Hacker News Reader

Comment by jiofih | Hacker News Reader

Being proven right. That’s the anti-vac crowd’s dearest interest.

Ok, but let's not get confused. This is different than being an anti-vaxxer. You can speak up for something like Ivermectin AND be a pro-vaxxer. The most prominent voice on this is Bret Weinstein (biology PhD), who is more vaccinated than average. He and his wife and kids are vaccinated for the typical things plus typhoid, rabies, yellow fever... They are pro-vaccine and so am I. Vaccines are one of the best inventions ever.

You can, but you'd have to have some proof.

And so far we do not have any. So until then this story is pushed way further than it has any right to. Weinstein thrives on the censorship, but the fact of the matter is that there simply is no proven efficacy and until then this has no business being promoted to a mainstream audience who might get themselves into a lot of trouble, or who might forego getting vaccinated.

In my case that is far from the case. The implications of an effective treatment such as ivermectin are huge in that a) Covid passports go away b) Deaths and illnesses due to covid get reduced greatly c) It puts a spotlight on why these treatments have not had government sponsored clinical trials considering the ramifications. Incompetence in our governments in regards to these kinds of situations should not be tolerated. For example in Canada the province of BC allowed a trial to commence in may of this year and yet has not started. almost 2 years after the start of this thing? ivermectin has proven safe over the 40 years its been in use and if we try similar doses (which is the recommended for covid) there is all gain and no loss to test even as small trials. I would have certainly taken it since I had severe effects from covid. d) We don't have to have a phase 3 vaccine trial be a public trial where normally that is phase 4

That's the wrong side to look at this from. These are just people on the fringe with little influence and funding.

If ivermectin was authorized as a viable treatment the vaccines receiving emergency use authorisation wouldn't have been possible. There were and still are billions on the line.

I'm having difficulty understanding this line of reasoning. What does the authorization of ivermectin have to do with the vaccines? Xofluza, Relenza, and Tamiflu have been approved for treating influenza, and that has had no effect on the recommendation that people get their flu shots.

It's the way that emergency authorisation use works with FDA. They won't issue that if there are other safe viable treatments. These vaccines got that approval because these other options were suppressed.

>Xofluza, Relenza, and Tamiflu

None of them are as effective as Ivermectin (allegedly). It is only logical that efficacy is also important.

Someone else answered correctly saying an EUA can't be issued if an already licensed drug can help. I would further that point by saying to actually go dig up the true source of that policy on the FDA's website in your country (not someone's summary or interpretation). It's a great exercise that will leave you with some sort of ground truth in this mess.

Same as in coding, you eventually reach a point where you learn that when in doubt, you must read the source.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com