Well, I’m talking about preventives, to reduce chances of infection, rather than treatments, once someone is infected. I’m not going there. But apparently people are using invermectin as a preventive. It’s impossible to show that vaccinations don’t reduce the risk of infection, and their side effects, when they happen, are almost always relatively mild. Low fever, body aches, feeling like crap, flu-like symptoms. Almost always for a day or two, rarely up to a week. Meanwhile, invermectin, used as a preventive, has side effects including sometimes hospitalization, and there is no evidence that it works as a preventive. Yes, its use is being explored and tested, but results so far are nowhere close to matching the effectiveness of vaccines.
The NatGeo article is pretty readable. I don’t think it’s behind a firewall, although of course they like to pop up warnings.
But again, when you’re trying to protect your loved ones, why do we have to get sidetracked by political debates, as you mentioned (political pressure)? Wouldn’t we just grab the sturdy rope, and debate the one star vs five star ratings later, once we’re on dry ground?
Up for both of them, and for their family and loved ones.
