All I said was there was a disincentive and claimed it's being wrongly characterized as 'unsafe' by the company that brought it to market. Are either of those statements incorrect?
Yes. I believe it is factually incorrect that a treatment with the claimed efficacy numbers would have prevented an EUA, given the vaccines we got were both safe and more effective.
The vaccine is experimental and the full safety profile is still being discovered. The EUA specially requires that there is "no adequate, approved, and available alternatives". The conclusion: "large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin" suggests it may be a viable alternative to widescale deployment of a vaccine that did not go through the full approval process.
No, sorry. The linked study suggests a 60% reduction in deaths from this drug. Even if it were true, it is nowhere enough to be an adequeate alternative to the vaccines, that were both vastly more effective at reducing deaths and could also significantly reduce transmission.
If you got the first dose of vaccine and then presented with COVID (that does happen), a short course of ivermectin immediately could likely do you some real good.
That is totally irrelevant to the subject at hand: whether use of this drug would have prevented EUAs for vaccines. It clearly would not have, this is just a pure conspiracy theory.
I am double vaccinated. I'm not proposing ivermectin as a substitute for vaccination. It's a palliative which may reduce serious consequences if an unvaccinated (or partially vaccinated) person presents with COVID. In that case, a vaccination would not act quickly enough to develop immunity. Even early use of Ivermectin would not have prevented the EUAs, because around 30% of those taking Ivermectin develop serious COVID, some progressing to death.
The problem is the EUA argument preventing the use of Ivermectin, not the other way around.
You are missing the point. We now have some idea of the effectiveness. No one wanted to hear anything about Ivermectin for most of the past year. The world economies have lost trillions and some large portion of the 3.8 million dead were needless. Pharma companies knew there was a potential for Ivermectin and worked to discredit it because it was a threat.
No, "there is a worldwide conspiracy to suppress Ivermectin so that Big Pharma can make vaccines" is clearly a conspiracy theory, it's not a tautology.
Why the tinfoil? When the WHO and the CDC/NIH and public officials lie repeatedly and demonstrably you can not trust them. Sort of invites wondering what the game is, because it's not public health.
Giving the benefit of the doubt (that new evidence is compelling), that still doesn't retroactively justify anything. The information available in the past is not affected by the informative available in the future. If we discover that Bush irrefutably orchestrated 9/11, that doesn't make the conspiracy theorists' rationales more rational. It feels natural to make that connection, but that's only in service of our side-taking tendencies.
The problem is that the quality/quantity of evidence has not changed.
Plenty of folks have been drawing attention to the lab leak hypothesis way before it reached mainstream, and they were using the exact same arguments and facts that the mainstream is co-opting now.
The only difference is that Trump is out of office, so people are less afraid to associate with the idea that the Lab Leak Hypothesis is worth investigating
