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.
>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.
moistofreason|4 years ago
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|4 years ago
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|4 years ago