6 ms·

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

brokensegue 5y ago
Prescriptions which we know now would've been useless... And even at the time large metaanalysis studies were saying it was useless
- cf141q5325 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      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?
      - brokensegue 5y ago
        we require prescriptions for drugs for a reason. medicine should be evidence based. I am also upset that pharmacies sell homeopathic remedies. people selling snake oil hurt society and should be forced out. further there were supply problems with ivermectin when only a small portion of the population was trying to take it. a clinical trial on ivermectin was halted due to supply issues. imagine if it were recommended broadly.
        cf141q5325 5y ago
        The supply issues in the UK were nonsense. It was available in the market. Producing more would also not have been a problem. You also skipped over the the part of your opinion being not reason enough to start societal conflict. I do sympathies with your views, however any such behavior comes with a cost. And looking around we cant really afford more conflict over trivial things. Your feelings might not be important enough to add to the problem with no clear harm at stake.
        brokensegue 5y ago
        > You also skipped over the the part of your opinion being not reason enough to start societal conflict this is just a nonsensical argument. should we not push back against flat earthers because "what harm are they causing"? we should strive for an evidence based intelligent society. when morons push drugs without sufficient evidence the press and society at large should push back. too bad if Trump's and Joe Rogan's feelings are hurt. > Producing more would also not have been a problem It took months to get production of masks to sufficient levels.
        cf141q5325 5y ago
        That Ivermectin is somewhat a scares resource is nonsense, there were rather large countries that gave it out like candy with no problems. I can not overstate how cheap and easy to produce it is, quite different from masks. I would also be very doubtful many people would use an obvious placebo. Its also far from a nonsensical argument. This isnt about vocalizing your opinion and communicating facts but forcing the behavior of other people without an actual harm at stake. Those are two very different things. You also shouldnt force flat earthers on ship trips around the world just because they annoy you. As they will interpret that as a hostile action on your part and react in kind. Lets make the argument practical. Even with zero effect, I believe given enough motivation i could convince myself that Ivermectin has some sort of effect. Which would very likely induce a placebo effect. For something where there is zero home treatment options which makes it the best option available to me since i wont be able to convince myself of the benefits of homeopathics. All with neglect-able personal risk and societal impact. Differently put, a lot of what i do has higher risk and higher negative societal impact for zero upside as well. A placebo you however want to prevent me from acquiring because it annoys you. I do believe we can get most problems solved through a reasonable discussion, impact analysis, cost benefit analysis and last but not least cooperation. But you seem to think your feelings allow you to force me to do stuff that leaves me at a disadvantage (lack of a placebo) for no reason what so ever. This leaves me with the realization, that you are not interested in cooperation. Game theory tells me to stop cooperating immediately till you learned your lesson. Why shouldnt i? Because you get angry and start fantasying about more force? Unrelated how right you feel on this, i do not believe that we can get anywhere as a species if everyone acted as you do. At the end of the day, forcing people has a cost and creates a reaction. Or differently put, you cant fix stupidity by force. Especially since you might overestimate your ability to identify stupid.
SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    > 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 5y ago
      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)
ceejayoz 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacist would be appropriate.

Prescriptions which we know now would've been useless... And even at the time large metaanalysis studies were saying it was useless

cf141q5325 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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?
    - brokensegue 5y ago
      we require prescriptions for drugs for a reason. medicine should be evidence based. I am also upset that pharmacies sell homeopathic remedies. people selling snake oil hurt society and should be forced out. further there were supply problems with ivermectin when only a small portion of the population was trying to take it. a clinical trial on ivermectin was halted due to supply issues. imagine if it were recommended broadly.
      - cf141q5325 5y ago
        The supply issues in the UK were nonsense. It was available in the market. Producing more would also not have been a problem. You also skipped over the the part of your opinion being not reason enough to start societal conflict. I do sympathies with your views, however any such behavior comes with a cost. And looking around we cant really afford more conflict over trivial things. Your feelings might not be important enough to add to the problem with no clear harm at stake.
        brokensegue 5y ago
        > You also skipped over the the part of your opinion being not reason enough to start societal conflict this is just a nonsensical argument. should we not push back against flat earthers because "what harm are they causing"? we should strive for an evidence based intelligent society. when morons push drugs without sufficient evidence the press and society at large should push back. too bad if Trump's and Joe Rogan's feelings are hurt. > Producing more would also not have been a problem It took months to get production of masks to sufficient levels.
        cf141q5325 5y ago
        That Ivermectin is somewhat a scares resource is nonsense, there were rather large countries that gave it out like candy with no problems. I can not overstate how cheap and easy to produce it is, quite different from masks. I would also be very doubtful many people would use an obvious placebo. Its also far from a nonsensical argument. This isnt about vocalizing your opinion and communicating facts but forcing the behavior of other people without an actual harm at stake. Those are two very different things. You also shouldnt force flat earthers on ship trips around the world just because they annoy you. As they will interpret that as a hostile action on your part and react in kind. Lets make the argument practical. Even with zero effect, I believe given enough motivation i could convince myself that Ivermectin has some sort of effect. Which would very likely induce a placebo effect. For something where there is zero home treatment options which makes it the best option available to me since i wont be able to convince myself of the benefits of homeopathics. All with neglect-able personal risk and societal impact. Differently put, a lot of what i do has higher risk and higher negative societal impact for zero upside as well. A placebo you however want to prevent me from acquiring because it annoys you. I do believe we can get most problems solved through a reasonable discussion, impact analysis, cost benefit analysis and last but not least cooperation. But you seem to think your feelings allow you to force me to do stuff that leaves me at a disadvantage (lack of a placebo) for no reason what so ever. This leaves me with the realization, that you are not interested in cooperation. Game theory tells me to stop cooperating immediately till you learned your lesson. Why shouldnt i? Because you get angry and start fantasying about more force? Unrelated how right you feel on this, i do not believe that we can get anywhere as a species if everyone acted as you do. At the end of the day, forcing people has a cost and creates a reaction. Or differently put, you cant fix stupidity by force. Especially since you might overestimate your ability to identify stupid.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago

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 5y ago
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 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
    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)

ceejayoz 5y ago

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 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacist would be appropriate.