# FDA says stop taking animal drugs for COVID



## WiiMiiSwitch (Aug 23, 2021)

https://twitter.com/US_FDA/status/1429050070243192839?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1429050070243192839|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://gizmodo.com/embed/inset/iframe?id=twitter-1429050070243192839autosize=1
https://gizmodo.com/you-are-not-a-horse-you-are-not-a-cow-fda-warns-peo-1847535771


----------



## Shadow#1 (Aug 23, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> https://twitter.com/US_FDA/status/1429050070243192839?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1429050070243192839|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://gizmodo.com/embed/inset/iframe?id=twitter-1429050070243192839autosize=1
> https://gizmodo.com/you-are-not-a-horse-you-are-not-a-cow-fda-warns-peo-1847535771


They gotta own the libs so they will not stop


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Aug 23, 2021)

imagine if your doctor says "i'm gonna  give you cow drugs, you are a cow"

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Shadow#1 said:


> They gotta own the libs so they will not stop


you are a  horse


----------



## Veho (Aug 23, 2021)

The FDA just wants all the drugs to themselves   
You'll get my drugs when you pry them out of my cold dead hooves


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 23, 2021)

I guess some people don't realise that animal formulations of Ivermectin are different to human ones. I still don't like how it's being dismissed when it seems like a good idea to do comprehensive trials on any candidates that show the slightest promise. There are smaller trials out there (that seem to be getting harder to find since I last looked) that show possible benefits so it's suspicious when certain organisations are desperate to quash it.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/


----------



## Xzi (Aug 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I still don't like how it's being dismissed when it seems like a good idea to do comprehensive trials on any candidates that show the slightest promise.


Why is that a good idea?  The COVID-19 vaccines are among the highest efficacy vaccines that have ever been created.  The only people seeking out "alternatives" are the nutters who believe the government invented the vaccines to track them, or some other equally-crazy conspiracy theory which doesn't hold up against the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Even Trump has finally started publicly advocating for vaccination, but it seems the beast he helped create has now grown out of his control.


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Why is that a good idea?  The COVID-19 vaccines are among the highest efficacy vaccines that have ever been created.  The only people seeking out "alternatives" are the nutters who believe the government invented the vaccines to track them, or some other equally-crazy conspiracy theory which doesn't hold up against the slightest bit of scrutiny.
> 
> Even Trump has finally started publicly advocating for vaccination, but it seems the beast he helped create has now grown out of his control.


Come on, that's an automatic political response rather than a scientific one and you know it. I'm pretty sure I read there were billions of dollars in contracts awarded to develop new treatments already. The vaccines are great but it would be ridiculous to consider the case closed.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Come on, that's an automatic political response rather than a scientific one and you know it.


The efficacy of the vaccines is entirely a scientific matter, one which is indisputable.



subcon959 said:


> I'm pretty sure I read there were billions of dollars in contracts awarded to develop new treatments already.


Treatments are only necessary for people who put themselves at risk for severe illness caused by COVID, AKA people who refuse vaccination.  They are not a replacement for vaccination or something that should be relied upon as the only line of defense against this virus.



subcon959 said:


> The vaccines are great but it would be ridiculous to consider the case closed.


A cure would be great, but again, nobody should be aiming to catch COVID-19 with severe symptoms in the first place.  Vaccines _are_ capable of ending this pandemic, just as anti-vaxxers are capable of extending it by becoming incubators for new, vaccine-resistant variants.


----------



## Viri (Aug 23, 2021)

Makes me think of when people used fish tank cleaner(Amoxicillin) for Cov19 before.


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The efficacy of the vaccines is entirely a scientific matter, one which is indisputable.


I did not say anything about alternatives to vaccines so your defensiveness is entirely misplaced and as I said an automatic response to right-wing antivaxxers.

Medical science doesn't care about the left/right battle going on in the US. It has always been normal practice to research and develop multiple attack vectors for any given disease and Covid is no different. There are already other treatments being investigated and any promising candidates will and should be given larger scale trials to ascertain their efficacy in the population. This process always begins will in vitro studies, and Ivermectin showed enough reactivity that it warranted small scale trials that I linked to above, I see absolutely no reason to dismiss that and not attempt larger scale studies. We're supposed to be promoting good science not trying to squash it because of politics.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 23, 2021)

Since some people want full approval from FDA for the vaccine, surely they will believe the FDA on this, when they gave this no approval.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I did not say anything about alternatives to vaccines


You didn't have to, it was implied.  Nobody who's already gotten the COVID-19 vaccine is going to think it a good (or necessary) idea to take horse de-wormer as a treatment for the same.



subcon959 said:


> It has always been normal practice to research and develop multiple attack vectors for any given disease and Covid is no different. There are already other treatments being investigated and any promising candidates will and should be given larger scale trials to ascertain their efficacy in the population.


Right, I already acknowledged that.  What you seem to not want to acknowledge is that vaccines are _preventative_, whereas treatments can only be used _reactively_, after a person is already showing severe symptoms which may well result in long-term damage or death regardless.



subcon959 said:


> We're supposed to be promoting good science not trying to squash it because of politics.


Promoting good science and promoting vaccination are one and the same.  Anybody promoting Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 is doing so _solely_ as a political stunt, and they're causing quantifiable harm/death in the process.  By all means, study it further, but I guarantee you that we've already got much more effective treatments available, such as Regeneron.  Lack of treatment options hasn't been an issue for a long while now, the issue is a lack of adults willing to act responsibly and in the best interest of their communities.


----------



## ghjfdtg (Aug 23, 2021)

To be honest i don't care what the anti-vaxxers take. They can drink pure poison if they want ([dark humor on]one problem less[dark humor off]).
I do care if they endanger other people by convincing them of this nonsense instead of getting a safe vaccine. Just fucking take the shots. I'm through both now. Strangely that didn't increase my 5G coverage.


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 23, 2021)

@Xzi I can't have a discussion with you if you don't actually listen to what I'm saying and keep throwing political points at me. If it helps you to stop your assumptions and see my actual position, my best subject at med school was pharmacology and I am of course a bloody vaccine advocate. Can we stop with strawmen now? I can't continue if you keep coming at this as if you're defending against anti-vaxxers instead of having an actual intellectual conversation.


----------



## Jokey_Carrot (Aug 23, 2021)

1984


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Aug 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Why is that a good idea?  The COVID-19 vaccines are among the highest efficacy vaccines that have ever been created.  The only people seeking out "alternatives" are the nutters who believe the government invented the vaccines to track them, or some other equally-crazy conspiracy theory which doesn't hold up against the slightest bit of scrutiny.
> 
> Even Trump has finally started publicly advocating for vaccination, but it seems the beast he helped create has now grown out of his control.


because americans do things the american way


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Aug 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> @Xzi I can't have a discussion with you if you don't actually listen to what I'm saying and keep throwing political points at me. If it helps you to stop your assumptions and see my actual position, my best subject at med school was pharmacology and I am of course a bloody vaccine advocate. Can we stop with strawmen now? I can't continue if you keep coming at this as if you're defending against anti-vaxxers instead of having an actual intellectual conversation.



I really don't see Xzi doing that. What I saw is that you were informed about the difference between treatments and vaccines and other areas where you are incorrect. It seems that you feel being corrected equates a non intelligent conversation.


----------



## lokomelo (Aug 23, 2021)

Ivermectin is being used here in Brazil A LOT. Many people, including doctors, are on board with a drug cocktail that is said to cure covid, the narrative is that those who keep home, take vaccine and wear masks are helping the communists against our beloved Country.
When someone who took the cocktail do die from covid, they argue that this person started the treatment to late, or did something wrong with the medication.

Obviously there is politics involved in that, as this cocktail was recommended by the president himself (witch by the way, did refused to get a vaccine).

Needless to say that the thing is going bad here, we already reached 570,000 deaths, but the cocktail people said that the "stay in home" movement is what is killing people.


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 23, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I really don't see Xzi doing that. What I saw is that you were informed about the difference between treatments and vaccines and other areas where you are incorrect. It seems that you feel being corrected equates a non intelligent conversation.


No what you saw was someone go off on a long rebuttal based on an incorrect assumption. It's almost as if Americans are programmed to respond to certain talking points in an automatic way based on whether they think the person is left or right wing. He even started off by stating my position was implied which was a shitty way to address anyone - especially when it was an incorrect assumption. None of my actual comment was anything to do with vaccines or their effects. I find it ridiculous I'm having to defend myself about this when I've spent the last year advocating vaccines to everyone under the sun.

Actually screw that, quote me where anything I said is incorrect. Not what @Xzi claimed I said, but what I actually said.

Edit: @Xzi this one is specifically for you https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097542


----------



## RAHelllord (Aug 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I guess some people don't realise that animal formulations of Ivermectin are different to human ones. I still don't like how it's being dismissed when it seems like a good idea to do comprehensive trials on any candidates that show the slightest promise. There are smaller trials out there (that seem to be getting harder to find since I last looked) that show possible benefits so it's suspicious when certain organisations are desperate to quash it.
> 
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/



Unless that study has been properly peer reviewed I'd take it with a large grain of salt, but more importantly in this case the FDA is 100% in the right telling people to stop taking the variation for animals because it's a) not the same thing and b) not proven to be safe for humans either way.
If people would think pursuing the (human) Ivermectin is worth the effort we'll probably see new studies for that pop up eventually, nobody in power is trying to quash anything there.



Xzi said:


> Why is that a good idea?  The COVID-19 vaccines are among the highest efficacy vaccines that have ever been created.  The only people seeking out "alternatives" are the nutters who believe the government invented the vaccines to track them, or some other equally-crazy conspiracy theory which doesn't hold up against the slightest bit of scrutiny.
> 
> Even Trump has finally started publicly advocating for vaccination, but it seems the beast he helped create has now grown out of his control.



People with a compromised immune system (AIDS/HIV, chemotherapy patients, Lupus, various other autoimmune diseases) can't get the vaccine because it either won't give them immunity or might even harm them outright, and thus right now need to rely on preventative measures of themselves and others. We _need_ better protection for those people and having a non-vaccine medication available is the best way to go about it, which is what I assume is subcon's point here, too.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Aug 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> No what you saw was someone go off on a long rebuttal based on an incorrect assumption. It's almost as if Americans are programmed to respond to certain talking points in an automatic way based on whether they think the person is left or right wing. He even started off by stating my position was implied which was a shitty way to address anyone - especially when it was an incorrect assumption. None of my actual comment was anything to do with vaccines or their effects. I find it ridiculous I'm having to defend myself about this when I've spent the last year advocating vaccines to everyone under the sun.
> 
> Actually screw that, quote me where anything I said is incorrect. Not what @Xzi claimed I said, but what I actually said.
> 
> Edit: @Xzi this one is specifically for you https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097542



For starters, you're still lumping preventative vaccines and COVID treatments into the same category whether you're intentionally doing it or not.


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 23, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> For starters, you're still lumping preventative vaccines and COVID treatments into the same category whether you're intentionally doing it or not.


I'm not doing anything like that, it's not my fault if people are making the wrong assumption. BTW, the vaccine is not only preventative but has been shown to be effective at reducing symptoms for people with long Covid, therefore also a treatment.


RAHelllord said:


> People with a compromised immune system (AIDS/HIV, chemotherapy patients, Lupus, various other autoimmune diseases) can't get the vaccine because it either won't give them immunity or might even harm them outright, and thus right now need to rely on preventative measures of themselves and others. We _need_ better protection for those people and having a non-vaccine medication available is the best way to go about it, which is what I assume is subcon's point here, too.


Yeah, it's a pity my point was mistaken for a political position as it's a very important consideration. Hopefully they read my other link about the WHO's Solidarity Trials which show that this sort of research is ongoing and needs to be done to help those that can't take the vaccines - or even if the vaccines become less efficacious due to viral mutations.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Aug 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I'm not doing anything like that, it's not my fault if people are making the wrong assumption.



It was what you said, therefore not an assumption.



> BTW, the vaccine is not only preventative but has been shown to be effective at reducing symptoms for people with long Covid, therefore also a treatment



Please link to that information. Edit: Saw this: https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/vaccines-long-covid

There are an awful lot of words like "possible" and "seems to" there. It also specifically states "At this point, researchers can only hypothesize."


----------



## Lacius (Aug 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> BTW, the vaccine is not only preventative but has been shown to be effective at reducing symptoms for people with long Covid, therefore also a treatment.


The vaccines 100% are not treatments against COVID-19. They are preventatives against catching the disease, and they are preventatives against serious symptoms. The vaccines are only effective if received before future exposures to the disease.


----------



## ghjfdtg (Aug 23, 2021)

It's better to avoid long-covid in the first place by getting vaccinated. Of course there also needs to be treatment medication for those who can't take it or for the very rare case someone gets severe symptoms from a breakthrough infection. I don't think the vaccines will do anything if you already suffer long term damage or symptoms (besides increasing your protection against another infection even further of course).


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 23, 2021)

And now I wait for anti-vaxxors to be wrong in this thread as well


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The vaccines 100% are not treatments against COVID-19. They are preventatives against catching the disease, and they are preventatives against serious symptoms. The vaccines are only effective if received before future exposures to the disease.


100% is an awfully bold statement for anything outside of religion. Luckily, there are doctors at Yale who are more knowledgeable than you and willing to do the actual work to find out. Maybe it won't lead to anything but making blanket statements before the work is done helps no one.

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/vaccines-long-covid


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> 100% is an awfully bold statement for anything outside of religion. Luckily, there are doctors at Yale who are more knowledgeable than you and willing to do the actual work to find out. Maybe it won't lead to anything but making blanket statements before the work is done helps no one.
> 
> https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/vaccines-long-covid



One of the things that tend to be 100% is the intent and definition of a word. A vaccine is a prevention measure. While it certainly has a function even for the infected, it isn't really a treatment of symptoms outright.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> 100% is an awfully bold statement for anything outside of religion. Luckily, there are doctors at Yale who are more knowledgeable than you and willing to do the actual work to find out. Maybe it won't lead to anything but making blanket statements before the work is done helps no one.
> 
> https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/vaccines-long-covid


I think in his context of the word Treatments he means not a cure. And in this case yes vaccines aren't 100% effective because even vaccinated people can still catch covid and die even if its a very small % of that happening.

In the report you linked it also shows they are not 100% effective as about 15% of long haullers feel worse after vaccination. Of course this is self reporting and more research needs to be done. So it can be a treatment for some people and for others it may not be. It's not 100% of the time which is what I think he means by 100% not treatments.

But according to the Yale report you linked I'd have to disagree with Lacuis when he said that vaccines are only effective if recieved before future exposers to the diesease. Since its shows to improve symptoms for long haulers. So it can be shown to have some effect after exposure to the diesease.

Lacius is pretty smart on this topic so I don't know if thats a mistype by him or what. But i'm sure after reading that article he'll come around to agreeing with you on that point since after all we go to what science says.


----------



## SonowRaevius (Aug 23, 2021)

.....so when did we mandela our way into The Onion's universe?......


----------



## Lacius (Aug 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> 100% is an awfully bold statement for anything outside of religion. Luckily, there are doctors at Yale who are more knowledgeable than you and willing to do the actual work to find out. Maybe it won't lead to anything but making blanket statements before the work is done helps no one.
> 
> https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/vaccines-long-covid


A few things:

The vaccine is not being used as a treatment for long haulers. It's something long haulers are getting after contracting the disease (anyone who hasn't been vaccinated should get it if they medically can), and some report their long haul symptoms improving. 
We don't know for sure that the vaccine does anything to improve long haulers' conditions. The long haul symptoms may just be improving on their own over time, it could be a placebo effect, etc.
We won't know if the vaccine could function as a treatment for long haul symptoms until double-blind studies are done on the topic.
"Vaccine," by definition, is a very specific thing. If it turns out that the vaccine can work as a treatment for long haul symptoms, it becomes more than just a vaccine by definition.
Don't get me wrong. I personally hope the vaccine works as a treatment for long haul symptoms. It would also be all the more reason to get vaccinated.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> A few things:
> 
> The vaccine is not being used as a treatment for long haulers. It's something long haulers are getting after contracting the disease (anyone who hasn't been vaccinated should get it if they medically can), and some report their long haul symptoms improving.
> We don't know for sure that the vaccine does anything to improve long haulers' conditions. The long haul symptoms may just be improving on their own over time, it could be a placebo effect, etc.
> ...


Yes more research needs to be done and  @subcon959 aknowledged that when he said it may lead to nothing.

But it would be nice if it can be used for treatment for long haulers. If not then there's always horse de-wormers as plan B


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Aug 23, 2021)

> Pfizer becomes first Covid vaccine to gain full FDA approval


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58309254


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Aug 23, 2021)

SG854 said:


> @subcon959 aknowledged that when he said it may lead to nothing.



Nah. They kinda moved their goal posts after I had already previously posted the link and pointed out that the article itself states it is completely hypothetical. Prior to that there was no link, and there was the implication that "vaccine is not only preventative but has been shown to be effective at reducing symptoms for people with long Covid, therefore also a treatment" is factual information. When in actuality it was every bit as much of "making blanket statements before the work is done" as Lacius was accused of doing. Subcon kinda flipped their story after already informed of the articles nature.


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 23, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Nah. They kinda moved their goal posts after I had already previously posted the link and pointed out that the article itself states it is completely hypothetical. Prior to that there was no link, and there was the implication that "vaccine is not only preventative but has been shown to be effective at reducing symptoms for people with long Covid, therefore also a treatment" is factual information. When in actuality it was every bit as much of "making blanket statements before the work is done" as Lacius was accused of doing. Subcon kinda flipped their story after already informed of the articles nature.


You are talking out of your arse here, luckily everyone else seems to have gotten the gist so it doesn't matter.



Lacius said:


> We won't know if the vaccine could function as a treatment for long haul symptoms until double-blind studies are done on the topic.


Finally, that is the whole reason I even commented in this thread. Nobody should be dismissing anything until the relevant studies have been done, whether it's mRNA vaccines as treatment or any other molecules. The only reason we know that remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine aren't worth pursuing is because the WHO-backed clinical trials were done to rule them out. My initial comment was just to say that I wanted Ivermectin to receive similar trials before ruling it out. I only care about the science not the left/right politics injected into it in America.


> Vaccine, by definition, is a very specific thing. If it turns out that the vaccine can work as a treatment for long haul symptoms, it becomes more than just a vaccine by definition.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I personally hope the vaccine works as a treatment for long haul symptoms. It would also be all the more reason to get vaccinated.


Semantics aside I think we can agree that anything that is proven to help ease suffering is a good thing.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 23, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Nah. They kinda moved their goal posts after I had already previously posted the link and pointed out that the article itself states it is completely hypothetical. Prior to that there was no link, and there was the implication that "vaccine is not only preventative but has been shown to be effective at reducing symptoms for people with long Covid, therefore also a treatment" is factual information. When in actuality it was every bit as much of "making blanket statements before the work is done" as Lacius was accused of doing. Subcon kinda flipped their story after already informed of the articles nature.


Reading back on his comments I do not see anything you are accusing him off.

Originally he stated that the alternatives shouldn't be shut down. It's especially good if people have negative reactions to current vaccines and alternatives may help with this if they dont have negative reations to alternatives.


And if there is any misunderstanding of what he meant then he was able to clarify afterwards what he actually meant. Which he said in a following post afterwards when he aknowledged that it may lead to nothing.

People formulate thoughts as they are trying to think things through and what they say may not come out in a way they intended or precieved in a way they did not intend. They afterwards work their way through refining their points in a much more clear and consise way and clearing up misconceptions as they are talking more about it. You cannot hold someone for what your original impression of their points was especially if after they enunciated what they actually meant to clear up any misunderstandings.

So there is no excuse for you to not know what he meant if after he clarified what he really meant. That's the whole point of conversation and debate is to understand anothers point. Not to make them into a caricature and strawman them. First you represent their points as accurately as you can and if you need to, ask them if your summary of their points is something they agree with so that way you can avoid innacurate caricatures. Then after you characterized their points correctly you then offer your rebuttle.

I see nothing you are accusing him off. I see no goal post moving.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> @Xzi I can't have a discussion with you if you don't actually listen to what I'm saying and keep throwing political points at me.


I don't much care for having to repeat myself.  I was not the one who decided to politicize science or vaccination in the first place, and I'm not politicizing them now.  Studying _potential_ new treatments is one thing, promoting the use of medications for anything other than their intended purpose _before_ they've been thoroughly studied is entirely another.



Xzi said:


> Promoting good science and promoting vaccination are one and the same. Anybody promoting Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 is doing so _solely_ as a political stunt, and they're causing quantifiable harm/death in the process.  By all means, study it further, but I guarantee you that we've already got much more effective treatments available, such as Regeneron. Lack of treatment options hasn't been an issue for a long while now, the issue is a lack of adults willing to act responsibly and in the best interest of their communities.


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 23, 2021)

@Xzi This was your response to me saying that further studies on any potential new candidates is a good thing:



Xzi said:


> Why is that a good idea?  The COVID-19 vaccines are among the highest efficacy vaccines that have ever been created.  The only people seeking out "alternatives" are the nutters who believe the government invented the vaccines to track them, or some other equally-crazy conspiracy theory which doesn't hold up against the slightest bit of scrutiny.
> 
> Even Trump has finally started publicly advocating for vaccination, but it seems the beast he helped create has now grown out of his control.


You started the derailment when nobody even mentioned vaccines, you politicised it by talking about nutters and Trump. So yeah, either you are not aware of what you have been saying in your own posts or you are being dishonest about how you originally came at this with an incorrect assumption.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Aug 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> You are talking out of your arse here, luckily everyone else seems to have gotten the gist so it doesn't matter.



I don't care which side of the fence you are on, if any at all, but that sounds like some GoP shit right there. "everyone else seems to have..." Who's this "everyone else"? Like 3-4 people people? Lmfao. It's like the million and one times Trump would say "People are telling me" or People are saying" or "Everyone says". It's a pretty good manipulation tactic, but heads up... it doesn't work on me. You are right about one thing. It doesn't matter. Mostly because you can't keep your own train of thought straight from one post to the next. So yeah. You're right. Doesn't matter.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Finally, that is the whole reason I even commented in this thread. Nobody should be dismissing anything until the relevant studies have been done,


We shouldn't be accepting something until the relevant studies have been done either.

Vaccines are 100% preventative. They only help against future exposures and infections.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 24, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> You started the derailment when nobody even mentioned vaccines, you politicised it by talking about nutters and Trump.


Not sure why you're calling back to my first reply when we've clearly moved well beyond that by now, but I already explained my reasoning for why it's obvious that anti-vaxxers are seeking alternatives to the vaccines; Ivermectin is just the latest in a long list of potentially dangerous substitutes.  I never mentioned a political affiliation for the nutters, and the only reason I mentioned Trump was in the context of promoting vaccines.  If even he can recognize their potential to end the pandemic, then the lowest common denominator should also be able to.

The point stands: people of all political affiliations used to trust in medical science, I'm not the one who decided to lead certain groups astray with pseudo-science and outright lies.  Even if I wanted to, I don't have that kind of platform or notoriety.  If you _really _want to stick to proven science, that means being a stickler for vaccination, and not relying on the discovery of new reactive treatments as our sole defense against COVID-19.  End of story.


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Not sure why you're calling back to my first reply when we've clearly moved well beyond that by now, but I already explained my reasoning for why it's obvious that anti-vaxxers are seeking alternatives to the vaccines; Ivermectin is just the latest in a long list of potentially dangerous substitutes.  I never mentioned a political affiliation for the nutters, and the only reason I mentioned Trump was in the context of promoting vaccines.  If even he can recognize their potential to end the pandemic, then the lowest common denominator should also be able to.
> 
> The point stands: people of all political affiliations used to trust in medical science, I'm not the one who decided to lead certain groups astray with pseudo-science and outright lies.  Even if I wanted to, I don't have that kind of platform or notoriety.  If you _really _want to stick to proven science, that means being a stickler for vaccination, and not relying on the discovery of new reactive treatments as our sole defense against COVID-19.  End of story.


I still want to make it clear that my original post was not to imply anything regarding vaccines (or suggesting Ivermectin as an alternative for everyone - just that it should be studied as part of ongoing large trials), I think it must be very different where we live as I get the feeling you guys are battling much more ignorance than we are. But you're right we've moved past that and mostly reached consensus on the important points.



Lacius said:


> We shouldn't be accepting something until the relevant studies have been done either.
> 
> Vaccines are 100% preventative. They only help against future exposures and infections.


You gotta stop with the 100% thing as it makes people who are already on the fence more doubtful and suspicious. No matter how fruitless it may seem the best approach is education not militancy. That last sentence isn't aimed at you but I've seen some silly comments here. I also feel that way about other subjects where people can't even ask a question without someone attacking them instead of taking the time to answer.

To bring everything back to topic nobody should be taking animal formulations of any drug (really shouldn't need saying). The side effects are way worse than the vaccines so it doesn't even make sense in that regard.


----------



## Viri (Aug 24, 2021)

Veho said:


> The FDA just wants all the drugs to themselves
> You'll get my drugs when you pry them out of my cold dead hooves


FDA is the reason I have to buy my Novamin tooth paste of Amazon. :/


----------



## Kurt91 (Aug 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Not sure why you're calling back to my first reply when we've clearly moved well beyond that by now, but I already explained my reasoning for why it's obvious that anti-vaxxers are seeking alternatives to the vaccines; Ivermectin is just the latest in a long list of potentially dangerous substitutes.  I never mentioned a political affiliation for the nutters, and the only reason I mentioned Trump was in the context of promoting vaccines.  If even he can recognize their potential to end the pandemic, then the lowest common denominator should also be able to.
> 
> The point stands: people of all political affiliations used to trust in medical science, I'm not the one who decided to lead certain groups astray with pseudo-science and outright lies.  Even if I wanted to, I don't have that kind of platform or notoriety.  If you _really _want to stick to proven science, that means being a stickler for vaccination, and not relying on the discovery of new reactive treatments as our sole defense against COVID-19.  End of story.


*sigh* Like I said in the "Covid-19 Vaccine" thread, I medically cannot take the vaccine. A cancer-removal surgery also killed a good part of my immune system, so my doctor has said that I most likely wouldn't be able to manage the vaccine's side-effect and that taking the vaccine would be a terrible idea.

So yeah, any research for a possible treatment that doesn't involve the vaccines would be a great benefit for people like me, unless you're trying to say that the fact that we have a vaccine means anybody literally unable to take the vaccine like me should just go die in a hole for the benefit for the rest of society instead of looking at and thoroughly testing possible alternatives. Thanks. (Note: I'm pretty sure that's not specifically what you mean, but it sure feels that way when you're so quick to pretty much say that since we have a working vaccine, looking for further treatments isn't necessary since anybody worthwhile would just take the vaccine.)


----------



## Xzi (Aug 25, 2021)

Kurt91 said:


> *sigh* Like I said in the "Covid-19 Vaccine" thread, I medically cannot take the vaccine. A cancer-removal surgery also killed a good part of my immune system, so my doctor has said that I most likely wouldn't be able to manage the vaccine's side-effect and that taking the vaccine would be a terrible idea.
> 
> So yeah, any research for a possible treatment that doesn't involve the vaccines would be a great benefit for people like me, unless you're trying to say that the fact that we have a vaccine means anybody literally unable to take the vaccine like me should just go die in a hole for the benefit for the rest of society instead of looking at and thoroughly testing possible alternatives. Thanks. (Note: I'm pretty sure that's not specifically what you mean, but it sure feels that way when you're so quick to pretty much say that since we have a working vaccine, looking for further treatments isn't necessary since anybody worthwhile would just take the vaccine.)


I feel for you brother, and yeah it should go without saying that immuno-compromised individuals need to check with their doctors before getting vaccinated.  If _everybody else_ would get vaccinated, that would make it easier for you to feel safe around crowds, but instead I imagine you've more or less remained in lockdown this entire time because there are so many unvaccinated people running around maskless.  And some states are of course much worse than others in that regard.


----------



## Jayro (Aug 25, 2021)

Just let the stupid people weed themselves out. They'll either get sick and die, or make "patriotic" choking noises on a ventilator before they die. Either way, it's a win/win for America.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 25, 2021)

Jayro said:


> Just let the stupid people weed themselves out. They'll either get sick and die, or make "patriotic" choking noises on a ventilator before they die. Either way, it's a win/win for America.


Sadly, like so many right wing culture war issues, the question isn't "shouldn't we just let them die out?" but "how many could they kill before we take precautions?" Thankfully, mandates are kicking up and hopefully inconvenience will be motivating.


----------



## tabzer (Aug 25, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> The side effects are way worse than the vaccines so it doesn't even make sense in that regard.



I don't personally know about that, but I'm sure people are convinced on both sides of that fence.

Maybe if the vaccine came in apple flavor it'd cover another subsector of the "vaccine hesitant".


----------



## leon315 (Aug 25, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> https://twitter.com/US_FDA/status/1429050070243192839?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1429050070243192839|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://gizmodo.com/embed/inset/iframe?id=twitter-1429050070243192839autosize=1
> https://gizmodo.com/you-are-not-a-horse-you-are-not-a-cow-fda-warns-peo-1847535771


WOW, muricans are a joke. never loled so fucken hard


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 25, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I don't personally know about that, but I'm sure people are convinced on both sides of that fence.
> 
> Maybe if the vaccine came in apple flavor it'd cover another subsector of the "vaccine hesitant".


Just to clarify I meant the side effects of the vaccines versus the side effects of the animal formation of ivermectin. The prescriptions of ivermectin for people are much lower dosages and usually just associated with some mild nausea.


----------



## DKB (Aug 25, 2021)

animal


----------



## tabzer (Aug 25, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Just to clarify I meant the side effects of the vaccines versus the side effects of the animal formation of ivermectin. The prescriptions of ivermectin for people are much lower dosages and usually just associated with some mild nausea.



I know people are taking animal medicine because it's cheaper and more accessible, and they are trying to estimate the size of the dosage per body weight.  Since I don't "trust" anything outside of my personal experience, I cannot be conclusive about which is worse; taking animal drugs vs the vaccine--especially when the parameters of comparison are oblique.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Aug 25, 2021)

I disagree with the FDA. People not wanting to receive an FDA approved vaccination SHOULD use things like animal drugs, ultraviolet light injections, and bleach. Because something is better than nothing. Go! Go now! Just do it!


----------



## tabzer (Aug 25, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I disagree with the FDA. People not wanting to receive an FDA approved vaccination SHOULD use things like animal drugs, ultraviolet light injections, and bleach. *Because something is better than nothing*. Go! Go now! Just do it!



Is it? Maybe a collective non-reaction would have yielded net positive results by comparison.  We got people yelling in each other's face for not wearing a mask.  It's all very ironic and revealing of people's primitivity.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Aug 25, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Is it? Maybe a collective non-reaction would have yielded net positive results by comparison.  We got people yelling in each other's face for not wearing a mask.  It's all very ironic and revealing of people's primitivity.



Obviously WAY over your head. Like...Pluto distance above your head. But whatever.


----------



## ghjfdtg (Aug 25, 2021)

I'm not even sure why you people try to weight animal drug side effects against the vaccines. Like really? The former is not meant for humans while the later is.
I only got mild flu-like symptoms for a day on the second vaccine shot. It's not nice but it's not the end of the world. And most importantly it's proven to be effective. Taking random animal drugs is just nuts.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Aug 25, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Is it? Maybe a collective non-reaction would have yielded net positive results by comparison.  We got people yelling in each other's face for not wearing a mask.  It's all very ironic and revealing of people's primitivity.


I think he was sarcastic..


----------



## tabzer (Aug 25, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Obviously WAY over your head. Like...Pluto distance above your head. But whatever.



Pluto would only be above me if the earth was flat.  Are you one of those flat-earthers?



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> I think he was sarcastic..



Yes, I know.  But he also presented a point of ignorance that isn't commonly addressed.  I found that more interesting.



ghjfdtg said:


> I'm not even sure why you people try to weight animal drug side effects against the vaccines. Like really? The former is not meant for humans while the later is.



I'm not entirely sure who you are talking to, can you clarify _*"you people"*_?


----------



## ghjfdtg (Aug 25, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I'm not entirely sure who you are talking to, can you clarify _*"you people"*_?





tabzer said:


> I know people are taking animal medicine because it's cheaper and more accessible, and they are trying to estimate the size of the dosage per body weight.  Since I don't "trust" anything outside of my personal experience, *I cannot be conclusive about which is worse; taking animal drugs vs the vaccine--especially when the parameters of comparison are oblique.*



In my opinion this question should not exist in the first place because *animal* vs. human drugs.


----------



## tabzer (Aug 25, 2021)

ghjfdtg said:


> In my opinion this question should not exist in the first place because *animal* vs. human drugs.


Right, the idea that drugs for animals are drugs for animals.  Nobody here has been contesting that.  @subcon959 did make a relevent point of ivermectin being a worthy of research.  People don't take horse de-wormers because it's made for horses.  People take it because they have more confidence in ivermectin than they do in the vaccine.  So much that they'd take a medicine made for a horse.

So, when you said _*"you people",*_ it doesn't seem to apply to anyone in this thread.

Also, my statement was not a question.  It was an emphasis that there is no baseline for comparison.

QQ Do people actually believe that animals and humans exist in different planes and scientific laws apply differently to them? 

If I market "Water for Dachshunds", will people buy it without question, or do I need FDA approval first?   Anyone's input is welcome.  Obviously @ghjfdtg hasn't thought so much.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Aug 25, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Pluto would only be above me if the earth was flat.  Are you one of those flat-earthers?



Distance from your head is still relevant regardless of your location.



> Yes, I know.  But he also presented a point of ignorance that isn't commonly addressed.  I found that more interesting.



No, you clearly did not know. But, yeah. Ignorance? So says one of THE most ignorant people on all of GBAtemp, which HAS been commonly addressed.



> I'm not entirely sure who you are talking to, can you clarify _*"you people"*_?



I'll answer that much more clearly for you. It's referring to ignorant morons like yourself.


----------



## tabzer (Aug 25, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Distance from your head is still relevant regardless of your location.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you have nothing relevant to say, then it is probably better that you didn't try to say anything.

The artistic public display of angst is commendable in its own way though.

FYI (as in stating what should be obvious), I'm pretty forward about my ignorance.  It's not something I attempt to conceal as it's usually how I open with my comments.  What baffles me is how you could think that it would make you less ignorant by ridiculing it.


----------



## impeeza (Aug 25, 2021)

don't stop them, if they want to kill self; less people to contaminate the air and water and more food for all us.


----------



## DinohScene (Aug 25, 2021)

Stay civil people.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 25, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Right, the idea that drugs for animals are drugs for animals.  Nobody here has been contesting that.  @subcon959 did make a relevent point of ivermectin being a worthy of research.  People don't take horse de-wormers because it's made for horses.  People take it because they have more confidence in ivermectin than they do in the vaccine.  So much that they'd take a medicine made for a horse.
> 
> So, when you said _*"you people",*_ it doesn't seem to apply to anyone in this thread.
> 
> ...


There is a bit of a logic jump here. The vaccine has been taken by hundreds of thousands of people, and had a measurable impact across the globe. Ivermectin has been used in tens of thousands of people, and has yet to be a clearly effective treatment for those who are already ill.

Intent for horses and all that craziness aside (and it is crazy, human physiology is quite different), pushing unproven treatment on boards full of young and/or ignorant gamers is harmful disinformation. You claim to be ignorant about the subject, and while I know some individuals have been hot headed in their replies, it comes from a place of concern for others that unfounded claims don't get perpetuated by those who don't know better,  or worse, have a political slant that benefits from such misdeeds. Leave it be, comrade.


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 26, 2021)

This study in Argentina (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04701710) at the end of last year was the reason I wanted to see further large scale trials but it never happened. It was used prophylactically in frontline healthcare workers and seemed to have positive results in preventing the people in the experimental group from contracting Covid-19 as compared to those in the control group - 3.4% to 21.4%. Then when that didn't happen I saw some promising smaller trials that showed it could be beneficial in combination with other drugs as a treatment but nothing came of that either. I just hope either of the 3 molecules that the WHO Solidarity Trials are currently investigating show at least some reactivity and they aren't just wasting time and money on dead ends.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 26, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> This study in Argentina (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04701710) at the end of last year was the reason I wanted to see further large scale trials but it never happened. It was used prophylactically in frontline healthcare workers and seemed to have positive results in preventing the people in the experimental group from contracting Covid-19 as compared to those in the control group - 3.4% to 21.4%. Then when that didn't happen I saw some promising smaller trials that showed it could be beneficial in combination with other drugs as a treatment but nothing came of that either. I just hope either of the 3 molecules that the WHO Solidarity Trials are currently investigating show at least some reactivity and they aren't just wasting time and money on dead ends.



Dear sir, it is because they don't want to waste their time on wild goose chases that they have ceased looking into the dead end in question. The fact that there was a major study that was falsified and lead to several smaller studies that depended on the faked data and was touted by several crackpot right wing "news" outlets as a viable repressed treatment makes it a terrifyingly effective piece of garbage for those who don't know better or desperately want an alternative. This makes it dangerous to repeat things like "This (not peer reviewed) study shows promise in x for treating y! Lets hope the BOOOGEYMANS and their INTERNATIONAL BABY EATING HATE CABAL don't stop it!!1". Let it go.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...vid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...claim-about-use-ivermectin-treat-cov/#sources

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consu...-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consu...-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19


----------



## tabzer (Aug 26, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> it comes from a place of concern for others that unfounded claims don't get perpetuated by those who don't know better, or worse, have a political slant that benefits from such misdeeds. Leave it be, comrade.



I don't subscribe to "good intentions" being a rationalization to be crazy and promote illiteracy.



Dakitten said:


> There is a bit of a logic jump here. The vaccine has been taken by hundreds of thousands of people, and had a measurable impact across the globe. Ivermectin has been used in tens of thousands of people, and has yet to be a clearly effective treatment for those who are already ill.



You say I presented a logic jump, but I'm still not seeing what you are talking about.  People would rather risk their lives with animal medicine than to trust Pfizer vaccination, despite all of the social pressure.  Or maybe it's due to the social pressure.  I'm not making the comparison between the two choices.


----------



## Dakitten (Aug 26, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I don't subscribe to "good intentions" being a rationalization to be crazy and promote illiteracy.
> 
> 
> 
> You say I presented a logic jump, but I'm still not seeing what you are talking about.  People would rather risk their lives with animal medicine than to trust Pfizer vaccination, despite all of the social pressure.  Or maybe it's due to the social pressure.  I'm not making the comparison between the two choices.



There is no comparison,  and you have literally no valid sources that your proposed treatment is any good, let alone it being possibly dangerous. Like I said, one clearly works and one doesn't. Let it go.


----------



## tabzer (Aug 26, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> There is no comparison,  and you have literally no valid sources that your proposed treatment is any good, let alone it being possibly dangerous. Like I said, one clearly works and one doesn't. Let it go.



I'm not proposing a treatment and you are making the comparison.


----------



## cracker (Aug 26, 2021)

The huge irony in this is that people aren't trusting in Pfizer, Moderna, etc for vaccines, but they will trust in some MERCK horse meds.


----------



## tabzer (Aug 26, 2021)

cracker said:


> The huge irony in this is that people aren't trusting in Pfizer, Moderna, etc for vaccines, but they will trust in some MERCK horse meds.



I think, to the demographic, the main points of appeal are that the ingredients are less mysterious and have been in use longer (though for different reasons) and that the medication isn't administered via injection.

When it comes to trusting pharmaceutical companies, in general, though--I agree with your point.


----------



## Exidous (Aug 26, 2021)

Someone made the 'this is discrimination against furries' joke already right?


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 26, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Dear sir, it is because they don't want to waste their time on wild goose chases that they have ceased looking into the dead end in question. The fact that there was a major study that was falsified and lead to several smaller studies that depended on the faked data and was touted by several crackpot right wing "news" outlets as a viable repressed treatment makes it a terrifyingly effective piece of garbage for those who don't know better or desperately want an alternative. This makes it dangerous to repeat things like "This (not peer reviewed) study shows promise in x for treating y! Lets hope the BOOOGEYMANS and their INTERNATIONAL BABY EATING HATE CABAL don't stop it!!1". Let it go.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/science...vid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns
> 
> ...


I'm not going to address the politics as I'm starting to sound like a broken record regarding how little I care about the civil war in America (EDIT: meant to say except when it is) invading medical science. But I will quote the FDA article back to you,


> The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19; however, some initial research is underway.


It is pretty standard to discourage use of any drug where there hasn't been large scale peer reviewed studies for anything other than the indicated use. They would've said the exact same thing about a newly proposed vaccine if people started self-injecting it before the relevant data was obtained for review. You may consider new research a waste of time, but that's not how I see it as I know several people with compromised immune systems that are not being offered the vaccines and are desperate for alternatives. I already mentioned the WHO trials and I hope to see more existing drugs added to the list.


----------



## ghjfdtg (Aug 26, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Right, the idea that drugs for animals are drugs for animals.  Nobody here has been contesting that.  @subcon959 did make a relevent point of ivermectin being a worthy of research.  People don't take horse de-wormers because it's made for horses.  People take it because they have more confidence in ivermectin than they do in the vaccine.  So much that they'd take a medicine made for a horse.
> 
> So, when you said _*"you people",*_ it doesn't seem to apply to anyone in this thread.
> 
> ...


No one here is against research but taking drugs formulated for animal bodies simply is stupid when there is an approved vaccine available that has been well tested. And no, animal bodies can't be compared to ours. They are close but don't work exactly the same way.

And by the way comparing water with drugs is nonsense too.


----------



## subcon959 (Aug 26, 2021)

ghjfdtg said:


> No one here is against research but taking drugs formulated for animal bodies simply is stupid when there is an approved vaccine available that has been well tested. And no, animal bodies can't be compared to ours. They are close but don't work exactly the same way.
> 
> And by the way comparing water with drugs is nonsense too.


Can we not conflate different formulations of Ivermectin to make the arguments for the vaccine? I appreciate you may be responding to other people but I don't want the information to be inaccurate. Let me try to sum it up in points.

The vaccine is approved and should be taken by everyone who is medically able to do so.
Nobody should be taking animal versions of any drugs.
Ivermectin has perfectly safe indications for human use when prescribed for certain parasites.. the keyword being prescribed.


----------



## Kurt91 (Aug 26, 2021)

ghjfdtg said:


> No one here is against research but taking drugs formulated for animal bodies simply is stupid when there is an approved vaccine available that has been well tested. And no, animal bodies can't be compared to ours. They are close but don't work exactly the same way.
> 
> And by the way comparing water with drugs is nonsense too.


*ahem* Some of us literally cannot take the vaccine, let me remind everybody AGAIN.

Look, I can see the thought process going on. "Ivermectin is being looked at as a possible treatment or as a possible aid in treatment. I cannot or do not want to take the vaccine, whether it be literally cannot take it or I still don't trust it for whatever reason. This product contains primarily Ivermectin, which is still being looked at, meaning it's a possibility. A long-shot, but still a possibility. I'm afraid of catching COVID, so small doses of this may work as a preventative measure."

The vaccine is currently the only "solution" being pushed heavily through peer pressure online (look at this thread) and through media. While this does help encourage people to take the vaccine, it also helps instigate fear in those who cannot take the vaccine. So, when people are afraid and all visible signs point to the general public not being concerned at all for people incapable of taking the vaccine and not even showing any attempt at all at looking for a possible alternative for those people, they're going to jump on any possibility or alternative they can find. After all, if I'm pretty much certain to die of COVID if I catch it, then at that point, what have I got to lose?

(Note that this is not an endorsement to take the aforementioned horse medicine as a treatment. I'm simply explaining the possible thought process behind it.)


----------



## Exidous (Aug 28, 2021)

Here's the progresion

Pre-exposure
|
*Vaccination*
|
Exposure
|
*Early treatment*
|
Severe illness
|
*Late treatment*

We want good options in all of the bolded slots. The nattering against treatments, early on, was likely motivated by people thinking the vaccines needed to be pushed harder. And the option to get treated after infection reduces the incentive value of the vaccine, from only-hope to preventative.

But at this point we have drugs recognized as effective in all those categories (certainly the first two). Dumping on treatments in order to encourage vaccination isn't realistically going to move the needle on vaccination rates anymore. Last I checked, Regeneron and Remdesivir were both expressly endorsed by U.S. health agencies as treatments.

The FDA is being cute with this, I suspect motivated by the same impulse to be downbeat on treatment, in order to boost vaccination. But to the extent an animal version of a human drug is just the same ingredients in a different concentration, the same manufacturing apparatus can be trivially reconfigured to make the human version, if not the drug itself can be (modified to be) used. 

Early on, I was concerned enough to read up on treatments - remdesivir is a human formulation whose key ingredients are identical in cat coronavirus treatments they use in China. In a pinch, if someone in my family fell ill at the time, I wasn't going to be cute about the practicality of getting a viable treatment.


----------



## tabzer (Aug 28, 2021)

Exidous said:


> Here's the progresion
> 
> Pre-exposure
> |
> ...



Replace "vaccination" with "prophylaxis" because "the more the merrier".  And no, I won't share my immortality fruits.


----------



## console (Aug 28, 2021)

I can't believe it's flood news on internet about horse paste. My mom said news are lies to us. Don't listen to FDA. FDA rules are outdated need to do test in labs then must be passed test for to cure Covid-19.

My mom bought horse paste from farm store and use on her husband that he got Covid-19 from his work last week. It's working very faster like 2 to 5 days. He feel much better, fever broke down, get taste back.

If virus hit me and my family then would take horse paste to stop Covid-19. It's miracle to save our and people life. 

Vaccines have dangerous something inside know to have side effects can be fatal for some people without know.


----------



## subcon959 (Sep 7, 2021)

Looks like some of the shit is finally hitting the fan.. https://aapsonline.org/aaps-letter-to-ama-re-ivermectin-and-covid/

https://needtoknow.news/2021/09/tok...-while-the-ama-in-the-us-discourages-its-use/


----------



## ZeroT21 (Sep 7, 2021)

Guess the ''for Animal Use Only'' label don't apply here


----------



## subcon959 (Sep 7, 2021)

ZeroT21 said:


> Guess the ''for Animal Use Only'' label don't apply here


It applies to the people who are stupidly taking the animal formulations of drugs.

This is something different.

A letter from the director of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (to the director of the American Medical Association) to clarify the stance on a drug that appears to have therapeutic value in a clinical setting seems about as legit as you can get. It was only 6 years ago the discovery of the parent drug "Avermectin" won the Nobel prize for medicine as a anti-parasitic _for people_, so it's a bit misleading to keep only calling it a horse de-wormer.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 7, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Looks like some of the shit is finally hitting the fan.. https://aapsonline.org/aaps-letter-to-ama-re-ivermectin-and-covid/
> 
> https://needtoknow.news/2021/09/tok...-while-the-ama-in-the-us-discourages-its-use/



AAPS cherry picks information and is untransparent about their donors and the people behind it, as such it should be treated with caution. Most of the studies that "are favorably" for ivermectin are in vitro only, meaning in a petri dish and not in a living body.

Unless more controlled studies with living beings (and preferably humans) are done the AMA is correct in being hesitant to allow it for people.


----------



## subcon959 (Sep 7, 2021)

RAHelllord said:


> AAPS cherry picks information and is untransparent about their donors and the people behind it, as such it should be treated with caution. Most of the studies that "are favorably" for ivermectin are in vitro only, meaning in a petri dish and not in a living body.
> 
> Unless more controlled studies with living beings (and preferably humans) are done the AMA is correct in being hesitant to allow it for people.


This isn't about cherry-picking information, it's about first hand experience by actual doctors. I wouldn't personally dismiss all the clinical evidence just because it's not a controlled study, but if nothing else it should provide an incentive to do further research. The AMA don't even want to entertain the notion that further studies are warranted.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 7, 2021)

I guess Joe Rogan was big on pushing Ivermectin for a while, but then when he actually caught COVID, he went straight for the monoclonal antibodies treatment instead.  That's the biggest problem with all these talking heads: it's always "do as I say and not as I do."  Most of them got vaccinated the very second it was available to them, but they have no problem telling their listeners/viewers to eat Tide Pods and drink paint if they think it'll get them better ratings.


----------



## subcon959 (Sep 7, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I guess Joe Rogan was big on pushing Ivermectin for a while, but then when he actually caught COVID, he went straight for the monoclonal antibodies treatment instead.  That's the biggest problem with all these talking heads: it's always "do as I say and not as I do."  Most of them got vaccinated the very second it was available to them, but they have no problem telling their listeners/viewers to eat Tide Pods and drink paint if they think it'll get them better ratings.


I'm pretty sure he said that he took Ivermectin as well as monoclonal antibodies and IV vitamin C+D and something else that I can't remember.

Edit: Also, it wasn't him that pushed Ivermectin but his guest the evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein and the Intensivist doctor whose name I always forget.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 7, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I'm pretty sure he said that he took Ivermectin as well as monoclonal antibodies and IV vitamin C+D and something else that I can't remember.


Yeah he says a lot of things, but I'd be very surprised if he took Ivermectin at all, and even if he did, he obviously wasn't very confident in it.  This way though he gets all the recovery benefits of monoclonal antibodies, and he can continue the grift by claiming it was all thanks to Ivermectin instead.


----------



## subcon959 (Sep 7, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yeah he says a lot of things, but I'd be very surprised if he took Ivermectin at all, and even if he did, he obviously wasn't very confident in it.  This way though he gets all the recovery benefits of monoclonal antibodies, and he can continue the grift by claiming it was all thanks to Ivermectin instead.


I don't see the point of speculating either way, but I haven't once seen him personally advocate Ivermectin (been a regular watcher for about 7 years mostly because he gets cool guests like Egyptologists). In fact, he drones on and on about nothing other than fitness and exercise being the best way to prepare against illness. I don't watch American news though so I have no idea if he is just misrepresented or what.


----------



## Exidous (Sep 8, 2021)

The two FDA approved treatments, remdesivir and regeneron (monoclonal antibodies) are both very expensive. 

Remdesivir works because it impedes viral replication within cells. Monoclonal antibodies are what they sound like: human immune material sourced artificially.

There's eagerness to find something available over the counter (aka cheap) that's at least somewhat effective. Unfortunately that's akin to finding a drug to cure the common cold - viruses are very simple organisms and aren't generally susceptible to direct treatment that's not also harmful to human cells. I don't know if ivermectin is such a drug, but it fits the price profile anyway...


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 8, 2021)

What a relevant thread for a fucking gaming website.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 8, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> This isn't about cherry-picking information, it's about first hand experience by actual doctors. I wouldn't personally dismiss all the clinical evidence just because it's not a controlled study, but if nothing else it should provide an incentive to do further research. The AMA don't even want to entertain the notion that further studies are warranted.



Are they actually doctors in fields that know how this medicine interacts with patients and are able to conduct double blind studies to ensure it's actually the medicine helping and not just a placebo effect? That's what I mean with them being nontransparent about the people behind them.
Double-blind studies are also preferred because the human brain is made to recognize patterns, particularly ones they expect. Hence the requirement that not even the actual physicians and doctors treating the patients during these studies know if the medicine they give the patients is the real deal or a placebo. A collection of independent physicians and surgeons is not going to be able to do those studies independently between themselves to the requirements a clinical trial needs.

It's also not the AMA's place to mandate more studies, but they're still undergoing. The AMA actually says that clinical trials are still needed before a recommendation can be made:



> From: https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering...-should-not-be-used-prevent-or-treat-covid-19
> 
> “Clinical trials and observational studies to evaluate the use of ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19 in humans have yielded insufficient evidence for the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel to recommend its use,” the CDC health alert explains. “Data from adequately sized, well-designed and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.”



If the AAPS wishes to conduct a clinical trial on the effects of ivermectin I'm confident they can find the people in their organization and do it properly in a coordinated effort, but just pointing at in vitro observations when there have already been preliminary clinical trials suggesting it's ineffective is just pointless and unhelpful.


----------



## subcon959 (Sep 8, 2021)

1234567890987654321 said:


> What a relevant thread for a fucking gaming website.


It's in the *World News, Current Events & Politics* section so makes sense no?


----------



## subcon959 (Sep 8, 2021)

RAHelllord said:


> If the AAPS wishes to conduct a clinical trial on the effects of ivermectin I'm confident they can find the people in their organization and do it properly in a coordinated effort, but just pointing at in vitro observations when there have already been preliminary clinical trials suggesting it's ineffective is just pointless and unhelpful.


I don't know why you keep bringing up in vitro observations when I'm talking about clinical evidence. The in vitro stage was already promising enough to warrant clinical trials and those have been ongoing throughout the world. I can find far more trials that show some efficacy than those that are inconclusive, and again I'm willing to trust the doctors over the bureaucrats and media on these sorts of matters (even anecdotally). I fully accept I have a bias here having dealt with organisations like GMC (UK's equivalent to AMA) and being left frustrated. I just don't want to see any possible candidates being dismissed because of their political association before the actual work has been done with large scale studies. There's no reason the funding can't be found to do this alongside the contracts awarded to develop new antivirals.


----------



## Stealphie (Sep 10, 2021)

Taking animal drugs to own the libs


----------



## ClancyDaEnlightened (Sep 22, 2021)




----------

