171–180 of 208 posts
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?
Yes, in the purity. It’s okay to give slightly contaminated medication to horses, not to humans. The human Ivermectin is purer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask yourself: why does the big photo only show the veterinary version? Why do so many headlines classify it as horse paste medicine? They are fully aware most people only read the headlines or above the fold. They bury mention of human dosage to have plausible deniability, knowing most people won't ever see it. As for Merck, they are creating a new, patented version for Covid use. They want ivermectin discredited bec…
> Why do so many headlines classify it as horse paste medicine? Because, convinced in the absence of evidence, some people are acquiring it by the path of least resistance, which is farm-related retailers. Some ask their doctors. Some of those doctors say sure because it's relatively safe. Others say no because they point out there's scant evidence it's effective. The worst part is people are taking this in lieu of a…
That would be the PSA and approach. But it's not about warning people or any kind of concern about those who foolishly take a horse sized dose. It's about shaming them and pushing the interests of the pharma industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 a…
Disclaimer: I am not implying I buy into the theories about ivermectin being an effective treatment for COVID. 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…
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.
Disclaimer: I am not implying I buy into the theories about ivermectin being an effective treatment for COVID. 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
The other option is not to trust any of the parties and look at the evidence they present.
Isn't some trust required most of the time?
Conflating veterinary horse paste ivermectin with the human version of ivermectin is one of the most brazen lies I've ever seen from the American media, who is actively pushing pharmaceutical industry propaganda. Just one of many examples this week: "Joe Rogan has told his Instagram followers he has been taking ivermectin, a deworming veterinary drug formulated for use in cows and horses, to help fight the coronaviru…
Ivmmeta is pseudoscientific. It should not be taken seriously by anyone. See a short analysis e.g. at https://mobile.twitter.com/gidmk/status/1422044335076306947 .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ivmmeta is pseudoscientific. It should not be taken seriously by anyone. See a short analysis e.g. at https://mobile.twitter.com/gidmk/status/1422044335076306947 .
[deleted, misread Ivmmeta as Ivermectin]
Disclaimer: I am not implying I buy into the theories about ivermectin being an effective treatment for COVID. 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…
Ivermectin pills are even FDA-approved as a safer-than-topical-insecticide way to get rid of lice.
> 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.