Ethical researchers will prematurely stop and publish a "no effect" result for any medicine that has bad effects. That is, unless the effects are so bad that they can't stop fast enough, and they get to measure a statistically relevant harm.

Thus seeing "no effect" places an upper bound on how good an effect you will see as "none", and a lower bound as "won't kill most people quickly". That's not a good space to gamble into.

It took almost an year until the scientific community settled down that HQC for treating COVID-19 is harmful. The actual formal result is still "no effect and doing more studies is anti-ethical" because nobody can tell exactly how harmful it is. Probably nobody will ever be able to tell (and that's a good thing).

We did this last year with hydroxychloroquine...all that happened was that some Lupus patients had a hard time getting their normal prescriptions filled.

The "bad effect" doesn't have to be strictly medical, and may not show up in studies. It could be that other people who need the medicine can't get it, it could be that it discourages people from getting the vaccine, it could just be that we are lighting a pile of money on fire for no reasons (that's bad, right?).

There is not really a limited supply of this old, cheap, generic medication that we routinely feed to livestock.

If you are concerned about wasting money, consider that for one dose of (also unproven!) medication like convalescent plasma you could buy about a thousand doses of generic, cheap drugs like ivermectin. And that has been tried about 500000 times, still is unproven but is not considered controversial.

So your argument is that it's a small pile of money we're lighting on fire so who cares? Not particularly compelling.

Sorry, it was your argument that the small pile of money was a large pile of money. Which it isn’t. And ‘lighting on fire’? Do you also step on the barricades when people waste their own money on homeopathic ‘medicine’?

I mean, yes, I do think homeopathic medicine is a net negative on society, and I complain about it as/when necessary. And I don't see the word "large" in front of "pile of money" in my above comment...

If you really do go around complaining about people taking expensive water because they think it helps them with their health problems perhaps you should try minding your own business a bit more. I’m sure there’s plenty of things to improve in yourself before you start pointing out other peoples problems.

> all that happened was that some Lupus patients had a hard time getting their normal prescriptions filled.

Could we actually not manufacture enough of it, or were activist pharmacists just refusing to fill prescriptions of it?

If iver is a good gamble, then wouldn't the vaccine be a better gamble?

After all, unlike iver, there is very good hospitalization data about vaccinated vs unvaccinated now.

This is true, but just because the two are on opposite sides of the culture war doesn't mean they're medically mutually exclusive.

Actually, it does.

The only reason one would be taking iver prophylactically, is because one wasn't vaccinated. And the only reason to take iver after covid symptoms develop is because you didn't take the vaccine.

If one was vaccinated and are feeling sick enough to take iver, she would be better off with oxygen and hospital SOC.

It seems like you're just saying you don't believe ivermectin works? That's fine and likely correct, but logically it's completely unrelated to its mutual exclusivity to the vaccine.

For instance, if you get tetanus after having the vaccine, you'll still be given antibiotics. If someday ivermectin is proven to have a positive effect against Covid, we won't withhold it from vaccinated patients.

The vaccines are not sterilizing, which means they do not stop you from catching or spreading the virus. It seems to me that any drug that is actually a prophylactic for covid would be a massive improvement.

I didn’t realize the lottery gave out different odds based on political affiliation.

Do republicans or liberals get better probabilities? Or is it only for Covid related odds?

I think you may have replied to the wrong comment, or at least, I can't figure out how yours relates.

Be very careful how much you take: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...

Remember that the in vitro study that gets cited a lot used a concentration that would be lethal in humans.

Poison control center calls are not poisonings. There were no significant increases in hospitalizations due to ivermectin. It's a fear-mongering article.

googling for "ivermectin hospitalizations" shows actual hospitalizations from ivermectin.

Maybe they are not "significant" enough for you.

Anyways, I've seen enough "iver" posts on [1] to keep me away from it.

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/

Lol, parent comment was edited so my comment is out of context.

The reasonable thing is get vaccinated immediately. You could also stick chili peppers in your butt, that probably won't hurt either. It has as much ability to help as horse dewormer.

Calling it horse dewormer is either propaganda, or just a plain bad faith argument. The inventors of this drug won a Nobel prize for the discovery and it’s use in humans. It’s recognized as an essential drug.

But people are purchasing the horse version. What is the conversion between a 50 mg tables and a tube of paste for a 1200 lb animal? By using the wrong formulation you run the risk of liver damage due to an overdose of ivermectin.

That's a straw man. These people are of course doing something dangerous but mainstream newspapers are routinely calling doctor prescribed Ivermectin 'horse dewormer'. Both 'camps' treatment of this subject has been a real low water mark and it looks like the science might be as well.

There's a good balanced article I recently read on this subject over at https://www.city-journal.org/ivermectin-sparks-yet-another-c...

...as a dewormer.

"Reasonable" based on what risk/effect-analysis? For what age group? I don't know how many 60 year olds browse HN but I'm not going to take either experimental treatment for a disease I don't even have any reason being scared of, based on the actual data we have. The more hysterical part of society can argue about this and inject themselves with whatever they like for all I care, just leave the rest of us out of it. Not everyone wants to live in fear and under dystopian rights restrictions.

I would like to meet you in a casino. Type "Invermectin side effects" into any search engine, read the links. These are "bad effects".

The fraudulent studies (y'know, including dead patients, patients that never existed, drugs that weren't administered and so on) have shown a good effect.

The real studies unfortunately showed no effect.

My advice to you; don't gamble. Ever.

You need a better argument than that to convince somebody to never gamble lol. Remember, it was also a gamble to trust the WHO not to use masks early in the pandemic. We are making gambles everyday.

>trust the WHO not to use masks early in the pandemic

That one was a very interesting story. The best informed people made rational decisions to mask up, semi informed believed the bad advice to do without, the least informed acted randomly.