How anti-vaxxers weaponized Ivermectin, a horse de-wormer drug, as a COVID-19 treatment

Yeah, that's exactly the slippery slope issue, with one type of reasonable compromise setting the stage for something else that's a little less reasonable in the future.
"We already do this, so why not this?"

Just because society agrees to a restriction of freedom, does not mean society should agree to another restriction of freedom of a similar type.

We know where that type of path will eventually lead.

 

Judges are not medical doctors, and front line medical doctors who don't understand that for a disease with maybe 0.31% to 0.54% of mortality rate, most people will recover regardless of treatment so an ivermectin "success" doesn't prove anything, are not scientists. When real scientists hold randomized controlled trials with paired and similar groups, one getting treatment as usual + ivermectin, and the other group getting just treatment as usual, ivermectin has typically been failing to show a benefit.

Sure, a validly licensed Ohio doctor most likely will be allowed to prescribe the human preparation of ivermectin in human doses... it doesn't mean that said doctor is not a clueless moron.

 

Long term covid effects when treated with Ivermectin



Your body, your choice?!!

 

Rand Paul is a full-blown idiot. One, the drug that Trump touted was hydroxychloroquine, not ivermectin. Two, scientists HAVE studied ivermectin to treat or prevent Covid-19 multiple times (there are dozens of studies by now); it's just that the well-done studies (methodologically speaking) are not finding a benefit. Three, the international scientific community exists in hundreds of countries; does Rand Paul think that a doctor in freaking Singapore gives a rats' ass for Trump one way or the other???

Everybody in the international scientific community would be delighted if any of these repurposed drugs worked; that's precisely why we study them, but unfortunately so far we haven't found a miracle drug. We have found, however, that monoclonal antibodies work for initial cases, that dexamethasone works in the inflammatory phase, that enoxaparin works to prevent disseminated intravascular coagulation, that remdesivir has a very modest but existing benefit, and high flow oxygen is better than invasive ventilation if the latter can be avoided, among several other helpful tips that now are part of the Covid-19 treatment protocol.

So, how does the idiot known as Rand Paul explain that we HAVE found some efficient treatments, despite our supposed hatred for Trump?

What a moron.

 

We know where YOUR anti-vaxxer path leads: to death.
And it's so interesting that you have been completely silent in that other thread where I debunked your flawed data on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated outcomes in the UK... very telling.
You also did not answer my question: are you being paid to do this? Maybe employed by some ivermectin maker?

 

the problem is, foreign governments are planting this nonsense on the internet, and some on the right eat it up as gospel

 

Oh please...
You do realize there are other alternative solutions and strategies and it's not just all about the vaccine?

You act like we are doomed as a society if we don't take the vaccine and saved if we do.

Why act like everything hinges on the vaccine?

 

Simple; the vaccine is the most efficacious alternative. Pray tell, what alternatives are better than the vaccine? Are your employers proposing some sort of snake oil?

 

How about physical actions, rather than a shot or pill.

We as a society seem to be just looking for a simple easy solution. Like get a shot, problem over, problem solved.

 

Do you mean, social distancing and masks? Helpful, but not decisive like vaccines are. Again, vaccines are the MOST efficacious weapon we have against Covid-19. Other actions are helpful but not to the same degree. Not to forget, there is a lot of fatigue; people no longer adopt the precautions consistently. But if they get two doses of vaccine + a booster, they'll be significantly protected regardless of this fatigue.

 

What does "decisive" mean?

Several studies bring into question exactly how "decisive" these vaccines are.

(I will grant you they're probably more effective than ivermectin)

 

A very significant drop in hospitalizations and mortality among the vaccinated.

"Several studies" - you mean, the crap you post? The anti-vaxxer BS you post? LOL

When I debunk the garbage you post, you grow silent. Have you ever addressed my demolition of your UK numbers? I'm still waiting.

 

But is that really good enough?

I mean, especially when we are talking about trying to coerce people into taking these vaccines.

Or in young children where the personal benefits from the vaccine do not as clearly outweigh the risks.

Yeah, if you're an elderly person with impaired lung function and are around a lot of people all the time, you may want to consider the vaccine.

 

It's good enough for the populations at risk. Like I told you many times, I'm not for mandates. I'm for education and voluntary acceptance of the vaccines. As for children, the jury on the risks and benefits is still out, which is why the vaccines are not approved for those younger than 12. We need more data. Vaccine makers are preparing trials for ages 5 to 12.

 

We couldn't agree more...

However, I'm guessing whether this guy lives or dies, Ivermectin will be touted as a great drug, by the wife with an agenda...

I've already told my wife to NOT make me a guinea pig if ever in the same position...

 

To the moronic judge, to the clueless doctor prescribing it, to the idiot known as Rand Paul and whoever believes in that imbecile, yes, we've been studying it.

Look at this meta-analysis (putting together 10 studies, for a total of 1,173 patients; 5 of them against standard of care, and five against placebo), and its conclusions:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181716/

"IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.13, very low QoE) or LOS vs. controls (MD 0.72 days, 95%CI -0.86 to 2.29, very low QoE). AEs, severe AE and viral clearance were similar between IVM and controls."

Conclusions: In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients."

Given that the conclusions use several acronyms, here's a glossary:

IVM = ivermectin
SOC = standard of care
RCTs = randomized controlled trials
LOS = length of stay
AE = adverse events
RR = relative risk
CI = confidence interval
QoE = quality of evidence