This is probably the most valid argument that’s been made against it in the last 18 months. The reasons typically given - like, it’s too dangerous! - are mostly BS. But I dont know if there were in fact shortages for regular users due to a sudden spike in off-label use.
If you’re going to call that post bullshit, you might as well question if the poster even has a mother… 
While the poster may not be a bot, they may be employed to post misinformation. So I question their authenticity.
I was actually serious. How else to get buy-in, than to play off the sick mother thing? Everyone can relate to that, thus making the whole story more believable.
I think I had intended to say “question if the poster even has a sick mother”.
You mean, posts in ZeroHedge are oftentimes full of it? Say it ain’t so!
Further, the researchers found that while cloth masks clearly reduced symptoms, they “cannot reject” the idea that unlike surgical masks, they may have only a small effect on symptomatic coronavirus infections, and possibly none at all.
Abaluck emphasised, however, that research did not produce evidence that cloth masks are ineffective.
This is a term from statistical hypothesis testing. They are saying that they did not have statistically significant results that cloth masks are ineffective. With such a large number of participants, if cloth masks were even marginally effective, they would have gotten statistically significant results that they are effective.
The results “don’t necessarily show that surgical masks are much, much better than cloth masks, but we find much clearer evidence of the effectiveness in surgical masks”, he said.
The guy is BSing and tap dancing. IMO, the study almost certainly shows surgical masks are much more effective than cloth masks. The paper has not been peer reviewed yet. We might hope that the reviewers would force them to state the results more clearly. but with the politicization of medical science, I doubt it.
As usual, you make a series of claims with no references whatsoever. There is plenty of evidence for the effectiveness of ivermectin in treating covid19.
here’s a recent paper
A 30 page review of evidence for the effectiveness of ivermectin
ivermectin has been used over 30 years to treat human illnesses and has been shown to be a safe and effective drug accepted by the FDA.
Quit spewing your misleading propaganda. Of course it “can” harm people, that’s why it’s requires a prescription to ensure proper dosages; the vaccine can harm you too (I know first-hand), even freaking salt can harm you. Virtually everything “can” harm you. That’s is not the same as it being harmful or dangerous.
Ivermectin has been safely used on people for decades. To call it dangerous or claim it’s horse dewormer is insanity at it’s worst. You are the one hell-bent on everyone thinking you are right, whether you actually are or not, and backing those who disagree into a corner they never would’ve gone to without your BS, where you then proceed to ridicule them just for the sake of gloating.
There is zero harm to simply allowing those who want to try it, to try it. Quit making it out like everyone wants to pump you full of the stuff, your the one who’s so damn obsessed with pumping stuff into others. Worst case is stupid people wanting to us stupid treatments end up dying, and then you don’t have to put up with them any more. But of course, we can’t risk doomsday doesn’t happen, because then it starts to become clear that your BS is just that - BS.
Ok, let’s try it this way - why is it so important to you that everyone agrees that you are right? Why can’t you just let people be wrong? It’s their choice, and unless you are a farmer with a horse that needs dewormed (and you can’t find any supply) there is absolutely zero consequence to you whether they end up being right or wrong.
This is just manure that you throw against the wall to see if it sticks. List the studies that have been withdrawn with citations.
The off label use of FDA approved drugs is widely done by doctors.
Ivermectin has been approved by the FDA for human use since 1975 and since then has been used safely by billions of people
Discovered in the late-1970s, the pioneering drug ivermectin, a dihydro derivative of avermectin—originating solely from a single microorganism isolated at the Kitasato Intitute, Tokyo, Japan from Japanese soil—has had an immeasurably beneficial impact in improving the lives and welfare of billions of people throughout the world
notice that I give references for my assertions. I’m going to ignore yours until you give references
No, Merck wouldn’t make money off it since ivermectin is off patent and the generic manufacturers are the ones who would make a little money (only a little, because it’s pretty cheap). That’s why they aren’t running their own trial for ivermectin and their PR just says they looked, not very hard, and concluded there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove it works.
On a completely unrelated note, Merck, having failed to come up with a decent vaccine, is now paying for an expensive trial of a new drug for mild to moderate covid, just like when ivermectin seems to work. This one they could make money off of, however.
My wife has lupus and has taken hydroxychloroquine (generic Plaquenil) for nearly 2 decades. During the height of the “hydroxychloroquine cures covid” panic, I tried to be proactive. We went to refill it earlier than usual with the pharmacy she normally used and they said they didn’t have any and didn’t know when they were getting it in. We checked the online pharmacy through our insurance and the price was like 600% higher (but it was super cheap before covid where we normally got it, so it jumped from like $15 to $90/mo). We didn’t want to pay that much and she still had plenty left, so we waited a few weeks and the supply wasn’t crazy anymore and we had no issue getting it. It’s back down to $15 at some pharmacies now, but still up over $60 at others. But prices vary from pharmacy to pharmacy for lots of drugs, so I’m not sure how much that price difference is COVID related or how big the differences were before COVID.
So was there a real run on hydroxychloroquine last summer? Yeah. Did it last long? No. Could some people have missed taking it for a month? Yes, but if they were trying hard, they could have gotten it. Would someone taking it for decades for their lupus have stopped taking voluntarily it just because MSNBC said it was dangerous? Only if they are stupid and didn’t talk to their doctor. But those people do exist. So the story is plausible. Whose fault it was for those people’s deaths depends on your political leanings.
Mike Shirkey? Who? He is a “political leader?” Haha, okay.
As for Sens. Paul and Johnson, none of them are advocating that people take ivermectin without doctor prescription/supervision. Did you not read the article you posted to bolster your point? It quotes Sen. Johnson repeating the exact concern you are espousing:
“Unfortunately, because of the dereliction of duty of our federal health agencies and too many in the medical community ignoring early treatment, some Americans have resorted to obtaining veterinary ivermectin out of desperation,”
The only difference is that you and Johnson don’t agree on whose fault it is and what the solution should be. But you literally agree on how bad it is to take veterinary meds. So no, there are no Republican political leaders pushing what that NPR article claims.
Are you talking about @argbot?
Pure lunatic fringe bot, and/or IMHO, probably paid disinformation, per @scripta’s standards. According to the FDA, It’s more safe and effective for heart worm prevention in canines (a canine is not a horse, for the bots and/or paid dis-informants) than the current safe and effective covid-19 vaccines.
That was exactly my point. The anonymous post said “mother was forced to switch medication” and blamed the side they didn’t like, even though the other side could have been at fault.
Although I don’t see what you’re responding to, I was triggered to thoughts of Sharky’s Machine … a BurtReynolds/Schwarzenegger [no triggering intended]/Eastwood/Bronson/somebody film. You should be ashamed/fined/put-in-jail/lynched for triggering me. 
And I, probably more than most (no trigger(s) intended, but maybe braggadocio), appreciate your post. I note that you seem to readily respond in that manner to right leaning posts, but make no effort to respond similarly to left leaning posts.
Your seeming support for left leaning posts is appreciated by me (no trigger(s) intended) because it is usually logical, fact-based, or at least, within the realm of reality.
In the same sentence? Really? On what planet?
Sounds like a lot of good questions for something that was rushed to market in under a year. Not a drug that’s been safely used for decades. Your uncertainty is misplaced, and almost surely intentional.
And yes, we’ve all noticed how you keep ignoring the question as to why it’s so damn important that everyone agree that you are right and they are wrong.
Dear Lord this is so spot on!!
Why any thinking person would assert ivermectin is a (significant) money maker for Merck, or for any other manufacturer of the drug, is beyond me. The drug is OFF-patent. Do people still exist who fail to appreciate the significance of that? Nobody can be that stupid (I hope).