This whole narrative is ragebait. According to the article, the number of calls went up from 133 to 459. In percentage terms, that's an enormous jump, but it absolute terms, it's still basically nothing. There are 55 poison control centers in the country, so this works out to 8 or 9 cases per center.
The only reason this is a story at all is because NPR and its allies want to sustain the narrative that there are an enormous number of people attempting to self-medicate with ivermectin, and therefore that we need to further clamp down on free speach and ostracise and punish anyone who isn't going along with the mainstream narrative. Like most "news" these days, it's blatantly propagandistic in its content and intent.
> No hospitalizations due to ivermectin toxicity have been directly reported to the Mississippi Poison Control Center or the Mississippi State Department of Health.
So much for emergency rooms being flooded I guess? This topic really just seems like a way to stereotype and mock rural Americans under the guise of concern. A handful of people with mild symptoms calling poison control really doesn't seem newsworthy without that angle.
We have to get smarter and notice we’re being manipulated.
Watch this debate. Both sides agree the New York Times sacrifices integrity now for engagement, because its drives revenue. It is only a debate of degree.
They perfected this formula under Trump. Exaggerations and lies about people enrage both sides, one at the target and the other at the media. Ragebait is such a perfect term too because it is designed to enrage as many people as possible on all sides.
And it works. Just this morning there were 4 different discussions about Ivermectin on Hacker News.
I get some of the conspiracy theories that pop up and why people might believe them, but this ivermectin crap has never made sense to me. In what way is an anti-parasitic drug supposed to help a viral lung infection?
I've asked a few people that believe in this ivermectin nonsense to explain exactly how this drug helps against covid. I've yet to receive any explanation as to the mechanism by which ivermectin treats covid that didn't devolve into some unbelievably stupid shit about pleomorphic bacteria and viruses not actually existing.
Why this has taken off just leaves me scratching me head. It just makes no sense.
> A 2011 study investigated the impact of ivermectin on allergic asthma symptoms in mice and found that ivermectin (at 2 mg kg−1) significantly curtailed recruitment of immune cells, production of cytokines in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluids and secretion of ovalbumin-specific IgE and IgG1 in the serum. Ivermectin also suppressed mucus hypersecretion by goblet cells, establishing that ivermectin can effectively curb inflammation, such that it may be useful in treating allergic asthma and other inflammatory airway diseases
> Ivermectin has also been demonstrated to be a potent broad-spectrum specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear transport and demonstrates antiviral activity against several RNA viruses by blocking the nuclear trafficking of viral proteins. It has been shown to have potent antiviral action against HIV-1 and dengue viruses, both of which are dependent on the importin protein superfamily for several key cellular processes.
≥In what way is an anti-parasitic drug supposed to help a viral lung infection?
While I have no interest in making a case for ivermectin and covid, you might be interested in the vast, highly relevant field of repurposed drugs. A fair example might be salicylanilides, eg niclosamide - a drug pretty exclusively used for a particular tapeworm, but being repurposed for incurable gonorrhea, c-dif, h-pylori and other conditions.
I can understand an anti-parasitic drug having an effect on bacterial infections. Bacteria falls under what we classically define as 'life'. Bacterial, fungal and parasitic infections share much more in common than viral infections.
Viruses are a completely different form of life that causes illness in a totally different way to other forma of infectious organisms.
The more people shout the (racist, if you look just below the surface) claim that ivermectin is "horse dewormer", the more other (less racist but more stupid) people are going to ingest the horse paste formulation of it.
The former group needs to realize that the horse has left -- er, that the cat's out of the bag. Viewed in the light most disfavorable to ivermectin, arguendo, the evidence for ivermectin's effectiveness is inconclusive and it cannot be truthfully stated that "it doesn't work"; moreover the evidence for its safety (when taken in the appropriate form and at the appropriate dose) is that it is a ridiculously safe drug. Viewed in a neutral light the evidence really is weighing slightly in favor of ivermectin being part of effective treatment and prophylaxis protocols. The least harm and most benefit will be gained by removing any societal pressures against doctors so that patients can get ivermectin under a doctor's supervision rather than furtively; with the added benefit that under such a system, if the evidence does turn strongly against ivermectin in the future, those doctors can discontinue treatment and explain to their patients the new evidence!
The other group just needs to stop eating horse paste. BUT, I suspect that the number of people who have actually done this is probably no more than a few dozen, and that mostly this news is a smear campaign against people taking the human formulation by equating them with people taking the horse paste. Yet, I admit that people's capacity for stupidity never ceases to surprise, so I reserve judgement on the news.
The only reason this is a story at all is because NPR and its allies want to sustain the narrative that there are an enormous number of people attempting to self-medicate with ivermectin, and therefore that we need to further clamp down on free speach and ostracise and punish anyone who isn't going along with the mainstream narrative. Like most "news" these days, it's blatantly propagandistic in its content and intent.