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

[sunnnysideup]

Honest question?

@aboverubies7

*When Trump hinted at distributing HCQ, they gave platforms to any jack or jill who would admonish him. The press amplified every piece of information to discredit the drug too and subsequently, bogus studies were released

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2820%2931180-6/fulltext then they had to eat their words. quiet retractions but the damage had already done.

We can go back and forth about side effects if you wish but I'm wondering what research you have undertaken to explore why Trump's advocacy for HCQ was derided when there is long-standing evidence that it can be effective?

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318/*

So yes, that first article was retracted, and the second? It's regarding SARS. Not entirely different from COVID, but different enough not to be relevant. Sorry. This is not how you argue your position.

Anyhow, I'm not getting into into a debate about Trump. I asked you only if you had looked into the side-effects of HCQ. You haven't answered that.

[quote Madhairday]@ollyollyoxenfree I just wanted to say thank you for your tireless and helpful responses here. In the face of persistent misinformation and argument you just keep patiently throwing out actual facts. I'm not a scientist, so I appreciate your explanations, which make a whole lot more sense than those arguing against you. Thanks for trying![/quote]
Completely agree. I was going to type something similar, but didn't get around to it. I don't think you're getting anywhere with at least two of the contributors, but it might help others to see the facts.

Very grateful also for the persistent scientific common sense @ollyollyoxenfree

@ollyollyoxenfree

A bow to you from me too for your incredible patience. I'm only starting to see how frustrating it is ...

thank you @Madhairday @Myalternate @sleepwouldbenice @AlixandraTheGreat @herecomesthsun that's very kind

Totally agree you'll never get through to the posters so firmly down the rabbit hole of all this, but as long as it's useful to one person coming across the thread I'm happy!

This misinformation about ivermectin (propagated by groups like AFD/FLCCC/BIRD) has indirectly contributed to people dying and having preventable disability from coronavirus, which is why I've got such a bugbear about it. Toxicity is less of an issue (although still a concern when you've got people taking it for months on end and entirely unregulated), but you have people who are genuinely worried about COVID but turning down a safe vaccine because they're convinced they're protected by ivermectin as a prophylactic or as a treatment when they get ill. It's very sad.

I am glad it's finally being investigated properly, and hopefully the final set of trial results will provide a definitive answer.

Don't think I'll be able to muster the same strength when they start peddling misinformation for their next "wonder" drug though

@ollyollyoxenfree You never did get around to explaining why (in that paper which you quoted as robustly demonstrating a null effect but where you conveniently forgot to mention that around 15% of the control group who were accidentally given Ivermectin for several weeks) you tried to explain this away by erroneously claiming that these participants were replaced, when in fact the paper makes it clear that they were not replaced - they were just removed from parts of the analysis.

Anyway - I too look forward to results of comprehensive, properly conducted RCTs so that we can put the debate to bed. As I have said before, I am not expecting a miracle cure - but I am interest to see whether the cautiously optimistic findings of other studies are confirmed.

[quote IncredulousOne]@ollyollyoxenfree You never did get around to explaining why (in that paper which you quoted as robustly demonstrating a null effect but where you conveniently forgot to mention that around 15% of the control group who were accidentally given Ivermectin for several weeks) you tried to explain this away by erroneously claiming that these participants were replaced, when in fact the paper makes it clear that they were not replaced - they were just removed from parts of the analysis.

Anyway - I too look forward to results of comprehensive, properly conducted RCTs so that we can put the debate to bed. As I have said before, I am not expecting a miracle cure - but I am interest to see whether the cautiously optimistic findings of other studies are confirmed.[/quote]
I don't owe you a response @IncredulousOne, particularly when you repeatedly call me stupid and a dimwit. It's also not particularly rewarding to have to explain the same concepts over and over again when you just don't get it.

I must have responded to 30+ of your claims now about the ivermectin literature explaining why they are incorrect. You keep copying and pasting things that you clearly don't understand, and in the time it takes me to write out another comprehensive reply you add another abstract from a paper you clearly haven't read.

There were several iterations of analysis done in the TOGERTHER trial to correct for the fact that some participants were given ivermectin instead of placebo in their main analyses and sensitivity analyses, including what I described.

What seems to be going over your head is that the participants who were given the wrong drug were excluded. In none of the statistical analysis did the fact that this mistake had happened impact on the results. This is not something that increases the risk of bias in the trial, or changes the quality of it.

Mistakes happen in large trials and the fact that this was transparently reported and the analysis plan amended exactly what should happen. This can be contrasted to the some of the dodgy ivermectin papers where there are huge gaps in the methods, numbers don't add up, and you have no idea what's going on.

I do think it's hilarious you're both arguing the paper shows a positive effect of ivermectin AND that it's completely "screwed up". Would make more sense to pick one and go with it.

Still talking horsesh!t, I see...

@IncredulousOne

Still talking horsesh!t, I see...

Nope, wrong again I see

[quote AlixandraTheGreat]@aboverubies7

*When Trump hinted at distributing HCQ, they gave platforms to any jack or jill who would admonish him. The press amplified every piece of information to discredit the drug too and subsequently, bogus studies were released

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2820%2931180-6/fulltext then they had to eat their words. quiet retractions but the damage had already done.

We can go back and forth about side effects if you wish but I'm wondering what research you have undertaken to explore why Trump's advocacy for HCQ was derided when there is long-standing evidence that it can be effective?

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318/*

So yes, that first article was retracted, and the second? It's regarding SARS. Not entirely different from COVID, but different enough not to be relevant. Sorry. This is not how you argue your position.

Anyhow, I'm not getting into into a debate about Trump. I asked you only if you had looked into the side-effects of HCQ. You haven't answered that.
[/quote]
lol if that's your response to the study, you need to do some more research

reading and comprehension is key because what i said was after trump’s advocacy, they were so intent on decrying alternative therapeutics that they staged a bogus trial involving patients who were made to take a ridiculously high dosage of HCQ, without AZT or zinc (which inhibits viral replication), the subjects suffered as a result & they told the world it was dangerous

even went as far as calling it fish tank cleaner

but ofc you lot fell for it hook line and sinker

@aboverubies7

*lol if that's your response to the study, you need to do some more research

reading and comprehension is key because what i said was after trump’s advocacy, they were so intent on decrying alternative therapeutics that they staged a bogus trial involving patients who were made to take a ridiculously high dosage of HCQ, without AZT or zinc (which inhibits viral replication), the subjects suffered as a result & they told the world it was dangerous

even went as far as calling it fish tank cleaner

but ofc you lot fell for it hook line and sinker*

Lol. No. I think HCQ is a fabulous medicine - my mother took it for RA. It is key in the fight against malaria. Dosage levels are also vital. Funny you mention "comprehension is key" - I asked you right from the beginning have you looked into the side-effects of HCQ? Have you? You are very concerned about the side-effects of the vaccine - why not this?

[quote AlixandraTheGreat]@aboverubies7

*lol if that's your response to the study, you need to do some more research

reading and comprehension is key because what i said was after trump’s advocacy, they were so intent on decrying alternative therapeutics that they staged a bogus trial involving patients who were made to take a ridiculously high dosage of HCQ, without AZT or zinc (which inhibits viral replication), the subjects suffered as a result & they told the world it was dangerous

even went as far as calling it fish tank cleaner

but ofc you lot fell for it hook line and sinker*

Lol. No. I think HCQ is a fabulous medicine - my mother took it for RA. It is key in the fight against malaria. Dosage levels are also vital. Funny you mention "comprehension is key" - I asked you right from the beginning have you looked into the side-effects of HCQ? Have you? You are very concerned about the side-effects of the vaccine - why not this? [/quote]
you want that gotcha so bad. you're wasting your time.

the claim that there are severe side effects associated with administering HCQ is provably false.

There was a vested interest to denounce alternative treatments to procure the emergency use authorisation of the shot, even at the expense of lives. it worked.

I have looked into it, I am not concerned or interested in their fallacious claims.

@aboverubies7

*you want that gotcha so bad. you're wasting your time.

the claim that there are severe side effects associated with administering HCQ is provably false.

There was a vested interest to denounce alternative treatments to procure the emergency use authorisation of the shot, even at the expense of lives. it worked.

I have looked into it, I am not concerned or interested in their fallacious claims.*

There's no "gotcha" - but I am wasting my time. HCQ isn't an alternative treatment at all. It's quite common and in alternative circles, very 'big Pharma' - in ordinary times, they would never take it due to its source and its purported side-effects. However, because Trump and conservative sources have promoted it, HCQ is a now a wonder drug. This is called cognitive dissonance.

This is the point I was attempting to make to you but in caught up in your own echo chamber, you missed it so many times.

[quote AlixandraTheGreat]@aboverubies7

*you want that gotcha so bad. you're wasting your time.

the claim that there are severe side effects associated with administering HCQ is provably false.

There was a vested interest to denounce alternative treatments to procure the emergency use authorisation of the shot, even at the expense of lives. it worked.

I have looked into it, I am not concerned or interested in their fallacious claims.*

There's no "gotcha" - but I am wasting my time. HCQ isn't an alternative treatment at all. It's quite common and in alternative circles, very 'big Pharma' - in ordinary times, they would never take it due to its source and its purported side-effects. However, because Trump and conservative sources have promoted it, HCQ is a now a wonder drug. This is called cognitive dissonance.

This is the point I was attempting to make to you but in caught up in your own echo chamber, you missed it so many times.[/quote]
And you appear to be suffering from Trump derangement syndrome, Alixandra. Just because the former US president suggested it, you seem to think it must be denounced as dangerous and wrong.

I see it a lot, and it's just as moronic as assuming something is a wonder drug just because Trump suggested it.

Now before you go accusing me of being a Trump supporter, he said a lot of stupid sh!t, and I didn't like a lot of his policies.

But it would be a logical fallacy to conclude that just because Trump suggested something it must be wrong.

HCQ has been proven to be ineffective in treating COVID, no idea why you're still debating it. Excellent drug for treating lupus and other things, useless for COVID patients.

There's also currently no rationale to push ivermectin on patients as we don't have any good quality evidence it works (for prevention, acute COVID, long COVID). Trials are still ongoing for mild acute COVID but prelim evidence not looking good.

Both are still being pushed by the anti-vaxxer groups and notable people which filters down to social media and forums like MN.

@aboverubies7 @IncredulousOne et al

You're seem convinced these drugs are being deliberately suppressed so patients can't access them. Who's behind this?

What's your rationale for it? Why target specifically HCQ/ivermectin when other cheap drugs have been approved? Why did "they" organise large scale RCTs to test existing therapeutics, if they didn't want any to show evidence of effect?

There was a vested interest to denounce alternative treatments to procure the emergency use authorisation of the shot, even at the expense of lives. it worked.

Ahah - see thie repeated all the time @aboverubies7

It's incorrect and again just another piece of misinformation propagated by the groups described above which people then repeat on SM.

A successful therapeutic would never replace the need for an effective vaccine against coronavirus and have no impact on it's emergency authorisation. Coronavirus is highly infectious and transmissible, treatments are critical in the fight against it, but work in parallel with vaccination.

I'm not debating HCQ. I'm simply pointing out that Alixandra appears to be suffering from a case of TDS.

@IncredulousOne

I'm not debating HCQ. I'm simply pointing out that Alixandra appears to be suffering from a case of TDS.

FFS. What? It was you that brought Trump up to begin with. Just because I think there links between Trump's suggestions of HCQ/Ivermectin and the almost cult-like following of these to the exclusion of other therapies, does not mean I am suffering from TDS. Thanks.

I only asked you if you were aware of side-effects of HCQ. You still haven't answered this really simple question.

@IncredulousOne

I'm not debating HCQ. I'm simply pointing out that Alixandra appears to be suffering from a case of TDS.

Sorry. I had you confused with the other one.

@IncredulousOne

*And you appear to be suffering from Trump derangement syndrome, Alixandra. Just because the former US president suggested it, you seem to think it must be denounced as dangerous and wrong.

I see it a lot, and it's just as moronic as assuming something is a wonder drug just because Trump suggested it.*

I'm not sure if you read the previous posts at all, but I haven't denounced the drug at all. My mother took it for RA. I think it's moronic to denounce someone without actually taking the time to read. In the post above I apologised to you as I made a mistake; will you do the same to me?

@AlixandraTheGreat

*@IncredulousOne*

*And you appear to be suffering from Trump derangement syndrome, Alixandra. Just because the former US president suggested it, you seem to think it must be denounced as dangerous and wrong.

I see it a lot, and it's just as moronic as assuming something is a wonder drug just because Trump suggested it.*

I'm not sure if you read the previous posts at all, but I haven't denounced the drug at all. My mother took it for RA. I think it's moronic to denounce someone without actually taking the time to read. In the post above I apologised to you as I made a mistake; will you do the same to me?

Okay, if you're not denouncing it as a potential therapeutic for Covid, because Trump appeared to endorse it, then I apologise.

FWIW, I'm not touting it as a cure. The scientific* evidence that I have seen for it seems inconclusive as there are positive and null studies. From what I've seen, the balance is probably towards the null with HCQ, but IMO there have been enough positive results have been reported for it to be worthy of further study. But it's not something to pin all your hopes on.

(* I ignore sh!t like you hear from Joe Rogan etc - I don't care if he did take Ivermectin or whatever as there was a 99.7% chance he would have recovered anyway...)