Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

I was never an ivermectin proponent — although I thought the "horse dewormer" rhetoric was self-defeating, because it's obviously and well-known to be also a human dewormer (amongst other parasites), and the "horse" part just seemed to be played up to make ivermectin supporters look stupid — but this article is indeed the first one I've seen to make the parasite-COVID-comorbidity argument. It's not, in fact, the first time that argument has been made... But it seems like the first time that link was made was within the last month, as the blog post links to the following Twitter thread from a medical researcher: https://twitter.com/AviBittMD/status/1456376484180922368

It's not ridiculous to me that this blog post would be someone's first encounter with that argument, considering how recent the link is.

I have a little bit of experience with reading lots of research papers about COVID safety measures, and coming to the opposite conclusion of medical experts: in early 2020 I read lots of papers on masks, and tried to convince most of my family to mask up even when the CDC said that masks didn't work. I happened to be right, and to my parents, I now look like a smart and forward-thinking, science-driven person. But that's only because I was right! I could see someone doing the same with the ivermectin studies, and while it appears that they were wrong, I don't think it deserves dismissal or derision — especially when it comes from someone willing to change their mind and admit they were wrong when presented with compelling evidence to the contrary.

I think youtube is great for showing people DIY stuff, for home videos and so on, but it has clearly allowed itself to be hijacked as a platform for politics and it was/is ill prepared for the attempt at weaponizing the immense audience that it commands.

- Silicon valley rationalist types taking stacks of vitamins despite having no evidence on bioavailability because they are generally without side effects and who knows, you might live forever. I think the consensus on this now is that more or less this is not a useful practice, though I am unaware of any evidence for it being unsafe.

- Prophylactic hormone replacement therapy in middle aged women, which was eventually generally recognized as unsafe because of unexpected cancer risks not initially understood.

- Prophylactic breast self-examination, mammograms, and prostate exams based solely on age, the former of which have been significantly dialed back over the last decade because the risk of false positives or catching slow-growing low risk cancers causes a net negative from the treatment. I don't know what the state of prostate exam research is.

- Prophylactic aspirin for heart stuff: we seem to go back and forth on this, but the last I read was that actually there's mounting concern about chronic low-dose aspiring. At the very least, it's not obvious this is doing anything.

- Statin treatment in response to mild elevated blood pressure with no symptom of disease; not exactly prophylactic, but close in the sense that it's about advance management of expected disease. And last I read, researchers were increasingly recommending dialing back statin treatment for minorly elevated blood pressure because of, again, unforseen side effects.

So I just mention this to say that what I take from your post is "the precautionary principle suggests giving more weight to prophylaxis with no known side effects" and what I take from major medical stories in my lifetime is "no known side effects almost always turns out to involve side effects in the end, and that has to be part of the precautionary principle as well".

And I should note all of the above prophylaxis is based on clearly defined treatment regimens and physician supervision, not the kind of wild west ordering various formulations of ivermectin at unknown doses with or without medical supervision on an ad hoc basis.