FDA says stop taking animal drugs for COVID

[Xzi]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

*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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

animal

 

[tabzer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 546149]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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

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]

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.