Why are all the Covid conspiracy theory’s coming true?

[sunnnysideup]

Honest question?

@knittingaddict

They probably aren't the only one andyoldlabour.

It's amazing to me that the same people who refuse to have a vaccine, which is very safe, would take an untried and potentially dangerous drug which hasn't yet been shown to do anything to prevent or cure covid. The logic totally escapes me. Can someone tell me why?

Untried and untested?

You do realise that Ivermectin has been used on humans since the late 1970s, don't you?

@ollyollyoxenfree

Yes, that is a single study, whose withdrawl has been well publicised. The meta-analysis I referenced has addressed the withdrawl of this study. There are 52 other studiesWhen we're discussing peer-reviewed papers published in scientific literature, these published papers have already been peer reviewed (i.e. by experts in the field). So it's really down to you to have to prove why you think not only the authors but also the peer-reviewers are wrong.Once you've done that, we can have a discussion.

You just don't get it do you @IncredulousOne?

To start with - you're not referencing a meta-analysis (we can come onto that), you're referencing the nonsense website ivnmeta. As I have explained repeatedly, there are huge issues with this website which are immediately obvious to anyone who works in the area.

Not least is that the author has cherry picked any outcome from all published studies (often repeating outcomes from a single study) that are positive, ignoring any null outcomes. This is immediately obvious when you construct a funnel plot.

I'm afraid you don't understand that a website which - on the surface looks slick - is fraught with issues designed to trick susceptible people like yourself.

This ignores the fact the most of the included studies are rife with issues. As I have repeatedly typed - pick any study - actually take the three hours necessary to read it and we can discuss the issues.

It's not for me to prove the findings of peer reviewed journal papers - that's what the peer review process is for.

You are the one who made a blanket statement that there is "no robust evidence" so the burden of disproving that the evidence I provided falls on you.

If you did actually work in the field of science (as you imply) you would understand about the burden of proof, null hypotheses, and wouldconsequenty be less inclined to make sweeping statements that you cannot substantiate.

For some parasitic diseases, not to treat COVID.

There is currently no robust evidence for it's efficacy in preventing or treating COVID. The fact that it is effective in treating parasitic diseases is irrelevant.

It's like saying we should give beta-blockers to all COVID patients because they're safe and effective and have been used for decades.

You are the one who made a blanket statement that there is "no robust evidence" so the burden of disproving that the evidence I provided falls on you.If you did actually work in the field of science (as you imply) you would understand about the burden of proof, null hypotheses, and wouldconsequenty be less inclined to make sweeping statements that you cannot substantiate.

Your posts make no sense which make it incredibly hard to reply @IncredulousOne

The existing studies are not good quality - this does not preclude them from being published or mean they are not useful. It does mean that they cannot be used to infer causality in terms of treating COVID with ivermectin.

I have asked you multiple times to link any paper that you think shows a causal effect of ivermectin so we can discuss it's issues. I'm not sure why you're refusing apart from the reason that you have no idea what you're talking about and are simply copying and pasting claims from groups like FLCCC.

And yup, as I have said, I have reviewed the ivermectin lit as an epidemiologist.

Seeing as you're not going to - here's an example. An ivermectin study cited many times and pushed by people such as yourself who haven't read it:

www.biomedres.info/biomedical-research/effects-of-ivermectinazithromycincholecalciferol-combined-therapy-on-covid19-infected-patients-a-proof-of-concept-study-14435.html

Fraught with issues when you actually read it - figures duplicated (mistake or fraudulent- who knows?), tiny control group, neither group defined, neither group randomised, numbers don't add up in tables, and the kicker - the huge difference in age between groups.

People take this study and laud it as evidence of ivermectin being effective, when in reality these methodological issues mean it cannot be used to infer causality. But hey, if you're part of FLCCC, why not stick it in a meta-analysis without attempting a ROB or other quality control checks.

The ivermectin literature is full of crap like this. Finally, we are conducting well designed well powered trials which will actually give us a causal estimate of ivermectin of COVID outcomes. Given that two of them have been null, it is not looking too promising.

I'm not sure what you rationale is anyway, for ivermectin being blocked, given that many other repurposed cheap drugs have been tested in RCTs for COVID treatment. Like the other conspiracy theories, it does not stand up to scrutiny.

Here's one I picked at random without reading it first. It was published in Nature (not known for being an outlet for dar-right literature...):

www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5

I'm sure you can nitpick minor holes, but it does provide strong evidence of a positive effect. I can find more studies if you want.

Whilst it's clear that no study is beyond criticism* it does provide credible evidence of a positive effect as a prophylaxis / early treatment.

Let's be clear - I'm not saying that Ivermectin (or HCQ or any other treatment) is a magic cure. What I am saying it that there is a large body of evidence that suggests it does have a statistically significant positive effect, and that claims that there is no evidence of a positive effect are patently untrue.

• I would for balance note that some of the studies used to discredit treatments like Ivermectin and HCQ have used inappropriate doses at inappropriate stages of treatment.

@IncredulousOne

Here's one I picked at random without reading it first. It was published in Nature (not known for being an outlet for dar-right literature...):

www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5

I'm sure you can nitpick minor holes, but it does provide strong evidence of a positive effect. I can find more studies if you want.

Whilst it's clear that no study is beyond criticism* it does provide credible evidence of a positive effect as a prophylaxis / early treatment.

Let's be clear - I'm not saying that Ivermectin (or HCQ or any other treatment) is a magic cure. What I am saying it that there is a large body of evidence that suggests it does have a statistically significant positive effect, and that claims that there is no evidence of a positive effect are patently untrue.

• I would for balance note that some of the studies used to discredit treatments like Ivermectin and HCQ have used inappropriate doses at inappropriate stages of treatment.

So many issues with your post I don't know where to start

Firstly, not published in nature, it's published in "the journal of antibiotics"

Secondly, you understand this isn't an observational study nor a trial? It's simply a narrative synthesis of a couple of cherry picked studies about ivermectin. When you look at the studies it's talking about, they are low quality and no ROB assessment is attempted. This is not how you conduct a systematic review and is a very poor attempt at evidence synthesis.

Thirdly, you claim you've read it yet offer no comment on this disclaimer by the journal?
22 June 2021 Editor’s Note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the editors and the publisher. A further editorial response will follow the resolution of these issues.

A quick read produces a plethora of issues with the manuscript.

So no, it does not produce "credible evidence of a positive effect of ivermectin" in the slightest.

The only thing that can do that are well powered, well designed RCTs, which are currently being conducted, of which two have produced null results.

You have well and truly been taken in by wherever you get your information from @IncredulousOne, and I suggest you consider not entirely relying on them for information.

You do realise that Ivermectin has been used on humans since the late 1970s, don't you?

Er, yes.

However there is absolutely no proper evidence that it works on covid, it needs to be taken under medical advice and it's obviously dangerous if you don't, hence the patient mentioned earlier.

I'm really not the silly one here.

Just noticed you're also peddling HCQ as a COVID treatment. Jeez @IncredulousOne

That isn't even in question anymore - it's categorically been proven to not to improve COVID outcomes.

All the claims you come out with are propagated from the same groups though, so it's unsurprising you're also repeating this piece of misinformation.

@knittingaddict

You do realise that Ivermectin has been used on humans since the late 1970s, don't you?

Er, yes.

However there is absolutely no proper evidence that it works on covid, it needs to be taken under medical advice and it's obviously dangerous if you don't, hence the patient mentioned earlier.

I'm really not the silly one here.

So with over 40 years worth of data, your description that it is a "potentially dangerous" drug is maybe just the teeniest bit unjustified...?

@ollyollyoxenfree

Just noticed you're also peddling HCQ as a COVID treatment. Jeez *@IncredulousOne*

That isn't even in question anymore - it's categorically been proven to not to improve COVID outcomes.

All the claims you come out with are propagated from the same groups though, so it's unsurprising you're also repeating this piece of misinformation.

No, I'm not. You are once again making unsubstantiated inferences.

I said that I could pick holes in studies that purported to show that Ivermectin and HCQ didn't work because the used inappropriate doses at inappropriate stages of treatment.

That doesn't mean that they do or don't work, it just means that those studies are garbage.

Given that people like yourself are being duped into thinking it's an effective treatment, yes it is @IncredulousOne

People are taking it long term without follow up, in formulations not safe for human use, and for a disease for which there is no evidence for efficacy.

They are turning down a vaccine which could potentially protect them from death or disability because they believe ivermectin will prevent them getting COVID or cure them if they do.

Re, my earlier ref (not the one from nature). Sorry, I put the wrong link in - I was on the school run.

But okay, you've identified a "plethora of issues with the link that I did give, so please go ahead and highlight them. Please also clarify for the record why the issues that you identify are sufficiently egregious that it completely nullifies any positive effect that can be seen in the data.

@IncredulousOne

Re, my earlier ref (not the one from nature). Sorry, I put the wrong link in - I was on the school run.

But okay, you've identified a "plethora of issues with the link that I did give, so please go ahead and highlight them. Please also clarify for the record why the issues that you identify are sufficiently egregious that it completely nullifies any positive effect that can be seen in the data.

I've described them in my post - it's just above so not sure why they need to be repeated.

It's not an observational study or a trial. I don't understand what you think it is? It's simply a narrative synthesis of how ivermectin could hypothetically work as a treatment. It is not evidence for efficacy.

FACT CHECK.

Office of national statistics.

Number of deaths from Covid between Jan -July 21 of those not vaccinated. 38, 964.

Number of deaths from Covid from those who had had 2 doses. 458

Sunnysideup you are talking bollox. Sorry if that is blunt but the figures speak for themselves.

So with over 40 years worth of data, your description that it is a "potentially dangerous" drug is maybe just the teeniest bit unjustified...?

Literally anything can be dangerous if taken in too big a dose, including water. It's a drug, which I think you have to be very careful with. You disagree? It can be very dangerous to allow the general public to obtain drugs from god knows where and dose themselves. What dose? How often? Why? (because it doesn't work)

Did you see the link to the man who was poisoned by Invermectin?

@knittingaddict

So with over 40 years worth of data, your description that it is a "potentially dangerous" drug is maybe just the teeniest bit unjustified...?

Literally anything can be dangerous if taken in too big a dose, including water. It's a drug, which I think you have to be very careful with. You disagree? It can be very dangerous to allow the general public to obtain drugs from god knows where and dose themselves. What dose? How often? Why? (because it doesn't work)

Did you see the link to the man who was poisoned by Invermectin?

Particularly when they're turning down a vaccine because they've been duped by misinformation groups that ivermectin will prevent them getting it or cure them when they do

It can be very dangerous to allow the general public to obtain drugs from god knows where and dose themselves. What dose? How often? Why? (because it doesn't work)

Indeed. There's been a huge uptick in Ivermectin overdose cases in the US as it's pretty easy to get access to the veterinary versions of the drug.

Poison Control Centers Are Fielding A Surge Of Ivermectin Overdose Calls

But that's not the drug being dangerous, that's people overdosing because they're not being given the guidelines to take it appropriately.

The current official advice for Covid is to stay home and take paracetamol. I could put forth the same argument as you and claim that paracetamol is an "untested and dangerous drug" because people can overdose on that too. (In fact it's probably easier to kill yourself by overdosing on paracetamol than on Ivermectin)

@IncredulousOne

But that's not the drug being dangerous, that's people overdosing because they're not being given the guidelines to take it appropriately.

The current official advice for Covid is to stay home and take paracetamol. I could put forth the same argument as you and claim that paracetamol is an "untested and dangerous drug" because people can overdose on that too. (In fact it's probably easier to kill yourself by overdosing on paracetamol than on Ivermectin)

Yes and the solution to prevent this is to stop spreading the misinformation that there is robust evidence to recommend it's use but "big pharma" are blocking it. This is driving people to these measures and causing harm.

And as I said, it also causes harm as people are being duped into thinking they don't need to be vaccinated because ivermectin will prevent them getting it or treat them if they do.

There is evidence suggesting the vitamin D is a useful adjuvant treatment for covid, but you'd be mad to think that you can skip the vaccine in favor of megadoses of it. People buy into a load of misinformation about the vaccines, but they want something to protect them, so they grasp at straws like Ivermectin.

Okay ollyolly, have a look at this one. Picked at random, I have read the abstract and it's a randomised blinded, placebo controlled trial, which shows reduced recovery time and reduced progression to serious disease.
datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.qjq2bvqf6

I'm sure you can nitpick some minor flaws (pretty much every study has them if you look hard enough) but in order for this not to be evidence of a positive effect from Ivermectin, you will need to demonstrate why those flaws invalidate the data.

To ollyolly and all the other posters, I am not saying (and have never suggested) that Ivermectin is a miracle cure for Covid. I am suggesting that there is evidence that given at the right time (probably as prophylaxis or early treatment) in appropriate doses and possibly with the right adjuvants, there is evidence that it provides some benefit.

I'm not saying it's a guaranteed cure. I'm not saying that we yet know the optimum time/dosage/adjuvants. But I am saying there is evidence out there that looks promising.

Which is why I took issue with ollyolly's blanket statement.

Even if you disagree with my assessment, simply screaming "conspiracy theorist" at me (and others like me) does nothing to convince me (or anybody rational who is reading this thread) that I am wrong. In fact it is counter-productive to winning me over, because it just makes me think "If I'm being slandered just for asking the question, what are you trying to hide..."

@IncredulousOne

Okay ollyolly, have a look at this one. Picked at random, I have read the abstract and it's a randomised blinded, placebo controlled trial, which shows reduced recovery time and reduced progression to serious disease. datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.qjq2bvqf6

I'm sure you can nitpick some minor flaws (pretty much every study has them if you look hard enough) but in order for this not to be evidence of a positive effect from Ivermectin, you will need to demonstrate why those flaws invalidate the data.

To ollyolly and all the other posters, I am not saying (and have never suggested) that Ivermectin is a miracle cure for Covid. I am suggesting that there is evidence that given at the right time (probably as prophylaxis or early treatment) in appropriate doses and possibly with the right adjuvants, there is evidence that it provides some benefit.

I'm not saying it's a guaranteed cure. I'm not saying that we yet know the optimum time/dosage/adjuvants. But I am saying there is evidence out there that looks promising.

Which is why I took issue with ollyolly's blanket statement.

Even if you disagree with my assessment, simply screaming "conspiracy theorist" at me (and others like me) does nothing to convince me (or anybody rational who is reading this thread) that I am wrong. In fact it is counter-productive to winning me over, because it just makes me think "If I'm being slandered just for asking the question, what are you trying to hide..."

I think this needs to be my last post on this because it's not getting anywhere - you just do not get it and keep pushing crap like IVNMETA.

There is not robust evidence that ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID - this is a factually correct statement, and the only way you can take "issue" with it is if you're pushing all the crap studies that show a positive effect.

Mamud et al is actually a good example of a reasonably well conducted study - but as they themselves state - this is not robust evidence. It does not justify prescribing ivermectin outside of experimental settings like the Principle trials and others.

Our study was performed at a single center over a short period. Therefore, our findings need to be carefully interpreted. Furthermore, a priori sample size calculations were not performed, limiting the strength of our findings. We could not test for viral load, and therefore could not directly assess viral clearance. It remains unclear whether the early reductions in viral load we observed should be verified by repeated RT-PCR testing during follow-up. Our testing facilities did not allow us to test patients repeatedly. Finally, we evaluated the combination of doxycycline and ivermectin but did not determine their individual effects. Therefore, further studies are needed to clarify the results observed in the present study

As I have repeatedly stated, well powered well designed studies are needed to clarify if ivermectin has a causal effect. This is what is happening right now and this is what the authors of the study you linked say in their manuscript.

@Nat6999

Someone I used to count as a friend keeps on posting loads of bullshit about Covid & the vaccine. Calling anyone who has had the jab sheep, moaning about restrictions & saying it's time everyone could make up their own minds about what they do. The worrying thing is he is a shareholder in a care home, he isn't what you would expect a conspiracy theory enthusiast to be, he is very intelligent, loads of money, owns several businesses.

I had a friend like this

am glad Facebook has a mute button