Doctors and pharmacists ramp up calls for Americans to stop using ivermectin(adn.com)
adn.com
Doctors and pharmacists ramp up calls for Americans to stop using ivermectin
https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2021/09/03/doctors-and-pharmacists-ramp-up-calls-for-americans-to-stop-using-ivermectin-to-treat-covid-19/
202 comments
It's like when the CDC first said that masks are ineffective to try to keep people from hoarding them. People are wise to the game now, and expect that the CDC is saying things to influence behavior, rather than because they are true. Nobody trusts a salesman.
> It's like when the CDC first said that masks are ineffective to try to keep people from hoarding them.
The way I remember it was more like, the CDC said:
- They don't know yet if surgical (and in general, non-N95) masks are effective against COVID-19 spread. They never denied this for N95.
- Hospitals are running out of surgical (and N95...) masks, and given the above, people should stop hoarding them.
That seemed... pretty reasonable to me?
In fact here's a link [1] where Fauci literally said:
> When we get in a situation when we have enough masks, there will be serious consideration about more broadening this recommendation of using masks.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpjmKc2D0Mg&t=1m4s
The way I remember it was more like, the CDC said:
- They don't know yet if surgical (and in general, non-N95) masks are effective against COVID-19 spread. They never denied this for N95.
- Hospitals are running out of surgical (and N95...) masks, and given the above, people should stop hoarding them.
That seemed... pretty reasonable to me?
In fact here's a link [1] where Fauci literally said:
> When we get in a situation when we have enough masks, there will be serious consideration about more broadening this recommendation of using masks.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpjmKc2D0Mg&t=1m4s
At the time, the US Surgeon General tweeted:
> "Seriously people - STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!"
There was absolutely quite a bit of false messaging on the point from authority figures.
> "Seriously people - STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!"
There was absolutely quite a bit of false messaging on the point from authority figures.
Yeah they should have said.
"Stop buying masks. There is a shortage and if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk! Since we live in a very capitalistic society we cannot reserve masks for healthcare use and instead we have to rely on all of you to do the right thing. Keep in mind that masks may not offer the kind of protection you think they do, i.e. they do not make you invincible, you're still advised to stay at home and keep social distancing. When supply of masks will be restored we will likely encourage people to wear them as to reduce community (probabilistic) spread, which works even if the masks are not 100% effective."
Unfortunately nobody would read things that don't fit in a tweet.
"Stop buying masks. There is a shortage and if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk! Since we live in a very capitalistic society we cannot reserve masks for healthcare use and instead we have to rely on all of you to do the right thing. Keep in mind that masks may not offer the kind of protection you think they do, i.e. they do not make you invincible, you're still advised to stay at home and keep social distancing. When supply of masks will be restored we will likely encourage people to wear them as to reduce community (probabilistic) spread, which works even if the masks are not 100% effective."
Unfortunately nobody would read things that don't fit in a tweet.
“Masks are in short supply; we are asking major vendors to sell them only to local hospitals. We are working to improve supply. Here’s how to make a cloth one for now, as well as advice on staying safe.”
It’s really not that hard.
It’s really not that hard.
If I read this sentence I assume you're taking care of supplying hospitals and thus if I find masks in a store I can buy one without hurting anybody.
This may be true or not; all I'm saying is that the sentence is not an accurate summary of what I wrote.
This may be true or not; all I'm saying is that the sentence is not an accurate summary of what I wrote.
[deleted]
(a) Do you call any case where someone turns out to be wrong "false messaging"? Their prior knowledge led them to believe (wrongly, but it seems to me, quite honestly) that non-N95 masks would not be effective, and they didn't have evidence to the contrary, and they very openly explained that their fear is healthcare providers not having masks, which was 100% a sincere worry any official worth their salt would have.
(b) A tweet only has so much room to explain things. There's a reason websites in general, official CDC recommendations in particular, and the news media exist. If the only source of information you get your news from for several weeks amidst a pandemic is Twitter, and the tweet turns out to be lacking some info, the problem isn't the source you're reading.
(c) Even if you establish there was "false messaging from the surgeon general on Twitter" (which you haven't due to the reasons above), it's quite a goalpost move from "the CDC was being deceptive/manipulative". Especially when the the surgeon general was picked by the president and specifically not the NIH authority figure that the nation was looking up to 24/7.
(b) A tweet only has so much room to explain things. There's a reason websites in general, official CDC recommendations in particular, and the news media exist. If the only source of information you get your news from for several weeks amidst a pandemic is Twitter, and the tweet turns out to be lacking some info, the problem isn't the source you're reading.
(c) Even if you establish there was "false messaging from the surgeon general on Twitter" (which you haven't due to the reasons above), it's quite a goalpost move from "the CDC was being deceptive/manipulative". Especially when the the surgeon general was picked by the president and specifically not the NIH authority figure that the nation was looking up to 24/7.
They stated something as fact to influence our behavior, when they did not actually have the requisite knowledge to make such a statement at that point in time.
They should have instead said "We don't know whether they're effective yet, so don't hoard them, because doing so could cause X."
There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know something yet.
Instead, they make commands without supporting evidence. That implies total disregard for the peoples' intelligence. Upon realizing this, trust is lost and dissenting actions increase.
They should have instead said "We don't know whether they're effective yet, so don't hoard them, because doing so could cause X."
There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know something yet.
Instead, they make commands without supporting evidence. That implies total disregard for the peoples' intelligence. Upon realizing this, trust is lost and dissenting actions increase.
Can you at least link to an official recommendation from the CDC so we can talk about the same thing?
So far the only link I've seen is a tweet (not an official recommendation) from the surgeon general (not the CDC).
So far the only link I've seen is a tweet (not an official recommendation) from the surgeon general (not the CDC).
A leader's most important role is to build and maintain trust.
> "Seriously people - STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!"
This could very easily have been reworded to an honest "we do not know if they are effective" instead of a definitive "they are not". You cannot in good conscience call yourself a good leader and/or scientist if you do not acknowledge the limits of your understanding.
People may not understand the science, but they understand trust. And given that no individual has the time and/or intelligence to understand the science, breaches of trust should be the end of a leader's career. They're failing in their most important duty.
> "Seriously people - STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!"
This could very easily have been reworded to an honest "we do not know if they are effective" instead of a definitive "they are not". You cannot in good conscience call yourself a good leader and/or scientist if you do not acknowledge the limits of your understanding.
People may not understand the science, but they understand trust. And given that no individual has the time and/or intelligence to understand the science, breaches of trust should be the end of a leader's career. They're failing in their most important duty.
You cherry picked a video from April after he changed his mind. Here's what he said in March.
"There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI
"There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI
First, no, I didn't cherry-pick anything, it was literally the first video I saw when I searched on YouTube. I certainly didn't even recall your video.
Second, if you're going to accuse cherry-picking, look at the very crucial quotes you omitted from your own clip:
- Right before your quote he had added very critical qualifiers that you skipped: He specifically said, "Right now, in the United States, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask." Mind you, this was on March 8, pre-lockdown. He explicitly made it clear this guidance could change as the situation evolves (or, as you wrote, "change his mind" should he get more data or see circumstances change... how horrifying!), and he specifically said in the United States, likely because the epidemic was much less severe than it became in the following weeks (it wasn't even declared a pandemic yet!), so they thought it could be better handled without telling everyone to wear masks. He clearly genuinely believed at the time that the protection they would be likely to provide would be small compared to the benefits of saving them for hospitals.
- Also note that he continued to provide context: "When you think masks, you should think of healthcare providers needing them, and people who are ill." Again, he's explaining his concerns. You can't ignore that.
- Also note that he even specifically explained: "When you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of people wearing masks, that's fine, that's fine. I'm not against it. But that's when it can lead to a shortage of masks for people who need it." i.e.: If he wasn't worried about a shortage, he wouldn't be telling people not to wear masks.
You can't honestly hear all that and accuse him (or me...) of dishonesty with that clip.
Second, if you're going to accuse cherry-picking, look at the very crucial quotes you omitted from your own clip:
- Right before your quote he had added very critical qualifiers that you skipped: He specifically said, "Right now, in the United States, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask." Mind you, this was on March 8, pre-lockdown. He explicitly made it clear this guidance could change as the situation evolves (or, as you wrote, "change his mind" should he get more data or see circumstances change... how horrifying!), and he specifically said in the United States, likely because the epidemic was much less severe than it became in the following weeks (it wasn't even declared a pandemic yet!), so they thought it could be better handled without telling everyone to wear masks. He clearly genuinely believed at the time that the protection they would be likely to provide would be small compared to the benefits of saving them for hospitals.
- Also note that he continued to provide context: "When you think masks, you should think of healthcare providers needing them, and people who are ill." Again, he's explaining his concerns. You can't ignore that.
- Also note that he even specifically explained: "When you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of people wearing masks, that's fine, that's fine. I'm not against it. But that's when it can lead to a shortage of masks for people who need it." i.e.: If he wasn't worried about a shortage, he wouldn't be telling people not to wear masks.
You can't honestly hear all that and accuse him (or me...) of dishonesty with that clip.
> "Right now, in the United States, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask."
And when he did decide we should be walking around with masks he didn't cite any evidence. He said it was because surgical and N95s masks were in short supply.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XHC5Kxxv_w&t=94s
When I was trying to find this video, I came across another video where he speaks in absolute terms that all we need to do is wears masks, social distance and practice good hygiene we would turn around the pandemic. I understand that things change over time, but whenever he speaks, he speaks as if what he is saying is fact. Now we even have vaccines and we clearly haven't turned it around. This is why people don't trust this guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P6QrVRJJzU&t=128s
I honestly don't see how you can watch all these videos and still trust this guy. I get that things change, but that's why you don't speak in absolute terms. Words matter.
And when he did decide we should be walking around with masks he didn't cite any evidence. He said it was because surgical and N95s masks were in short supply.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XHC5Kxxv_w&t=94s
When I was trying to find this video, I came across another video where he speaks in absolute terms that all we need to do is wears masks, social distance and practice good hygiene we would turn around the pandemic. I understand that things change over time, but whenever he speaks, he speaks as if what he is saying is fact. Now we even have vaccines and we clearly haven't turned it around. This is why people don't trust this guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P6QrVRJJzU&t=128s
I honestly don't see how you can watch all these videos and still trust this guy. I get that things change, but that's why you don't speak in absolute terms. Words matter.
I'm not saying I "trust" him (or don't). I'm saying I've seen no evidence he's been lying, trying to mislead the public, or whatever other maligned accusations people have been hurling at him all over the internet. When something looks like an honest mistake, why cut into others' characters instead of just calling it out as an honest mistake? Especially with half-quoted clips like that? Say he was wrong all you want (though I highly doubt you would've been a better NIH director). But don't cut into his character without evidence (or mine, for that matter). Not only does it take a lot of audacity to suggest you would've foreseen things better than someone who's spent his life dealing with epidemics (and not all unsuccessfully so), but hurling unfounded accusations like that at everyone whose judgment you don't like is just infuriating, insulting, and unproductive.
> When it looks like an honest mistake, why call it a lie instead of an honest mistake?
I linked you to evidence that shows he lied. In the first video he said masks don't work. It clearly wasn't an "honest mistake".
> I highly doubt you would've been a better NIH director
Nice strawman. I never said I would be, but I know one thing for sure: I wouldn't deliberately lie to the American public about something so important.
> But don't cut into his character without evidence
There is plenty of evidence that he's a liar. I don't know what else you need.
> Not only does it take a lot of audacity to suggest you would've foreseen things better
Yet another strawman. I never said that. Are you replying to the right comment?
> hurling unfounded accusations like that at everyone whose judgment you don't like is just infuriating, insulting, and unproductive
The accusation that Fauci deliberately lied? It's pretty founded if you ask me. It's infuriating, insulting, and unproductive to protect someone so obsessively and thinking he can do no wrong.
I linked you to evidence that shows he lied. In the first video he said masks don't work. It clearly wasn't an "honest mistake".
> I highly doubt you would've been a better NIH director
Nice strawman. I never said I would be, but I know one thing for sure: I wouldn't deliberately lie to the American public about something so important.
> But don't cut into his character without evidence
There is plenty of evidence that he's a liar. I don't know what else you need.
> Not only does it take a lot of audacity to suggest you would've foreseen things better
Yet another strawman. I never said that. Are you replying to the right comment?
> hurling unfounded accusations like that at everyone whose judgment you don't like is just infuriating, insulting, and unproductive
The accusation that Fauci deliberately lied? It's pretty founded if you ask me. It's infuriating, insulting, and unproductive to protect someone so obsessively and thinking he can do no wrong.
> I linked you to evidence that shows he lied.
No, you most definitely did not. You ignored most of the video and started quoting him mid-sentence. As I already explained to you. You've shown zero evidence that his genuine belief was anything different than he communicated in that interview. At best, all you've showed is that he gave poor advice, and even that itself is highly questionable given how you still can't be bothered to even quote him properly and depict the interview accurately. It's not exactly hard to make someone look like a monster when you cut their quotes in half and ignore all the surrounding context.
This conversation clearly isn't going anywhere so I'm not going to continue responding.
No, you most definitely did not. You ignored most of the video and started quoting him mid-sentence. As I already explained to you. You've shown zero evidence that his genuine belief was anything different than he communicated in that interview. At best, all you've showed is that he gave poor advice, and even that itself is highly questionable given how you still can't be bothered to even quote him properly and depict the interview accurately. It's not exactly hard to make someone look like a monster when you cut their quotes in half and ignore all the surrounding context.
This conversation clearly isn't going anywhere so I'm not going to continue responding.
There’s an idea with masks where preventing any infection or virus that you could contract while stricken with COVID will shorten the period of time you have COVID and thus shorten the window in which you are contagious.
That was always true and will always be true. Even if COVID flows right through masks, there will still always be a plausible reason to wear them.
That was always true and will always be true. Even if COVID flows right through masks, there will still always be a plausible reason to wear them.
Sure, and if we had an overflowing supply of masks I'm sure they wouldn't have told people to stop buying them.
We can see from this and other examples how the CDC lying to the public has backfired immensely.
Not that the CDC is incentivized much to care. The bigger the crisis the bigger the funding.
Not that the CDC is incentivized much to care. The bigger the crisis the bigger the funding.
> We can see from this and other examples how the CDC lying to the public has backfired immensely.
I don't see a lie in this example.
I don't see a lie in this example.
“They are effective, but doctors need them more, so please don’t hoard” is different from “they are not effective”, hence is a lie.
This should be a lesson to all those corporate-like structures in public sector where they use common enterprise tactics of middle management to say things in the non-specific way so that later down the road they can cover their asses.
They had to be very specific, don’t lie, simply say about things they are not sure about “we don’t know” (hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin etc.) and do tests, never say “vaccines are safe”, but say they are 100000 times less dangerous than disease etc.
And then we could trust every word they just say as we know that they are very aware of what they are saying and they haven’t lied to us in a lot of situations before.
They should govern, but instead they play politics… wtf really.
This should be a lesson to all those corporate-like structures in public sector where they use common enterprise tactics of middle management to say things in the non-specific way so that later down the road they can cover their asses.
They had to be very specific, don’t lie, simply say about things they are not sure about “we don’t know” (hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin etc.) and do tests, never say “vaccines are safe”, but say they are 100000 times less dangerous than disease etc.
And then we could trust every word they just say as we know that they are very aware of what they are saying and they haven’t lied to us in a lot of situations before.
They should govern, but instead they play politics… wtf really.
> “They are effective, but doctors need them more, so please don’t hoard” is different from “they are not effective”, hence is a lie.
No, that doesn't follow. Do you have any evidence the CDC knew this was false, and was consistently messaging to the contrary (aka not a pointer to things like 280-char tweets where everyone understands bandwidth would be limited)?
A lie requires intent to deceive, i.e. dishonesty. Not something where they're forced to summarize and strip out details, but provide the details elsewhere when they have the chance. And certainly not a genuine, honest mistake. I have yet to see evidence the CDC knew that masks are effective and yet lied about it. And nobody here has been willing to provide any evidence of that either. Just because they might have been inaccurate in their assessment of the situation, doesn't mean they were lying. Just like how, just because you say "we ran out of ketchup, can you buy some from the store?" and then discover you had some in the back of your fridge, that doesn't mean you're lying.
And btw, I don't even know what example you're talking about. If you're talking about my example like I said, at 1:32, the reporter clearly communicates "surgical masks are not that effective". And it wasn't the CDC talking either. You should really link whatever you're talking about because it doesn't seem to be this example.
No, that doesn't follow. Do you have any evidence the CDC knew this was false, and was consistently messaging to the contrary (aka not a pointer to things like 280-char tweets where everyone understands bandwidth would be limited)?
A lie requires intent to deceive, i.e. dishonesty. Not something where they're forced to summarize and strip out details, but provide the details elsewhere when they have the chance. And certainly not a genuine, honest mistake. I have yet to see evidence the CDC knew that masks are effective and yet lied about it. And nobody here has been willing to provide any evidence of that either. Just because they might have been inaccurate in their assessment of the situation, doesn't mean they were lying. Just like how, just because you say "we ran out of ketchup, can you buy some from the store?" and then discover you had some in the back of your fridge, that doesn't mean you're lying.
And btw, I don't even know what example you're talking about. If you're talking about my example like I said, at 1:32, the reporter clearly communicates "surgical masks are not that effective". And it wasn't the CDC talking either. You should really link whatever you're talking about because it doesn't seem to be this example.
Yes that's unfortunate. For what it's worth, Anthony Fauci was on a podcast in June, 2021 where he discussed the mid-2020 mask advice among other things. He basically said that, yes, they didn't want people to hoard them, but also that, based on experience with the original SARS, only visibly (symptomatically) sick people were spreading the virus. Of course we know now that SARS-CoV-2 spreads asymptomatically for days/weeks, but hindsight is 20/20...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/21/opinion/sway-kara-swisher...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/21/opinion/sway-kara-swisher...
The last study I saw seemed to imply that cloth masks have a very tiny effect, if any, but surgical masks are pretty good.
The problem is that the media doesn't do nuance, they write big bold headlines that are outrage bait to drive engagement. And more than a few people never read anything but the headline.
At this point, I feel like headlines themselves are harmful.
The problem is that the media doesn't do nuance, they write big bold headlines that are outrage bait to drive engagement. And more than a few people never read anything but the headline.
At this point, I feel like headlines themselves are harmful.
Unpack the word “effective” used here. It is still the case that ordinary cloth masks are less effective than higher grade masks.
As a health official you are weighing the question: do we advocate a sub-optimal approach on the grounds that it is better than nothing, when we know a large segment of the population will be militantly non-compliant anyway? There were anti-mask protests back in the Spanish Flu days too.
Point being, it’s not a binary thing, and there’s some consensus that has to be built in the early stages.
As a health official you are weighing the question: do we advocate a sub-optimal approach on the grounds that it is better than nothing, when we know a large segment of the population will be militantly non-compliant anyway? There were anti-mask protests back in the Spanish Flu days too.
Point being, it’s not a binary thing, and there’s some consensus that has to be built in the early stages.
So this is what confuses me. I understand why some people might have started to lose trust in the CDC because they thought they were intentionally lying because they didn't trust people to do the right thing. Or as you say, they start to see the CDC as "salesmen."
But why do they therefore inherently trust the other people saying to take hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and these other solutions? Aren't these people also salesmen?
But why do they therefore inherently trust the other people saying to take hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and these other solutions? Aren't these people also salesmen?
The other option is not to trust any of the parties and look at the evidence they present.
This also confuses me. I hear people say this and yet I don't know how it's possible to look at third-party information without inherently trusting someone in the chain of distributing that evidence.
Isn't some trust required most of the time?
Isn't some trust required most of the time?
> This feels like another situation where the attempts to quell disinformation are having the opposite of their intended effect.
I've just finished reading Why We're Polarized by Ezra Klein and there's an entire chapter on this:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We%27re_Polarized
It seems that humans have an in-built affinity for groups and group affiliation, so if your in-group says something you tend to go with it instead of believing your lying eyes.
I've just finished reading Why We're Polarized by Ezra Klein and there's an entire chapter on this:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We%27re_Polarized
It seems that humans have an in-built affinity for groups and group affiliation, so if your in-group says something you tend to go with it instead of believing your lying eyes.
The announcement is for people with basic reasoning skills, not for those that take drugs based on Facebook posts. Ivermectin, like many drugs, is used for various things. COVID is not one of them, and those pushing it have no expertise to understand the medical studies, nor are they interested in doing a comprehensive evaluation. Yet again, actual experts aren't on the playing field, it's talking heads and hired degrees.
What’s the difference between those that take drugs based on Facebook posts and those who take drugs based on TV adverts?
Multiple things can be bad.
Sure but drug advertising is ubiquitous so it’s not a valid criticism to attack people for being influenced by a particular channel.
Who could have hired them for Ivermectin?
Ivermectin is being prescribed off-label for Covid-19 by tens of thousands of doctors nationwide. Are those "people with no expertise to understand the medical studies"?
General clinical doctors are barely qualified to prescribe acetaminophen. They haven't been to medical school in 30 years, don't read medical studies, and have lost their ability to learn anything new. It's just a job to them.
Also, there aren't thousands of doctors doing that. If so I'd love an actual source.
Also, there aren't thousands of doctors doing that. If so I'd love an actual source.
Well, apparently, otherwise they would not be doing it.
Yes, there are plenty of shitty incompetent doctors like there are with any other profession. Did these same doctors not contribute to the opioid crisis? Can every programmer understand every whitepaper and implement what they read?
Yep, only listen to doctors that you agree with.
Or get a second opinion, like a grown-up.
I don't listen to the first contractor or plumber on a big job, either. There is nothing special about the position or opinions of medical professionals that I shouldn't seek additional information or help.
I don't listen to the first contractor or plumber on a big job, either. There is nothing special about the position or opinions of medical professionals that I shouldn't seek additional information or help.
> Or get a second opinion, like a grown-up.
How frequently do you think people consult more than one doctor when they are sick? I know people do it for expensive, chronic conditions like cancer, but I’m guessing that for urgent infections diseases the frequency is vanishingly small.
How frequently do you think people consult more than one doctor when they are sick? I know people do it for expensive, chronic conditions like cancer, but I’m guessing that for urgent infections diseases the frequency is vanishingly small.
Agree, and I have no reason to believe that international and national health organisations don't have their own fair share of shitty incompetent doctors too.
[deleted]
The only reason you think it's inherently shitty and incompetent for a doctor to prescribe ivermectin off-label for Covid is because you've bought into the dumb culture war politicization of it. I'm not a Bill Maher fan but he made a good point when he said "ivermectin isn't a registered Republican, it's a drug." Maybe it doesn't actually work (unlike so many on the other side of this issue I am at least willing to grant that the evidence is mixed), but in the doses it's being prescribed it has a very safe side-effect profile. Why is it that the only correct standard of care for an early-onset Covid case is "sit at home and hope it doesn't get worse"?
> dumb culture war politicization of it
Maybe I'm a fan of science, of which there is NO evidence that Ivermectin works against COVID. It seems like maybe you're the one that bought into something.
These doctors are doing nothing more than profiting off the fear of their patients, while offering no value other than what might be argued is a placebo. That doesn't stop these people from infecting others around them.
Maybe I'm a fan of science, of which there is NO evidence that Ivermectin works against COVID. It seems like maybe you're the one that bought into something.
These doctors are doing nothing more than profiting off the fear of their patients, while offering no value other than what might be argued is a placebo. That doesn't stop these people from infecting others around them.
You sound more like a fan of the mainstream narrative than science. The studies on ivermectin are ongoing. By just ignorantly saying "there is no evidence" as meaning that it's been proven to be ineffective, you show how scientifically illiterate you are. No evidence doesn't guarantee something isn't true.
In fact, if you had read the article you would have learned that they haven't ruled out ivermectin and are still researching it along with other treatments. If you want to take ivermectin they want you to be part of the study. This is how science works.
"The NIH is studying the drug in a large trial comparing a half-dozen established drugs to see if they have some effect against COVID-19.
Experts say those interested in ivermectin should ask about enrolling in such studies."
In fact, if you had read the article you would have learned that they haven't ruled out ivermectin and are still researching it along with other treatments. If you want to take ivermectin they want you to be part of the study. This is how science works.
"The NIH is studying the drug in a large trial comparing a half-dozen established drugs to see if they have some effect against COVID-19.
Experts say those interested in ivermectin should ask about enrolling in such studies."
Agreed. I have a friend who is a dr who already says a “hard no” on ivermectin even after I’ve stated that I’m ok being wrong about the issue and I want further investigation. I just don’t want this drug to be politicized but here we are. Full stop, you can’t talk about the drug, etc. I’m just trying to keep an open mind here
> By just ignorantly saying "there is no evidence" as meaning that it's been proven to be ineffective, you show how scientifically illiterate you are.
There is less than no evidence, and yet there are several studies already. It’s chloroquine all over again. The quacks are those who jump at any random drug, justifying the lack of evidence as a reason for their support, while decrying vaccines for a supposed lack of evidence.
A study being done is not a reason to support prescribing a drug.
There is less than no evidence, and yet there are several studies already. It’s chloroquine all over again. The quacks are those who jump at any random drug, justifying the lack of evidence as a reason for their support, while decrying vaccines for a supposed lack of evidence.
A study being done is not a reason to support prescribing a drug.
There certainly is evidence. It’s just inconclusive. There is sufficient evidence that more studies are being done.
If you are a fan of science, I’m sure you’ll acknowledge this.
If you are a fan of science, I’m sure you’ll acknowledge this.
Like all the evidence we had around the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine?
The paper from Argentina around Ivermectin is already suspected of fraud. I won't hold my breath it'll end up with good results.
The paper from Argentina around Ivermectin is already suspected of fraud. I won't hold my breath it'll end up with good results.
If you were a believer in science, you’d understand that there is no connection between hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
Edit: you dishonestly added the following to your comment after I replied:
“The paper from Argentina around Ivermectin is already suspected of fraud. I won't hold my breath it'll end up with good results.”
For what it’s worth, I’m not referring to that paper.
But again, if you understood science, you would know better than to make assumptions about the results of a paper you have never seen.
Edit: you dishonestly added the following to your comment after I replied:
“The paper from Argentina around Ivermectin is already suspected of fraud. I won't hold my breath it'll end up with good results.”
For what it’s worth, I’m not referring to that paper.
But again, if you understood science, you would know better than to make assumptions about the results of a paper you have never seen.
Within a minute of posting it.
> there is no connection between hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin
You mean a connection like being pushed as a cure for the same disease while lacking any substantial, peer-reviewed data to back it up?
I think maybe we have different ideas of how science and the scientific method works.
> For what it’s worth, I’m not referring to that paper.
So you're not referring to any science at all, then? I'm unable to find any other published literature on the subject.
> there is no connection between hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin
You mean a connection like being pushed as a cure for the same disease while lacking any substantial, peer-reviewed data to back it up?
I think maybe we have different ideas of how science and the scientific method works.
> For what it’s worth, I’m not referring to that paper.
So you're not referring to any science at all, then? I'm unable to find any other published literature on the subject.
> You mean a connection like being pushed as a cure for the same disease while lacking any substantial, peer-reviewed data to back it up?
If you believed in science you’d know that’s a political connection not a scientific one.
> I think maybe we have different ideas of how science and the scientific method works.
Yes, you are mistaking politics for science.
More edits you dishonestly added after my reply:
“So you're not referring to any science at all, then? I'm unable to find any other published literature on the subject.”
If you believed in science you’d know that’s a political connection not a scientific one.
> I think maybe we have different ideas of how science and the scientific method works.
Yes, you are mistaking politics for science.
More edits you dishonestly added after my reply:
“So you're not referring to any science at all, then? I'm unable to find any other published literature on the subject.”
How is it ANY different from the current situation other than your own personal opinion? Moving the goal posts doesn't help your argument.
> Yes, you are mistaking politics for science.
This isn't very convincing. What makes your position non-political or more scientific? Talk about dishonesty.
> Yes, you are mistaking politics for science.
This isn't very convincing. What makes your position non-political or more scientific? Talk about dishonesty.
>The only reason you think it's inherently shitty and incompetent for a doctor to prescribe ivermectin off-label for Covid is because you've bought into the dumb culture war politicization of it
Right wing politicians and right wing media politicized it to minimize impact of covid on the 2020 election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o
On the other hand democrats and CDC/FDA have been mostly following the real science.
Right wing politicians and right wing media politicized it to minimize impact of covid on the 2020 election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o
On the other hand democrats and CDC/FDA have been mostly following the real science.
> Ivermectin is being prescribed off-label for Covid-19 by tens of thousands of doctors nationwide.
[Citation needed]
Also, for those that are prescribing it, this is not an FDA approved treatment for Covid.
[Citation needed]
Also, for those that are prescribing it, this is not an FDA approved treatment for Covid.
> for those that are prescribing it, this is not an FDA approved treatment for Covid.
Most (all?) off-label prescriptions aren't FDA approved for that use, that's what makes them off-label. Prescribing drugs off-label is an acceptable practice, although it's generally higher risk to do so than with an FDA approved treatment as there's less information available.
I haven't looked into this particular off-label use, and it certainly has a lot of signs of poor advisability, but one way the medical community figures out what drugs work for conditions with limited treatment options is trying random things and reporting on what seems to work; then those things can be tested in more controlled situations.
Most (all?) off-label prescriptions aren't FDA approved for that use, that's what makes them off-label. Prescribing drugs off-label is an acceptable practice, although it's generally higher risk to do so than with an FDA approved treatment as there's less information available.
I haven't looked into this particular off-label use, and it certainly has a lot of signs of poor advisability, but one way the medical community figures out what drugs work for conditions with limited treatment options is trying random things and reporting on what seems to work; then those things can be tested in more controlled situations.
Ivermectin pills are even FDA-approved as a safer-than-topical-insecticide way to get rid of lice.
From TFA:
> other research suggesting the drug would need to be given at levels 100 times the standard dose to have antiviral effects in humans.
I find it rather absurd to refuse a vaccine the FDA has approved and then take something at 100X the dose and off-label considering that a good idea since the FDA approved it for humans.
Before the delta wave there were arguments for probability that covid wouldn't become endemic so one was comparing a 5-10% of covid to getting vaccinated, now one is comparing 100% chance of covid with vaccination. If one thinks one will use Ivermectin when infected then one should vaccinate instead.
> other research suggesting the drug would need to be given at levels 100 times the standard dose to have antiviral effects in humans.
I find it rather absurd to refuse a vaccine the FDA has approved and then take something at 100X the dose and off-label considering that a good idea since the FDA approved it for humans.
Before the delta wave there were arguments for probability that covid wouldn't become endemic so one was comparing a 5-10% of covid to getting vaccinated, now one is comparing 100% chance of covid with vaccination. If one thinks one will use Ivermectin when infected then one should vaccinate instead.
A interesting observation I had recently was that some people who tend to have views around recreational drugs that can be described "live and let live" are up in arms about ivermectin. I know a guy who uses horse tranquilizers recreationally who posts on Facebook everyday about the "morons who are taking horse medicine". Personally I don't care if you use either, it isn't my body.
We are in a age where you no longer must be remotely logically consistent in your arguments and it's fascinating to watch.
We are in a age where you no longer must be remotely logically consistent in your arguments and it's fascinating to watch.
On the one hand:
Some people abusing drugs:
- to successfully get high
- more or less safely at home
On the other:
Some people abusing a drug
- that doesn't have the effect they're using it for
- when there's a better alternative
- which is freely available
- AND the knock-on effects are harming other people
Some people abusing drugs:
- to successfully get high
- more or less safely at home
On the other:
Some people abusing a drug
- that doesn't have the effect they're using it for
- when there's a better alternative
- which is freely available
- AND the knock-on effects are harming other people
- ODs using up hospital capacity
- continued spread of coronavirus
To my read, the arguments you are making are not different from the ones made about marijuana legalization, and medical marijuana.
> that doesn't have the effect they're using it for
Similarly, the FDA claims that marijuana has no legitimate medical use.
> when there's a better alternative
Many people consider alcohol or tobacco to be alternatives to marijuana. Further, all of the conditions treated by marijuana have alternatives for treatment of some kind.
> which is freely available
Alcohol and tobacco are freely available. All of the alternatives to marijuana are available via a prescription.
> AND the knock-on effects are harming other people
Watch Reefer Madness. Take a look around the moral panic where marijuana has been legalized in regards to driving. "Since we can't tell accurately how high someone is, they could get stoned and be a risk to everyone on the highway!". Or what about "You are funding terrorism/organized crime!". I can't also neglect to mention the "think of the children" card that is often played, "If the drug was more available, children might get their hands on it!". If I had chosen a less benign drug at the start of this, I could talk about people overdosing, or the harms of addiction, or people accidently killing themselves while having drug induced hallucinations, and so on and so on.
> that doesn't have the effect they're using it for
Similarly, the FDA claims that marijuana has no legitimate medical use.
> when there's a better alternative
Many people consider alcohol or tobacco to be alternatives to marijuana. Further, all of the conditions treated by marijuana have alternatives for treatment of some kind.
> which is freely available
Alcohol and tobacco are freely available. All of the alternatives to marijuana are available via a prescription.
> AND the knock-on effects are harming other people
Watch Reefer Madness. Take a look around the moral panic where marijuana has been legalized in regards to driving. "Since we can't tell accurately how high someone is, they could get stoned and be a risk to everyone on the highway!". Or what about "You are funding terrorism/organized crime!". I can't also neglect to mention the "think of the children" card that is often played, "If the drug was more available, children might get their hands on it!". If I had chosen a less benign drug at the start of this, I could talk about people overdosing, or the harms of addiction, or people accidently killing themselves while having drug induced hallucinations, and so on and so on.
[deleted]
People are frustrated with the resistance to vaccines from people willing to take a lot less sound medicine and like it or not, vaccines are a social issue. It's actually very logical.
[deleted]
"My body my choice" but we have to have vaccine mandates.
Are we at war with East Asia today?
Are we at war with East Asia today?
If, like European me, you're wondering how in the nine hells of Baator the US ended up in a situation whereby what a doctor prescribes has somehow become political, I found this primer (on Twitter) by the US Journalist Ben Collins to be highly informative:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1431040456364810242.html
If, on the other hand, you live in the US and just want some comedic relief from an excellent medical professional comedian, try this: https://twitter.com/DGlaucomflecken/status/14327760801049518...
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1431040456364810242.html
If, on the other hand, you live in the US and just want some comedic relief from an excellent medical professional comedian, try this: https://twitter.com/DGlaucomflecken/status/14327760801049518...
Read the whole thing and it wasn't very informative.
This is a bizarre stat:
> By mid-August U.S. pharmacies were filling 88,000 weekly prescriptions for the medication, a 24-fold increase from pre-COVID levels, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Meanwhile, U.S. poison control centers have seen a five-fold increase in emergency calls related to the drug, with some incidents requiring hospitalization.
So despite prescriptions going up x24, and some unknown number of people taking veterinary versions of the drug, emergency calls have only gone up x5? Wouldn't we expect it to be around x24 or greater?
Also, the lack of stats on hospitalization is interesting, in that there aren't any. From another article on the same subject, Mississippi at least has apparently had zero (https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/15400.pdf).
This whole thing just seems like a manufactured story that gets clicks because it plays into prejudices about rural Americans.
> By mid-August U.S. pharmacies were filling 88,000 weekly prescriptions for the medication, a 24-fold increase from pre-COVID levels, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Meanwhile, U.S. poison control centers have seen a five-fold increase in emergency calls related to the drug, with some incidents requiring hospitalization.
So despite prescriptions going up x24, and some unknown number of people taking veterinary versions of the drug, emergency calls have only gone up x5? Wouldn't we expect it to be around x24 or greater?
Also, the lack of stats on hospitalization is interesting, in that there aren't any. From another article on the same subject, Mississippi at least has apparently had zero (https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/15400.pdf).
This whole thing just seems like a manufactured story that gets clicks because it plays into prejudices about rural Americans.
> So despite prescriptions going up x24, and some unknown number of people taking veterinary versions of the drug, emergency calls have only gone up x5? Wouldn't we expect it to be around x24 or greater?
Why would we expect excess emergency calls due to doctor prescribed levels of ivermectin? Ivermectin is used to treat humans for other things, and unless it's a particularly dangerous treatment I doubt we'd see many hospitalisations due to it.
There's little evidence it helps treat COVID, but I doubt doctors are prescribing dangerous levels of ivermectin like those found in animal treatments. 5x emergency calls for people taking animal treatments sounds reasonable.
Why would we expect excess emergency calls due to doctor prescribed levels of ivermectin? Ivermectin is used to treat humans for other things, and unless it's a particularly dangerous treatment I doubt we'd see many hospitalisations due to it.
There's little evidence it helps treat COVID, but I doubt doctors are prescribing dangerous levels of ivermectin like those found in animal treatments. 5x emergency calls for people taking animal treatments sounds reasonable.
Presumably the rate of overdoses or bad reactions would stay the same for doctor prescribed ivermectin, so 24x more prescriptions would result in 24x more overdoses or bad reactions. Then throw in the people taking veterinary versions of the drug that have to be properly converted to a human dosage, and I'd expect the rate to go up, not down, as they would be more likely to experience ill effects.
I mean it is FDA approved for humans for various ailments so it’s not that surprising that everyone isn’t dying from taking it
I suspect this has something to do with the human drug vs. the veterinary products.
Ivermectin is a widely prescribed and generally safe drug when used for its intended purpose. Some would argue that taking it in human-sized doses for COVID is probably not dangerous (this does not imply it's effective).
The problem is that people who can't get human prescriptions are turning to veterinary products which tend to be massively larger doses, and this is where things probably go off the rails.
Ivermectin is a widely prescribed and generally safe drug when used for its intended purpose. Some would argue that taking it in human-sized doses for COVID is probably not dangerous (this does not imply it's effective).
The problem is that people who can't get human prescriptions are turning to veterinary products which tend to be massively larger doses, and this is where things probably go off the rails.
> So despite prescriptions going up x24, and some unknown number of people taking veterinary versions of the drug, emergency calls have only gone up x5? Wouldn't we expect it to be around x24 or greater?
Presumably most of the hospitalizations are from the non-prescription use and less people are likely to take medicine "off-book" and some of those are at least clever enough to work out a safe dosage.
Presumably most of the hospitalizations are from the non-prescription use and less people are likely to take medicine "off-book" and some of those are at least clever enough to work out a safe dosage.
I love how they forgot about hydroxychloroquine. Wasn’t that one supposed to be the silver bullet that big pharma was hiding?
Well there was that study published in the Lancet dunking on HCQ using manufactured data that even made it past peer review. This despite the data failing the most basic of smell tests:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Fun fact, the clinical trials for hydroxychloroquine were basically shanked by data which made it appear dangerous that turned out to be completely fabricated.
https://www.the-scientist.com/features/the-surgisphere-scand...
As a standalone medication or one administered late in the disease hydroxychloroquine has not shown any real promise. When paired with TMPRSS2 inhibitors it may have some promise: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/j...
https://www.the-scientist.com/features/the-surgisphere-scand...
As a standalone medication or one administered late in the disease hydroxychloroquine has not shown any real promise. When paired with TMPRSS2 inhibitors it may have some promise: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/j...
That's odd. A quick look at sci-hub shows a bunch of ivermectin papers that don't look half bad.
I figure that if a physician wants to go off-label on a prescription they should go ahead. Plenty of warnings of course.
Buying it at the feed store along with fish antibiotics is sketchy, but remember that it's your body after all. People forget that. God knows how many people are harmed by Tylenol overdoses.
I figure that if a physician wants to go off-label on a prescription they should go ahead. Plenty of warnings of course.
Buying it at the feed store along with fish antibiotics is sketchy, but remember that it's your body after all. People forget that. God knows how many people are harmed by Tylenol overdoses.
The issue is that there aren't any studies showing that safe doses are effective for treating this disease in humans. The studies on monkey cell cultures are what they are, but nobody seems to be noticing that the dose you'd have to use to get those effects in living humans is unsafe. As a rule, medicine should be more likely to treat the illness than to kill you. If my doctor prescribed Ivermectin, I guess I'd take it, but if my doctor prescribed it at this point, they should get their license revoked.
>The issue is that there aren't any studies showing that safe doses are effective for treating this disease in humans.
Actually I'm seeing a few, but they suffer from the typical lack of statistical rigor that I've come to expect in medical studies and fall into the 'further studies are needed' bin.
As a side note, I'm always blown away by the poor quality of many medical papers. Publish or perish? Dunno.
Actually I'm seeing a few, but they suffer from the typical lack of statistical rigor that I've come to expect in medical studies and fall into the 'further studies are needed' bin.
As a side note, I'm always blown away by the poor quality of many medical papers. Publish or perish? Dunno.
I think it's possible that ivermectin could have positive effect (less hospitalizations) on people with parasites who contracted Covid-19.
After-all a lot of people die not from Covid-19 but from complications from it.
I think the main issue with it's use is, similar to antibiotic resistance, (note that it's not antibiotic or antiviral) overuse will lessen it's effectiveness when needed the most.
After-all a lot of people die not from Covid-19 but from complications from it.
I think the main issue with it's use is, similar to antibiotic resistance, (note that it's not antibiotic or antiviral) overuse will lessen it's effectiveness when needed the most.
Do you have any evidence that doctors are withholding access to anti-parasitic medication for patients who test positive for parasitic infections?
Parent's claim doesn't really require that. I believe they are just theorizing that some people carry unknown parasitic infections and taking anti-parasitics clears that which happens to put them in a batter place to clear covid as well.
[deleted]
And i think Chtulu is possible. Haven't seen it, can't prove it, but it has go to be true, just because i think it.
They said that it's possible and not that is has to be true. A big part of science is ruling things out. Ivermectin hasn't been ruled out yet.
Neither has been cyanide. And since i've always wanted to be a cult leader, I say that it's possible that cyanide cures wuhan virus disease if you ingest minute quantities of it. Don't forget to smash that like button, hit subscribe, and click on the bell icon.
Let's suppose ivermectin has a weak positive effect. I am fine with the possibility. My doctor believed in that, he prescribed it, me and my family took it (my kid would take it anyway for other reasons).
The big problem (in Brazil at least) is, the bozo president and his entourage elected this medicine as a silver bullet, saying that we didn't need vaccines, didn't need any social isolation (let alone lockdowns), etc.
These bozos created a false dichotomy: one thing is to take a chance and swallow some medicine as last-ditch attempt when you have no other known option. They use this reasoning to say nothing else was needed.
The big problem (in Brazil at least) is, the bozo president and his entourage elected this medicine as a silver bullet, saying that we didn't need vaccines, didn't need any social isolation (let alone lockdowns), etc.
These bozos created a false dichotomy: one thing is to take a chance and swallow some medicine as last-ditch attempt when you have no other known option. They use this reasoning to say nothing else was needed.
What I don’t understand about ivermectin is… is the horse paste version different from the human version in any meaningful way other than concentration?
Back in the precovid 3rd world I met people who took very dubious / polluted / rotten stuff as a "purge".
a. The placebo effect is real. A bout of induced vomiting and diarrhea makes whatever you are left with feel less worse than that...
b. They couldn't afford 1st world doctors and medicine anyway.
c. They were desperate.
d. Scoundrels preyed on their desperation.
a. The placebo effect is real. A bout of induced vomiting and diarrhea makes whatever you are left with feel less worse than that...
b. They couldn't afford 1st world doctors and medicine anyway.
c. They were desperate.
d. Scoundrels preyed on their desperation.
This is so interesting to me.
Perhaps what is most interesting is that people seem to have an opinion already and are not willing to change that opinion, and worse that the opinions seem to coincide with political leanings (at least in Canada and the US -- no idea about the rest of the world.)
The anti-ivermectin side seems to say: we have vaccines. We don't know if this is good enough until large-scale randomize controlled trials are done -- so don't go trying it. There aren't any peer-reviewed, published studies that show it has a positive effect, and, two high profile studies were pulled because they were done poorly.
The pro-ivermectin side says: the drug is cheap -- which means we can easily ramp up production and get it to everyone who needs it, and also means there's no one standing to make a profit to pay for large-scale randomized controlled trials. There are many studies showing a positive effect, some peer reviewed, and others "languishing on pre-print servers are no journals will print them." If you meta-analyze the studies, ignoring the ones that have been retracted, the results are clearly positive.
It is so frustrating. https://c19ivermectin.com says that are 113 studies of using 73 peer reviewed studies, and they all tend to show good results. That sounds convincing to me, but not anti-ivermectin people. Someone told me he read some of the studies and they were garbage. I really should try reading some of them, but it isn't my field, and even if I can understand what they did, I can't gauge the quality.
It seems to come down to "which experts do you trust?"
----
Last night, I was skimming through a book my wife got out of the library on diets called "The China Study" by T. Colin Campbell, PhD and Thomas M. Campbell II. I flipped at random to a chapter called "Science: The Dark Side", and will share a few excerpts here.
"Scams, tricks ... are as old as history itself... Very few experiences are as personal and powerful as those of people who have lost their health prematurely. Understandably, they are willing to believe and try just about anything that might help. They are a highly vulnerable group of consumers.
"In the mid-1970s, along came a prime example of a health scam, at least according to the medical establishments. It concerned an alternative cancer treatment called Laetrile. [A woman who was sick was told by all her friends about this treatment, which was not available in the states.] 'There are at least a dozen people in this area who were told they were going to be dead from cancel who used Laetrile and are now out playing tennis.'
[The lady went to Mexico for the treatment -- they treated 20 000 Americans each year -- and it didn't work.]
"[One of the authors joined a committee on health and nutrition.] [I]n the spring of 1980, I had discovered that, of the eighteen members on that committee, I was the only individual who did not have ties to the commercial world of food and drug companies and their coalitions.
"The committee was a stacked deck; its members were entrenched in the status quo"
"[In their second meeting, everyone was passed a copy of an intended press release, which] listed examples of the kind of nutrition frauds that our committee intended to expose.
"As I scanned the list of so-called frauds, I was stunned to see the 1977 McGovern dietary goals on the list. [A senator McGovern had convened experts on health and nutrition and they recommended decreased consumption of fatty animal foods and increased consumption of fruits and vegetables because of their effect on heart disease.]
[Because of his dissent, they didn't release this message at this time, but he could tell 'he was the chicken who had wandered into the foxes den'].
[The author talks about good science that was smeared by this group]
"The majority of scientists are honourable, intelligent and dedicated to the search for the common good rather than personal gain. However, there are a few scientists who are willing to sell their souls to the highest bidder. They may not be many in number, but their influence can be vast. They can corrupt the good name of institutions of which they are a part and, most importantly, they can create vast confusion among the public, which often can not tell who is who. You might turn on the TV one day to see an expert praising McDonald's hamburgers, and then read a magazine the same day that you should eat less high-fat red meat to protect yourself against cancer. Who is to be believed?
"Institutions are also part of the dark side of science. Committees like the Public Nutrition Information Committee and the American Council on Science and Health generate lopsided panels and committees and institutions that are far more interested in promoting their point of view than debating scientific research with an open mind. If a Public Nutrition Information Committee report say that low-fat diets are fraudulent scams, and a National Academy of Sciences report says the opposite, which one is right?"
-----
Anyways, to sum up, it is not clear to me who is who in this fight. I can see a case that the people promoting ivermectin are fraudsters or doing bad science, and our medical organizations are trying to save us, but it is also not hard to see that the people writing the papers showing ivermectin is effective are trying hard to save us, and the medical organizations don't like it as it disagrees with their predisposed view of the world. Who is to be believed, indeed?
Perhaps what is most interesting is that people seem to have an opinion already and are not willing to change that opinion, and worse that the opinions seem to coincide with political leanings (at least in Canada and the US -- no idea about the rest of the world.)
The anti-ivermectin side seems to say: we have vaccines. We don't know if this is good enough until large-scale randomize controlled trials are done -- so don't go trying it. There aren't any peer-reviewed, published studies that show it has a positive effect, and, two high profile studies were pulled because they were done poorly.
The pro-ivermectin side says: the drug is cheap -- which means we can easily ramp up production and get it to everyone who needs it, and also means there's no one standing to make a profit to pay for large-scale randomized controlled trials. There are many studies showing a positive effect, some peer reviewed, and others "languishing on pre-print servers are no journals will print them." If you meta-analyze the studies, ignoring the ones that have been retracted, the results are clearly positive.
It is so frustrating. https://c19ivermectin.com says that are 113 studies of using 73 peer reviewed studies, and they all tend to show good results. That sounds convincing to me, but not anti-ivermectin people. Someone told me he read some of the studies and they were garbage. I really should try reading some of them, but it isn't my field, and even if I can understand what they did, I can't gauge the quality.
It seems to come down to "which experts do you trust?"
----
Last night, I was skimming through a book my wife got out of the library on diets called "The China Study" by T. Colin Campbell, PhD and Thomas M. Campbell II. I flipped at random to a chapter called "Science: The Dark Side", and will share a few excerpts here.
"Scams, tricks ... are as old as history itself... Very few experiences are as personal and powerful as those of people who have lost their health prematurely. Understandably, they are willing to believe and try just about anything that might help. They are a highly vulnerable group of consumers.
"In the mid-1970s, along came a prime example of a health scam, at least according to the medical establishments. It concerned an alternative cancer treatment called Laetrile. [A woman who was sick was told by all her friends about this treatment, which was not available in the states.] 'There are at least a dozen people in this area who were told they were going to be dead from cancel who used Laetrile and are now out playing tennis.'
[The lady went to Mexico for the treatment -- they treated 20 000 Americans each year -- and it didn't work.]
"[One of the authors joined a committee on health and nutrition.] [I]n the spring of 1980, I had discovered that, of the eighteen members on that committee, I was the only individual who did not have ties to the commercial world of food and drug companies and their coalitions.
"The committee was a stacked deck; its members were entrenched in the status quo"
"[In their second meeting, everyone was passed a copy of an intended press release, which] listed examples of the kind of nutrition frauds that our committee intended to expose.
"As I scanned the list of so-called frauds, I was stunned to see the 1977 McGovern dietary goals on the list. [A senator McGovern had convened experts on health and nutrition and they recommended decreased consumption of fatty animal foods and increased consumption of fruits and vegetables because of their effect on heart disease.]
[Because of his dissent, they didn't release this message at this time, but he could tell 'he was the chicken who had wandered into the foxes den'].
[The author talks about good science that was smeared by this group]
"The majority of scientists are honourable, intelligent and dedicated to the search for the common good rather than personal gain. However, there are a few scientists who are willing to sell their souls to the highest bidder. They may not be many in number, but their influence can be vast. They can corrupt the good name of institutions of which they are a part and, most importantly, they can create vast confusion among the public, which often can not tell who is who. You might turn on the TV one day to see an expert praising McDonald's hamburgers, and then read a magazine the same day that you should eat less high-fat red meat to protect yourself against cancer. Who is to be believed?
"Institutions are also part of the dark side of science. Committees like the Public Nutrition Information Committee and the American Council on Science and Health generate lopsided panels and committees and institutions that are far more interested in promoting their point of view than debating scientific research with an open mind. If a Public Nutrition Information Committee report say that low-fat diets are fraudulent scams, and a National Academy of Sciences report says the opposite, which one is right?"
-----
Anyways, to sum up, it is not clear to me who is who in this fight. I can see a case that the people promoting ivermectin are fraudsters or doing bad science, and our medical organizations are trying to save us, but it is also not hard to see that the people writing the papers showing ivermectin is effective are trying hard to save us, and the medical organizations don't like it as it disagrees with their predisposed view of the world. Who is to be believed, indeed?
> . https://c19ivermectin.com says that are 113 studies of using 73 peer reviewed studies, and they all tend to show good results.
The problem is that studies that show bad results has a lower chance of been written and a lower chance of been published and a lower chance of been collected in the sites. So there is a lot of informal involuntary filtration, that hides the the bad result and collect only the good results.
Someone posted https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpr and https://hcqmeta.com/#fcite_rct . It's nice to be able to compare both.
Take a look at this paper: https://c19ivermectin.com/chowdhury.html
One interesting thing is that it compares Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. It is listed as a success in the https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpr but it's not listed a failure in the https://hcqmeta.com/#fcite_rct site.
If it had the opposite result, would it be listed in ivmmeta or only in hcqmeta? If it has a null result would any of them had shown it? (Assuming that the doctors took the time to write a boring article about a null result, and the journal published a boring article about a null result.)
The problem is that studies that show bad results has a lower chance of been written and a lower chance of been published and a lower chance of been collected in the sites. So there is a lot of informal involuntary filtration, that hides the the bad result and collect only the good results.
Someone posted https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpr and https://hcqmeta.com/#fcite_rct . It's nice to be able to compare both.
Take a look at this paper: https://c19ivermectin.com/chowdhury.html
One interesting thing is that it compares Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. It is listed as a success in the https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpr but it's not listed a failure in the https://hcqmeta.com/#fcite_rct site.
If it had the opposite result, would it be listed in ivmmeta or only in hcqmeta? If it has a null result would any of them had shown it? (Assuming that the doctors took the time to write a boring article about a null result, and the journal published a boring article about a null result.)
>The problem is that studies that show bad results has a lower chance of been written and a lower chance of been published and a lower chance of been collected in the sites
Okay, but there are basically no studies showing no or negative effects. Except for ones with massive p-values. You'd think there would at least be a few showing no effect.
Okay, but there are basically no studies showing no or negative effects. Except for ones with massive p-values. You'd think there would at least be a few showing no effect.
Take a look at hcqmeta, specially the RCT parte. You will see:
* A lot of small trials that are perhaps not even statically significant and show some positive effect.
* A few very large trials that show essentially no effect.
Very small trials are easy to organize, and if it fails people gets disappointed and forget to write it down, or the journal reject it because it shows (almost) no effect. So there is a lot of filtration.
Very large trials are difficult to organize, so they must publish the final result somewhere to ensure they can fill all paperwork. Also it's large enough to be interesting for the journal. So there is less filtration.
* A lot of small trials that are perhaps not even statically significant and show some positive effect.
* A few very large trials that show essentially no effect.
Very small trials are easy to organize, and if it fails people gets disappointed and forget to write it down, or the journal reject it because it shows (almost) no effect. So there is a lot of filtration.
Very large trials are difficult to organize, so they must publish the final result somewhere to ensure they can fill all paperwork. Also it's large enough to be interesting for the journal. So there is less filtration.
gorwell(15)
Really crazy times:
- doctors say: take a vaccine but people say “I don’t trust big pharma”
- random guy say take ivermectin and people say “great I trust pharma”. Merck is marking tons of money now.
So this is all about packaging of the message. I think the only way to convince people to take vaccine is that Binden (and democrats) starts telling people not to take one…
This is just beyond stupid and this is all result of our nanny state. Im 100% for Florida approach: let’s god sort them out.
- doctors say: take a vaccine but people say “I don’t trust big pharma”
- random guy say take ivermectin and people say “great I trust pharma”. Merck is marking tons of money now.
So this is all about packaging of the message. I think the only way to convince people to take vaccine is that Binden (and democrats) starts telling people not to take one…
This is just beyond stupid and this is all result of our nanny state. Im 100% for Florida approach: let’s god sort them out.
To be fair, ivermectin is an old drug with a well established safety record ... when using proper human dosing.
The COVID vaccines are only just getting their first full approvals.
If someone is evaluating the drugs purely on their long term track record of safety, ivermectin wins by a long shot.
But none of that really matters, because the problem is about efficacy. It might be "safer" to take ivermectin in a vacuum than one of the vaccines, but that doesn't matter if ivermectin doesn't protect you and you die of COVID anyway.
The COVID vaccines are only just getting their first full approvals.
If someone is evaluating the drugs purely on their long term track record of safety, ivermectin wins by a long shot.
But none of that really matters, because the problem is about efficacy. It might be "safer" to take ivermectin in a vacuum than one of the vaccines, but that doesn't matter if ivermectin doesn't protect you and you die of COVID anyway.
> To be fair, ivermectin is an old drug with a well
> established safety record
But then why these crazy doctors are saying not to take it? Conspiracy? I guess we not should trust these "doctors"...
> established safety record
But then why these crazy doctors are saying not to take it? Conspiracy? I guess we not should trust these "doctors"...
For the same reason a doctor would say you shouldn’t take penicillin to treat COVID. People are conflating safety with efficacy.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much (regarding the media reaction to this)
Wonder how much of this is due to Joe Rogan. he apparently took a bunch of things and his covid is negative.
It long predates Rogan's diagnosis. A few countries used it regularly in their treatment as far back as last year, including India.
But it was more of a spaghetti as the wall thing, and it was removed from the protocol back in May.
It has been the cure-they-don't-want-you-to-know-about du juor, overtaking HQC since about March
But it was more of a spaghetti as the wall thing, and it was removed from the protocol back in May.
It has been the cure-they-don't-want-you-to-know-about du juor, overtaking HQC since about March
How is this even a thing? Why does this have to be pointed out?
I've been convinced that the world is beyond parody for years now. And yet it keeps on giving.
I've been convinced that the world is beyond parody for years now. And yet it keeps on giving.
Triage children before anyone at hospitals and health service centers. Any adult should treat themselves with their best decision making. If that results in their death so be it. Time to stop babysitting adults.
Note for readers like me inside the liberal media bubble: the Ivermectin craze isn't 100% nonsense where hillbillies take their horse medicine. As the article notes, it's been seriously studied in various countries and so far afaik hasn't been proved to not be effective.
You have to positively demonstrate that a treatment is effective and safe enough to prescribe. It's not enough for something to have not yet been proven not to work. Otherwise, you could sell gumdrops as a cure for cancer, because nobody has proved gumdrops don't cure cancer. Technically true, but not responsible medicine!
thats a really weird way of saying "hasn't proven to be effective"
Also hasn’t been proven to be not effective. Half empty or half full?
> hasn’t been proven to be not effective.
yes but thats grammatically obtuse so as to avoid conveying clear information. its very easy for someone reading that to come away with the wrong info due to the redundant negation.
yes but thats grammatically obtuse so as to avoid conveying clear information. its very easy for someone reading that to come away with the wrong info due to the redundant negation.
[deleted]
> it's been seriously studied in various countries and so far afaik hasn't been proved to not be effective.
It also hasn't been proven to be effective.
Edit: to further show why this is a ridiculous approach towards using something that is unproven to treat a disease: cat urine has also not been proven to not be an effective Covid treatment.
It also hasn't been proven to be effective.
Edit: to further show why this is a ridiculous approach towards using something that is unproven to treat a disease: cat urine has also not been proven to not be an effective Covid treatment.
I'm on board with the argument that it hasn't yet been proven to be effective, and should be judged as such.
The argument about cat urine no longer seems in good faith, though. There are multiple studies evaluating ivermectin as a COVID treatment, but there are no such studies about cat urine.
I understand what you're trying to say; however, there's at least enough interest in ivermectin to warrant real trials.
I'm not optimistic that it'll be some miracle cure, but let's not pretend it's cat urine.
The argument about cat urine no longer seems in good faith, though. There are multiple studies evaluating ivermectin as a COVID treatment, but there are no such studies about cat urine.
I understand what you're trying to say; however, there's at least enough interest in ivermectin to warrant real trials.
I'm not optimistic that it'll be some miracle cure, but let's not pretend it's cat urine.
full title == [Doctors and pharmacists ramp up calls for Americans to stop using ivermectin to treat COVID-19]
This is a byproduct of the arcane US medical system. The rich see a doctor and get drugs and are warned off ivermectin. The poor see doctors with meters attached, insert $$, get advice, follow advice to pharmacy = another meter, insert $$.
Even an ambulance can cost $1000.
In Rest of world the state pays health, so the first doctor visit kill the ivermectin myth and they get the proper medication at a fraction of the US price.
I agree that our medical system is fucked, but what exactly are you referring to here? The process seems the same from when I was poor and now that I'm rich. Make appointment -> pay money -> see doctor -> get prescription -> go to pharmacy -> pay money -> get drugs. And the advice I get from doctors doesn't seem to be any better now. It's not like doctors that poor people see are intentionally giving bad medical advice.
there’s actually a different procedure if you are on government issue it’s the governments bill, so if you get injured they won’t suggest the same care right away that they would to someone who had better insurance. you do not think this is happening but my mother and sister years and years ago did medical transcription (before speech to text was a big thing) and the notes from the doctors were insanely prejudice towards people who did that dress well, or who used government insurance. today’s standards talking how they talked would get anyone fired, but that attitude is still there with certain doctors. so yeah i still believe care is withheld due to insurance. it might not be done out of mistreatment of the patient but purely procedural, like an mri cost more than an x-ray, so they will suggest the x-ray first and never bring up an mri until the patient insists on it, that’s the type of low key care difference.
there has not been any studies on this to my knowledge but i’ve experienced it before with friends who do not work jobs that provide healthcare options.
i am not sure if it is done consciously or not, a lot of judgements are subconscious and that will affect outcome.
there has not been any studies on this to my knowledge but i’ve experienced it before with friends who do not work jobs that provide healthcare options.
i am not sure if it is done consciously or not, a lot of judgements are subconscious and that will affect outcome.
I think the point was that those who can afford it can see better doctors, particularly those who are less likely to be swayed by pharmaceutical company incentives. Case in point would be, when you were poor did you go to the same doctor in the same neighborhood now that you are rich?
Kind of like those who can afford them can receive better lawyers than overworked public defenders.
Kind of like those who can afford them can receive better lawyers than overworked public defenders.
Perhaps they don't even see a doctor, at least not in the official manner. I know of people who consult medical practitioners in a "black market" fashion because it's so much cheaper (and in some ways more convenient) than the proper medical-industrial-complex way.
> I know of people who consult medical practitioners in a "black market" fashion because it's so much cheaper
How does this work?
How does this work?
They're saying the upfront costs of healthcare put poor people off going to the doctor at all and leads to distrust of doctors as just being in it for the money. At least that's the way I read it.
Here in Canada, the payment is by the Ontario Health plan. I pay nothing except for a small list of meds, like colchicine.
This is an excellent system, conditions that need immediate attention are seen immediately, and treatment is fast. Elective procedures, like knees worn out take more time. Bad knee from car crash immediate system.
There is a steady loss of doctors to the USA, but the documentary process with a huge number of providers has led to fee based invoice creators, and there are fee based invoice deniers that make doctors wait long periods to be paid, and if they are denied = round again.
We now get as many doctors leaving as entering as the process can eat up half the doctor's time. Ask any US doctor about this process...
The United States government already pays 2/3rds of healthcare costs.
Another fact along those lines, government spending per capita in the US is on par with European nations. We just receive vastly less services for the same and often more money.
We have universal national healthcare here, and people still take ivermectin because (someone on) Facebook told them to. Before that it was Hydroxychloroquine including one major newspaper running articles on how it helps with COVID (which not only it doesn't but it is illegal to run advertisements on pharmaceuticals around here).
So I dunno if US medical system has much to do with it. It seems more like someone weaponized Facebook and other social media to get gullible people to commit mass murder-suicide by refusing vaccinations, masks and taking poison.
Or it's an emergent phenomenon with no master behind it, who knows.
So I dunno if US medical system has much to do with it. It seems more like someone weaponized Facebook and other social media to get gullible people to commit mass murder-suicide by refusing vaccinations, masks and taking poison.
Or it's an emergent phenomenon with no master behind it, who knows.
Why do you mention hydroxychloroquine as if it were snake oil? At least some hospitals here administered it as part of their covid routine, ostensibly because they believed it helped according to the science.
Unfortunately, hydroxychloroquine, like Ivermectin, has become politicized. Although a Gilead shareholder with a bias towards Remdesivir, I know that the cost and infusion method (IV) makes Remdesivir much less likely to be used and contraindicated for home use.
I hope this rampant politicization of drugs stops before it hits the important drug classes like ACE2 inhibitors, bronchodilators or anti-inflammatories.
I hope this rampant politicization of drugs stops before it hits the important drug classes like ACE2 inhibitors, bronchodilators or anti-inflammatories.
As far as I understand, they were using it before we had the vaccine as "it might work, it might not, better than nothing". But I don't know the details. I think the practice was discontinued later?
But the space it occupied in the public debate (at least around here) was the same Ivermectin does now - not "better than nothing" but "use this instead of the vaccine because evil media and pharma and gubmint is lying to you".
But the space it occupied in the public debate (at least around here) was the same Ivermectin does now - not "better than nothing" but "use this instead of the vaccine because evil media and pharma and gubmint is lying to you".
The other side of it is that it was unnecessarily lambasted and made to seem unscientific when it was being administered by our hospitals.
People would go in Twitter and shout "people promoting HCQ are idiots!" while their grandpa was in the hospital on that very drug as administered by doctors.
Neither side has been entirely rational.
People would go in Twitter and shout "people promoting HCQ are idiots!" while their grandpa was in the hospital on that very drug as administered by doctors.
Neither side has been entirely rational.
Easy, zero cost medicine allows proper medical advice to mitigate these myths
This is a byproduct of vaccine hesitancy and politicization of the pandemic.
[deleted]
Exactly, I have no reason to doubt that the vast majority of ivermectin users are taking it as an alternative to and not in tandem with a free vaccine, and vaccine inaccessibility is way down in the list of justifications unvaccinated people give in polls.
You can't say vaccine hesitancy hasn't been well earned. It's not like the US doesn't have a history of lying about medical procedures performed on misinformed citizens...
Fool me once, shame on you [Tuskegee]. Fool me twice, shame on me [MKULTRA]. Fool me three times...
Fool me once, shame on you [Tuskegee]. Fool me twice, shame on me [MKULTRA]. Fool me three times...
> You can't say vaccine hesitancy hasn't been well earned.
Sure you can. People spend their entire lives studying this shit, dedicating their entire careers to saving people who sit on facebook all day and post nonsense they hear on podcasts and other credit-less sources.
It's not "vaccine hesitancy". It's stupidity.
Domain experts know more than your conspiracy-theorist crazy Facebook aunt. There is no conspiracy here. It doesn't benefit big pharma by giving it out for free, essentially. There are a handful of other pharmas that did want to rush the vaccine and as a result did not make it to manufacturing because they didn't pass the regulatory process.
So no, vaccine "hesitancy" has not been "well earned".
Sure you can. People spend their entire lives studying this shit, dedicating their entire careers to saving people who sit on facebook all day and post nonsense they hear on podcasts and other credit-less sources.
It's not "vaccine hesitancy". It's stupidity.
Domain experts know more than your conspiracy-theorist crazy Facebook aunt. There is no conspiracy here. It doesn't benefit big pharma by giving it out for free, essentially. There are a handful of other pharmas that did want to rush the vaccine and as a result did not make it to manufacturing because they didn't pass the regulatory process.
So no, vaccine "hesitancy" has not been "well earned".
Do the experts have any long term studies on efficacy (5+ years out)? It seems like they figured out the 6 month (or is it 5? or 8?) window only recently. It also seems learning the vaccine is non sterilizing is new as well.
I don't fault them for any of this. Science takes time and iteration. Nobody can account for unknown unknowns - the only solution is time.
I don't fault them for any of this. Science takes time and iteration. Nobody can account for unknown unknowns - the only solution is time.
What is the alternative?
Based on current data? I have no idea. It's an absolute mess:
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/09/03/i-have-not-been-sil...
For a start, we could stop making claims that we don't know to be true. Replace "the vaccine is safe and effective, and if we all get the vaccine the pandemic will be over" with "the vaccine is the best tool we have to prevent serious disease and death".
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/09/03/i-have-not-been-sil...
For a start, we could stop making claims that we don't know to be true. Replace "the vaccine is safe and effective, and if we all get the vaccine the pandemic will be over" with "the vaccine is the best tool we have to prevent serious disease and death".
But people at e.g. RKI are saying the latter. It's the media that is saying otherwise.
> Fool me once, shame on you [Tuskegee]
I am so tired of seeing Tuskegee trotted out as an argument by anti vaxxers.
The Tuskegee experiment specifically targeted a selected group of African Americans and was an overtly racist program. COVID vaccines on the other hand are not targeting a specific sample group, they are being given to virtually everyone. There's no sample group. The two are not remotely comparable.
I am so tired of seeing Tuskegee trotted out as an argument by anti vaxxers.
The Tuskegee experiment specifically targeted a selected group of African Americans and was an overtly racist program. COVID vaccines on the other hand are not targeting a specific sample group, they are being given to virtually everyone. There's no sample group. The two are not remotely comparable.
It’s not the method, it’s that the government lied about medicine before. No reason they can’t do it again.
What kind of reasoning is this? Even if the government had not lied about medicine, or any other topic before, there is equally "no reason" that they couldn't lie going forward about anything and everything. Everyone and anyone could lie to you at any given moment. What's your point? How do you go on living your life?
So let’s run with that thought: the governments of almost every nation are outright lying about the vaccines. Also, a supermajority of folk have been vaccinated in most of the advanced nations.
Now what? The government lied and… the plan is to have 80% of the population die? How does that benefit those in power? The economy would crash. Production of everything—food, cars, houses—would cease. Healthcare, education, policing, infrastructure maintenance—all would collapse. First-world society would disintegrate.
It makes no sense to believe the powers that be are lying about the vaccine.
Oh, and also: the unvaccinated make the vast majority of hospitalizations. Now the lie is even more crazy: the vaccine is obviously great at keeping people out of the hospital, but also the governments are all lying about the vaccine. It’s just sheer crazypants conspiracy thinking, through and through.
Now what? The government lied and… the plan is to have 80% of the population die? How does that benefit those in power? The economy would crash. Production of everything—food, cars, houses—would cease. Healthcare, education, policing, infrastructure maintenance—all would collapse. First-world society would disintegrate.
It makes no sense to believe the powers that be are lying about the vaccine.
Oh, and also: the unvaccinated make the vast majority of hospitalizations. Now the lie is even more crazy: the vaccine is obviously great at keeping people out of the hospital, but also the governments are all lying about the vaccine. It’s just sheer crazypants conspiracy thinking, through and through.
"the government lied about vaccines a couple times a few decades ago so they are forever untrustable. Far right wing talking heads like Alex Jones lie on a daily basis, but they're inexplicably trustworthy for medical advice because reasons!"
> The Tuskegee experiment specifically targeted a selected group of African Americans.
Ah, and if they did that (and a thousand other things, many of which were not limited to African Americans, including the aforementioned MKULTRA) and suffered no repercussions for it whatsoever, well, I'm sure they still learned their lesson and would never dream of doing something like it again.
Ah, and if they did that (and a thousand other things, many of which were not limited to African Americans, including the aforementioned MKULTRA) and suffered no repercussions for it whatsoever, well, I'm sure they still learned their lesson and would never dream of doing something like it again.
> , I'm sure they still learned their lesson and would never dream of doing something like it again.
That's the thing though. COVID vaccinations are _nothing like_ the Tuskegee experiment.
That's the thing though. COVID vaccinations are _nothing like_ the Tuskegee experiment.
Are you sure extremely poorly educated population isn't also a major factor in this matter? I bet good money that these are the very same people that believe in creationism over evolution, that bush did 9/11, on bigfoot and the illuminati, et al.
[deleted]
This feels like another situation where the attempts to quell disinformation are having the opposite of their intended effect.
Depending on where these people first learned of this drug, there is some pretty confusing information floating around. When someone like Bret Weinstein points out that ivermectin is used widely and safely to treat river blindness, but most media sources are focused on “it’s a horse dewormer”, people stop listening.
Censoring most information about the human use of the drug is driving conspiracy types to decreasingly reputable sources and I’d argue that this is more responsible for the overdoses than anything.