Current Events > So sick and tired of seeing ivermectin prescriptions

(+) Yeah! (+)

A dewormer would never work against a virus thats just common sense.

---

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

Because there's enough public interest to justify knocking it into its grave. Same reason hydroxychloroquine got so much attention. With a drug with no prior expectation of having the correct mechanism of action, they never spend so much time iterating on negative results.

it definitely may prove to be a waste of ressources but what else can you do, these anti vax movements are getting big so it needs to be done

ROOTFayth posted...

I know ivermectin has been pushed by the extremists anti vaxxers as a miracle cure and I'm not buying into it, my stance really is just that we shouldn't dismiss it on the basis that it's used as an anti-dewormer for animals and used for rosacea for humans, we should wait for the trials to end and then if it's effective, doctors get to prescribe it and we're good

I'm dismissing it because there's no prior expectation that it should work and all current evidence suggests that it doesn't.

I also know that you're not arguing genuinely, btw.

---

spikethedevil posted...

A dewormer would never work against a virus thats just common sense.

no offense but unless you do research on medication yourself you just have no idea what you're talking about

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

I'm dismissing it because there's no prior expectation that it should work and all current evidence suggests that it doesn't.

I also know that you're not arguing genuinely, btw.

nah I'm being serious here, this black and white approach people have on this board, mostly people who are social recluse is just getting a bit old

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

I'm dismissing it because there's no prior expectation that it should work and all current evidence suggests that it doesn't.

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials

The current evidence on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients is inconclusive. Until more data is available, WHO recommends that the drug only be used within clinical trials.


---

Irony posted...

Tbf chemo works on cancer and it's straight up just a concoction of different poisons

Cancer is just yourself though. You need something to kill yourself but only a little so you survive but the cancer dies.


---

There's no reason to use a drug with inconclusive results when one with conclusive results is widely available.

---

joe40001 posted...

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials

The current evidence on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients is inconclusive. Until more data is available, WHO recommends that the drug only be used within clinical trials.

Every negative result is "inconclusive". Exactly how many datapoints it takes for someone to say "this seems to not be working" is entirely subjective.

---

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

Every negative result is "inconclusive". Exactly how many datapoints it takes for someone to say "this seems to not be working" is entirely subjective.

I dont think its subjective no, theres a process to that

Inconclusive is a stupid term that technically applies to most stuff

---

ROOTFayth posted...

I dont think its subjective no, theres a process to that

It is entirely subjective, yes.

---

Antifar posted...

There's no reason to use a drug with inconclusive results when one with conclusive results is widely available.

*Mindless screeching from morons everywhere ensues*

---

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

It is entirely subjective, yes.

you need a proper sample size to get conclusive evidence on if any given treatment work or not, its not subjective, there may be an acceptable range but its certainly not just random people saying oh it doesnt seem to be working lol

Well this popped off

---

ROOTFayth posted...

you need a proper sample size to get conclusive evidence on if any given treatment work or not, its not subjective, there may be an acceptable range but its certainly not just random people saying oh it doesnt seem to be working lol

Sample size justification, and statistical tests of equivalence (rather than the more traditional tests of difference) require you to subjectively state an effect size such that if that effect existed it would be too small for you to care about.

It's a subjective judgement, and no matter what one person concludes, you could argue that a smaller effect could be meaningful in [some circumstance].

---

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

Sample size justification, and statistical tests of equivalence (rather than the more traditional tests of difference) require you to subjectively state an effect size such that if that effect existed it would be too small for you to care about.

It's a subjective judgement, and no matter what one person concludes, you could argue that a smaller effect could be meaningful in [some circumstance].

youre saying there is no process for approvalof drugs? just some who gauges the effects are good enough without providing numbers?

ROOTFayth posted...

youre saying there is no process for approvalof drugs? just some who gauges the effects are good enough without providing numbers?

I'm saying it's clear when something works, harder to know when it doesn't. Usually decisions to stop working on a problem happen pragmatically (due to time and money constraints) rather than certainty that the solution isn't correct.

---

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

I'm saying it's clear when something works, harder to know when it doesn't.

I still dont get how that makes it subjective, some drugs work 30% of the time, some 60%, some work 95%, none of that is subjective? what are we talking about?

@hockeybub89

Have you seen any weird rxs for albendazole? It's another anti-parasitic and we got an rx for it this week that was prescribed for a higher dose than it seemed it should have been, just like the bullshit ivermectin prescriptions. It was from a teledoc and they're fucking impossible to get a hold of so we just ordered it and filled it. I haven't seen anything about it being a new bullshit covid misuse medication, but I also don't really feel like digging deep into the ramblings of the idiots who espouse that shit.

Also despite us telling people off when they come in when Ivermectin prescriptions, CVS has been showering us with the stuff. I have something like 500 tablets in stock now. This would only be happening if other stores were dispensing it :(

---

We should consider researching taking massive amounts of sildenafil to combat COVID. Yeah, that makes no fucking sense, but nothing wrong with just asking questions! The drug is safe for something at some dose, so what's the worse that could happen? Politicians and radio hosts shilling it for months as the cure doctors are hiding from you, leading to bogus prescriptions, hoarding, and amputated penises?

---

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

I'm saying it's clear when something works, harder to know when it doesn't. Usually decisions to stop working on a problem happen pragmatically (due to time and money constraints) rather than certainty that the solution isn't correct.

Nah, man. We need to consider that literally every drug is the cure for everything until we do 10 year studies to explicitly disprove it.

Gakk86 posted...

@hockeybub89

Have you seen any weird rxs for albendazole? It's another anti-parasitic and we got an rx for it this week that was prescribed for a higher dose than it seemed it should have been, just like the bullshit ivermectin prescriptions. It was from a teledoc and they're fucking impossible to get a hold of so we just ordered it and filled it. I haven't seen anything about it being a new bullshit covid misuse medication, but I also don't really feel like digging deep into the ramblings of the idiots who espouse that shit.

Also despite us telling people off when they come in when Ivermectin prescriptions, CVS has been showering us with the stuff. I have something like 500 tablets in stock now. This would only be happening if other stores were dispensing it :(

Haven't seen any albendazole scripts. No one around here seems to be getting ivermectin in stock and every pharmacist I know is refusing to fill them anyway. We have like 1 package.

---

ROOTFayth posted...

I still dont get how that makes it subjective, some drugs work 30% of the time, some 60%, some work 95%, none of that is subjective? what are we talking about?

All scientific inference is implicitly deeply subjective, but my point is that saying "this doesn't work" is even more explicitly subjective, in that you need to state an effect size that even if it were real (!) you feel comfortable saying it doesn't matter.

---

yemmy posted...

And another person that thinks they are smarter than a real doctor because they browse Reddit and gamefaqs 6 hours a day

The lack of self awareness.
---

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

Every negative result is "inconclusive". Exactly how many datapoints it takes for someone to say "this seems to not be working" is entirely subjective.

No, negative results point towards something being conclusively ineffective. The link itself that he shared has examples of that at the bottom of the page.

Consistent negative results are considered conclusive.

jakehouse1996 posted...

No, negative results point towards something being conclusively ineffective. The link itself that he shared has examples of that at the bottom of the page.

Consistent negative results are considered conclusive.

All the studies on ivermectin have been negative.

But your point isn't really accurate. There's no set threshold when we know that something is not working. It's about examining the evidence, given your priors, and determining if it's worthwhile to continue trying more experiments.

---

Antifar posted...

There's no reason to use a drug with inconclusive results when one with conclusive results is widely available.

And this the the argument people should make against it, rather than lying about

1. It's safety profile,
The WHO recognizes as incredibly safe and "an essential medicine" for the purposes it is prescribed.

2. Acting like a drug having an animal formulation means it's an animal drug.
Obviously the only version the WHO and others are studying is the human formulation. But aspirin is given to animals, and we don't call aspirin an animal drug. Certain hormone based birth control pills are giving to dogs as a bladder control drugs, yet we do not call women who are on birth control, "people taking doggie pee pills". Acting like ivermectin is exclusively "horse paste dewormer" is bad faith. There is a difference between animal formulations and human formulations of medications, this is not my opinion, this is scientific truth recognized by every agency in the world,

There are plenty of sensible and true reasons to recommend against ivermectin. And I think this whole topic would get resolved quicker and crazies would listen better if lies weren't employed.

I believe people should be vaccinated. COVID is dangerous and at this time vaccines are far an away the most safe and effective response to them. But I think if you want to convince skeptical people of this, you can't lie to them, because if you say some things that are untrue people won't listen to the things you are saying that are true.

This has to be all I say on this subject, because while everything I said is 100% true and recognized to be true by the WHO and the scientific community, respecting nuance about the truth on subject such as these often leads to censorship on this site.

The censorship policy on these issues seems to be as follows "Don't defend thing that is bad", and "Don't attack thing that is good."

Vaccines are good and ivermectin is bad, and talking about them with any more nuance than this unfortunately often seems to get people censored online.

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

All the studies on ivermectin have been negative.

But your point isn't really accurate. There's no set threshold when we know that something is not working. It's about examining the evidence, given your priors, and determining if it's worthwhile to continue trying more experiments.

There are p-values for which we declare with a certain level of certainty that something is not effective. Just like there are p-values for which we declare something is effective.

jakehouse1996 posted...

There are p-values for which we declare with a certain level of certainty that something is not effective. Just like there are p-values for which we declare something is effective.

Equivalence tests, as noted above, require you to state an effect size such that if it existed, you wouldn't care about it.

Also, fyi, there's no such thing as a justified alpha level (threshold for p-value).

---

Ruvan22 posted...

He's a pharmacist? He doesn't go looking.. they come to him?

Why did I think he was a tech

---

^ @ROOTFayth

hmm?

Just do your job. Nobody really cares.

---

ROOTFayth posted...

hmm?

Read the username.

---

Trumble posted...

Read the username.

ah right, reported I guess

ROOTFayth posted...

ah right, reported I guess

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/573081-hellhole/79678091

Dathrowed1 posted...

Why did I think he was a tech

I am a tech, but I've been here forever. I talk with my pharmacists all the time about this stuff and have gained a lot more pharmaceutical knowledge through first-hand experience than some dopes on the Internet that heard Joe Rogan say a thing.

---

jakehouse1996 posted...

1. It's safety profile,
The WHO recognizes as incredibly safe and "an essential medicine" for the purposes it is prescribed.

No one has lied about this. A drug is not safe beyond the recommended doses in its usual course of treatment. Hundreds of drugs are on that essential medicine list. Again, a safe drug doesn't mean it can be taken in any dosage for any reason. Shouldn't we be advocating that every drug might cure COVID if that wasn't the case?

Water is essential to human beings, but you probably shouldn't drink 4 liters an hour or dunk your head in it for 20 minutes.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

I am a tech, but I've been here forever. I talk with my pharmacists all the time about this stuff and have gained a lot more pharmaceutical knowledge through first-hand experience than some dopes on the Internet that heard Joe Rogan say a thing.

If you aren't explicitly qualified in the relevant field: "You don't know what you're talking about"
If you are explicitly qualified in the relevant field: "You're just being paid off to say that"
If you're saying something they agree with, regardless of qualifications: "Oh disregard the above, you're 100% trustworthy"

---

So this topic is just this Root chud digging deeper and deeper yet still convinced he's the smartest little boy in the room?

---

Oh they're still on about that huh

---

DrizztLink posted...

So this topic is just this Root chud digging deeper and deeper yet still convinced he's the smartest little boy in the room?

another weirdo pops up

ROOTFayth posted...

hopefully antivaxxers turns out to be right,

They won't be. They never are.

ROOTFayth posted...

would be best for everyone really

Wouldn't be best for anybody, you sociopathic clown.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

No one has lied about this.

A great many people have implied if not outright indicated that "Ivermectin = Horse Dewormer" and thus they have lied about its safety as horse dewormer ivermectin is not safe for humans, but doctor prescribed human ivermectin is quite safe.

CNN claiming Joe Rogan took horse dewormer (also they doctored his video to make him look more sick)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UhZ4at2DIs

This is a bad faith representation. Ivermectin is no more exclusively a horse dewormer than water is exclusively a stain remover.

A drug is not safe beyond the recommended doses in its usual course of treatment. Hundreds of drugs are on that essential medicine list. Again, a safe drug doesn't mean it can be taken in any dosage for any reason. Shouldn't we be advocating that every drug might cure COVID if that wasn't the case?

Water is essential to human beings, but you probably shouldn't drink 4 liters an hour or dunk your head in it for 20 minutes.

Water is a good example. If I were to post this:

"Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.

Should I be concerned about Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and benzene), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful."

None of that is false, but is an incomplete and misleading representation of water. Anybody who is unable or incapable of distinguishing between animal formulations of a drug and the same drug prescribed by a doctor is operating in bad faith, being misleading, and should not be respected.

This includes CNN.

lmfao

---

I literally focused on your first point. I agree ivermectin is more than horse dewormer, but it being safe and essential doesn't mean jack shit about whether it works for COVID. Lots of safe and essential drugs are harmful beyond their normal dosing or dangerous/useless outside of their intended use.

---

ROOTFayth posted...

another weirdo pops up

To the insane, a sane person appears insane.

"Hey, why are you sitting on that couch instead of eating its lining with me?"

"Why are you taking the vaccine instead of taking Ivermectin like me?"

Cra. Zy.

---

TheChariot posted...

To the insane, a sane person appears insane.

"Hey, why are you sitting on that couch instead of eating its lining with me?"

"Why are you taking the vaccine instead of taking Ivermectin like me?"

Cra. Zy.

It ties into how he also thinks he's the smart one here.

Hard to measure reality with a faulty tool.

---

Well I'm the smart one here, and you all should do what I say

---

sorry sir

---