- Edmonton, Canada
Oh dear, a Twitter thread. And who are these people?
My mistake, Leon mentioned a thread and below was a Twitter link.It's not a Twitter thread, it's a Twitter post referring to a very, very long article on substack about Ivermectin research fraud.
I wouldn't be too sure of that. In the United States, the National Institute of Health (NIH), an official website of the US Government, it says that:The Ivermectin trope has been shown thoroughly and completely to be false. Let's move on.
Meanwhile the FDA gives very, very clear guidance on why NOT to use Ivermectin. The FDA website is also an official government site.I wouldn't be too sure of that. In the United States, the National Institute of Health (NIH), an official website of the US Government, it says that:
To be precise Jeremy, Trump was not a promoter of Ivermectin (at least as far as I am aware), but many Trump acolyte politicians have got on the horse de-wormer bandwagon. The arch-libertarian Rand Paul has been one of the most ardent advocates of taking a trip to the vet. Trump was tele-evangelizing hydroxychloroquine, which is of equally unproven efficacy and potentially dangerous.Why would you take something which has proven risk and no proven benefit?
Perhaps when it forms part of your identity as a Trump voter if Trump recommended it.
Thank you for the clarification, Richard. Perhaps my lumping together of Ivermectin and hydroxycloroquine is evidence of counter-identification. I gather Rand Paul claims anti-Trump feeling accounts for opposition to Ivermectin.To be precise Jeremy, Trump was not a promoter of Ivermectin (at least as far as I am aware), but many Trump acolyte politicians have got on the horse de-wormer bandwagon. The arch-libertarian Rand Paul has been one of the most ardent advocates of taking a trip to the vet. Trump was tele-evangelizing hydroxychloroquine, which is of equally unproven efficacy and potentially dangerous.
What is your point? The FDA, in the link you provided, literally advised people to take Ivermectin as prescribed by their doctor.The NIH does not approve drugs for use, the FDA does, so the latter carries far more weight in the issue of determining whether the drug should be taken at all.
Lets be fair, you were saying that Ivermectin was thoroughly and completely false, and the NIH and FDA stating that clinical trials are being conducted came up later. Are you saying that Ivermectin has a worthwhile affect on horses?I am not saying that there should not be more clinical trials on Ivermectin, just that there is no proper scientific evidence currently to say that it has any worthwhile affect on Covid-19 patients as opposed to horses.
I note that on social media, many anti-vaxxers are pro-Ivermectin which is surprising in the sense that they argue that the vaccines are unsafe, while use of Ivermectin, especially at unapproved dosage levels, is definitely unsafe according to the FDA and in practice in the US there have been several deaths from the use of Ivermectin. And anyway, why do people fixate on Ivermectin as a drug? I can't see a logical reason to be pro its use over the vaccines and other trusted and substantiated treatments of which there are many. You don't see the same people arguing for the use of the Pfizer antiviral drug which is safe and effective (89% efficacy in Covid infected people) and has now been approved for use in the UK. At the very least, the focus on Ivermectin is willfully
Who cares what people say on social media or what their political stripes are, we're talking about an effective, safe, drug (whose developers were awarded a Nobel Prize in 2015) that may or may not be repurposed for use against SARS Covid-2. Why should we fall into the trap of politicizing a drug? It seems to afflict Trumpers, anti-vaxxers, and then the so-called "woke" Trump delusional folk who pore over the various positions of those they disagree with on some position or the other. "The anti-vxxers drink Beaujolais you say!? I've always felt there was something not quite right about that Gamay!"Perhaps when it forms part of your identity as a Trump voter if Trump recommended it.
Once again, let me reiterate, the issue being discussed is whether Ivermectin may or may not be effective as a treatment. What we do know is that a combination of demand and pharmacy refusal to fill prescription, not to social media posts and media portrayal of the drug are driving people to use veterinary supplies and to self medicate. This is a recipe for disaster. It is no wonder that using the wrong drug, in an inappropriate form like paste, self administering, and being unable to properly dose, it is no wonder that people will end up overdosing.The National Poison Data System (NPDS) in the US reports; The NPDS says 1,143 ivermectin exposure cases were reported between Jan. 1 and Aug. 31 2021. Exposure cases = poisoning. Social media certainly helps sell a pup to the uneducated and irresponsible sectors of society
So will you be taking strychnine? Nobody has proven that that isn't effective either.
I heard vintage champagne corks up the rectum were definitely 110% effective. No research yet but one to try!Just because a drug has not gone through the relevant clinical trials to prove it is effective, does not mean that it is not effective. It simply means that it’s not scientifically proven to be effective. Two very different things.
I heard vintage champagne corks up the rectum were definitely 110% effective. No research yet but one to try!
But seriously Dominic if you want to be a guinea pig for any number of hocus ideas shared by people lacking the requisite experience and qualifications do go ahead. But I hope everyone else does the sensible prudent thing and wait for a good weight of scientific consensus to arrive.
Yes but the point you are making is dangerous as it encourages people to experiment with drugs that have not been tested and are potentially harmful to themselves. That’s pretty irresponsible.I'm not suggesting that anybody takes anything! Merely making a point. But the champagne corks might be helpful now diarrhoea is a common symptom.
Yes but the point you are making is dangerous as it encourages people to experiment with drugs that have not been tested and are potentially harmful to themselves. That’s pretty irresponsible.
You’re comparison to Holland & Barret is idiotic. So I guess we will just have to disagree. But I’m glad the majority of people aren’t daft enough to try such a remedy and for those stupid enough to I hope it doesn’t cause them harm.I don’t think that statement is encouraging anybody to experiment with anything, it’s just a simple fact. Holland & Barrett have a presence on almost every high street & most of what they stock has not undergone sufficient scientific studies to prove the products effective (or safe in many instances). Perhaps they are irresponsible too.
Either way I’m sure everybody here is more than able to make their own decisions on what they put inside their bodies.