No post body was provided.
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
281–290 of 644 posts
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#282I heard about Ivermectin for the first time this week and was shocked how much it seemed that I had stepped into conspiracy theory land. There seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence over the last year that this repurposed drug is effective at treating Covid during a variety of stages (preventative, first positive test, ICU admittance, and even long haul). But since there hadn't been a randomized trial the dr…
Because ivermectin is conspiracy theory land. If you don't have a proven, understood mechanism (which ivermectin doesn't for a virus like Covid) then you have to rely on trials, and those just don't stand up. Quoting Derek Lowe on this: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/07/iv... > If you haven’t had to mess with drug discovery for a living, it’s understandable that you hear that Some Person Somew…
This may explain the lack of widespread use at first, but it definitely does not explain the widespread censorship.
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#283It's banned on YouTube because of multiple authoritative sources indicating it's not a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. Here is the FDA's stance: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul... Here is the European equivalent of the AMA advising against it's use: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-advises-against-use-iv... Here is an RCT in JAMA finding it ineffective: https://jamanetwork…
> Here is an RCT in JAMA finding it ineffective:
For treating what? This study looked at trying to reduce mild COVID-19 symptoms. In fact, the current strongest evidence is for prophylaxis, as well as treating more severe cases. Also the study didn’t show that it was ineffective, it showed that it couldn’t disprove the null hypothesis. Please get your facts straight, before throwing a link to a overly specific RCT to prove your point.
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I truly hope in the coming years the censorship of this topic will be the catalyst for allowing free speech to prevail on social media. If someone died because of a "Take Ivermectin and you'll survive COVID" video on YouTube, who's to blame? Should YouTube not take steps to prevent the spread of misinformation that could kill people? edit Big downvotes, no response. Great system.
Who is to blame when YouTube censors life saving recommendations and people needlessly die?
> Who is to blame when a social media website censors unproven medical procedures
FTFY
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#285Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#286I heard about Ivermectin for the first time this week and was shocked how much it seemed that I had stepped into conspiracy theory land. There seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence over the last year that this repurposed drug is effective at treating Covid during a variety of stages (preventative, first positive test, ICU admittance, and even long haul). But since there hadn't been a randomized trial the dr…
I've been monitoring this for a long time now. I have ivermectin on hand for deworming my two mini burros.
Of course, you're not supposed to use it on humans but they say that about fish mox too. But as time went on it was pretty clear to me that it was working to prevent covid from becoming severe in the countries that were using it for that because they had nothing much else to use. I saw many reports of it working.
I also read about vitamin D, melatonin, famotidine, and aspirin helping to reduce severity of infections. So, when my wife and I got our 1st and 2nd jab of the Pfizer vaccine we took all of those and had no reaction to it at all. Our daughter took it before her first jab and had no reaction but didn't for her 2nd and she did get sick. As soon as she told us she wasn't feeling good we dosed her with those and just an hour or so later she was feeling good again.
I haven't been infected and now I've reached full immunity so none of that proves anything at all but it's still been worth knowing.
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
And here’s the correct response to you: Money.
You've posted something like 9 unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments in this thread. That has a seriously damaging effect on discussion, especially when the topic is divisive as this one is. I'm sure you don't intend that, but the effects work that way regardless of intent: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... . If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.ht…
I disagree strongly. Conflict-avoidant platitudes have much less substance.
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
While randomized trials are certainly the gold-standard for determining if you should give a new drug to treat an arbitrary disease, that process is far too conservative during a pandemic where a huge majority of the world cannot access proper medical care. Ivermectin is already massively produced, used throughout the world, and cheap to manufacture (compared to new anti-Covid drugs). Even months ago before the benef…
I had the same opinion until my friend convinced me otherwise. The scientific community is taking a long-term approach here. If they were to recommend a drug based without a scientific trial, they risk losing the trust of the world (either from people who want them to only follow the science, and the risk that it is incorrect). The anti-science block is growing, and they are loud. If they continue to grow it could be…
It would be nice if we somehow found a way as society to get the message out that scientists often just don't know. Because too often stories like this are interpreted by quite a few people as "science says ivermectin doesn't work". And perhaps that conclusion will turn out to be right, but the point is the jury is still out - and often enough it turns out wrong, and when such a false statement turns out to be wrong, people lose faith in science regardless, even though a reasonable interpretation of the science actually said "don't know" not "doesn't work".
This is kind of a corollary to the issues with rejecting conspiracies - when we reject a supposed conspiracy, due to lack of evidence, that can easily come across as claiming the conspiratorial claim is outright false - but in a sea of such claims, some then turn out to have at least a kernel of truth, which then turns into a big gotcha moment: "see, they're repressing us, we were right all along!"
So while I understand the idea of maintaining trust by not backing anything uncertain, I'm not sure it's the right call. Maybe communicating that uncertainty is better, and even communicating hints and possibilities - instead of trying to control the narrative but thereby ceding the ground to nutjobs until certainty arrives, often granting them considerable prestige if they guess sort of correctly ahead of time.
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ivermectin is a cheap drug, Mercer (who produces ivermectin) is trying to produce their own covid19 drug. Further, if there are viable alternative treatments we shouldn’t be using a vaccine still in phase 2/3 trials that haven’t even been tested on animals... the entire emergency use authorization is only allowed if there aren’t safe alternatives. Ivermectin is generally safe to take, and a known drug with known risk…
A treatment isn't an alternative to vaccination. Millions of people have been vaccinated so we know it's safe, while tons of people have died from covid so we know it's not safe.
This study appears to show that there is a treatment that’s ~90% effective at reducing deaths.
The vaccines are not shown to be (may be) safe outside of a brief few month window (for specific classes of people). These are a new class of vaccine and there appears to be significant risk based on the cdc data (VAERS).
https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/
To be clear none of the vaccines really completed a standard phase 2 or 3 trial. It had an abridged or expedited version that skipped things like pregnant women, etc. the vaccine is also not 100% effective, which is important as it’s a “leaky” vaccine. Meaning, we’re going to see lots of variants that get around our protection from the vaccine. That’s why treatments are important.
It’s also possible we see genetic defects 2-3 years from now or an increase in cancer. We really have no idea.
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why makes you think Bret Weinstein is alt right?
I have watched his shows. Intellectual alt right is a quite suitable label for this guy.
I am genuinely curious to know what made you come to that conclusion?
Assuming you mean darkhorse, what episode and what in that episode makes him alt right? Please be specific. If there are multiple examples then just provide a few.