Well, in Brazil, the president (Borsalino) is promoting ivermectin as covid treatment. I can tell you is not working at all.
I doesn't help at all. I have a coworker who as using ivermectin as prophylactic and went to ICU (he is recovering now).
I doesn't help at all. I have a coworker who as using ivermectin as prophylactic and went to ICU (he is recovering now).
That you have a friend that took it and went to the ICU is similarly meaningless. What dosage did he take? What other predispositions did he have? How badly was he exposed? What other treatments were used? Did he keep taking it throughout, or not? You say he's recovering now, would he have died without it, then?
This is an anecdote, and it is dangerous to generalize from it. I have several family members who seemed to respond well to Ivermectin, and recovered better than their initial condition would have indicated.
MAYBE BEER IS THE MEDICIN. BIG PHARMA IS HIDING FROM US.
Banning it from the top is not going to help most people.
Shall we ban water? Sometimes people don't dose that correctly either, and drown.
What a dangerous substance!
Let’s take vaccines. Covid itself has a risk of harm of around 1:100 for older age groups of requiring hospitalisation. Risk of harm for vaccines is established at around 1:200,000.
Ivermectin? There is no good data on the therapeutic index however it is a toxic substance with a low therapeutic index and a narrow therapeutic window.
The sensible thing given the available data is to encourage vaccination. Barring that, masks and social distancing. And of course there are places where both there is no vaccine supply, and social distancing is economically in feasible. Is this a use case for ivermectin? Most data says no because establishing TI and TW and ensuring adequate safety of dosing is logistically about as difficult as maintaining social distancing.
Good chat
If you look at any vaccine adverse events reporting system, you do indeed find the 1:200,000 number - as that's indeed where it came from - for all ~70 previous vaccines on the schedule (and adjusted for under-reporting - the raw numbers in the systems are in the 1 in millions in most cases).
The COVID-19 vaccines however, unadjusted, are in the low 1 in 10,000's.
Check any reporting system independent of country/region, you'll find the same massive safety disparity between COVID-19 vaccines and all other vaccines being tracked.
So, basically everything you've said is wrong.
https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/vaccine-report-overview...
That point being addressed, I would expect the elderly to have a lot more background adverse events, such as death. If we live 28835 days on average, 15 people in this vaccinated group are expected to die every day from non-vaccine causes, and heavily weighted towards the elderly. But I'm not even seeing death as a side-effect, and the number of adverse events among the elderly (who got the vaccine first and have had the lions share of vaccine administration) is actually less than among younger groups. This perplexes me and if anyone thinks they know the answer to this riddle, please share.
[Oh wait... there aren't as many elderly people. hits head]
But here too the reporting is open to anyone, and is voluntary. So chances of large under reporting is present here as well. Which is a bit scary..
I fucking love HN - downvoting valid questions for criteria.