[raphlinus]

Ok, I was confused by this line of reasoning, so did some digging. I believe it's one of the popular antivax disinfo conspiracy theories. Here's my reading.

The line of reasoning hinges on the vaccines being "experimental" and only being distributed under an Emergency Use Authorization, as opposed to a full approval. The FDA policies for EUA indicate they're only to be used when there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative. This makes a lot of sense - if (let's say) someone comes up with a new flu vaccine (an mRNA one, to continue this example, as that would be kinda exciting), you really want it to go through the full approval process instead of EUA, even if it is better. That's because we have plenty of good, approved flu vaccines.

So, the theory goes, if we had an approved treatment for Covid, then the EUA for the vaccines would be illegal. And so that creates incentives for the pharmaceutical companies to suppress a miracle cure like (they claim) ivermectin.

To anybody with the capacity for rational thought, this is obviously bullshit. We have fully approved treatments already, including remdesivir. The idea that a treatment for Covid, even a pretty good one, would make vaccines unnecessary makes no sense.

I am fairly confident in making the following prediction. Full FDA approval for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines is likely by the end of the year[1], at which point the above line of reasoning will no longer be applicable. Antivaxxers will smoothly transition to another line of argument.

I do think this "theory" is one reason you see a significant overlap between pro-ivermectin and antivax, for example in the comments of Bret Weinstein videos.

[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/covid-vaccines-what-full-fda...

[spfzero]

I think what has separated the policy around Covid, vs. say the flu, is the death rate. If the death rate were closer to the flu, or below some threshold that takes spread into account, the response would have been much different.

If a better treatment was available that would lower the death rate that much, it would change the equation.

[boredprograming]

Yes. Anybody trying to rationalize not getting one of the extremely effective vaccines will be grasping at straws for any other effective treatment. It's a natural outcome.

The vaccines are as effective as the one that eliminated smallpox. To be against it, you need some serious FUD

[ghoward]

FUD like the fact that the vaccines have had no completed studies on their long-term effects? Or being part of a demographic that has a low risk from COVID?

[jacquesm]

Yes, that's FUD. You can't have a completed long term study when a vaccine has not been on the market for a long enough term. That's pretty obvious.

[sjwalter]

Right, so how is it FUD if you simply want to avoid being part of a clinical trial? Vaccines take at least 7 years (usually 10ish) to complete long-term trials.

For young people, the cost-benefit analysis isn't clear at all--much less risk of anything bad at all from covid itself, plus far more years of life to lose or suffer from vaccine injury, which is a totally unknown risk.

To boot, the vaccines contain at least three entirely new technologies never before adopted in vaccine treatment.

[swader999]

The several newly minted billionaire Pfizer execs are certainly happy Ivermectin is only just recently starting to get a decent look.

[effie]

> vaccines being "experimental"

Under the PREP act, pharma companies have total immunity from liability. Why would that be. Maybe because the vaccines are still only in stage 3 of clinical trials? Because the long term effects are unknown because it hasn't been long? With worrying reports about side-effects including at least 5000 deaths in the U.S. VAERS database, do you think those quotes are appropriate?

> The idea that a treatment for Covid, even a pretty good one, would make vaccines unnecessary makes no sense.

Actually, it makes perfect sense to many people.

You are shooting down the weak version of this argument. I think you are confounding necessity from the point of view of the state and institutions with necessity from the point of view of many people.

You are correct that the state and health institutions do want to get people vaccinated regardless of other cures, the evidence for that is overwhelming and existence and availability of some alternative strategy/cure isn't going to stop immediately that intent.

However, if there was, hypothetically, an accessible and efficient medication/treatment with profylactic or curing effects for COVID-19, this would make substantial portion of population skeptical about getting the vaccine, especially now that the number of serious cases is low and manageable.