Comments by "Brandon M" (@brandonm949) on "New Study Answers The Ivermectin Question" video.

No one's banning ivermectin. If you can convince a doctor to prescribe it to you, then you can take it. These studies are just there to provide information.
2
@jefflittle8913 Sure, but it also says this: "...we recommend that ivermectin be considered as a preventive strategy, in particular for those at a higher risk of complications from COVID-19 or at higher risk of contracting the illness, not as a substitute for COVID-19 vaccines, but as an additional tool, particularly during periods of high transmission rates." Which defeats the whole purpose of conservatives promoting ivermectin. It's fine in a pinch, but it's an inferior prophylactic compared to the vaccines.
1
@captaintorch1238 We don't talk about other treatments because reactionaries haven't argued that those treatments are bad. We all agree that monoclonal antibodies, prednisone, remdesivir, ventilators, etc. are useful treatments. Is it really necessary to have more conversations about them? Do you need to be reminded every week that we have good treatments for Covid?
1
Yes, though the WSJ study was entirely made up of people who had Covid. The study you mentioned only had 7,000 people that got Covid. Still pretty big, but not 200,000. The Brazil study was also not blind in any way. People got to choose if they wanted ivermectin or not, the doctors knew who had taken it, and there was no placebo involved. Is that significant enough to have changed the results? I don't think so. But it's something to consider. Also, that study literally says ivermectin should not be used as a substitute for the vaccines, just as a supplement. Which defeats conservatives' entire purpose of promoting ivermectin. As far as I can tell, ivermectin is a fairly effective prophylactic and treatment, but it's suboptimal in both cases. You're way better off getting vaccinated.
1