[gzer0]

> Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud).

No, this is false. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous [1].

[1] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...

[bananapear]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that humans should take the animal version.

[javagram]

There are plenty of Facebook and YouTube guides about taking animal ivermectin as a replacement for human-rated medicine.

That said hopefully here on HN we can agree that is a dumb idea.

[inside65]

That's clearly not what the original post was suggesting and yet someone went out of their way to change the focus to the political narrative of taking animal dosages.

[cheaprentalyeti]

If the government were stupid and tyrranical enough to ban Human Azithromycin, and you came down with bacterial bronchitis, would you just die or would you go to the local feed store and buy some animal grade azithromycin?

[ceejayoz]

Ivermectin hasn't been banned in humans, though.

The situation is more akin to a few doctors deciding to prescribe azithromycin to schizophrenia patients without much evidence of efficacy, for which they'd be rightly at risk of trouble with their medical licenses.

[cheaprentalyeti]

I used Azithromycin for a reason, because until Covid Brand Viral Pneumonia came along, Azithromycin was considered a standard part of the treatment protocol for viral pneumonia just in case. And because of this study, which I suggest reading carefully. [0].

(And it's funny, that the surgisphere study that showed that HCQ didn't work was published straight away, even though the data was fraudulent? And a similar one that showed that ACE inhibitors didn't work too? They both got published in the Lancet straight away, and noone has any questions about _why_ that was done.)

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33465426/

[ceejayoz]

"Give antibiotics for pneumonia" and "give antiparisitics for pneumonia" are slightly different scenarios, yes?

[beamatronic]

That seems like a false choice

[UnFleshedOne]

The only reason for that is difficulty of getting prescription for human version and then difficulty filling it (because of blue pilled pharmacists). Remove those impediments and you'll reduce incidence of poisonings in half (from 4 cases total to 2)!

[tinus_hn]

It’s dangerous in the sense that there is no careful control like in medicine for humans, and it has not been approved for humans.

Obviously the fda would say this is the approved, safe medicine, so this other stuff is not approved and safe. The fact is that as far as the fda knows, they don’t know anything about if it’s safe or unsafe so they call it unsafe.

> the FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization

They must have a subscription to Rolling Stone.

But they have of course carefully chosen their wording. This could mean there were two people hospitalized that took ivermectin and got symptoms the hospital thought were due to that. But it turned out to be something else.

Just like the cdc, they have received ‘increased numbers of reports of side effects’. Wow, who would have thought if a 100 times more people take a drug, that would result in increased reports of side effects. The generic side effects that are also a side effect of placebo, like headaches and nausea.