and there were some early results that were positive but then later with more thorough testing it didn't appear as efficacious. There are plenty of other drugs that were also promoted as blocking COVID, that lupus drug. It became a conservative conspiratorial fantasy that there was a widespread governmental attempt to block them from using other things than coronavirus vaccines. My father went out and found alternative sources for these substances. Fortunately he never took any of them. I do think knowing the actual source of COVID is good information to have.

bonadrag 3y ago
> I just don't buy the international conspiracy to block ivermectin. I agree, there is no conspiracy. It is just that when scientists, journalists and public servants are usually on the same side of the political spectrum, there is no need to central coordination (conspiracy). Society seems more polarized than recent times which leads to greater uniformity of ideas on each side. Regarding Ivermectin, though the evidence was flimsy, it got quickly identified by one side as a problem because it put at risk some core beliefs on how to combat the pandemic (lockdowns, forced vaccination, sanitary passes). Even though the evidence for some of these beliefs were also flimsy or speculative.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  > It is just that when scientists, journalists and public servants are usually on the same side of the political spectrum, there is no need to central coordination (conspiracy). The last time this happened we created the Nuremberg Code.
  - bavell 3y ago
    I'll never forget how inhumanely some people were treated and how little some truly care for bodily autonomy. The coercion and gaslighting from all directions has been nauseating. The trust I lost in so many institutions wont be replaced anytime soon, perhaps ever. What would a modern day Nuremberg trial look like?
- throwawaylinux 3y ago
  The evidence was flimsy that vaccinations prevented trasmission of the disease, but that didn't stop all the "experts" spreading damaging misinformation about it though. Therefore evidence was not among the criteria that governed their decision making, so their decisions about ivermectin must have been motivated by something else.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    The evidence was not flimsy. Certainly not as flimsy as for Ivermectin. VACCINES https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31494-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31494-y > Our results demonstrate that vaccinations reduce susceptibility to infection as well as infectiousness, which should be considered by policy makers when seeking to understand the public health impact of vaccination against transmission of SARS-CoV-2. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... > The SAR [secondary attack rate] in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% (95% CI 18–33) for fully vaccinated individuals compared with 38% (24–53) in unvaccinated individuals. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9807772/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9807772/ > SAR was 35% and 23% for unvaccinated and vaccinated delta variant exposed contacts, respectively. SAR was 44% and 41% for unvaccinated and vaccinated omicron exposed contacts, respectively. Booster dose immunisation of contacts or vaccination of index cases reduced SAR of vaccinated omicron variant exposed contacts. IVERMECTIN https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD... > For outpatients, there is currently low‐ to high‐certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID‐19. Based on the very low‐certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low‐certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9308124/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9308124/ > The evidence suggests that ivermectin does not reduce mortality risk and the risk of mechanical ventilation requirement. Although we did not observe an increase in the risk of adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding this endpoint.

paulwilsondev 3y ago

worked for me. knocked the sucker out in under 3 hours. was clear for travel to japan within 48 hours.

zimpenfish 3y ago

> Firstly, it is important to note that the drug was only tested in vitro using a single line of monkey kidney cells engineered to express human signaling lymphocytic activation molecule (SLAM), also known as CDw150, which is a receptor for the measles virus > Also, ivermectin has not been tested in any pulmonary cell lines, which are critical for SARS-CoV-2 in humans > Furthermore, these authors did not show whether the reduction seen in RNA levels of SARS-CoV-2 following treatment with ivermectin would indeed lead to decreased infectious virus titers. > Importantly, the drug concentration used in the study (5 μM) to block SARS-CoV-2 was 35-fold higher than the one approved by the FDA for treatment of parasitic diseases "demonstrated" is doing a lot of lifting in that abstract given those caveats (and there's several more pages of caveats and "could", "maybe", "might", "may" hedging after those.)