Use of Ivermectin in Lagos

[35B]

Because, unfortunately, the promotion of Ivermectin has become tied to the dissemination of deliberate misinformation. And that includes some of those promoting it as a cure when there is, presently, no evidence supporting that proposition.

The difficulty for those arguing for extreme free speech is that the right of free speech is being abused by many of their apparent allies to spread lies.

That argument appears to boil down to 'if people are mixing true facts in with lies then the true facts have to be censored, even when put forward without mentioning the lies at all'. Is that really what you mean?

No, it's that there are times when the level of lies is such that it is probable that they are acting in bad faith and promulgating lies. Which, IMHO, is what the Ivermectin advocates have been doing.

But that's because most people know what the 'correct' dosage of paracetamol is, or can easily find it by going to 'official' sources.

I've honestly no idea what the dose of ivermectin should be, so I'd have to look it up, and if 'official' sources aren't going to tell me, I'd probably end up looking at unofficial sources, which yes, may be wrong. And as you can't trivially get it in human form, yes people are taking the animal form, which presumably doesn't have the correct information on the box/leaflet as to how much a human should take.

I really think this is an argument *against* censorship.

I think a lot of this diverts though from the lack of any good quality information from a trial that Ivermectin does actually work against Covid.

Yes, I agree. I think it is truly appalling that we don't yet have this information, given how long it has been suggested for that it may be helpful.

Alternatively, you need to consider that this drug is simply not effective for Covid, no matter how much some people assert to the contrary. I can suggest all I like that drinking whisky makes me drive better, but if the evidence is that it does the opposite, I need to accept that - no matter how inconvenient I find it.

If I had worms, I would gladly take Ivermectin - because that's what it's good for. But I wouldn't take it for Covid, because (a) the trials haven't shown it makes a blind bit of difference and (b) the basic science strongly suggests that it wouldn't work anyway. Which takes us back round to censorship - we restrict the claims that companies can make for products, so that they can't state falsehoods. The same ought to apply here - if a claim is to be made about a drug working, it needs to be backed up by evidence.

I find it interesting that the same people who are highly scpetical about vaccinations which have gone through the full clinical trial process, often citing the rapid development and lack of evidence of long term side effects as reasons are extremely positive about alternative treatments which lack much clinical evidence and are not reccomended by the medical establishment.

Precisely.

 

[pelli]

And yes, in general I would rather take a tried-and-trusted medicine that has been on the market for many years over one that has barely been around for a year. I would also in general prefer to take a medicine than a vaccine in such circumstances - if a medicine gives you bad side-effects, you stop taking it and they usually go away again - that doesn't apply to a vaccine.

This logic doesn't sound right to me. Both medicines and vaccines can give you temporary side effects or permanent side effects, and it's not clear to me why, fundamentally, vaccines (which are supposed to emulate a foreign entity to trigger a natural immune reaction) are more likely to cause permanent side effects compared with medicines (which are supposed to kill foreign entities directly or artificially modify the natural function of the human body).

In general, I can see how, if there's a lack of sufficient safety data, medicines that treat a disease are preferable to vaccines that prevent it, since the medicine would only be given to the people who are ill, rather than to the whole population.

On the other hand, for prophylactic medicines that mainly provide protection if you're already taking them by the time you contract the disease, you might find that taking not-fully-vetted medication regularly so as to keep its active ingredients permanently circulating in your body throughout a long pandemic is more risky than taking a few not-fully-vetted injections of a vaccine, whose ingredients supposedly leave your body within a week or two. In addition, if the interventions have already been administered to a very large number of people a while ago so that reliable statistics for serious short-term side-effects are already available, then I would definitely prefer the vaccine as I would not expect any new side effects to pop up months after the active ingredients have left the body, whereas for the medication I would still wonder about the cumulative effects of its long-term consumption.

 

[35B]

I'd take a different logic to the choice between a medicine and a vaccine. A vaccine, by it's nature, is designed to stimulate the immune system to resist future infection. Any side effects will therefore be apparent in fairly short order, with long term variability being about efficacy.

Medicines are shorter term in their effect, and also liable to accumulate. Therefore, questions of dosage volume, frequency and duration all become significantly more important in assessing both safety and effect.

Both than have the question of whether they are effective against their target. It's legitimate to question the long term efficacy of Covid vaccines, given both the waning that has been seen and the inherent lack of long term observation. However, that needs to be weighed against the lack of evidence for any effect from Ivermectin against Covid, and both need to then be weighed up against consideration of the risks of side effects. Given what is known about the action and likely required concentration of Ivermectin to be able to have an effect against Covid, that means balancing the certainty of dosages exceeding recommended levels against the limited odds of it actually doing any good.

 

[MikeWM]

This logic doesn't sound right to me. Both medicines and vaccines can give you temporary side effects or permanent side effects, and it's not clear to me why, fundamentally, vaccines (which are supposed to emulate a foreign entity to trigger a natural immune reaction) are more likely to cause permanent side effects compared with medicines (which are supposed to kill foreign entities directly or artificially modify the natural function of the human body).

Perhaps there is some degree of 'confirmation bias' in play here, as discussed recently elsewhere. I've taken medicines in the past that have had serious side-effects and they've gone away as soon as I've stopped taking them.

It does feel that messing about with your immune system could cause longer-term problems (eg. autoimmune issues) than side-effects from medicines, but I'm willing to concede my position on this issue quite probably needs more thought.

On the other hand, for prophylactic medicines that mainly provide protection if you're already taking them by the time you contract the disease, you might find that taking not-fully-vetted medication regularly so as to keep its active ingredients permanently circulating in your body throughout a long pandemic is more risky than taking a few not-fully-vetted injections of a vaccine, whose ingredients supposedly leave your body within a week or two.

I agree with this. I wouldn't recommend taking any medicine as a prophylactic for Covid - I certainly wouldn't with ivermectin, HCQ, or any other the other medicines under discussion. I'd keep it until I actually had the disease (or perhaps been in very close contact for a long time with someone who definitely had it).

I have taken vitamin D supplements daily since this all started, however - I see no downside to that - and vitamin C and zinc if I feel the start of a cold coming on.