Something worth noting - no matter how you look at it, the research community has royally fucked up when it comes to ivermectin
-
-
Yeah - there might be a case for testing things that are just publicly controversial, because using an ineffective treatment comes with an opportunity cost too.
-
Part of the problem though is that the most fervent evangelists (and their followers) won’t believe it unless it confirms their existing beleif. They’re already sowing the seeds, complaining that the Oxford trial is designed to fail.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This raises a question: Should we test potential treatments that don't have a plausible mechanism, in vitro activity in reasonable concentrations and other properties or plausibity demonstrated in other way just because they get popular due to a misinformation campaign?
-
I would say in this case there are at least poor quality studies supposedly showing an effect plus the drug is cheap and quite safe so in this particular case it should have been tested (and perhaps it would have reduced the hype). But where should be the line?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Are you able to read a graph? Everywhere that has been using ivermectin has reduced death rates and hospitalisations versus those that don't, from exactly the point they started administering the drug. This is basic common sense stuff. RCTs are not the only source of medical
-
Knowledge and progress. They never have been. They are a ridiculous demand in a crisis situation like a pandemic where time is of the essence. If a drug is safe then its a free shot at treating someone in the absence of ANY OTHER WESTERN INSTITUTIONAL OUTPATIENT PROTOCOL!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.