That a widely-disputed "leader" is "promoting" a treatment in a country as diverse and with as many systemic issues as Brazil, has no necessary bearing nor indication of that treatments actual use or resultant efficacy.
That you have a friend that took it and went to the ICU is similarly meaningless. What dosage did he take? What other predispositions did he have? How badly was he exposed? What other treatments were used? Did he keep taking it throughout, or not? You say he's recovering now, would he have died without it, then?
Eg, one of the most recent peer-reviewed meta-studies, whose authors include advisors to the WHO, just published in the Journal of American Therapeutics:
> I doesn't help at all. I have a coworker who as using ivermectin as prophylactic and went to ICU (he is recovering now).
This is an anecdote, and it is dangerous to generalize from it. I have several family members who seemed to respond well to Ivermectin, and recovered better than their initial condition would have indicated.
I am not saying it is definitely a great medicine for Covid and everyone should use it, but we must be careful to not mandate the opposite as well. Let individual patients make the decision to use it with help from their respective doctors. If there is a genuine beneficial effect, it will emerge naturally and more doctors will urge their patients to go for it. If there isn't, the opposite will happen.
Banning it from the top is not going to help most people.
Because a prophylactic means taking it regularly in order to avoid catching it, with the implication of the poster’s statement being that ivermectin, which carries significant risks when taken by a human at various doses, was the cause of the person going to ICU
Your absurdist attempts aside, the important thing to consider with a prophylactic medication is the therapeutic index.
Let’s take vaccines.
Covid itself has a risk of harm of around 1:100 for older age groups of requiring hospitalisation.
Risk of harm for vaccines is established at around 1:200,000.
Ivermectin? There is no good data on the therapeutic index however it is a toxic substance with a low therapeutic index and a narrow therapeutic window.
The sensible thing given the available data is to encourage vaccination. Barring that, masks and social distancing. And of course there are places where both there is no vaccine supply, and social distancing is economically in feasible. Is this a use case for ivermectin? Most data says no because establishing TI and TW and ensuring adequate safety of dosing is logistically about as difficult as maintaining social distancing.
Huh? Ivermectin has been in use for decades and administered in the billions of doses and had only a handful of associated deaths in that time. How to safely dose it is extremely well-known and established.
If you look at any vaccine adverse events reporting system, you do indeed find the 1:200,000 number - as that's indeed where it came from - for all ~70 previous vaccines on the schedule (and adjusted for under-reporting - the raw numbers in the systems are in the 1 in millions in most cases).
The COVID-19 vaccines however, unadjusted, are in the low 1 in 10,000's.
Check any reporting system independent of country/region, you'll find the same massive safety disparity between COVID-19 vaccines and all other vaccines being tracked.
Risk of serious harm from vaccines from a country where I trust the people a lot more than Americans is 1:3571 (based on 446,380 doses). Where are you getting the 1:200,000 from?
Let me add that these reports don't show cause, just correlation. Attempting to determine cause is very speculative and tenuous, and so all adverse events should be reported. So long as everyone understands the vaccines don't actually cause this many adverse events. To be fair, the same goes for COVID-19: deaths associated with COVID-19 are not necessarily caused by COVID-19.
That point being addressed, I would expect the elderly to have a lot more background adverse events, such as death. If we live 28835 days on average, 15 people in this vaccinated group are expected to die every day from non-vaccine causes, and heavily weighted towards the elderly. But I'm not even seeing death as a side-effect, and the number of adverse events among the elderly (who got the vaccine first and have had the lions share of vaccine administration) is actually less than among younger groups. This perplexes me and if anyone thinks they know the answer to this riddle, please share.
[Oh wait... there aren't as many elderly people. hits head]
Maybe, it depends on your opinion of the established safety profile of Ivermectin prior to its attempted maligning. It's a fair comparison to this commenter.
I'm working on a authorization protocol for IoT (ABAC+ReBAC and a little of RADAC). The main idea is to make it easier for non-tech people and secure (yes, everybody wants that), made the threat model and stuff - was my master's thesis, want to do a PoC to see if it sees sunlights ;)
Also working on a DataScience crash course with basic statistics, R, Python (Basics), Dataviz and webscraping (for journalists, biologists - for everybody).
Last, but not least, we have a music's group that is doing some visual + electroacoustic music (using supercollider and instruments). Our next step is to use Arduino and some other stuff.
Location: Foz do Iguaçu
Remote: Maybe
Willing to relocate: Maybe
Technologies: Sysadmin, RCHA, VMWare, RHEV, Checkpoint FW, more on my CV
Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacsonquerubin
Email: spacial AT gmail DOT com
