FDA says stop taking animal drugs for COVID

[D34DL1N3R]

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]

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



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

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]

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]

Stay civil people.

 

[Dakitten]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[subcon959]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[console]

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.