[moistofreason]

Many major pharmacies in the US refused to fill prescriptions for off-label use of IVM, due to the media freak out about it…

Some people decided to go to farm supply stores and take the sterile bovine injectable form of IVM orally.

This whole situation would not have happened if social media, YouTube, and major news outlets didn’t make such a stink about using a drug. It has virtually no negative side-effects, over 40 years of safety track record, and is safely taken prophylactically for other uses around the world. Its efficacy has yet to be proven and there are conflicting studies on this, but its safety is not disputable.

[unclebucknasty]

>Many major pharmacies in the US refused to fill prescriptions

Many doctors also refused to write prescriptions for patients who requested a drug for which there was no reliable evidence. Seems a responsible position when there are other approved treatments available.

>but its safety is not disputable

It's not just a question of safety, but efficacy.

>situation would not have happened if social media, YouTube, and major news outlets didn’t make such a stink about using a drug.

The rabid disinformation and conspiracy theories around COVID played the primary role. From anti-vaccine conspiracies to hydrochloroquine to ivermectin to the full on politicization of what should have been strictly a public health crisis.

There was a deliberate sowing of mistrust in government and public health agencies/officials, which led to a wave of aggressive anti-science sentiment and a somewhat bizarre willingness for many to try anything except approved treatments.

That was the biggest "stink". It's against this backdrop that doctors/pharmacies had to make decisions about whether to grant prescriptions for unproven treatments.

[SketchySeaBeast]

Just because it's safe doesn't mean they should hand it out like candy to anyone who wants it.

[moistofreason]

They aren’t… they are refusing to fill prescriptions, you know, written by doctors.

[ceejayoz]

Pharmacists are also doctors, and are legally permitted to decline prescriptions in a number of cases, including believing it'll cause harm to the patient. Chronic pain patients experience this fairly frequently with opiate-skeptical pharmacists, for example.

[roenxi]

1) Did they believe that the medicine would harm the patient & why would they believe that? If there were any evidence it could, surely that would have been bought up loudly.

2) Is there a secret handshake or QR code we should be using to separate this new sort of "good doctor" whos prescriptions are good from these "bad but qualified doctors" whos prescriptions are bad? I have naively gone all these years believing that qualified doctors could prescribe treatments but it seems that there is some uncertainty on that point. How would you separate the two without relying on your own opinion?

3) If we are relying on our own opinion anyway and doctors can't agree, why is it the case that patients with the prescription can't make their own decisions based on their own risk tolerances?

4) Doesn't the prescribing doctor have a better understanding of the patients needs and situation than a pharmacist? The pharmacist isn't exactly doing an in-depth interview to make their decision, they stand at a counter and hand out drugs.

I'd put it to you that the behaviour of this hypothetical pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription ... is pretty poor. Verging on outrageous.

[ceejayoz]

1) "The FDA and CDC are explicitly saying not to take this for COVID" is a fairly significant form of evidence.

2) Who said anything about picking good/bad doctors? The prescription and the patient are what's being evaluated. A good doctor can make mistakes; a bad doctor can write plenty of reasonable prescriptions worth filling.

3) Because we've tried that as a society. It's where the term "snake oil salesman" originated. We decided correctly that it was a sucky setup.

4) My pharmacist has caught a drug interaction my doctor didn't. They likely have a more accurate record of what I'm currently taking, as well. You seem to be mixing up pharmacists and pharmacy techs; perhaps a visit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacist would be appropriate.

[roenxi]

1. Well, ok, but that is a different argument. You said that a pharmacist could refuse a customer in cases such as when the medicine caused harm. Is there any evidence that this medicine caused harm? We all know a bunch of people said not to take it, that is not something anyone is going to argue about.

3. So why are pharmacists immune to being snake oil salesmen but perfectly qualified doctors giving out prescriptions can be snake oil salesman? Is there something wrong with the system that qualifies ordinary doctors?

4. Are you suggesting that the reason the pharmacists were overriding this prescription is because there is an interaction with Ivermectin? I feel pretty confident you'd come off the worse if we check, but I'll admit I haven't.

[brokensegue]

Prescriptions which we know now would've been useless...

And even at the time large metaanalysis studies were saying it was useless

[cf141q5325]

Placebo effect is very real and the alternative for early COVID treatment is literally nothing. Ivermectin isnt quite as harmless as sugarpills, but its really close.

[brokensegue]

supplies of ivermectin are finite. it's a waste of money and involves non-zero risk.

But more importantly, medicine isn't in the business of selling sham cures. People can always take homeopathic cures or vitamin D if they want that.

[cf141q5325]

Ivermectin is off patent and extremely cheap, there is zero problem producing enough. And if i want to waste a few cents on a few tablets, thats my prerogative.

The risk is also far below aspirin. As to what you consider an acceptable placebo, why should anyone care? As long as we are all consenting adults, i would say mind your own business, would you?

Knowing that the more you try bossing people around, the more likely they are going to push back. Leaving us all in a non to friendly environment. So ask yourself, are you really willing to start societal conflict over denying people a non-harmful, not scares placebo?

[SketchySeaBeast]

Sorry, you're saying that every one (or at least the majority) of those people who tried to buy the livestock version had valid prescriptions and it was only the pharmacists standing in the way of the legitimate medical use?

[tux1968]

It became well known that getting it in a legitimate way wasn't possible, so those who were determined to get it, didn't even bother trying. If it was well known that you could get it by seeing your doctor, people would have gone that route, since it is much safer to take proper human dosage under supervision of a medical professional.

[SketchySeaBeast]

> since it is much safer to take proper human dosage under supervision of a medical professional

Well now I'm getting conflicting messages about its safety, compared to the user I originally responded to:

> It has virtually no negative side-effects, over 40 years of safety track record, and is safely taken prophylactically for other uses around the world. Its efficacy has yet to be proven and there are conflicting studies on this, but its safety is not disputable.

But regardless we come back to my original point - should it be handed out like candy just because they asked for it? Especially when its efficacy was questionable?

[moistofreason]

Quit it with the straw man BS. You can overdose on any substance. Taking a medication is always going to be safer under supervision.

My issue is that the use of IVM got politicized and as a result the will of many doctors and patients was undermined. A large number of the people who took it illicitly did it so because pharmacies stopped filling valid prescriptions.

If you want to talk about safety: The same crowd bitching about IVM happened to be the people pushing a vaccine with much less data supporting its safety and questionable efficacy on people under 50.

Their logic: - Mandate a new drug, using a new technology on the entire world, even though there were no real Phase III trials.

- Don’t look into prophylactic treatment options which are cheaper and known to be safe.

- Call anyone who studies anything else a conspiracy theorist and a quack

- Actively suppress peer reviewed articles that don’t follow the narrative. (Including refusing to publish or unpublishing work in major journals)

[FeepingCreature]

That is literally what it means. Sorry, since when do we refuse to sell people things that are safe, on the basis that we've decided they shouldn't ought to want it?