I don't listen to the first contractor or plumber on a big job, either. There is nothing special about the position or opinions of medical professionals that I shouldn't seek additional information or help.
How frequently do you think people consult more than one doctor when they are sick? I know people do it for expensive, chronic conditions like cancer, but I’m guessing that for urgent infections diseases the frequency is vanishingly small.
Maybe I'm a fan of science, of which there is NO evidence that Ivermectin works against COVID. It seems like maybe you're the one that bought into something.
These doctors are doing nothing more than profiting off the fear of their patients, while offering no value other than what might be argued is a placebo. That doesn't stop these people from infecting others around them.
If you are a fan of science, I’m sure you’ll acknowledge this.
The paper from Argentina around Ivermectin is already suspected of fraud. I won't hold my breath it'll end up with good results.
Edit: you dishonestly added the following to your comment after I replied:
“The paper from Argentina around Ivermectin is already suspected of fraud. I won't hold my breath it'll end up with good results.”
For what it’s worth, I’m not referring to that paper.
But again, if you understood science, you would know better than to make assumptions about the results of a paper you have never seen.
> there is no connection between hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin
You mean a connection like being pushed as a cure for the same disease while lacking any substantial, peer-reviewed data to back it up?
I think maybe we have different ideas of how science and the scientific method works.
> For what it’s worth, I’m not referring to that paper.
So you're not referring to any science at all, then? I'm unable to find any other published literature on the subject.
If you believed in science you’d know that’s a political connection not a scientific one.
> I think maybe we have different ideas of how science and the scientific method works.
Yes, you are mistaking politics for science.
More edits you dishonestly added after my reply:
“So you're not referring to any science at all, then? I'm unable to find any other published literature on the subject.”
> Yes, you are mistaking politics for science.
This isn't very convincing. What makes your position non-political or more scientific? Talk about dishonesty.
How is what any different?
> What makes your position non-political or more scientific? Talk about dishonesty.
What position have I claimed is non-political or more scientific?
So because Trump talked about the former that somehow makes it political? What a weak argument.
I think you should re-read the thread. The only person talking about Trump here is you.
What claim do you think I am making that you want me to explain?
In fact, if you had read the article you would have learned that they haven't ruled out ivermectin and are still researching it along with other treatments. If you want to take ivermectin they want you to be part of the study. This is how science works.
"The NIH is studying the drug in a large trial comparing a half-dozen established drugs to see if they have some effect against COVID-19.
Experts say those interested in ivermectin should ask about enrolling in such studies."
There is less than no evidence, and yet there are several studies already. It’s chloroquine all over again. The quacks are those who jump at any random drug, justifying the lack of evidence as a reason for their support, while decrying vaccines for a supposed lack of evidence.
A study being done is not a reason to support prescribing a drug.
Right wing politicians and right wing media politicized it to minimize impact of covid on the 2020 election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o
On the other hand democrats and CDC/FDA have been mostly following the real science.
[Citation needed]
Also, for those that are prescribing it, this is not an FDA approved treatment for Covid.
Most (all?) off-label prescriptions aren't FDA approved for that use, that's what makes them off-label. Prescribing drugs off-label is an acceptable practice, although it's generally higher risk to do so than with an FDA approved treatment as there's less information available.
I haven't looked into this particular off-label use, and it certainly has a lot of signs of poor advisability, but one way the medical community figures out what drugs work for conditions with limited treatment options is trying random things and reporting on what seems to work; then those things can be tested in more controlled situations.
Also, there aren't thousands of doctors doing that. If so I'd love an actual source.