Ivermectin bonkersness

[Thebookswereherfriends]

I’ve just been reading about people all over the world who are buying a horse dewormer medicine to “cure” Covid-19. It makes people crap themselves, go blind and causes your intestinal lining to shed! How on earth does someone think taking a medication for animals is a good idea, but having a vaccine which is designed and tested for humans by actual doctors and scientists is crazy?!

Ivermectin is out of patent isn't it? Anyone can manufacture it

Yes, just like dextramethosone

Merck (manufacturer of Ivermectin, who put out a statement saying they didn't recommend its use for Covid) has been developing new drug treatments for Covid.

That is a red herring argument.

And so what if they are?

Most drug companies are doing the same.

The first, truly effective antiviral drug against Covid will be a licence to print money.

Jist because something has run out of patent, doesn't mean drug companies can't cash in.

Anadin is still a market leader, even though aspirin is less than 50p a box for 14 tablets.

because something has run out of patent, doesn't mean drug companies can't cash in.

But it does mean that Merck doesn't control the manufacture of ivermectin anymore and so any drug manufacturer can cash in. So suggesting that Merck deliberately said it didn't work against covid when it does so that it could suppress ivermectin as a treatment and force people to buy its expensive new treatments is nonsense. It can't suppress ivermectin as a treatment if it worked any more than it could suppress paracetamol because it doesn't control the manufacture of ivermectin.

I wasn't arguing or suggesting anything. I was simply stating some of those facts that you say you're so fond of.

Another fact is that Emergency Use Authorisations (for vaccines, in the case of Covid) may not be given if there exists a safe, effective treatment.

@HBGKC

Another fact is that Emergency Use Authorisations (for vaccines, in the case of Covid) may not be given if there exists a safe, effective treatment.

Nope, another myth spread by the anti-vax lot.

Several drugs have been approved as they are both safe and effective in treating COVID, this has not threatened EUA.

Also irrelevant as pfizer is no longer under EUA and the others are set to follow.

And in addition what you never seem to answer @HBGKC, is why you think ivermectin is being censored/blocked/whatever, when a huge amount of money has gone into setting up RCTs that are currently running here and in the US.

It's being investigated.

"Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives."

www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained

@HBGKC

"Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives."

www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained

uhuh, and the generation of treatments for COVID are not "adequate" alternatives to a vaccine

as I said, more anti-vax misinformation

If you genuinely believe that policy is being drive by collusion and conspiracy, well, I sort of envy you. That belief certainly involves belief that government and media worldwide are aligned and competent enough to successfully

@mummyford. I think this is another straw man. Personally, I think there are hugely complex biases and influences and multinational corporations with huge lobbying power, operating at a number of levels. This doesn't require some kind of all-powerful shady kabal.

It's hilarious that ANYONE thinks their position is arrived at by logic, by the way. It does make me laugh when people say "oh you can't argue with conspiracy theorists". I mean, everyone believes stuff - whatever their "side" - for complicated reasons relating poorly to logic. And no one can change each other's minds. I wish we could just treat each other with a bit more respect, because we're all basically doing the same stuff, and no one really knows who's right.

I wish we could just treat each other with a bit more respect, because we're all basically doing the same stuff, and no one really knows who's right.

99% of the worlds experts agree there is not robust evidence to justify the use of ivermectin to treat COVID. All literature is in the public domain, and if you don't have relevant knowledge to review it properly, there are a range of academics who have given commentary on it. This isn't a wishy washy "no one knows who's right".

For added reassurance that it is being taken seriously as a treatment, there are pre-registered trials, with details in the public domain, aimed at identified the causal effect of ivermectin on COVID outcomes.

People are suffering with ivermectin induced toxicity and getting COVID due to turning down the vaccine because of this misinformation.

Peter Doshi, senior editor of the British Medical Journal:

blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/08/23/does-the-fda-think-these-data-justify-the-first-full-approval-of-a-covid-19-vaccine/

(BTW, the injection that just got the FDA approval is a Pfizer/BioNTech collaboration, to be sold under the brand name Comirnaty, and this injection is not currently available. It's not actually 'the Pfizer jab' currently being rolled out globally. The two are substantially similar, but not identical.

The FDA, in its letter of authorisation of Comirnaty, also notes:

"We are deferring submission of your pediatric studies for ages younger than 16 years for this application because this product is ready for approval for use in individuals 16 years of age and older, and the pediatric studies for younger ages have not been completed."

These are due to be submitted by October 2024.)

@HBGKC

Peter Doshi, senior editor of the British Medical Journal:

blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/08/23/does-the-fda-think-these-data-justify-the-first-full-approval-of-a-covid-19-vaccine/

(BTW, the injection that just got the FDA approval is a Pfizer/BioNTech collaboration, to be sold under the brand name Comirnaty, and this injection is not currently available. It's not actually 'the Pfizer jab' currently being rolled out globally. The two are substantially similar, but not identical.

The FDA, in its letter of authorisation of Comirnaty, also notes:

"We are deferring submission of your pediatric studies for ages younger than 16 years for this application because this product is ready for approval for use in individuals 16 years of age and older, and the pediatric studies for younger ages have not been completed."

These are due to be submitted by October 2024.)

What does this have to do with ivermectin?

@speckledostrichegg. 99% of the world's experts, eh? I don't know where this figure comes from, but the mixed meta-analytic findings would make me seriously suspicious of it. The idea of "consensus" has been one of the most misused in recent months. I have to leave this thread now as it's wasting time and I really need to do my work. I have no idea how you find the time to cover as much on this board as you do whilst also working as an epidemiologist, but much respect to you for that, @speckledostrichegg. All the best to everyone.

[quote IvorBigarse]@speckledostrichegg. 99% of the world's experts, eh? I don't know where this figure comes from, but the mixed meta-analytic findings would make me seriously suspicious of it. The idea of "consensus" has been one of the most misused in recent months. I have to leave this thread now as it's wasting time and I really need to do my work. I have no idea how you find the time to cover as much on this board as you do whilst also working as an epidemiologist, but much respect to you for that, @speckledostrichegg. All the best to everyone.[/quote]
Ah run out of arguments so you decide to police my MN time eh?

Given that this is an area I've covered, it's not hard to contribute to threads specifically on it.

The (already flawed as they did not conduct a risk of bias assessment) meta-analyses that did find a positive effect contained the studies which have been proven to be fraudulent and now retracted. Once those studies are removed you see a null effect. Doesn't stop FLCCC and others still promoting them though. HTH.

What does this have to do with ivermectin?

Nothing at all. It's a red herring, thrown in to confuse the hesitant and muddy the waters again.

The vaccines are effective, waning immunity is a thing. Booster shots will be required. Covid will have to be vaccinated against every year, like the flu.

There are limited trials for ivermectin. The evidence isn't in for it yet.

@speckledostrichegg

To be fair to @IvorBigarse, it does seem you were tutoring economics just a few years ago so your career in epidemiology whilst policing mn coronavirus threads all day is a little questionable

Or maybe that’s another conspiracy 🤷‍♀️

[quote hamstersarse]@speckledostrichegg

To be fair to @IvorBigarse, it does seem you were tutoring economics just a few years ago so your career in epidemiology whilst policing mn coronavirus threads all day is a little questionable

Or maybe that’s another conspiracy 🤷‍♀️[/quote]
Genuinely what are you talking about?

I joined MN this year and can safely say I know nothing about economics and have never posted about it. Couldn't give you a definition of macro versus micro.

This and comments regarding how often I'm on MN do seem to indicate you have no logical points to make re: ivermectin.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/a2952041-AIBU-to-charge-for-this?msgid=69697078#69697078

[quote hamstersarse]www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/a2952041-AIBU-to-charge-for-this?msgid=69697078#69697078[/quote]

Ok you run out of logical points regarding ivermectin and instead do a deep dive on my entire posting history. I had no memory of making couple posts in 2017, haven't been active since then.

You realise it's common for ECRs to take on extra part time jobs as pay in academia is shite and contracts are temporary? In 2017 I tutored, as do many of the PhDs and postdocs in my lab now. As is standard practise when posting about your RL on internet forums, I swapped out a couple of details, including changing the subject from statistics to economics.

But bravo, I'm used to swerving as a classic tactic from posters like you on the coronavirus board, but this takes it to new levels

The point is you are a bullshitter

And still trying to cover it up

A matter of minutes ago you said you knew nothing about economics. Oh and that you joined mn this year

Yet here you are on multiple coronavirus threads claiming you are an epidemiologist and know Everything Science

Balls of brass though…kinda like it

Now this is an ad hominem attack.

@hamstersarse

The point is you are a bullshitter

And still trying to cover it up

A matter of minutes ago you said you knew nothing about economics. Oh and that you joined mn this year

Yet here you are on multiple coronavirus threads claiming you are an epidemiologist and know Everything Science

Balls of brass though…kinda like it

As I said, I've only been active on MN this year, I thought it was a new account but clearly made a couple of posts in 2017 I have no memory of doing, and haven't been active since. You've got me?!

I literally just confirmed I know nothing about economics and have never tutored it

I'm really not going to lose any sleep as to whether @hamsterarse doesn't believe I'm in the job i'm in, I couldn't give a crap. All my posts are evidence based with links and paper where appropriate, I could say I'm the queen/harvard professor/kanye west and that wouldn't really make a difference.

This doesn't change the fact that all you're doing is trying to discredit me to swerve away from the fact you have no rationale points to make about ivermectin.

@noblegiraffe

Now this is an ad hominem attack.

I was just about to @ the poster who asked for an example of one