[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)

[SketchySeaBeast]

I was just pointing out the inconsistencies in the argument - especially when people were clearly ready and willing to take it without guidance or supervision because they had come to believe it as some sort of COVID panacea.

To be clear, IVM was just another politicization. It was a rush decision to reject the obvious mainstream option and an attempt to find alternative treatments so that people could take a medicine with known side effects and unknown efficacy over one with known efficacy and unknown side effects, all seemingly because it felt better to be counterculture and was an act of defiance against "big {your adjective of hate here}".

After billions or doses and ever more research it's pretty obvious which side made the right call.

[moistofreason]

History will judge whether the vaccines were effective or safe. Both are highly debatable at this point in time.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/ed-dowd-millennial-age-gr...

[SketchySeaBeast]

I appreciate how he rejects the fact that there is a deadly virus as source for the deaths without evidence. "Then I verified that the deaths couldn’t be explained by the COVID delta variant." ....

Regardless, we do know that the vaccine saves lives, and what we definitely know at this point is there is going to be very little debate about how ineffective Ivermectin is.