Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century

[geodoc]

Group Captain Mandrake was a prevert.

What was the nature of his perversion? Maybe it's something we have in common.



.

[montado]

I heard you can’t authorize a vax for emergency use in the USA if you have a treatment for a disease available. If that’s true, that would add some fuel to the fire. Basically make it so there’s no treatment except for trials to make sure you can sell the vaccines first.

In your world, do people really behave like this? I mean, is that just off-the-cuff cynicism to look big, or do you deep down think this is truly how people behave?

In my world, this doesn't happen. I think my world is a much nicer place to live than yours.

Of course they do. Even if it’s not blatantly intentional, people have bias. Check out the conditions for emergency use and you will see how stringent the criteria are.

https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedn ... uaguidance

So whether a group of people are intentionally blocking and spreading disinformation to prevent a treatment being available so that the vaccine was used, I have no idea. The world is not a nice place. Life is full of tragedy, life is difficult, life is not fair, and I don’t think all decisions made at the “top” are purely about public health. I don’t necessarily believe the intentions are completely evil either. I’m just sceptical to take some mainstream beliefs at face value.

[2R]

Trust

A self confessed liar lies to Congress . What else is he lying about ?

[shinysideup]

I have moved to Mexico over COVID. I have many friends that have tested positive for COVID, vaccinated and unvaccinated!! When you test positive for COVID in Mexico the doctors [u]PRESCRIBE[/u] Ivermectin (in addition to a few other things). It is saving lives and reducing the hospitalizations here in Mexico. If you believe Ivermectin to be just a horse dewormer, you are ignorant. Two people I know that got COVID, had it really bad and took Ivermectin. Their doctors both said, it probably saved their lives!!

It may not be a 100% cure, but it has saved lives. Canada and the US just want to push vaccines, letting people die on ventilators, by not allowing any alternative treatments.

Ivermectin has a higher safety record than Tylenol.

[photofly]

Ivermectin has a higher safety record than Tylenol.

Well that's a completely dumb comparison, because Tylenol has a terrible safety record and if was a new drug today it probably wouldn't be permitted. Per Wikipedia:

Paracetamol poisoning is the foremost cause of acute liver failure in the Western world, and accounts for most drug overdoses in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.[43][44][45]

Two people I know that got COVID...

We don't choose drugs based on cherry-picked anecdotal evidence. We pick them based on controlled studies.

[shinysideup]

[quote] Two people I know that got COVID...[/quote]
We don't choose drugs based on cherry-picked anecdotal evidence. We pick them based on controlled studies.
[/quote]

This was just an example. There are lots of controlled studies, but are ignored by the USA and CAN, but excepted in Mexico. That is my point. You need to think worldwide, not in your little bubble.

[photofly]

This was just an example.

That's the point. We don't pick drugs based on "just an example" - so mentioning "just an example" is entirely irrelevant and should play zero part in persuading people what drugs to take. You know that, and you know that it was improper to mention "just an example".

There are lots of controlled studies, but are ignored by the USA and CAN, but excepted in Mexico.

Because they're not accepted in Canada as reliable. I love to think worldwide, and I'm very happy for Mexicans and people who live in Mexico to take drugs recommended by Mexican authorities. Good for them. I live in Canada, and I trust Canadian health authorities. I'm not venue shopping for Covid treatments.

[Posthumane]

I'm hopeful about ivermectin, as I would like to have a treatment for this just as much as anybody else. But the trials that have been done on it in regards to a covid treatment, in mexico and other places, are incredibly small and have a weak enough signal to be largely inconclusive. If you have some examples of prospective randomized control trials that show a conclusive positive effect where the error bars are not crossing over the "no effect" point I would love to read them. There are still a number of ongoing trials which may show a stronger signal, in due time.

I've heard a number of anecdotes about people being "saved" by taking ivermectin, including in Canada and the US (so clearly the drug is being used quite a bit here too). But looking globally, the countries with the highest use of the drug tend to correlate with the countries having the highest mortality rate from the disease, which doesn't speak well for its effectiveness. Mexico has an excess mortality of over 600k during this pandemic (about 0.5% of the total population, almost 3x the reported covid mortality), whereas Canada has had an excess mortality of less than 40k (0.1% of the population). This doesn't jive with the conclusion that Mexican doctors are saving lives whereas Canadian ones are letting people die.

I also don't see where this false dichotomy of vaccine vs treatment is coming from. Vaccines and treatments are both appropriate, at different times. The fact that we have treatments for other diseases (such as antibiotics for bacterial diseases or antivirals for HIV treatment) has never been a reason to give up on avoiding getting sick in the first place.

[shinysideup]

Wow, photofly, your statements make no sense at all.

I'm just giving an example of Ivermectin working. Not mandating it on anyone. The world doesn't revolve around CAN and the USA. This is a global forum. Just living in your bubble!! Enjoy your sterile life.

Do you have personal experiences of Ivermectin not working??

[shinysideup]

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-cont ... gazzar.pdf

https://covid19criticalcare.com/

https://ivmstatus.com/

Unfortunately Mexico has very large population of poor and underdeveloped areas. The local free hospitals are not the best. Most COVID cases arrive at the hospital too late for early treatment. There is the argument about testing and counting actual deaths attributed to COVID and not just underlying conditions. From main stream media, the "reported" numbers and how they report the situation here in Mexico, in my opinion, it sure feels like the numbers and news articles really don't correlate to the actual situation here.

Just my two cents.

[palebird]

So here is a cold hard slap of reality:

An elderly family member was sick with pneumonia and hosptilized this spring. Then they magically tested positive for Covid during their hospital stay. We( two immediate family members) requested a meeting with the attending doctor. After he had gone through his standard delivery on the case and ,basically, said there was nothing that could be done we asked him several questions. Two of these questions were as follows.
#1: Is Ivermectin available at this hospital?
#2: Will you administer it to this patient?
His reply to #1 was to state that Ivermectin was not recommended by his governing body but it was not illegal either. He refused to answer #2 until he looked into the situation a little more to see if Ivermectin was available to the hospital. He said he would call us back. 1 hour later he called us back and he was singing a different tune. #1 Ivermectin doses in Canada were in short supply but there were doses on their way to this hospital and he would try to set some aside for our relative. #2 And, yes, he would administer it. Unfortunately this family member passed away before the Ivermectin arrived. But a very interesting situation regarding Ivermectin which was not expected.

[photofly]

Do you have personal experiences of Ivermectin not working??

It woudn't matter if I did, because that would be anecdotal, and irrelevant.

A close relative of mine once took part in a clinical trial for a novel treatment from a tiny pharma company for a condition from which they suffered. The treatment "worked", and the condition was cured. When the results of the test were correlated, the treatment had no demonstrable effect, and the treatment was not approved.

I didn't get on the internet about conspiracies or make youtube videos about how big pharma was deliberately preventing the world receiving the benefit of this new idea.

[Posthumane]

SSU, those are the studies I was talking about. Take a look at the first link you posted, which was a response by Bryant et al to the removal of Elgazzar data from the meta-study. The four trials they used for treatment in mild cases and four for treatment in severe cases all had results that were not statistically significant, and their pooling was also not statistically significant (p=0.12 and 0.42 respectively). Only one RCT (Niaee 2020) had a statistically significant effect, but unfortunately it is a pre-print with both a small sample size and considerable heterogeneity between the control and treatment groups. Also, while that particular study showed a correlation between the use of ivermectin and reduced mortality, it showed a correlation between the dosage and increased mortality.

Several other countries (Brazil, Peru) have seen extensive use of the ivermectin, to the point where it is difficult for researchers to find control groups for trials when excluding for previous use of the drug. Their mortality figures imply that, even if there is some effect for some people, it is not a ready substitute for other treatments that have been shown to have a more definitive effect.

[Bede]

So here is a cold hard slap of reality:

An elderly family member was sick with pneumonia and hosptilized this spring. Then they magically tested positive for Covid during their hospital stay. We( two immediate family members) requested a meeting with the attending doctor. After he had gone through his standard delivery on the case and ,basically, said there was nothing that could be done we asked him several questions. Two of these questions were as follows.
#1: Is Ivermectin available at this hospital?
#2: Will you administer it to this patient?
His reply to #1 was to state that Ivermectin was not recommended by his governing body but it was not illegal either. He refused to answer #2 until he looked into the situation a little more to see if Ivermectin was available to the hospital. He said he would call us back. 1 hour later he called us back and he was singing a different tune. #1 Ivermectin doses in Canada were in short supply but there were doses on their way to this hospital and he would try to set some aside for our relative. #2 And, yes, he would administer it. Unfortunately this family member passed away before the Ivermectin arrived. But a very interesting situation regarding Ivermectin which was not expected.

Sorry I'm not following the lesson that you're giving in your cold dose of reality.

[Aviatard]

So here is a cold hard slap of reality:

An elderly family member was sick with pneumonia and hosptilized this spring. Then they magically tested positive for Covid during their hospital stay. We( two immediate family members) requested a meeting with the attending doctor. After he had gone through his standard delivery on the case and ,basically, said there was nothing that could be done we asked him several questions. Two of these questions were as follows.
#1: Is Ivermectin available at this hospital?
#2: Will you administer it to this patient?
His reply to #1 was to state that Ivermectin was not recommended by his governing body but it was not illegal either. He refused to answer #2 until he looked into the situation a little more to see if Ivermectin was available to the hospital. He said he would call us back. 1 hour later he called us back and he was singing a different tune. #1 Ivermectin doses in Canada were in short supply but there were doses on their way to this hospital and he would try to set some aside for our relative. #2 And, yes, he would administer it. Unfortunately this family member passed away before the Ivermectin arrived. But a very interesting situation regarding Ivermectin which was not expected.

Definitive proof that almost taking Ivermectin kills people.

[shimmydampner]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

As well as analysis of recent studies for use against covid, this article offers interesting background information on the very successful use of ivermectin to treat serious viral infections in humans over the last 30+ years.

Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

It is really disheartening to see how easily most of the population has become politicized over science and medicine. Our politicians and media should be ashamed of themselves for their role in this, as should we for allowing ourselves to be so easily manipulated. These covid discussions seem to bring out the absolute worst in people.

[photofly]

It is really disheartening to see how easily most of the population has become politicized over science and medicine. Our politicians and media should be ashamed of themselves for their role in this, as should we for allowing ourselves to be so easily manipulated. These covid discussions seem to bring out the absolute worst in people.

One presumes the irony was intentional?

[shimmydampner]

No. I'm not sure what you're referring to. Please elaborate.

[photofly]

I wouldn't have thought I would need to spell it out.

Your post blames politicians, and media: you thereby make it a political issue. You try to summarize scientific data that you know full well is not widely accepted, and is full of nuance, as simple and settled, quoting only a brief conclusion that suits your agenda. In this way, you seek to manipulate. When you say "[o]ur politicians and media should be ashamed of themselves" that hypercritical judgment does rather appear to demonstrate the worst in you. On all counts therefore your post is guilty of everything it critiques in COVID discussions.

Hence, I wondered if the clear irony was deliberate, or unknowing.

[shimmydampner]

You're assigning malicious intent where there was none. I was merely posting an interesting scientific analysis on the topic at hand, and making a relevant observation that we can't even seem to agree on what the facts are, even when they are readily available. Because to many people, it's not about facts, it's about being in a certain camp and only accepting what fits that camp's agenda and rejecting what does not. There is no critical thinking. No willingness to look at anything from a perspective beyond one's own. Your adversarial response to my benign post serves to prove that point. Did you read the study before you went on the attack?

After refreshing my memory of why I have taken to not visiting this site as of late, I think I'll go back to that. Enjoy your day and stay healthy.

['97 Tercel]

I'm afraid that's 'par for the course' on this site, which has become weird and pathetic.

Kinda like the country..

[Posthumane]

You're assigning malicious intent where there was none. I was merely posting an interesting scientific analysis on the topic at hand, and making a relevant observation that we can't even seem to agree on what the facts are, even when they are readily available. Because to many people, it's not about facts, it's about being in a certain camp and only accepting what fits that camp's agenda and rejecting what does not. There is no critical thinking. No willingness to look at anything from a perspective beyond one's own. Your adversarial response to my benign post serves to prove that point. Did you read the study before you went on the attack?

After refreshing my memory of why I have taken to not visiting this site as of late, I think I'll go back to that. Enjoy your day and stay healthy.

Shimmydamper, I have read the study, along with a number of the studies that underlie their meta-analysis (specifically the ones that focus on morality as the outcome). I would be happy to discuss with you my thoughts on it, although I'll say up front that I'm not very bullish on their conclusions. Since, as you say, this site does not allow for any kind of nuanced discussions without people interrupting with baseless hyperbole, I would suggest PMs or some other means.
Cheers!

[photofly]

You're assigning malicious intent where there was none.

No malice is imputed. I was pointing out that it's not possible objectively to critique the style of a debate while simultaneously engaging in it.

I was merely posting an interesting scientific analysis on the topic at hand, and making a relevant observation that we can't even seem to agree on what the facts are, even when they are readily available.

Well, let's look at that statement. You are implying that *your* selection of which facts are "readily available" and *your* interpretations of them, are the ones that we should agree on, are you not?

Is that not seeking to manipulate? I merely ask.

[altiplano]

You're assigning malicious intent where there was none. I was merely posting an interesting scientific analysis on the topic at hand, and making a relevant observation that we can't even seem to agree on what the facts are, even when they are readily available. Because to many people, it's not about facts, it's about being in a certain camp and only accepting what fits that camp's agenda and rejecting what does not. There is no critical thinking. No willingness to look at anything from a perspective beyond one's own. Your adversarial response to my benign post serves to prove that point. Did you read the study before you went on the attack?

After refreshing my memory of why I have taken to not visiting this site as of late, I think I'll go back to that. Enjoy your day and stay healthy.

Well put.

Being on the popular side of an argument is the most important thing to these people, and anyone that disagrees, that questions, that pushes back - censored/cancelled/fired.

Science and realty isn't dictated by consensus, it isn't driven by dogma. We're going back to the dark ages the way people are(n't) thinking.

[2R]

The disease is the enemy , not those who are confused by the evolving and incongruous media stories .

Attempts to be civil and cheerful are greatly appreciated.