[bonadrag]

> I just don't buy the international conspiracy to block ivermectin.

I agree, there is no conspiracy. It is just that when scientists, journalists and public servants are usually on the same side of the political spectrum, there is no need to central coordination (conspiracy). Society seems more polarized than recent times which leads to greater uniformity of ideas on each side.

Regarding Ivermectin, though the evidence was flimsy, it got quickly identified by one side as a problem because it put at risk some core beliefs on how to combat the pandemic (lockdowns, forced vaccination, sanitary passes). Even though the evidence for some of these beliefs were also flimsy or speculative.

[throwawaylinux]

The evidence was flimsy that vaccinations prevented trasmission of the disease, but that didn't stop all the "experts" spreading damaging misinformation about it though. Therefore evidence was not among the criteria that governed their decision making, so their decisions about ivermectin must have been motivated by something else.

[n4r9]

The evidence was not flimsy. Certainly not as flimsy as for Ivermectin.

VACCINES

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31494-y

> Our results demonstrate that vaccinations reduce susceptibility to infection as well as infectiousness, which should be considered by policy makers when seeking to understand the public health impact of vaccination against transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

> The SAR [secondary attack rate] in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% (95% CI 18–33) for fully vaccinated individuals compared with 38% (24–53) in unvaccinated individuals.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9807772/

> SAR was 35% and 23% for unvaccinated and vaccinated delta variant exposed contacts, respectively. SAR was 44% and 41% for unvaccinated and vaccinated omicron exposed contacts, respectively. Booster dose immunisation of contacts or vaccination of index cases reduced SAR of vaccinated omicron variant exposed contacts.

IVERMECTIN

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

> For outpatients, there is currently low‐ to high‐certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID‐19. Based on the very low‐certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low‐certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9308124/

> The evidence suggests that ivermectin does not reduce mortality risk and the risk of mechanical ventilation requirement. Although we did not observe an increase in the risk of adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding this endpoint.

[infamouscow]

> It is just that when scientists, journalists and public servants are usually on the same side of the political spectrum, there is no need to central coordination (conspiracy).

The last time this happened we created the Nuremberg Code.

[bavell]

I'll never forget how inhumanely some people were treated and how little some truly care for bodily autonomy. The coercion and gaslighting from all directions has been nauseating. The trust I lost in so many institutions wont be replaced anytime soon, perhaps ever.

What would a modern day Nuremberg trial look like?